<div dir="ltr">Yes -- that is one of the known cases. However, it's not what's going on here: The daughters of the missing edge can be used to create the analogous edge in the sentences with the same verb twice. (And in one case, the daughter is already the product of a syntax rule.)<div><br></div><div>Thank you for the guess though! I'm hoping some such guess will put me on the right path...</div><div><br></div><div>Emily</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 10:34 AM Stephan Oepen <<a href="mailto:oe@ifi.uio.no">oe@ifi.uio.no</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="auto">from memory, i believe the chart display shows edges with a non-empty orthographemic todo list, i.e. a remaining need to pass through a lexical rule with an associated orthographemic effect. this property of edges is not visible in the interface, and interactive unification may not be paying attention to it. upon completion of lexical parsing, only edges with an empty todo list can go on and feed into syntax rules, so this filter that is applied by the parser might explain seeming misalignment between the interactive mode and what actually happens during parsing.</div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">just a wild guess :-), oe</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 18:49 Emily M. Bender <<a href="mailto:ebender@uw.edu" target="_blank">ebender@uw.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Dear all,<div><br></div><div>[Cross-posted to developers and the delphinqa.]<br><div><br></div><div>After 16 years of teaching grammar engineering, I thought I'd found all of the ways in which one can be in the situation of seemingly being able to build an edge through interactive unification which isn't in the chart. I've documented all of the ones I know about here:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://moin.delph-in.net/GeFaqUnifySurprise" target="_blank">http://moin.delph-in.net/GeFaqUnifySurprise</a></div><div><br></div><div>Alas, I've found evidence of a new one. Or rather: I'm in that situation (together with a student) but none of the cases noted there apply. More specifically, with the grammar for Meithei [mni] that can be found here:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://faculty.washington.edu/ebender/mni-debug.tgz" target="_blank">http://faculty.washington.edu/ebender/mni-debug.tgz</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>If we try to analyze this sentence:</div><div><br></div><div>yoŋ-siŋ túm-í čá-í<br> monkey-PL sleep-NHYP eat-NHYP<br> Monkeys sleep and eat.<br></div><div><br></div><div>The LKB and ace both return no parses found. If instead of using the two verbs (one intransitive and one transitive but with a dropped object), we repeat either one of the verbs, we get the expected parses (with both the LKB and ace).</div><div><br></div><div>yoŋ-siŋ čá-í čá-í<br></div><div>yoŋ-siŋ túm-í túm-í <br></div><div><br></div><div>Returning to the non-parsing sentence, and looking at the LKB's parse chart, what's missing is the VP-T built out of applying the VP1-TOP-COORD rule to the VP-B over čá-í and the VP over túm-í. Puzzlingly, I can build this edge interactively just fine. I've run out of guesses as to why it's not showing up in the char and so I thought I'd put this puzzle out in case other DELPH-INites might be entertained by it.</div><div><br></div><div>Curiously,</div><div>Emily</div><div><br></div><div>p.s. Discourse directed me to an earlier discussion about this, where @johnca suggested checking that *chart-packing-p* is set to NIL. It is. </div></div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Emily M. Bender (she/her)<br>Howard and Frances Nostrand Endowed Professor</div><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Department of Linguistics</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Faculty Director, CLMS</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">University of Washington</span></div><div>Twitter: @emilymbender</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Emily M. Bender (she/her)<br>Howard and Frances Nostrand Endowed Professor</div><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Department of Linguistics</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Faculty Director, CLMS</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">University of Washington</span></div><div>Twitter: @emilymbender</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>