Hello, Thanks Madam for your kind reply. The MRS output for 'demonstrative pronoun' now showing up all of the relations. Yes, 'lex-root' is defined in the 'roots.tdl' file. I also tried "View -> Other entry" and asked for lex-root, it expands and can show it's parent type "word-or-lex" rule. So, I think it working fine, but I don't get the output. I also want to implement the possessive markers. In Bangla, possessives are appeared as modifiers like English, such as: "kimer kukur (Kim's dog)", "taader kukur (Their dog)". The nouns/pronouns are inflected by possessive case marker 'er' or 'der' to appear as possessive modifiers. So I want to implement it through 'infl-ltow-rule'. But, do I need to change the HEAD feature of possessives from 'noun' to 'link' / 'adjective' or any other types? Because, noun types introduces 'noun-relation' as it's first relation, where possessive modifires would introduce 'poss-rel' as it's first relation with two other relations (their own noun and quantifier relations). One more question about 'event relation'. Isn't it that 'event-relation' bears the feature TAM (Time, Aspect and Mood)? How it would used for the 'demonstrative determiners'? Thank you. <div> On 7/31/07, Emily M. Bender <<a href="mailto:ebender@u.washington.edu">ebender@u.washington.edu</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Dear Altaf, > 1. In LAB-06, 'adjective-relation' has been introduced for > LKEYS.ALTKEYSfeatures of demonstrative determiners. But, there is no > such type is > declared in 'matrix.tdl ' file and LKB doesn't find it. What might goes wrong > here? It looks like an error in the instructions. Try `event-relation' instead. > 2. In LAB-06, in section for demonstrative pronoun, it says that the LBL > values of two relations (LKEYS.KEYREL noun-relation and > LKEYS.ALTKEYRELevent-relation) are to be identified with each other. I > think I did the same > thing as the following code (reentrancy with '#lbl' ): > > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; pronoun lexeme type ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; > pronoun-lex := sg-nouns & > [ SYNSEM [ LOCAL.CAT.VAL.SPR < [ OPT + ] >, >           LKEYS.KEYREL noun-relation & >                        [ PRED "_pronoun_n_rel" ] ] ]. > > > > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; demonstrative pronoun ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; > demo-pronoun-lex := pronoun-lex & > [ SYNSEM [ LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.COG-ST activ+fam, >           LKEYS [ KEYREL.LBL #lbl, >                   ALTKEYREL event-relation & >                             [ LBL #lbl ] ] ] ]. Yes, that looks good. > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; lexical entry ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; > ei_demo := demo-pronoun-lex & > [ STEM < "ei" >, >  SYNSEM [ LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ PER third, >                                       GRD non-hon, >                                       TPC low ], >           LKEYS.ALTKEYREL.PRED proximal+dem_q_rel ] ]. > > It can parse, but it can't generate because it couldn't show any MRS for the > main transitive verb of the sentence. For example: > > "naafid bhaat khaay" > "Naafid rice eats" > (Naafid eats rice) > > There is no MRS for the main verb 'khaay' which should be 'eat_v_rel' and > handle 'h1', but the LTOP of the whole MRS is 'h1' as usual. Did I do any > mistake here about following the lab guidelines? This sounds like you have a broken diff-list somewhere. I suspect that you need to say of the demo-pronoun-lex type that the RELS list has exactly two things on it, and that these are linked to the KEYREL and ALTKEYREL, respectively.  (You are probably already getting the KEYREL linking from a supertype, but might well need to stipulate the ALTKEYREL linking.)  That constraint will look like this: [ SYNSEM [ LOCAL.CONT.RELS <! [], #altkeyrel !>,            LKEYS.ALTKEYREL #altkeyrel ]]. > 3. I 've written some morphological rules for verbs. Free word order > language 'Bangla' has subject-verb agreements only with person variations. > However, when I try to generate from a given parse tree, it only generate > the sentences with the right most verb form of the rule. An example > for 3rd-person > verb form at 'irules.tdl' file: > > 3p-verb := > %suffix (* e) (* chhe) (* chhila) (* chhilo) (* echhe) (* echhila) (* be) (a > ay) (a acchhe) (aa eyechhe) (jaa giechhe) (aa eyechhila) (aa eyechhilo) (jaa > giechhila) (jaa giechhilo) (e ey) (e icchhe) (e icchhila) (e icchhilo) (e > iechhe) (e iechhila) (e iechhilo) (e ibe) > 3p-verb-lex-rule. > > Here, the right most 3rd person verb form is "(aa eyechhilo)" for those > verbs which have ending letters 'aa'. I know LKB checks the rules from right > to left, but it generates the sentences with only this verb form, not with > other verb forms at left. For example an input sentence: "naafid bhaat > khaay" (Naafid eats rice), it generates only: > > "naafid bhaat kheyechhilo" (Naafid ate rice) > "naafid kheyechhilo bhaat" > ............................ > > But, not any sentence like "naafid bhaat khaacchhe" (Naafid is eating rice). > Here, root form of the verb 'khaay' is 'khaa' at 'lexicon.tdl' file. The LKB will parse according to any of the orthography rules that match, but will only generate with the right-most matching one.  Do the forms you are expecting to see differ from each other in any morphosyntactic features? If so, you need multiple lexical rules (even if they are all 3p). > 4. The last question here about single word parsing, of course I should ask > you long before, but I didn't even try with it. I can't parse a single word > yet, although I 've changed the ' globals.lsp' file as following: > > (defparameter *start-symbol* '(root lex-root) >  "specifing valid parses") > > No, I don't get the single word parse. Can you confirm that lex-root is in fact defined in roots.tdl? (And if so, what happens when you do View > Other entry and ask for lex-root?) Emily </blockquote></div> -- -Altaf