Apologies for another thread which will probably result it “just live with this ambiguity” :).
(1) Идет кто куда? Idet kto kuda? goes who where "So, WHO goes, WHERE?" [rus]
(I added intonation to indicate that this word order actually isn’t canonical. I just want to note in parentheses that in much literature, this word order will be dismissed as not possible but I think it is entirely possible, and accepting it has been an important assumption on my part…)
(Note also the comma in the translation. Perhaps such intonation indicates that there is some coordination going on there. In that case, I should not be after this tree…)
But! Assuming I care enough about (1), is there anything sensible I could do about the following ambiguity:
Both S-S in the left tree are the in situ rule. Saying that the in situ mother is hasmod does not help because the head-adjunct rule (the one that attaches the ADV in both cases) of course doesn’t care about that; more than one adjunct should be allowed, by definition.
(Perhaps that’s an indication that these V-initial orders are weird and should not be included, after all.)