# Help debugging a "Unification Surprise" involving lexical rules?

**URL:** <https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/help-debugging-a-unification-surprise-involving-lexical-rules/875>\
**Category:** SRG\
**Created:** [December 28, 2022, 1:03pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/help-debugging-a-unification-surprise-involving-lexical-rules/875 "2022-12-28T13:03:17Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/user_avatar/delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/olzama/32/6_2.png) [@olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/olzama)\
**Post date:** [January 4, 2023, 11:01am UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/help-debugging-a-unification-surprise-involving-lexical-rules/875/4 "2023-01-04T11:01:58Z")

</div>

Thanks, @sweaglesw and @ebender !

Certainly still an open question 😅

Certainly using --yy-rules! Always have been.

> [@sweaglesw](#):
>
> I am curious whether there are other rules with orthographemic “effects” like that which are working as intended?

Do you mean, such that the content of the `%suffix` differs from the rule name?..

Generally, every token in any sentence will go through an “inflectional” rule of this sort (though in most cases, the rule’s name is the same as the “%suffix”), and some sentences are parsing just fine.

There is something weird about this one (and probably lots of others which I simply haven’t looked at), and it is tempting to think that the issue is with the weird %suffix rule however that rule is in the chart and the one that isn’t in the chart is the syntactic lexical rule…

Fwiw, changing the definition of the %suffix rule such that the “stem” matches the rule’s name doesn’t help… Same chart, as far as I can tell.

---

_[View the full topic](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/help-debugging-a-unification-surprise-involving-lexical-rules/875)._