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

peux := 1SG_aux_pouvoir-aux-lex &
  [ STEM < "peux" >,
    SYNSEM.LKEYS.KEYREL.PRED "_can_v_rel" ].

peux_2 := 2SG_aux_pouvoir-aux-lex &
  [ STEM < "peux" >,
    SYNSEM.LKEYS.KEYREL.PRED "_can_v_rel" ].

You could make one entry here that constrains the PNG to
[PER non-third] and [NUM sg].  You'd need to define
non-third as a subtype of person, and then have first and
second inherit from non-third.  You might similarly want
a non-second for the -er verbal inflections, inherited by
first and third.  

  It managed to parse sentences correctly, but was also parsing 'Je
  peux mange..' and 'Il peut mange..' which baffled me.  I thought it
  was some kind of voodoo with 1SG and 3SG until it hit me as I was
  falling asleep that 'Je mange' and 'il mange' were licensed as
  present tense conjugations.  Pondered why my modal-verb-lexeme
  wasn't enforcing the requirement that its COMP be type infinitive.
  As I was typing another "Help!" post to GOPost, it struck me that it
  wasn't that the FORM infinitive isn't enforced, it was that the
  present tense conjugations were underspecified for FORM.  Added a
  FORM value to my present tense conjugation lex rule, and this took
  care of it:

Nicely done! 

Style:

er_verb_conjugation-lex-rule := inanimate_obj_pronoun-rule-dtr & negation_prefix-rule-dtr & infl-ltow-rule & add-only-no-ccont-rule &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.HEAD.FORM finite ] & 
  [ DTR er_verb_conjugation-rule-dtr ].

should be:

er_verb_conjugation-lex-rule := inanimate_obj_pronoun-rule-dtr & negation_prefix-rule-dtr & infl-ltow-rule & add-only-no-ccont-rule &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.HEAD.FORM finite, 
    DTR er_verb_conjugation-rule-dtr ].

  TODO - add this to all my conjugation lex rules.. Or make a
  conjugation parent and add this to them.

Putting it on the supertype is a good idea.  There might
also be other shared constraints...

partitive-determiner-lex := determiner-lex &
  [ SYNSEM.LKEYS [ KEYREL.PRED "_some_a_rel"] ] . 

Should be _some_q_rel, and you'll need to write a transfer rule to map
this to and from exist_q_rel for the MT exercise (Lab 9).

Gloss is broken here:

#361
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenom: m 
ils peuvent manger
ils peuvent manger
I.1SG can.non3SG eat.INF
'i can eat' 

ça := demonstrative_pronoun-lex &
  [ STEM < "ça" >,
    SYNSEM.LKEYS.KEYREL.PRED "_pronoun_n_rel" ].


Strictly speaking, the demonstrative pronouns should introduce
a demonstrative_a_rel along with the _pronoun_n_rel, but since they
weren't directly addressed in class (I've said they're outside the scope),
that's fine.  It seems like ça is functioning as a third-singular
neuter pronoun, which French ordinarily doesn't have.  That is, my
intuition says it can't be used with animate (human?) referents,
without sounding very derogatory.

  In generation, I noticed that it ça was unifying with verbs of all
  PERNUM, so added the PNG stuff, but since I'm not using it in its
  abstract subject form, I won't be exercising this in my test suite.

Isn't it a subject in your "It doesnt' hurt me"?

  Unfortunately, I haven't been able to rule out sentences with one
  and not the other.  I've added the KEY neg-adv to both in hopes that
  it will match them up, and I assume, to make sure the 'pas' follows
  the 'ne', I am going to need to put [ OPT - ] on the first COMP in
  ne_prefix-lex-rule.  I tried some places, it didn't work, and I'm
  going to leave well enough alone since I spent the better part of 3
  days trying to get this rule in a working form.

There were several problems with your negation prefix lexical rule and
adverb definitions.  Below are revised versions that reflect the changes.
First, the added complement's MOD was constrained to be a local object
instead of a synsem object (path to CAT was missing LOCAL), so 
the adverb was never being picked up as a complement.  Second, the
adverb does need to be non-optional.    Third, the adverb needs to
constraint is own MOD value so that it *can't* be an independent modifier
of finite verbs.  Finally, the LTOP of the whole thing needs to be the
adverb's LTOP, not the adverb's MOD's LTOP.  Please be sure you understand
how the code below implements these points.

negation_ne_prefix-lex-rule := negation_prefix-lex-rule &
  [ C-CONT [ HOOK [ XARG #xarg,
                    LTOP #ltop,
                    INDEX #ind ],
             RELS <!  !>,
             HCONS <! !> ],
    SYNSEM [ LKEYS #lkeys,
             LOCAL.CAT.VAL [ COMPS [ FIRST [ OPT -,
					     LOCAL [ CONT.HOOK.LTOP #ltop,
						     CAT [ HEAD adv & 
							      [ MOD < [ LOCAL.CONT.HOOK [ INDEX #ind,
											  LTOP #larg ] ] > ] &
							      [ KEYS.KEY neg-adv ] ] ] ],  
                                       REST #comps  ]  ,
				SPR #spr, 
				SUBJ #subj, 
				SPEC #spec ] ],
  DTR.SYNSEM [ LKEYS #lkeys,
                 LOCAL [ CONT.HOOK [ XARG #xarg,
                                     INDEX #ind,
                                     LTOP #larg ] ,
                         CAT [ HEAD verb,
                               VAL [ COMPS #comps,
				     SPR #spr,
				     SUBJ #subj,
				     SPEC #spec ] ] ] ] ] .

neg-adv-lex := basic-scopal-adverb-lex &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT [ VAL [ SPR < >,
                             COMPS < >,
                             SUBJ < > ],
                       POSTHEAD +,
                       HEAD [ MOD < [ LOCAL.CAT.HEAD verb &
						     [ FORM infinitive ],
				      LIGHT + ] >,
			      KEYS.KEY neg-adv ] ] ].  

  It's as overt objects that they're hairy (case change to accusative,
  being used only in the object position).

It's not actually that hairy if you have a case system in already.  (Did you
get that from the customization system?).  The overt animate pronouns
just have specified case values (NOM for je, ACC for moi).

  I am having difficulties adding the SPECI + value to them, if that
  is relevant to personal pronouns used in the object position, which
  I assume it is.

Don't worry about this.  We'd have to do something like OPT-CS for
SPECI, and it doesn't seem worth bothering just now.

  1) I didn't get to the step necessary to append multiple prefixes on
  a verb.  Your Lab 6 comments say that I have to give my neg-lex-rule
  a dtr value that is a supertype to both the verbs and the pronoun
  prefix lex rules.  I shall open a GOPost on this sometime after this
  lab has been submitted!

Please do!

  Keeping 

  ; inanimate_obj_pronoun-no-drop-lex :=
    inanimate_obj_pronoun-no-drop-lex-rule commented out in lrules.tdl
    takes care of it, and doesn't affect any of my other parses!  I'm
    sure I'll find something that it breaks, but in my current test
    suite, everything is fine!

  Is it considered cheating if you came upon the solution by accident?
  :) I was concentrating more on generation this week.

Sometimes that happens :) I'm guessing that this rule was part of
some earlier analysis, but then became superfluous as you changed something
else.  It should make you appreciate the importance of a thorough test suite,
though!

  Cases of ambiguity - My matrix declarative clauses with overt
  objects no longer parse twice, however, my negated sentences, modals
  without an overt object, embedded clauses with an overt object.

The negated sentence ambiguity should be fixed by the changes above.
You should look into the others, too, though.

Total number of parses: 5 
                   2 instances of ne without pas or pas without ne. 
                   1 instance of an ADV appearing after the past participle rather than the verb (2 parses) 

Changes above should fix these.

                   1 instance of a conjoined subject and a singular verb 

If you put [NUM pl] on the mother of the np and n coordination rules,
this should also be fixed.

Your grammar generates for me even without commenting stuff out.
You might want to up the memory allocation to your virtual machine.

