cyang33/LingGym huggingface dataset:
Question 0:
You are a linguist specializing in Komnzo. You are given a sentence along with its morpheme breakdown, gloss, and translation. Words are separated by spaces, and morphemes are separated by hyphens. However, a word and its gloss are missing and represented by an underscore. Based on your understanding, please choose the most appropriate option. 
Sentence (with missing item): watik kra\stem{rit}th b=e\stem{rn} ... sukufa ä\stem{ri}thr ___ ... nafa-ngom kar=nm.
Gloss (with missing item): then STDU:SBJ:IRR:PFV/go.across MED=STDU:SBJ:NONPAST:IPFV/be ... tobacco STSG:SBJ>STPL:IO:NONPAST:IPFV/give ___ ... Third.POSS-brother.in.law village=DAT.NSG.
The English translation of this sentence is:`Then they went across there ... He shared tobacco with his in-laws ... with the people of his brother-in-law place.'
Here is a relevant knowledge point for this example, with the related morphemes and glosses masked: The \isi{kinship} system gives rise to yet another, very common way of referring to people. The rules of \isi{exogamy} involve a number of factors. Some are related to place, for example identification with a particular origin place establishes an exogamous group. Some are related to the section system, for example the Mayawa section regardless of place forms an exogamous group. The section classification cross-cuts the place system, i.e. one may not marry people from the same origin place, but also not from a different place if they belong to the same section. Additionally, people who ``share a land boundary'' may not intermarry. That is to say that two individuals may not marry even if they belong to different places and different sections, if their land is adjacent. Ayres argues convincingly that locality forms the most important factor in the complicated definitions of exogamous groupings (\citeyear[{\S}5]{Ayres:ws}). If \isi{kinship} is conceptualised in terms of space, it follows that \isi{kinship} terms can be used to refer to people of a particular place. I often overheard people talking about their ngom kar `brother-in-law place' or thuft kar `in-law place'. Note that the calculations one has to make to arrive at the correct referent are rather complex. Not only does one individual normally have several brothers-in-law, but that different individuals have different in-laws. Nevertheless, such knowledge is common ground for the people of Rouku. Although I often found it difficult to identify the referent in an utterance like (\ref{ex661}), every child in Rouku could make the correct deduction without effort.
A: word: nafa-ŋame=é	 gloss: Third.POSS-mother=ERG.NSG
B: word: nafa-thufth=nm	 gloss: Third.POSS-in.law=DAT.NSG
C: word: nafa-ngom	 gloss: Third.POSS-brother.in.law
D: word: nafa-fis	 gloss: Third.POSS-husband
Please only return the letter (A–D). Do not say anything else.
Correct Answer: B
Question 1:
You are a linguist specializing in Komnzo. You are given a sentence along with its morpheme breakdown, gloss, and translation. Words are separated by spaces, and morphemes are separated by hyphens. However, a word and its gloss are missing and represented by an underscore. Based on your understanding, please choose the most appropriate option. 
Sentence (with missing item): watik kra\stem{rit}th b=e\stem{rn} ... sukufa ä\stem{ri}thr nafa-thufth=nm ... ___ kar=nm.
Gloss (with missing item): then STDU:SBJ:IRR:PFV/go.across MED=STDU:SBJ:NONPAST:IPFV/be ... tobacco STSG:SBJ>STPL:IO:NONPAST:IPFV/give Third.POSS-in.law=DAT.NSG ... ___ village=DAT.NSG.
The English translation of this sentence is:`Then they went across there ... He shared tobacco with his in-laws ... with the people of his brother-in-law place.'
Here is a relevant knowledge point for this example, with the related morphemes and glosses masked: The \isi{kinship} system gives rise to yet another, very common way of referring to people. The rules of \isi{exogamy} involve a number of factors. Some are related to place, for example identification with a particular origin place establishes an exogamous group. Some are related to the section system, for example the Mayawa section regardless of place forms an exogamous group. The section classification cross-cuts the place system, i.e. one may not marry people from the same origin place, but also not from a different place if they belong to the same section. Additionally, people who ``share a land boundary'' may not intermarry. That is to say that two individuals may not marry even if they belong to different places and different sections, if their land is adjacent. Ayres argues convincingly that locality forms the most important factor in the complicated definitions of exogamous groupings (\citeyear[{\S}5]{Ayres:ws}). If \isi{kinship} is conceptualised in terms of space, it follows that \isi{kinship} terms can be used to refer to people of a particular place. I often overheard people talking about their ngom kar `brother-in-law place' or thuft kar `in-law place'. Note that the calculations one has to make to arrive at the correct referent are rather complex. Not only does one individual normally have several brothers-in-law, but that different individuals have different in-laws. Nevertheless, such knowledge is common ground for the people of Rouku. Although I often found it difficult to identify the referent in an utterance like (\ref{ex661}), every child in Rouku could make the correct deduction without effort.
A: word: nafa-ngom	 gloss: Third.POSS-brother.in.law
B: word: nafa-fis	 gloss: Third.POSS-husband
C: word: nafa-ngth=medben	 gloss: Third.POSS-younger.sibling=LOC.ANIM.NSG
D: word: nafa-thufth=nm	 gloss: Third.POSS-in.law=DAT.NSG
Please only return the letter (A–D). Do not say anything else.
Correct Answer: A