<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Regarding the English example I gave -- whoops! excuse me, I had meant to say: one for "do" and one for "does". And I was wrong -- the current ERG does not actually avoid allowing both forms into the generation chart, although it perhaps could(?); the trigger rules for these two forms are nearly identical. There was presumably some other good reason to separate those lexemes in this case. In any case, the point stands for the other languages I mentioned.<div><br></div><div>Woodley<br><div><br><div><div>On Dec 10, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Woodley Packard wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">in English, the auxiliary verb forms "did" and "does" are vacuous, but their inflection depends on the agreement properties of their subject. The ERG avoids allowing both forms into the generation chart by having two separate lexemes and two separate trigger rules -- one for "did" and one for "does"</span></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>