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

We decided to model double conjunctives as omnisyndetic; it is not possible to constrain a coordination strategy as only being applicable to two coordinands in the matrix, thus our implementation overgenerates.

>> It might be interesting to compare what Dan does in the ERG
with "both ... and" (but I'd keep this low priority).

Since the unmarked order in declarative main clauses is SVO, Yiddish provides a way to put the subject into focus by use of a dummy "es" which corresponds to the English "it"; by placing "es" in the initial subject position, one prevents other constituents from occupying that position and being perceived as the topic.

>> I'm not sure I get this.  Are you talking about topic or focus here?
How is it that putting nothing contentful in the initial position makes
the subject topic (or focus)?  Is it maybe actually a cleft construction?

This could be analyzed as either as movement to VSO word order or subject verb inversion. In order to determine which, a complex verb phrase involving an auxiliary is required. Our primary reference grammar does not provide such an example, however we found one such example elsewhere, in which only the auxiliary and not the main verb moves to the initial position, telling us that this should probably be analyzed as subject-verb inversion:

>> Not necessarily inversion, since you can get subjects after verbs
otherwise.  Is this best described as verb-initial order?  Can VOS also
be questions?

Topicalization from standard yes-no interrogative word order (VSO) is possible, in which case use of "tsi" is not possible, and the construction is accompanied by rising intonation:

>> Do you get SVO order + rising intonation making a question?  In that
case, it's probably just intonation on all of these.  (But not the VSO
ones.)

We decided this negative interaction between the implementations of subject-verb inversion and V2 word order was not worth the gain in coverage of interrogative sentences. Instead we will wait until we are hand editing the TDL, and explore whether it is possible to constrain the grammar produced with subject-verb inversion turned on so as the two phenomena get along together, or whether we will need to completely implement this ourselves.  Since the optional clause initial "tsi" marker can only occur in the presence of VSO word order, and the different interrogative strategies available in the customization system are independent of each other, this option was ruled out for being used also.

>> Aside from the detail with tsi, the frr grammar ran into the same
thing.  I think that Germanic CLIMB might be informative here.

Our reference grammar does talk about embedded wh-interrogatives
though. In these constructions, word order is mostly SVO in the
embedded clause but there are some cases where inversion happens
where the resultant sentential force is more interrogative than
declarative.

>> I don't think the property of sentential force is gradable
in that way.  Something is either a question, or it isn't.  Can
you elaborate on what this "more interrogative" means?

