ambiguous-rules.tdl

;;; -*- Mode: TDL; Package: LKB; Coding: utf-8 -*-
;;;
;;;  Based on:
;;;  JACY Grammar: 
;;;  Developed by Melanie Siegel, Francis Bond

; (MS 2004-04-02) Empty case particles. Try to restrict: to case particle function and lexical nouns.
; I'm sure this will add loads of ambiguity. Only for parsing spoken Japanese!
; (MS 2004-12-14) RELS and HCONS and HOOK should come from the argument.
; (MS 2004-12-16) Maybe this adds too much ambiguity. Taking it out again.
; (FCB 2006-19-31) can we restrict it to adjacent arguments ?
;pp_np_rule-case := empty-preposition-type &
;              [SYNSEM [LOCAL [CAT [HEAD empty-case-p_head & [CASE ga-or-wo],
;				   VAL.COMPS < >],
;			      CONT [HOOK #hook,
;				    RELS #rels,
;				    HCONS #hcons]],
;		       NON-LOCAL.ROBUST +],
;	       C-CONT.RELS <! !>, 
;	       ARGS.FIRST.SYNSEM [LEX +,
;				  LOCAL [CONT [HOOK #hook,
;					       RELS #rels,
;					       HCONS #hcons],
;					 CAT.VAL saturated]]].




; (ERB 2001-12-13) For cases where the splitter can't break apart
; two sentences for lack of punctuation.  This rule allows two sentences
; be coordinated with no overt marking of it.  In pet/japanese.set
; it is marked as a spanning-only-rule so that it can only apply at
; the very top of the tree.  I guess that won't be true in the lkb??

; (ERB 2001-12-13) This is causing some memory problems with cheap.
; Perhaps the problem is that nothing is requiring the second daughter
; to be a sentence.  Adding that.

; (ERB 2001-12-13) Still causing memory problems, so commenting this
; out (as well as its ranking in japanese.set) until I can consult
; with Uli on Monday.

; (ERB 2001-12-17) Uli fixed the problem: the spanning-only-rules 
; condition wasn't really being checked.  But this is still producing
; way too many parses.  Part of the problem is that te forms are 
; [H-TENSE tensed] instead of [H-TENSE te] (in order to get the pure
; aspect analysis of the aspect auxiliaries).  So, try blocking the
; te forms in the left daughter here by requiring [FIN +].

; (ERB 2002-01-02) Don't want this to be [NUCL +] on the
; second daughter, if hadj rules are going to be [NUCL -].

; (MS 2002-1-7) I'll restrict the rule a little bit further to non-adjectives. 
; Also, both verbs are MAIN-PRD +. This prevents NA to be the first verb.
; MODUS nonoperative prevents NAI to be the first verb. It has to be seen if that is too restrictive...
; (MS 2002-1-7) It is: "表示できませんでした申し訳ございません.
; (MS 2002-1-10) Another restriction is EMPTY - in the head of the first argument. 
;  This prevents an empty-cop-id-rule or an empty-cop-rule to be applied to this.

; (ERB 2002-01-22) NUCL conj now on supertype.
; (ERB 2002-01-29) If we want runon_s with SAPs on the end, we need the
; head-dtr here to be utt-valid instead of verb_head.  (Remembering that
; in cheap at least this rule is restricted to spanning-only-edges.)
; (MS 2002-05-28) If we want the first sentence to have an SAP, we need utt-valid there, too.
; (MS 2002-06-05) Maybe that's not a good idea, leads to spurious ambiguity in, e.g.,
;  ご飯を食べるかよい
; (MS 2002-06-19) But we seem to need this anyway: "口座振替依頼書送ってください,お願いします"
; (MS 2002-06-20) Trying to restrict this with  NUCL nucl_plus.

; (FCB 2005-06-28) take this one out for the time being

; runon_s := sentence-coord-type &
; [SYNSEM [LOCAL [BAR +,
; 		CAT.VAL saturated],
; 	 NON-LOCAL.ROBUST +],
;  ARGS <[SYNSEM.LOCAL [CAT [HEAD utt-valid & [H-TENSE present-past-or-future,
; 					     FIN +,
;                                              EMPTY -,
; 					     ADJ -,
; 					     MAIN-PRD +],
; 			   VAL saturated],
; 		      BAR +,
; 		      NUCL nucl_plus],
; 		J-NEEDS-AFFIX -],
;        [SYNSEM synsem & [LOCAL [BAR +,
; 				CAT [ HEAD utt-valid &
; 					   [ H-TENSE present-past-or-future,
; 					     MAIN-PRD +,
; 					      EMPTY -],
; 				      VAL saturated]]],
; 	J-NEEDS-AFFIX -]>].