Part 1) LRRH 'ON' and 'WHAT' 

It was noted that on has two different uses, put something on a table, or put something on oneself. It was initially suggested that 'put on' is the verb in the second sense; a sort of compound verb, but this was eventually disbanded. Put on the table suggests a certain verticality of movement, or closeness, proximity, while the second put is reflexiv eand refers to a process that is happening to you. The movements are varied with clothes putting and this was quizzical. The problem came up as a result of looking at the following LRRH examples.

This example inspired the on discussion because the class initially felt tha the on should be on the modifying position of four rather than in the preposition slot. The logic is that you put the cloths to a state of 'on-ness' However, after discussion, it was decided that it would be better to keep on on the outside for both the parser and manual. Suggestions are welcome.

This last example gave us some issues because of the 'what.' We decided that it was an emphasis of how deep the voice is, but if this is the case, it would be modifying deep, not the voice. In the above stemmatization, it is modifying voice, however, it is exclaiming about the deep voice, so this may be the right position.

Part 2) Datives

This grammatical phenomena expresses some action that is affecting the dataive referent. Either to me, to you ect.

Ex: Possesive dative: I'm going to cut me my hair.

My compouter died on me.

Emphatic dative profiles a cerrtain deviation from expectation. There is a kind of cause and effect scenario and the subject receives a certain portion of the blame because the action is being done to the speaker by the subject of the expression.

Here are some Italian examples.

Here, the speaker is explaining to someone how his kid is not eating and it pains him. There are a few key features to highlight. One is the background information of what happens to people when they don't eat. The speaker has to assume that the hearer understands the implications of his child not eating. The 'MI' emphasizes how the action is done to the speaker, almost making it seem like the child is doing it on purpose to the father, not exactly on purpose, but because of his actions, the father is affected. This utterance assumes a certain kind of closeness between the hearer and speaker because the speaker is saying this in order to get empathy from the hearer, it is assumed that the hearer cares about the speaker and wants to know what is going on in his life.