# \#morphology **URL:** https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/tag/morphology/19.md [Latest](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/latest.md) · [Categories](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/categories.md) · [Tags](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/tags.md) --- ## [Adding lexical rules to the matrix without user spec](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/adding-lexical-rules-to-the-matrix-without-user-spec/591)
**Author:** [@olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/olzama)\ **Replies:** 2\ **Last updated:** [October 30, 2020, 3:44pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/adding-lexical-rules-to-the-matrix-without-user-spec/591 "2020-10-30T15:44:24Z")
Q: Suppose I need to add a lexical rule which the user did not specify in the questionnaire (like a slightly modified copy of it, for example). Adding a rule once the choices have been read into the morphotactics hierarc… --- ## [No lexical threading and morphological marking of questions](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/no-lexical-threading-and-morphological-marking-of-questions/569)
**Author:** [@olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/olzama)\ **Replies:** 28\ **Last updated:** [September 25, 2020, 12:43am UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/no-lexical-threading-and-morphological-marking-of-questions/569 "2020-09-25T00:43:59Z")
I am trying to get rid of lexical threading in the Matrix. One of the issues that arose is morphological marking of questions. Before, with lexical threading, it was easy to say that lexical rules which do not mark que… --- ## ["unification surprise" with morphology](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/unification-surprise-with-morphology/570)
**Author:** [@olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/olzama)\ **Replies:** 1\ **Last updated:** [September 18, 2020, 9:27pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/unification-surprise-with-morphology/570 "2020-09-18T21:27:06Z")
Related to this but may be separate. I think I am maybe seeing one of those “unification surprises” where you don’t see an edge in the chart but aren’t getting any unification failures interactively. Here’s what I expe… --- ## [Reordering of morphotactics flags in customization](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/reordering-of-morphotactics-flags-in-customization/536)
**Author:** [@olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/olzama)\ **Replies:** 1\ **Last updated:** [July 21, 2020, 1:17am UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/reordering-of-morphotactics-flags-in-customization/536 "2020-07-21T01:17:40Z")
I noticed that I often get diffs of the following sort when I customize: I am not making any morphology changes whatsoever, so, this seems just like some random ordering issue. Does someone (@goodmami) have a good i… --- ## [Same lexrule, one instance works the other doesn't](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/same-lexrule-one-instance-works-the-other-doesnt/507)
**Author:** [@olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/olzama)\ **Replies:** 4\ **Last updated:** [June 30, 2020, 6:09pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/same-lexrule-one-instance-works-the-other-doesnt/507 "2020-06-30T18:09:56Z")
Here’s a mystery: I have a lexical rule A which is input to another lexical rule B. Lexical rule A has two instances which do not differ in anything but their orthography: when I use the first instance, I get a parse… --- ## [Lexical rule losing CASE info](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/lexical-rule-losing-case-info/453)
**Author:** [@olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/olzama)\ **Replies:** 1\ **Last updated:** [April 9, 2020, 5:29pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/lexical-rule-losing-case-info/453 "2020-04-09T17:29:02Z")
Why would a lexical rule be losing the CASE information that it is supposed to be adding? Here’s two rules. The first one seems to work correctly: sg-acc2-lex-rule := case2-lex-rule-super & infl-lex-rule & \[ SYNSEM.L… --- ## [Using the Forbid constraint in an existing grammar with complex morphology](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/using-the-forbid-constraint-in-an-existing-grammar-with-complex-morphology/368)
**Author:** [@olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/olzama)\ **Replies:** 2\ **Last updated:** [November 7, 2019, 5:13pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/using-the-forbid-constraint-in-an-existing-grammar-with-complex-morphology/368 "2019-11-07T17:13:57Z")
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 interr… --- ## [INFLECTED.CASE-FLAG and obligatory/optional position classes](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/inflected-case-flag-and-obligatory-optional-position-classes/121)
**Author:** [@olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/olzama)\ **Replies:** 2\ **Last updated:** [February 23, 2018, 11:41pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/inflected-case-flag-and-obligatory-optional-position-classes/121 "2018-02-23T23:41:18Z")
I do not remember having this issue with any of my illustrative grammars, but now that I am modifying the sample sahaptin \[uma\] grammar, I am seeing the following. I create an obligatory position class for nouns, for ca… --- ## [A lexical entry with an affix is analyzed but doesn't seem to go through the lexical rule first](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/a-lexical-entry-with-an-affix-is-analyzed-but-doesnt-seem-to-go-through-the-lexical-rule-first/64)
**Author:** [@olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/olzama)\ **Replies:** 2\ **Last updated:** [December 7, 2017, 9:10pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/a-lexical-entry-with-an-affix-is-analyzed-but-doesnt-seem-to-go-through-the-lexical-rule-first/64 "2017-12-07T21:10:19Z")
I have a pseudogrammar with a lexical rule associated with an affix -SUBJ which is supposed to mark the verb for an abstract nonfinite form: FRM-lex-rule-super := add-only-no-ccont-rule & infl-lex-rule & \[ DTR verb-le…