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

  In Russian, the can modal (mochj) is a separate word which takes a
  VP complement and a subject. Mochj is inflected for tense, person
  and number. The VP complement it takes is in infinitive form.

It's interesting that it takes a VP complement given the general
freedom of word order in Russian.  Are you sure you don't get
examples like:

Ja      estj  mogu   steklo.

  We also added a lex-rule supertype and a set of lexical rules to
  inflect appropriately. For example:

Why did this verb need special lexical rules?

  The above example is parsing with exactly one tree. However, we are
  not getting the _can_V_rel in the "I can eat glass" example
  sentence.

When I parse it with the grammar you turned in, I get four parses.
It looks like a problem with decl-cl.  First, decl-cl is not required to
fire because you have a second root condition.  That doesn't require
[MC +], so the daughter of decl-cl is getting out that way.
Secondly, decl-cl is applying to the VP "estj steklo" , because it's not
insisting on saturated SUBJ and COMPS on the daughter.

mozhno-modal-lex  := verb-lex & single-rel-lex-item & trans-first-arg-raising-lex-item-1 & mozhno-lex-rule-dtr &
  [ 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 &
                                  [ CASE nom ] ] ] ],
             #comps &
             [ LOCAL.CAT [ VAL [ SUBJ < [  ] >,
                                 COMPS < > ],
                           HEAD verb &
                                [ FORM infinitive ] ] ] > ].


single-rel-lex-item ensures that the RELS list is bounded, but does not
in fact connect the KEYREL to the RELS list (as you can see by looking
at the definition of single-rel-lex-item in matrix.tdl).  If you replace it
with norm-sem-lex-item, things work properly.


  to allow the object to attach to VP even if it precedes the VP  (which happens only in
  2 parses out of 22).

Allowing something is not a way to cut down on ambiguity.

	#240   
	Source: a, e
	Vetted: t
	Judgment: g
	Phenomena: negation
	Ono        ne	  rezhet	menja.
	Ono 	   ne	  rezh-et	menja.
	3.SG.NEUT  not	  cut-3SG.PRS	me.ACC
	It doesn't hurt me.

This is getting three parses now, one without any -cl rule (see above),
one int-cl and one decl-cl.  The int-cl one is there, I think, because
the adverb is not constrained to be [YNQ <! !>].

	#239   
	Source: a, e
	Vetted: t
	Judgment: g
	Phenomena: negation
	Ono        menja        ne      rezhet.
	Ono 	   menja	ne	rezh-et.
	3.SG.NEUT  me.ACC       not     cut.3SG.PRS
	It doesn't hurt me.

11 of the 22 parses for this one have decl-cl, so once you fix the two
problems noted above, you should be down to 11.

Part of the problem is that the bottom coord rules aren't identifying
the CASE of the mother with the CASE of the head daughter.    The other
part is that you only added the case sharing constraint to the NP coordination
rule, but the N coordination rule was also firing.  


  We also constrained the bare-np-phrase, basic-head-opt-comp-phrase
  and basic-head-opt-subj phrase to inherit from the same-ynq-unary
  phrase instead of same-periph-unary-phrase as we had at first:

You need both of these supertypes.  same-periph-unary-phrase has to
do with getting li in the right place; same-ynq-unary-phrase has to do with
getting the semantics right.  For example, you grammar currently
parses "Kupil Ivan li sobaku", which should probably be ungrammatical.

  The problem that we have now, however, is that because interrogative
  clause does no longer require the [HEAD comp] complement, the
  ungrammatical sentence #235 (ungrammaticality due to the
  interrogative particle missing) is now parsed as grammatical because
  its complement is [HEAD verb].

How about making decl-cl constrain the SF to prop?

Kniga			na	stole. 
Knig-a			na	stol-e  
book-FEM.SG.NOM  	on	table-SG.MASC.PREP

This is parsing now, but the semantics is broken.  The two arguments
of the "_on_p_rel" should be the ARG0 of the book and the ARG0
of the table.   See the sample MRS here:

http://courses.washington.edu/ling567/lab6.html#mrs

Overgeneration:
Lab 6: 2.6
Lab 7: 10.3

Did you look to see which examples are newly overgenerating?

