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

	where become is a nom-acc transitive verb only, so the dative
	caused problems.  We underspecified the case of the second
	argument but made sure that it had an adposition.  This
	allowed the sentence to be parsed and caused no ill effects on
	the other parses.

EB> What is the evidence that 'become' allows an accusative object
in place of the dative one?

	where become is a nom-acc transitive verb only, so the dative
	caused problems.  We underspecified the case of the second
	argument but made sure that it had an adposition.  This
	allowed the sentence to be parsed and caused no ill effects on
	the other parses.

EB> When you report problems like this you should include an
example for me to try so I can advise!  I found one in your tsdb
profile, fortunately, and it looks like at least part of the problem
is the decl-cl and int-cl rules.  But: It's a little hard to tell what's
going on without IGT to look at.  If this is still a problem, please
post the relevant IGT (and your current grammar version, if you like)
to GoPost and we can work on it in class tomorrow.

		PRE-lex-rule-super := MOOD-rule-dtr & TENSE-rule-dtr & infl-lex-rule & negation-rule-dtr &
		  [ INFLECTED #infl,
		    DTR PRE-or-converb-rule-dtr &
						[ INFLECTED #infl ] ].

EB> Probably too late to chnage, but these type names with caps
in them don't follow tdl conventions...

	The sentence parses, and by looking at Simple MRS, it seems to be correctly indexed for the relationship between sand (nnagu: _glass_n_rel), and pronoun (ba: _pronoun_n_rel) as  eaten/eater relations. But we are not fully sure that our potential affix is correctly been indexed because the ARG0 is indexed with INDEX of the whole AVM. (It can be interpret as that it gives potential modal to the "eating" event. Correct us on this if we are wrong.)

EB> Your MRS is the expected one.  The "can" relation has higher scope
than "eat", and its ARG0 takes over as the index.

	To express "it does not hurt me" in Ryukyuan,  we came up with a sentence which treat "hurt" as adverbialized-adjective simply because we thought that will sound more natural in Ryukyuan. Therefore, we needed to deal with non-verval negation in order to implement this sentence. 

EB> Based on intuitions about Japanese, or what?

			ba=ga    takaf=du     njaan0
			ba=ga    takaf=du     njaan-0
			1st=TOP tall.ADVLZ=FOC  NEG-NPST
			I am not (in a) tall (state). (= I'm not tall. )

EB> I get the following when I try to parse that:

No analysis found corresponding to token 4-5 NJAAN0

EB> ... and don't see any results in the [incr tsdb()] profile
you submitted either.  So I can't really help with the semantics,
if I can't see the syntax...



	#Sentence 10 of test corpus
	Source: author
	Vetted: f
	Judgment: g
	Phenomena: wo
	tooriike=n nartar=ca
	tooriike=n nar-tar=ca.
	Tooriike=DAT beome-PAST=HS
	(It) became Tooriike.



EB> When I try to parse that, I get this error:

Invalid type HEARSAY-LEX-ITEM
Unifications specified are invalid or do not unify
Structure for CA could not be created

EB> Maybe you turned in something other than the final
version of your grammar?

EB> Also the translation like doesn't reflect the evidential marking in that example...