
Notes
-------------------------------------------------------

>> From previous lab:

However, 'kakabaa'/'kakadi'/'kakadjaan' is natural form as input so we
left as it is.  Also, we do not have a syntactical way to distinguish
-djaan (negative intentional) from  negation of intentional. We were
not sure if the sentential negation of intentional form is really
incorrect form in Ryukyuan, however we assumed that it is an incorrect
form (for now) because it has -djaan (negative intentional) form
separately. Similary, other suffixes/converbs which have negation
feature already embedded in semantics such as -rna (prohibition) and
-da (converve).

>> It sounds like what you want is a means of restricting these
suffixes from co-occuring with negation.  The forbids relation should
be able to do that for you.

---> we switched it to not being obligatory since the irrealis examples are not
marked for tense

>> That's not the same thing as tense being optional in the general
case, though. It sounds like you want to design your morphotactics
so that tense is obligatory in non-irrealis moods, and not possible otherwise.
Let me know if you have questions about how to go about doing this.

	< has-aux=no
	> has-aux=yes
	> aux-comp-order=after
	> aux-comp=v
	> multiple-aux=no

>> Since you have sov order (rather than v-final) it might be 
more convenient to say that the auxiliaries combine with a VP.
(Grammars with V-combining auxiliaries tend to have problems in
generation...)

We needed a new case for NP coordination since it is an adposition and a feature
is required so the ASsoCiative case was added.

>> (True) coordination markers are not case markers.  You should
be able to get that adposition through the coordination library.



		#Example 56 both NPs are marked with ASC label
		Source: author
		Vetted: f
		Judgment: g
		Phenomena: crd
		pztu=tu midum=tu iditar
		pztu=tu midum=tu iditar
		man=ASC woman=ASC exit-PAST
		A man and a woman exited

>> Interesting.  The details of this case are not in fact handled
by the coordination library.  You have gotten the right analysis of
the coordinated NP, but your grammar does not parse this example
because the VP is expecting a PP subject.  I see two ways of going
about fixing this in your grammar:

1) A non-branching rule which takes the coordinated NP and "promotes"
it to PP.  This is probably the easier way to go, though it is not easy
to identify coordinated NPs.  Probably the best way to do that is to 
tweak the np1-top-coord-rule to give it a distinctive feature you can
look for.   In order to rule out other case marking adpositions combining
with these coordinated NPs, you'd want them to select for the opposite
feature value.

2) Change the coordination strategy to one that doesn't involve a
marker on the final coordinand, and then make a version of =tu that
combines only with coordinated NPs.  It would be an adp that is
underspecified for case.  This would probably require the same tweak
to the np1-top-coord-rule as in 1).

Let me know if you have questions about this, or other alternative 
analyses you'd like to pursue.


We are still a bit confused with this since (j)ar (ur being the
animate one)is the inanimate copula but it is used in the NP and Adj
predicates when the subject is animate but these are ungrammatical:

		*pžtu=nu=du ar 
		‘there is a man’

		*jama=nu=du ur 
		‘there is a mountain’

>> I think that this might make more sense if you distinguish existentials
(which these are, and where you have the animacy distinction) from
non-verbal predicates (involving the copula, one form of which is
homophonous with the existential verb).

		#Example 77 There can be more than one TOP tagged element
		Source: author
		Vetted: f
		Judgment: g
		Phenomena: info
		ba=a mm=mu=baa faan0
		ba=a mm=mu=baa faa-n-0
		1SG=TOP potato=ACC=TOP eat-NEG-NPST
		I don't eat potatoes.

>> This suggests that "topic" isn't quite right for this particle.
I'll ask Sanghoun for input.

		#Example 79 FOC can't be used with REAL suffix
		Source: a
		Vetted: s
		Judgment: u
		Phenomena: info
		ba=a zzu=u=du turtam
		ba=a zzu=u=du tur-ta-m
		1SG=TOP fish=ACC=FOC take-PAST-REAL
		I caught a fish.

>> That's an interesting restriction.  Do you have any more info
about why FOC can't be used with realis?

Embedded clauses are marked with either a converb as in example 69 or as a VP to the 
left of the modified item as in example 70 which seems akin to the way it is dealt with
in Japanese.

		#Example 69
		Source: author
		Vetted: f
		Judgment: g
		Phenomena: emb-d
		ba=a saki=u numtigaa, sugu=du niv0
		ba=a [saki=u num-tigaa], sugu=du niv-0
		1SG=TOP [Sake=ACC drink-CVB.COND] right.away=FOC sleep-NPST
		[When I drink Sake], I sleep easily.

		#Example 70
		Source: author
		Vetted: f
		Judgment: g
		Phenomena: emb-d
		ba=ga kuuttar pztu=u=baa kurustar
		ba=ga [kuu-t-tar] pztu=u=baa kurus-tar
		1SG=NOM [come-NEG-PST] man=ACC=TOP kill-PST
		I killed the man [that didn't come.]

>> These aren't the kind of embedded clauses that we're looking for.
We're looking for clausal complements:

Try to find at least one verb that can embed finite declarative clauses and at least one verb that can embed finite interrogative clauses. How are the embedded clausees marked? Does the language use complementizers? Is the word order different between matrix and embedded clauses? Are there different complementizers for embedded declaratives v. interrogatives? Do the selecting verbs allow both kinds of clausees (e.g., English know) or just one (e.g., English ask). Create grammatical and ungrammatical exmaples to illustrate any contrasts that you find. Restrict your attention to yes-no questions. (That is, no wh- questions.)

Note that I am not looking for embedded clauses functioning as modifiers (e.g., relative clauses, clauses marked by when or because, non-finite clauses expressing simultaneous action). Instead try to find examples similar to these:

The dog thinks that the cat slept.
The child asked whether birds sing.

You'll need to find these examples because we will be working on them in a later
lab.  The examples you provide are all modifier clauses, which we won't be addressing.

--

Adverbs can either be created with an inherently labeled adverb (example 60 above) or an adjectival stem with
a suffix, -f:

>> If this is a type of adverb you are interested in you should include examples
for it in the testsuite that aren't confounded with other phenomena (here, coordination).

Adjectives are realized by taking a stem (either noun or adjective) and reduplicating it.  At this
time we aren't dealing with reduplication and have just put the whole word in as is:

>> This statement suggests that there are non-reduplicated adjective
stems. Do these never appear directly in a sentence?

We are overgenerating in a few areas, intransitive unmarked case, the zero marked suffixes, and ambiguity in
spellings, verb-class specific suffixes.

>> I'd like to see numbers for overgeneration as well as coverage.

Pro-drop is conflicting with some of the parses as well:

		#Example 12 1SG Pronoun
		Source: author
		Vetted: f
		Judgment: u
		Phenomena: c
		ba ga iditar
		ba=ga idi-tar
		1SG=GEN exit-PAST
		I exited.

		#Example 13 1SG Pronoun
		Source: author
		Vetted: f
		Judgment: u
		Phenomena: c
		ba n iditar
		ba=n idi-tar
		1SG=DAT exit-PAST
		I exited.

These are being treated as the subject being dropped which needs to be addressed.

>> No they aren't.  ba=n and ba=ga are being picked up
as subjects via the subj-head rule.  The problem seems
to be that the valence classes you are choosing for your
verbs aren't actually constraining case.  Rather than
"intrans" you should have "intrans NOM".

