===================================================================== Matrix Yes-No Questions ===================================================================== Yes-No questions in Malayalam are marked with an interrogative particle. The suffix is attached to the main verb of the sentence, which is typically the final element of the sentence. The suffix -oo is appended to the verb: avan vannu -> avan vannoo he come-PAST he came? avala varum -> avala varumoo she come-FUT she will come? In cases where the negative form of the verb is used, with a suffix of illa or alla, the interrogative suffix changes to the form -ee avar vannilla -> avar vannillee they come-PAST-NEG they didn't come? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Grammar Implementation + ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I created a lexical rule to inflect the verb to add the appropriate suffix. It requires that the input is a verb, and has already been fully inflected. The rule also sets the SF feature to ques. ; Inflection for question marker -oo or -ee suffix quest-verb-rule := infl-add-only-ltol-rule & [DTR verb-lex, INFLECTED +] & [SYNSEM.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.SF ques] . +++++++++++++++++++++++ + Grammar performance + +++++++++++++++++++++++ avan vannoo parses fine The inflection for the other 2 isn't working. The inflecting rules are not being applied to these cases, although I can create the verb, and inflect it for tense. NOTE: The suffix -oo is also used in coordination to mean 'or' The grammar currently doesn't handle that. ===================================================================== Clause Embedding Verbs ===================================================================== Subordinate clauses are identified by their verb, which is in a NOML form. There is a range of NOML suffixes which can be appended to the verb, including -atx, -al, -(p)px, -tte, -ttam. If there are inflections for tense, those are added first and the nominal inflection is added after that. The order in the sentence is for the embedded clause to come first, followed by the main clause. There is freedom in the order though, and the embedded clause may follow the main clause in some cases. In these examples, the embedded clause is indicated bythe NOML suffix -atx added to the verb, and the embedded clause precedes the main clase. daraivar kaar etauttatx kutataikala kanatau driver car take-PAST-NOM child-PL see-PAST The children saw the driver take the car nii koozhaa vaangangaunnatx ellaavarum ariyum you bribe take-PRES-NOML all know-FUT Everyone knows you take bribes Questions are embedded in the main clause using the word ennx. The embedded clause maintains its structure with the verb marked with the interrogative particle. kumaar naalae varumoo ennx kutatai coodiccu Kumar tomorrow come-FUT QP child ask-PAST The child asked whether Kumar would come tomorrow. There are not enough examples in the book to clarify the difference between embedded questions, and embedded quotes. The Quotative Particle (QP) ennx is used in Malayalam to indicate a quoted phrase. To make up an example, "Everyone says you take bribes" would have the format you take bribes QP everyone says. In the cases of embedded questions, all of the questions are about what someone said or asked, so they all use the QP. I think there might be different forms in sentences such as "I wonder will Kumar come tomorrow?" I just don't have an example of that. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Grammar Implementation + ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1. Implemented a lexical rule to add the nominal form to the verb in the embedded clause. (I ended up with 3, since I wasn't sure how to write a case that included all the verb types while excluding other types.) ; Inflection for NOML marker, to indicate an embedded clause nomnl1-verb-rule := infl-add-only-ltol-rule & [DTR past-verb-rule] . nomnl2-verb-rule := infl-add-only-ltol-rule & [DTR pres-verb-rule] . nomnl3-verb-rule := infl-add-only-ltol-rule & [DTR futr-verb-rule] . 2. I created a lexical type for the clause embedding verbs. It inherits from verb lex and clausal-second-arg-trans-lex-item, and includes a complement which is a verb headed phrase to a proposition or a question. clause-embed-verb-lex := verb-lex & clausal-second-arg-trans-lex-item & [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.COMPS < #comps >, ARG-ST < [ LOCAL.CAT.HEAD noun & [CASE nom] ], #comps & [ LOCAL [ CAT [ VAL [ SPR < >, COMPS < > ], HEAD verb], CONT.HOOK.INDEX.SF prop-or-ques ] ] > ] . 3. There are 2 subtypes of the clause embedded verb-lex. One is for verbs which embed a question, and one for verbs which embed a proposition. These contrain the complement to have the SF feature value ques or prop. ques-embed-verb-lex := clause-embed-verb-lex & [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.COMPS < #comps & [ LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.SF ques ] >, ARG-ST < [ LOCAL.CAT.HEAD noun & [CASE nom] ], #comps & [ LOCAL.CAT [ VAL [ SPR < >, COMPS < > ], HEAD verb] ] > ] . prop-embed-verb-lex := clause-embed-verb-lex & [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.COMPS < #comps & [ LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.SF prop ] >, ARG-ST < [ LOCAL.CAT.HEAD noun & [CASE nom] ], #comps & [ LOCAL.CAT [ VAL [ SPR < >, COMPS < > ], HEAD verb] ] > ] . 4. I created lexical entries to correspond to these see := prop-embed-verb-lex & [ STEM < "kanata" >, SYNSEM.LKEYS.KEYREL.PRED "_see_v_rel" ] . know := prop-embed-verb-lex & [ STEM < "ariy" >, SYNSEM.LKEYS.KEYREL.PRED "_know_v_rel" ] . ask := ques-embed-verb-lex & [ STEM < "coodicc" >, SYNSEM.LKEYS.KEYREL.PRED "_ask_v_rel" ] . +++++++++++++++++++++++ + Grammar performance + +++++++++++++++++++++++ The first sentence parses. I get several parses due to issues with my imperative rules. The second sentence does not parse. I'm having trouble with determiners with a dropped subject which prevents the parse. The grammar parses fine if I change the sentence to: nii koozhaa vaangangaunnatx aalaukala ariyum you take bribes people know The third sentence doesn't parse because I haven't implemented the QP yet. ===================================================================== Imperatives ===================================================================== The most basic form of imperative corresponds to the verb root. Particles can be added to strengthen or weaken the force. There are also particles to change the degree of politeness, as in Come! vs Please come! They are used with the second person pronouns nii (singular) and ningangaala (plural). The pronouns may be dropped since the form of the imperative changes form to correspond to number. The examples use the verb varu - come. The imperative is formed using the infinitive form of the verb. ningangaala veegam varu you-PL quickly come-IMP Adding the suffix -ku to the infinitive form of the verb creates a polite imperative. ningangaala varuka you-PL come-POLITE-IMP ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Grammar Implementation + ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1. I added 2 imperative forms. One for the regular imperative, which will correspond to the infinitive form, and a polite imperative form which takes and inflection. imp := form . imp-pol := form . 2. I created a lexical type for the imperative which contrains the ; Imperative verbs ; constrain the head daughter to be form imp imp-verb-lex := imp-head-opt-subj-phrase & [ HEAD-DTR.SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.HEAD.FORM imp ]. 3. I wrote inflection rules for the 2 types of imperatives. One is not inflected, and the other is. ; Lexical rule to mark the verb as an imperative form imp-verb-rule := infl-add-only-ltol-rule & [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.HEAD.FORM imp, INFLECTED - ] & [ DTR verb-lex, INFLECTED -]. imp-pol-verb-rule := infl-add-only-ltol-rule & [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.HEAD.FORM imp-pol ] & [ DTR verb-lex, INFLECTED +]. +++++++++++++++++++++++ + Grammar performance + +++++++++++++++++++++++ Both sentences parse.