This isn’t going to be easy to describe clearly but I will try.
I took my old grammar of Yukaghir (for my dissertation purposes) and added a new position class to it, for interrogative inflection. Now, I want the interrogative inflection to be in complementary distribution to indicative PERNUM. So I added a Forbid constraint to both.
It is likely that I am not using the Forbid constraints correctly however, because the grammar which comes out sets the ITRG (interrogative) flag to minus instead of na-or-minus (I am spelling minus out to avoid confusion with dashes). As a result, the minus just remains there after all the inflection applies (and so there is no parse, because the phrase structure rule of course wants ITRG-FLAG na-or-plus).
Like I said, I am probably just not using the constraint correctly (I always do that). I reviewed Michael’s paper (https://depts.washington.edu/uwwpl/vol30/goodman_2013.pdf#page=20) but can’t yet figure out what’s wrong.
I am suspecting that the problem perhaps is that the already existing lexical rules use Require constraints at the level of the transitive/intransitive contrast. That is, the grammar is set up such that transitive verbs use their own paradigm and intransitive their own. The interrogative paradigm however is just one set of inflections for all verbs.
verb-lex := basic-verb-lex & non-mod-lex-item & [ SYNSEM.LOCAL [ CAT.VAL [ SPR < >, SPEC < >, SUBJ < #subj > ], CONT.HOOK.XARG #xarg ], ARG-ST.FIRST #subj & [ LOCAL [ CAT cat-sat & [ VAL [ SPR < >, COMPS < > ] ], CONT.HOOK.INDEX #xarg ] ], INFLECTED.ITRG-FLAG - ]. # ***PROBLEM!!! Want na-or-- here*** intransitive-verb-lex := verb-lex & intransitive-lex-item & [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.COMPS < >, ARG-ST.FIRST.LOCAL.CAT.HEAD noun, INFLECTED [ TRANSITIVE-VERB-FLAG na-or--, INTRANSITIVE-VERB-FLAG + ] ]. transitive-verb-lex := verb-lex & transitive-lex-item & [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.COMPS < #comps >, ARG-ST < [ LOCAL.CAT.HEAD noun ], #comps & [ LOCAL.CAT cat-sat & [ VAL [ SPR < >, COMPS < > ], HEAD noun ] ] >, INFLECTED [ TRANSITIVE-VERB-FLAG +, INTRANSITIVE-VERB-FLAG na-or-- ] ]. intransitive-verb-lex-verb-lex := intransitive-verb-lex & 3PERPL-rule-dtr & ASPECT-rule-dtr & NEG-rule-dtr & PERNUM-rule-dtr & TENSE-rule-dtr & [ INFLECTED [ ASPECT-FLAG -, PERNUM-FLAG -, TENSE-FLAG -, 3PERPL-FLAG - ] ]. transitive-verb-lex-verb-lex := transitive-verb-lex & 3PERPL-rule-dtr & ASPECT-rule-dtr & NEG-rule-dtr & PERNUM-rule-dtr & TENSE-rule-dtr & [ INFLECTED [ TENSE-FLAG -, 3PERPL-FLAG -, PERNUM-FLAG -, ASPECT-FLAG - ] ].
Does it sound like I am using the Forbid incorrectly?