I’ve overhauled the wh-questions and the clausal complements libraries to finally account for the fact that different verbs behave differently wrt embedding questions.
In particular, I am assuming that:
- think (and similar) can only embed propositions
- know (and similar) can embed both propositions and questions
- wonder (and similar) can only embed questions
This works pretty well in terms of getting good coverage with an overall clearer picture about ambiguity. Each verb has an opinion about its complement’s SF value.
The question I have right now is what to do with complementizers.
The clausal complements library associates each strategy with its own set of complementizers. I think this is probably not going to work well in the context of using two separate clausal complementation strategies for think and know because surely they both use the same complementizer that. Creating two that-s is going to create ambiguity – unless I introduce some artificial FORM values on them, which of course isn’t that hard.
Illustration: the two complementizers, originally intended one exclusively for think and one exclusively for know, participate in two trees for (1).
(1) Где я думаю что Иван лежит? Gde ya dumayu chto Ivan lezhit? where I think that Ivan lies? "Where do I think that Ivan is lying?"