Dan answered this question in his response on the other thread, which I will paste here:
Regarding your third question, about distinguishing “who” from “which” relative clauses, the difference is not one of animacy, but about the human/nonhuman contrast. Note that animals are animate, but (apart from dearly beloved pets) occur with the relative pronoun “which”, not “who”. Unfortunately, the ERG does not yet have a useful treatment of this lexical-semantics property, though I hope to do better once we have finished adding WordNet senses to the ERG lexicon, since we can then do a better job of distinguishing human from non-human senses of nouns at scale. For example, the noun “kid” currently has only one lexical entry, but when enriched from WordNet, there are two, one in the synonym set with “child” and one in the set with “baby goat”, where the class of “child” nouns (and similar human-denoting classes) would have their semantic index be marked as [SORT human] while most other noun classes would be marked [SORT nonhuman].
But at present the only way you might have to restrict generator outputs would be to restrict yourself to a small lexicon of nouns, and manually add the [SORT human] or [SORT nonhuman] constraint to each noun lexical entry. You would also need to add [SORT nonhuman] to the lexical entry for the relative pronoun “which”, though the entry for “who” is already correctly constrained. If you’re working with a bounded vocabulary for your task, this approach might be manageable, but I think it’s the only avenue available for now.