I thought that ten Hacken's problem was based rather on the assumption of "maximally-specific values", and since features must be maximally-specific, there is a problem saying that "cousins" has the value "gen", since "underspecified" is not maximally specific. One could say that values are "as maximally specific as necessary", but since the cases in 6 require gender marking it is problematic to assume that its plural don't (according to maximal specificity of values)

It is not quite clear where the feature "FLIP" has been discussed, and what is the connection of FLIP and spurious ambiguities with gender.

If I am right, little v means in your tree "Voice". I would keep the terminology consistent

The point is quite clear, nevertheless I would recommend not to give the options in this way but: She is very smart, isn't she/*he?

Again, in the past I thought that these terms were describing molecular engines that were quite specific to particular antibody/antigen interactions. Guess not.

f the subject? whose phon, syn, and sem information? It could be interpreted as "all information of the sentence" which is surely not meant in this context.

The use of little nPs (paralell to Little vP) in some minimalist accounts makes possessives and prenominal genitives to subjects/external arguments, i.e. in probably exactly this kind of "more general sense" that you meant for HPSG

It is right that "Bären" is in the scope of "groß", but not necessarily that "Bär" means "a lie". "aufbinden" means "to tell something wrong to so.", "Bär" means then "a story". To some extent, one could say that the idiom is not "einen Bären aufbinden", but only "Bär", taking into account that the meaning of "aufbinden" does not change. That is, the modifier would have scope over the entire idiom.

"Referring to the examples would clarifies the term "self-embedding"

What does "that-Verb" mean?

that-Verb?

I'm not sure if [Subj V [that-S]] and [that Subj V [that-S]] are \"the same construction\". Taken Goldbergs definition of construction, they are actually different in form and also in meaning (cf. illocutive force in embedded sentences). This point would be true if you have 4 clauses, then the 2 constructions in the middle really would have the same form AND meaning.

Anyone have any clue what this means?

What is meant by "integration" in each of these?

The comment icon is the "plus" sign at the bottom of the three tools visible when hovering over the speech bubble tab of the sidebar.

A few words about what it means for coins to be "bonded" might be helpful here. I wasn't familiar with the concept of surety before reading this and it might have helped me.

I'm glad this is here. I began to feel a little lost in the reading, as if I wasn't catching on to the answer and was caught in word-salad. I'm no philosophy buff, so a lot of this is foreign to me.