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

The [ FORM modal-inf ] constraint prevents the main verb from being finite or a participle.  To make the modal infinitive available, we needed a new lexical rule:

EB> Is this really a new form, and not the same as other forms
you've encountered so far?  (Maybe it's actually more general
infinitival, but that hasn't come up?)

Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenomena:
ik ken glees iit
ik ken glees iit
I can glass eat
I can eat glass

EB> I see two parses for this one, at least one of which has
the correct semantics.  The extra parse seems to come from
your comp-head-emb rule.  It would be nice to get rid of this one.
Maybe restrict it to finite heads?

Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenomena: neg
hat dēr mi siir ek
it give-3SG me hurt not
it doesn't hurt me

EB> Two parses of this one, too, giving different mappings
of me/hurt and ARG2/ARG3.  Is this legit ambiguity in frr?

Our grammar source did not have any examples of embedded clauses without complementizers, except in the case of quotative verbs, so we previously only had an analysis of embedded clauses with complementizers. However, while it isn't attested by our source that complementizers are optional for verbs that take non-quotative clausal complements, it seems more likely that complementizers are always optional and that the difference between quotative and non-quotative clausal complement verbs is non-syntactic. To model the optionality of complementizers, the type emb-clause-verb-lex has been changed to allow either a verb or complementizer as the head of its complement:

EB> I'd expect that something glossed as "swear" is quotative.

The sentence also generates mostly correctly, but the auxiliary 'wel'
is not included in any of the generated sentences.  This is especially
so given the pronouns in your example (1sg in the quoted speech).

EB> No trigger rule/incorrect trigger rule, perhaps?

This remaining ungrammatical item features verb-initial word order in an embedded clause, and we aren't yet sure what the best way to eliminate it is, given that word order in embedded clauses is otherwise free.

EB> Perhaps the MC trick could be applied here, but only in part.
That is, what if the clause embedding contexts (verb, complementizer)
select for [MC -], but the head-initial rules say [ MC na ].  Would
that keep the verbs out of initial position in embedded clauses?

Source: a:4
Vetted: s
Judgment: g
Phenomena: {wo, emb-d}
"Ik wel de Skepper spreek" swaaret hi
"Ik wel de Skepper spreek" swaar-t hi
"I will to creator SPREEK" swear-PST.PTCP he
he swore, "I will SPREEK to the creator"

EB> The quotes in this example are confusing do-parse-tty.  ;-)

Somehow you're getting the ARG0 of spreek and swaar identified,
which I don't think you want.

You're treating de Skepper as a modifier of spreek --- I guess
to know whether or not that is right, you'd need to know what spreek
means.

Four of your parses involve wel going though the modal-inf rule,
which surely is not what you want.
