=== Lab 5 Cleanup === 

Demonstratives & Definiteness
* Demonstrative Determiners - *finally* got the syntax right: 

demonstrative-determiner-lex := determiner-lex-supertype &
  [ SYNSEM [ LOCAL.CONT.RELS <! [ PRED "exist_q_rel" ] , #altkey & arg1-ev-relation & [ LBL #lbl, ARG1 #arg1 ] !> ,
             LKEYS.ALTKEYREL #altkey ] &
           [ LOCAL [ CAT.VAL.SPEC < [ LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX #arg1 & [COG-ST activ+fam ]]  > ] &
                     [ CONT.HOOK.LTOP #lbl ] ] ].

I then made determiner-lex a subtype of this supertype:

determiner-lex := determiner-lex-supertype & single-rel-lex-item &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL [ SPR < >,
                           COMPS < >,
                           SUBJ < > ] ].

Unfortunately, my sentences with demonstrative determiners didn't parse until I removed the PRED value from lexicon.tdl:

ce := demonstrative_masc_sg-determiner-lex &
  [ STEM < "ce" > ].

cet := demonstrative_masc_sg-determiner-lex &
  [ STEM < "cet" > ].

cette := demonstrative_fem_sg-determiner-lex &
  [ STEM < "cette" > ].

ces := plural_demonstrative-determiner-lex &
  [ STEM < "ces" > ].

But now they parse:

#61
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenom: agr, cogst
le garçon mange cette pomme 
le           garçon       mang.e   cette          pomme
The.3SG-masc boy.3SG-masc eats.3SG this.3SG-fem    apple.3SG-fem
'the boy eats an apple.' 

#62
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenom: agr, cogst 
cette fille mange le gâteau 
cette           fille         mang.e   le           gâteau
this.3SG-fem  girl.3SG-masc eats.3SG the.3SG-masc cake.3SG-masc 
'this girl eats the cake' 

* Demonstrative Adjectives - I have reassessed my interpretation of the -la and -ci suffixes, now considering them demonstrative adjectives.  Still need to add those particles to my grammar.  TODO.   They are in my test suite, however:

#68
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenom: agr, cogst 
le garçon mange cette pomme-là 
le           garçon       mang.e   cette          pomme-là
The.3SG-masc boy.3SG-masc eats.3SG this.3SG-fem    apple.3SG-fem-there
'the boy eats this apple there.' 

#69
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenom: agr, cogst 
cette fille-ci mange le gâteau 
cette           fille-ci         mang.e   le           gâteau
this.3SG-fem  girl.3SG-masc-here eats.3SG the.3SG-masc cake.3SG-masc 
'this girl here is eating the cake' 

* Moved the COG-ST of my definite article determiners from the lexicon into the type file: 

le := masc_sg_definite_article-determiner-lex &
  [ STEM < "le" >,
    SYNSEM.LKEYS.KEYREL.PRED "exist_q_rel" ].

la := fem_sg_definite_article-determiner-lex &
  [ STEM < "la" >,
    SYNSEM.LKEYS.KEYREL.PRED "exist_q_rel" ] .
    
les := plur_definite_article-determiner-lex &
  [ STEM < "les" >,
    SYNSEM.LKEYS.KEYREL.PRED "exist_q_rel",
    SYNSEM.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX [ COG-ST uniq+fam+act] ].


Fixed my indefinite article determiners: 

masc_sg_indefinite_article-determiner-lex := determiner-lex &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL [ CAT.VAL.SPEC.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ NUM singular,
                                                                GEND masc,
                                                                PER 3rd ] ] &
                 [ CONT.HOOK.INDEX [ COG-ST type-id] ] ].

fem_sg_indefinite_article-determiner-lex := determiner-lex &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL [ CAT.VAL.SPEC.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ NUM singular,
                                                                GEND fem,
                                                                PER 3rd ] ] &
                 [ CONT.HOOK.INDEX [ COG-ST type-id ] ] ].

plural_indefinite_article-determiner-lex := determiner-lex &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL [ CAT.VAL.SPEC.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ NUM plural,
                                                                GEND gender,
                                                                PER 3rd ] ] &
                 [ CONT.HOOK.INDEX [ COG-ST type-id ] ] ] .


and added the OPT-CS value to my dropped objects:

masc_inanimate_obj_prounoun_verb_prefix-lex-rule := infl-ltol-rule & inanimate_obj_pronoun-lex-rule &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.COMPS < [ OPT +, OPT-CS in-foc ] > ] .

fem_inanimate_obj_pronoun-lex-rule := infl-ltol-rule & inanimate_obj_pronoun-lex-rule &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.COMPS < [ OPT +, OPT-CS in-foc ] > ].

plur_inanimate_obj_pronoun-lex-rule := infl-ltol-rule & inanimate_obj_pronoun-lex-rule &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.COMPS < [ OPT +, OPT-CS in-foc ] > ].

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Est-ce-que still allowing Sub-Verb inversion - Added the INV - to the qpart-lex-item, which took care of this:

qpart-lex-item := complementizer-lex-item &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL [ CAT.VAL.COMPS < [ LOCAL.CAT.HEAD.INV - ] >,
                   CONT.HOOK.INDEX.SF ques ]  ] .

So now this sentence parses with the proper MRS:

#253
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenom: q
est-ce que le garçon mange le gâteau?
est-ce que le           garçon       mang.e  le           gâteau?
is         the.3SG-masc boy.3SG-masc eat.3SG the.3SG-masc cake.3SG-masc
'is the boy eating the cake?' 

And this one doesn't parse at all:

#266 With both est-ce que and S-V inversion  
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: u
Phenom: q
*est-ce que mangez vous les biscuits?
est-ce que mang.ez vous    les     biscuits 
are        eat.3PL you.2PL the.3PL cookies.3PL-masc 
'are you eating the cookies?' 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Averbs:
*[ POSTHEAD +] allowing adverbs at the end of the sentence - My French sources tell me that sentence final adverbs are allowed, but they alter the meaning.  For instance "Je mange lentement le biscuit" means, literally, I ate the cookie slowly, while "Je mange le biscuit lentement" has the nuance of savouring it, or doing so in a thoughtful or pensive manner.  Since we're dealing with adverbs of literal manner, I restricted my MOD to [ LIGHT + ] to exclude those sentence-final parses: 

 adverb-lex := basic-adverb-lex & intersective-mod-lex &
  [ SYNSEM [ LOCAL [ CAT [ HEAD.MOD < [ LOCAL.CAT.HEAD verb ] & [ LIGHT +] >,
                           VAL [ SPR < >,
                                 SUBJ < >,
                                 COMPS < >,
                                 SPEC < > ],
                            POSTHEAD + ]]]].

So now these sentences don't parse:

#293 Sentence final adverb - slightly adjusts the meaning 
Source: author
Vetted: f 
Judgment: u
Phenom: adv
*je mange le biscuit lentement 
je mang.e le biscuit lentement
i.1SG eat.non2SG the.3SG-masc cookie.3SG-masc slowly.ADV
'I am eating the cookie slowly' 

and these ones do:

#299 Future Perfective
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenom: tam, adj 
vous mangerez lentement les biscuits
vous    mang.erez       lentement  les          biscuits
you.2PL eat.2PL-FUT-PFV slowly.ADV the.3PL-masc cookies.3PL-masc
'you will eat the cookies slowly' 

And I also exercised adverbs in all the cases, particularly the complex ones:

#294 
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenom: adv
je ai lentement mangé le biscuit 
je ai lentement   mang.é le biscuit
I.1SG did.1SG-PFV slowly.ADV eat.PST-PTCP the.3SG-masc cookie.3SG-masc 
'I slowly ate the cookie' 

#296 Word order
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: u
Phenom: adv, wo
*je lentement ai mangé 
je lentement ai mangé 
I.1SG slowly.ADV did.1SG-PFV eat.PST-PTSP
'I ate slowly' 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adjectives: 
* As you mentioned in the Lab5 comments, a lot of the constraints were specified in prehead-adjective-lexeme and posthead-adjective-lexeme that could have been specified in their parent.  Fixed this: 

prehead-adjective-lex := adjective-lex  &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT [ POSTHEAD -] ].

posthead-adjective-lex := adjective-lex &
   [ SYNSEM [ LOCAL [ CAT.POSTHEAD + ] ] ].

adjective-lex := basic-adjective-lex & intersective-mod-lex &
              norm-ltop-lex-item &
   [ INFLECTED -] &
   [ SYNSEM [ LOCAL [ CAT [ HEAD.MOD < [ LOCAL.CAT [ HEAD noun,
                                         VAL.SPR cons ] ] >,
                            VAL [ SPR < >,
                                  SUBJ < >,
                                  COMPS < >,
                                  SPEC < > ] ] ] ] ].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considering refactoring my verbs.  TODO INVESTIGATE 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Avoir as an Aux:

Many of my negative examples of Past Perfective were parsing because in specifying my auxilliary verb, avoir, there was no place in the customization system to specify the features PER and NUM.  Therefore, subjects were combining with the verbs no matter what their PERNUM was.  I fixed this by adding PERUM to those auxiliaries:

1SG_aux_avoir-aux-lex := inanimate_obj_pronoun-rule-dtr & negation_prefix-rule-dtr & arg-comp-aux-no-pred &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL [ COMPS.FIRST.LOCAL [ CONT.HOOK.INDEX.E.TENSE past,
                                             CAT.HEAD.FORM past_participle ] ] &
                         [ SUBJ.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ NUM singular,
                                                                  PER 1st ] ] ].

2SG_aux_avoir-aux-lex := inanimate_obj_pronoun-rule-dtr & negation_prefix-rule-dtr & arg-comp-aux-no-pred &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL [ COMPS.FIRST.LOCAL [ CAT.HEAD.FORM past_participle,
                                             CONT.HOOK.INDEX.E.TENSE past ] ] &
                         [ SUBJ.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ NUM singular,
                                                                  PER 2nd ] ] ].
3SG_aux_avoir-aux-lex := inanimate_obj_pronoun-rule-dtr & negation_prefix-rule-dtr & arg-comp-aux-no-pred &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL [ COMPS.FIRST.LOCAL [ CAT.HEAD.FORM past_participle,
                                             CONT.HOOK.INDEX.E.TENSE past ] ] &
                         [ SUBJ.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ NUM singular,
                                                                  PER 3rd ] ] ].

1PL_aux_avoiur-aux-lex := inanimate_obj_pronoun-rule-dtr & negation_prefix-rule-dtr & arg-comp-aux-no-pred &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL [ COMPS.FIRST.LOCAL [ CAT.HEAD.FORM past_participle,
                                             CONT.HOOK.INDEX.E.TENSE past ] ] &
                         [ SUBJ.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ NUM plural,
                                                                  PER 1st ] ] ].

2PL_aux_avoir-aux-lex := inanimate_obj_pronoun-rule-dtr & negation_prefix-rule-dtr & arg-comp-aux-no-pred &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL [ COMPS.FIRST.LOCAL [ CAT.HEAD.FORM past_participle,
                                             CONT.HOOK.INDEX.E.TENSE past ] ] &
                         [ SUBJ.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ NUM plural,
                                                                  PER 2nd ] ] ].

3PL_aux_avoir-aux-lex := inanimate_obj_pronoun-rule-dtr & negation_prefix-rule-dtr & arg-comp-aux-no-pred &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL [ COMPS.FIRST.LOCAL [ CAT.HEAD.FORM past_participle,
                                             CONT.HOOK.INDEX.E.TENSE past ] ] &
                         [ SUBJ.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ NUM plural,
                                                                  PER 3rd ] ] ].

So now these parse, or don't parse, as expected:

#193
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenom: tam 
je ai mangé la pomme
je    ai               mang.é       la          pomme
I.1SG have.1SG-PST-PFV eat.PST-PTCP the.3SG-fem apple.3SG-fem 
'I have eaten the apple' / 'I ate the apple'

#197 3SG subject 2SG verb 
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: u
Phenom: tam, agr 
*Le garçon as mangé le gâteau 
le           garçon       as              mang.é       le           gâteau 
the.3SG-masc boy.3SG-masc has.2SG-PST-PFV eat.PST-PTCP the.3SG-masc cake.
'the boy has eaten the cake ' 'the boy ate the cake' 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spurious Ambiguity: 

Fixed my sub-v-inv-rule to put [ OPT - ] on the subject, so the sentence 'je mange et mange et mange' parses only 12 times, rather than 68:

subj-v-inv-lrule := cat-change-only-lex-rule & same-hc-light-lex-rule & same-posthead-lex-rule & constant-lex-rule &
  [ SYNSEM [ LOCAL.CAT [ HEAD verb &
                              [ INV + ],
                         VAL [ COMPS < #subj & [ OPT - ].#comps >,
                               SUBJ < >,
                               SPR #spr,
                               SPEC #spec ],
                         MC na ],
             LKEYS #lkeys ],
    DTR.SYNSEM [ LOCAL.CAT.VAL [ SUBJ < #subj >,
                                 COMPS #comps,
                                 SPR #spr,
                                 SPEC #spec ],
                 LKEYS #lkeys ] ].


Still haven't implemented the work around for the double parses for items with overt objects. TODO.

Still haven't implemented the work around for negatives double negating. TODO.

I've encountered some instances of surious ambiguity with adjectives.  Still haven't investigated. TODO.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Test Suite Additions:

Added examples of Argument dropping in all the cases, and argument dropping and negatives in all the cases:

#332 Arg-Opt with future perfective
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenom: tam, pro-d 
le garçon le-mangera 
le garçon le mang.era
the.3SG-masc boy.3SG-masc it-eat.3SG-FUT-PFV
'the boy will eat it' 

#333 ArgOpt with past imperfective
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenom: tam, pro-d
je la-mangeais
je la-mang.eais
i.1SG it-eat.1SG-PST-IPFV
'I was eating it' 

Unfortunately, I ran into trouble with the multiple prefixes, such as a dropped argument marker and the negative prefix.  I couldn't find how to specify which order these attach in. 

#246 Future Perfect
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenom: tam, neg, pro-d
La fille ne-le-mangera pas
la          fille        ne-le-mang.era          pas
the.3SG-fem girl.3SG-fem not-it-eat.3SG-FUT-PFV not 
'the girl will not eat it' 

#247 Future Perfect
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenom: tam, neg, pro-d
Vous ne-les-mangerez pas.
Vous    ne-les-mang.erez       pas.
you.2PL no-it-eat.3PL-FUT-PFV not
'you will not eat it'

=== Lab 6 ===

== Matrix yes/no Questions == 

* The Semantics of these worked fine without me doing anything, and my fix to the COMPS of est-ce-que stopped the Sub-Verb inversion after Est-ce-que from parsing. 
** My sentences formed with est-ce-que have CP as their root node.  Not sure if this is normal. 
** Something you'd  class made me think I could actually spell my interrogative particle correctly.  When I first entered 'est-ce que' into the customization system, it wouldn't parse unless I spelled it 'est-ce-que.'  Noticed the GoPost entry relating to this, and fixed my lexicon.tdl to allow a the proper spelling of est-ce que: 

est-ce-que := qpart-lex-item &
  [ STEM < "est-ce", "que" >].


and updated the entries in the Test Suite to account for the same: 

#255
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenom: q
est-ce que elles mangent la pomme 
est-ce que elle     mang.ent la          pomme
are        they.3PL eat.3PL  the.3SG-fem apple.3SG-fem  
'are they eating the apple?' 

== Embedded Clauses == 

Embedded clauses in French have the following form:

 Je pense + CP-with-que (declarative embedded clause) 
(I think that.. )
 Je me demande + CP-with-si (interrogative embedded clause) 
(I wonder if..)

I made a subtype of verb-lex that set its own SF to prop-or-ques and demands a CP as its complement:

embedded-clause-verb-lex := verb-lex & clausal-second-arg-trans-lex-item & norm-sem-lex-item &  
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL [ CAT.VAL.COMPS < [ LOCAL [ CAT.HEAD comp,
                                             CONT.HOOK.INDEX.SF prop-or-ques ] ] > ]]. 

Then made 2 subtypes that constrain the SF of their complement: 

declarative-embedded-clause-lex := embedded-clause-verb-lex &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL [ CAT.VAL.COMPS < [ CONT.HOOK.INDEX.SF prop ] > ] ]. 

interrogative-embedded-clause-lex := embedded-clause-verb-lex 
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL [ CAT.VAL.COMPS < [ CONT.HOOK.INDEX.SF ques ] > ] ]. 

And wrote lexical items for my 2 verb types:

penser := declarative-embedded-clause-lex &
  [ STEM < "pens" >,
    SYNSEM.LKEYS.KEYREL.PRED "_think_v_rel" ].

se_demander := interrogative-embedded-clause-lex & reflexive-verb-lex &
  [ STEM < "se", "demand" >,
    SYNSEM.LKEYS.KEYREL.PRED "_wonder_v_rel" ].

The fact that se demander is a reflexive verb has necessitated that I add a new verb slot for reflexive verbs that not only adds the regular suffix, but also a prefix.  Still pending.  TODO.  As a work around, I have used the non-reflexive form of demander with si in my test suite.  TODO - FIX.

I'm also checking with my sources whether embedded declarative clauses require the subjunctive form of the verb.  Their initial thoughts were that the use of the subjunctive changes the sentence from a statement of fact to a statement of opinion.

I have examples of both declarative and interrogative embedded clauses with various combinations of tenses:

#304 
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenom: emb-q, tam 
La fille demande si vous avez mangé les biscuits 
le fille demand.e si vous avez mang.é les biscuits
the.3SG-fem girl.3SG-fem wonder.3SG if you.2PL have.2PL eat.PST-PTCP the.3PL cookies.3PL 
'the girl wodners if you have eaten the cookies' 

#305
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenom: emb-d, tam 
Je pensais que tu manges lentement
je    pens.ais           que  tu      mang.es lentement
I.1SG think.1SG-PST-IPFV that you.2SG eat.2SG slow.ADV
'I used to think that you eat slowly.' 

#308
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenom: emb-q, tam 
Nous demanderons si vous avez mangé les biscuits
nous   demand.erons    si vous    avez    mang.é       les     biscuits 
we.1PL ask.1PL-FUT-PFV if you.2PL did.2PL eat.PST-PTCP the.3PL cookies.3PL
'we will ask if you have eaten the cookies' 


= Complementizers = 

French uses both a declarative and an interrogative complementizer.  I made lexical types for these:

declarative-complementizer := complementizer-lex-item & 
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL  [ CONT.HOOK.INDEX.SF prop ] & 
                  [ CAT.MC -] ].  

interrogative-complementizer := complementizer-lex-item & 
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL [ CONT.HOOK.INDEX.SF ques ] &
                 [ CAT.MC - ] ] . 

and set the value of [MC -] to keep sentences like 'que je mange le biscuit' from parsing.  


And then lexical entries:

que := declarative-complementizer &
  [ STEM < "que"> ] .

si := interrogative-complementizer &
  [ STEM < "si" > ]  . 

And exercised them with the correct verb, and without, and with the complementizer missing:

#312 Without the que 
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: u
Phenom: emb-d, tam
*je pense    tu mangeais les biscuits
je    pens.e tu mang.eais les biscuits
I.1SG think.non2SG you eat.2SG-PST-IPFV les.3PL cookies.3PL
'I think that you were eating the cookies'

#313 Without the si  
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: u
Phenom: emb-q, tam 
*La fille demande vous avez mangé les biscuits 
le          fille        demand.e   vous    avez     mang.é       les     biscuits
the.3SG-fem girl.3SG-fem wonder.3SG you.2PL have.2PL eat.PST-PTCP the.3PL cookies.3PL 
'the girl wodners if you have eaten the cookies' 

#314 Si instead of que 
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: u
Phenom: emb-d, tam
je pense si tu mangeais les biscuits
je    pens.e       si   tu  mang.eais        les     biscuits
I.1SG think.non2SG that you eat.2SG-PST-IPFV les.3PL cookies.3PL
'I think that you were eating the cookies'

#315 Que instead of si  
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: u
Phenom: emb-q
*Je demandais que vous mangiez. 
Je    demand.ais          que vous    mang.iez
I.1SG wonder.1SG-PST-IPFV if  you.2PL eat.2PL-PST-IPFV
'I was wondering if you were eating.' 

== Non Verbal Predicates == 

French allows non verbal predicates using the copula être (to be).  

For NP predicates, I used être in its transitive form as the Customization system declared it:

être_1SG-verb-lex := transitive-verb-lex &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.SUBJ.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ NUM singular,
                                                                PER 1st ] ] .
être_2SG-verb-lex := transitive-verb-lex &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.SUBJ.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ NUM singular,
                                                                PER 2nd ] ].

être_3SG-verb-lex := transitive-verb-lex &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.SUBJ.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ NUM singular,
                                                                PER 3rd ] ].

être_1PL-verb-lex := transitive-verb-lex &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.SUBJ.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ NUM plural,
                                                                PER 1st ] ].

être_2PL-verb-lex := transitive-verb-lex &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.SUBJ.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ NUM plural,
                                                                PER 2nd ] ].

être_3PL-verb-lex := transitive-verb-lex &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.SUBJ.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ NUM plural,
                                                                PER 3rd ] ].

For PP and AP Predicates, I had to create a copula verb lexeme type: 

copula-verb-lex := verb-lex & trans-first-arg-raising-lex-item-2 & 
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL [ CAT.VAL [ SUBJ < #subj >,
                             COMPS < #comps >, 
                             SPR < >, 
                             SPEC < > ] ,
                   CONT.HOOK.XARG #xarg ], 
   ARG-ST < #subj & 
            [ LOCAL [ CONT.HOOK.INDEX #xarg, 
                      CAT [ VAL [ SPR < >, 
                                  COMPS < > ],
                            HEAD noun ] ] ], 
              #comps & 
            [ LOCAL.CAT [ VAL [ COMPS < > ],
                          HEAD +jp ] ] > ] . 

And create a form of être (to be) that served as a copula:

adp_être_1SG-verb-lex :=  copula-verb-lex &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.SUBJ.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ NUM singular,
                                                                    PER 1st ] ].

adp_être_2SG-verb-lex := copula-verb-lex &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.SUBJ.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ NUM singular,
                                                                PER 2nd ] ].

adp_être_3SG-verb-lex := copula-verb-lex &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.SUBJ.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ NUM singular,
                                                                PER 3rd ] ].

adp_être_1PL-verb-lex := copula-verb-lex &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.SUBJ.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ NUM plural,
                                                                PER 1st ] ].

adp_être_2PL-verb-lex := copula-verb-lex &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.SUBJ.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ NUM plural,
                                                                PER 2nd ] ].

adp_être_3PL-verb-lex := copula-verb-lex &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.SUBJ.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ NUM plural,
                                                                PER 3rd ] ]. 
To form the PP phrase I had to make a new type for the adposition, which took a noun complement: 

locational-adpositional-lex := basic-int-mod-adposition-lex & 
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT [ VAL.COMPS < [ HEAD noun ] > ] ].

and create a lexical entry:

dans := locational-adpositional-lex & 
   [ STEM < "dans" >, 
     SYNSEM.LKEYS.KEYREL.PRED "_in_p_rel" ]. 

I was able to implement NP and AP predicates:

#316 - NP predicate
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenom: cop
Le garçon est un enfant
le           garçon       est    un    enfant
the.3SG-masc boy.3SG-masc is.3SG a.3SG child.3SG-masc 
'the boy is a child' 

#317 - Without the copula - NP then becomes an adjective 
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: u
Phenom: cop
*Le garçon est enfant
le           garçon       est    enfant
the.3SG-masc boy.3SG-masc is.3SG child.3SG-masc 
'the boy is a child' 

#318 - Adjectival Predicate
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenom: cop 
La fille est petite
la          fille        est    petit.e
the.3SG-fem girl.3SG-fem is.3SG small.3SG-fem 
'the girl is little' 

#319 - without the copula.
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: u
Phenom: cop
*La fille petite
La fille petit.e
the.3SG-fem girl.3SG-fem small.3SG-fem 
'the girl is little' 

But ran into difficulty getting the PP copulas to work:

#320 - Prepositional Phrase Predicate
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenom: cop
Les garçons sont dans le parc 
les     garçons       sont   dans    le           parc
the.3PL boys.3PL-masc be.3PL in.PREP the.3SG-masc park.3SG-masc
'the boys are in the park' 

For some reason, the Parse chart shows that adposition somehow undergoes the inv-lr, implying that it is a verb, and it forms with its NP complement as a VP.  The copular version of être wants an adpositional phrase as its complement, and therefore, it won't unify.  I am rather stumped as to why my PPs are being thought of as VPs.  Nothing in my declaration of the adposition is verby, and nothing in the ivr-lr heirarchy is jumping out at me.  


And I also played with these in embedded clauses:

#322
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenom: emb-d, cop
Je pense que la fille est petite
je    pens.e       que  la          fille        est    petite
I.1SG think.non2SG that the.3SG-fem girl.3SG-fem is.3SG small 
'I think that the girl is small.'

#323
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenom: emb-q, cop
Je demande si la fille est petite
je    demand.e   si la          fille        est    petit.e 
I.1SG ask.non2SG if the.3SG-fem girl.3SG-fem is.3SG small
'I ask if the girl is small' 

== Irrelevant to French == 

* Locative Verbs - French lacks a specific locative verb.  Location is specified using a locational preposition + a noun phrase.

* APs, PPs, and NPs as stand-alone predicates - French sentences require a copula, and cannot have APs, VPs, or NPs as predicates without the use of a verb.

=== Lab 6 Coverage === 

Number of sentences in Test Suite: 339
Number of Positive Items: 207
Number of Negative Items: 132

 == Lab6 Testsuite against the Lab5 Grammar ==:
% of positive parses: (207 - 33)/207 - 84.06%
Issues for non parses:
22 instances of broken demonstrative determiners 
+ all the issues below. 

% of negative items that parsed:
14/132 = 10.6% 
Issues for overgeneration:
Lack of PERNUM on auxiliaries 
+ all the issues below. 

 == Lab6 Testsuite against the Lab6 Grammar == 
% of positive parses: (207 - 18)/207  = 91.3% 
Issues for non-parses: 
2 instances of topicalization, which hasn't been implemented.
3 instances of a PP complement, which I tried and couldn't implement  
6 instances of Object Dropping + Negation 
5 instances of a proximal suffix (-ci, là) 
2 instances using the verb prendre, whose conjugation I haven't added. 

total number of parses: 380! 
Issues for spurious ambiguity: 
Sentences with an overt object are still parsing twice.
Tu manges le biscuit et penses - 4 parses
noun mangeons les biscuits et tu manges une pomme - 8 parses
Je mange et mange et mange - 12 parses 
Les petites filles ont mangé - 4 parses - 
	'ont mangé' is undergoing the basic-head-opt-comp
	' ont' is undergoing the inanimate_obj_pronoun-no-drop-lex
	'mangé' is undergoing the basic-head-opt-comp (as a participle, I think this is bad no?) 
Sentences with an adverb and no object look to be going through the basic-head-opt-comp as the verb and the vervb + adverb combo
   (nous mangerons lentement is an example of this)
Embedded clause sentences with an overt object are parsing 8 times, and without an overt object 4 times. 

%of negative items parsing: 2/132 = 1.5% 
Issues for overgeneration:
le garçon et le enfant mange le gâteau - I don't know how to force a conjoined subject to declare itself plural
Je ai mangé lentement - I guess the [ POSTHEAD + ] setting on the adverbs is considering the participle as part of the HEAD.



