Lab 6 Grading Rubric


A property of the imperatives evident in your examples that
you don't note is that the subject is dropped.

No description of the syntax of embedded interrogatives.

You don't really describe how you handled the syntactic properties
of interrogatives in any detail.  No description of how you
handled semantic properties.

The reason your imperative transitives and ditransitives
didn't work is this:

 imperative-head-opt-subj-phrase := basic-head-opt-subj-phrase &
 [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.IMPERATIVE +,
   HEAD-DTR imp_verb-lex-rule & [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.IMPERATIVE + ]].

The head-dtr is required to be a particular lexical rule, and
not any [ IMPERATIVE + ] VP.

>The only other obvious difference in
>the semantic representation is that where there is an indefinite
>predication in the English representation, my grammar has a
>predsort.

The relation labeled 'predsort' is a quantifier, suggesting
that your bare-np-phrase isn't filling in (anymore?) an appropriate
PRED value for the quantifier it introduces.

>(meta-discussion: it just occurred to me that mitA may not be the
>type of embedded interrogative marker that is desired for this lab,
>however the syntactic construction would be treated the same for
>the appropriate marker which would create the sentence:
>
>    'I know whether you eat'
>
>mitA seems like it would be better handled by long-distance
>dependency machinary. For the sake of sanity, I'm going to pretend
>until tomorrow, 5-17, when I can ask my Finnish professor about
>a corellate to 'whether' in Finnish, that mitA is the same.)

Indeed, "I know what you eat" is an example of an embedded
wh-question (content question), not an embedded yes-no question,
and should be treated in terms of a long-distance dependencies.
I'll be you find that your analysis doesn't work with obligatorily
transitive verbs (i.e., verbs with [OPT -] complements) or with
intransitives.