cyang33/LingGym huggingface dataset:
Question 15:
You are a linguist specializing in Moloko. 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): ndɛ asa bahaj a ɬa na ndahaŋ aka baj ___ asa ɬa=ahaj na
Gloss (with missing item): so if chief GEN cow PSP 3S on NEG ___ if cow=Pl PSP
The English translation of this sentence is:‘So, if the owner of the cows wasn’t there, [and] that the cows’
Here is a relevant knowledge point for this example, with the related morphemes and glosses masked: The \oldstylenums{3}\textsc{s} \DO pronomithe morpheme ___l the morpheme ___ (see \sectref{sec:7.3.2}) is identical to the presupposition marker the morpheme ___ and some ambiguity can be encountered in contexts where the morpheme ___ immediately follows a verb that has no locatiothe morpheme ___l or directiothe morpheme ___l extensions (which follow the DO pronomithe morpheme ___l but would precede a its gloss ___ marker). Two examples showing the ambiguity are (\ref{ex:11:52}--\ref{ex:11:53}). In \REF{ex:11:52}, the underlined the morpheme ___ could be interpreted as the presupposition marker since there are multiple the morpheme ___{}-marked elements in the clause and this fithe morpheme ___l underlined the morpheme ___ appears immediately before the fithe morpheme ___l (presumably) focussed element mənjəye ata ‘their habits.’ On the other hand, the morpheme ___ could be the \oldstylenums{3}\textsc{s} \DO pronomithe morpheme ___l for the verb mədakan ‘instructing to him,’ since the verb is in a construction which marks significant events (see stem plus ideophone auxiliary \sectref{sec:8.2.3}), so it is the event of the husband instructing his wife that is highlighted by the preceding the morpheme ___-marked elements.
A: word: na-faɗ	 gloss: oneS-place
B: word: a-h=aja	 gloss: 3S-grind=PLU
C: word: na	 gloss: PSP
D: word: á-sak=aka	 gloss: 3S+IFV-multiply=on
Please only return the letter (A–D). Do not say anything else.
Correct Answer: C
Question 16:
You are a linguist specializing in Moloko. 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): ndɛ asa bahaj a ɬa na ndahaŋ aka baj na asa ɬa=ahaj ___
Gloss (with missing item): so if chief GEN cow PSP 3S on NEG PSP if cow=Pl ___
The English translation of this sentence is:‘So, if the owner of the cows wasn’t there, [and] that the cows’
Here is a relevant knowledge point for this example, with the related morphemes and glosses masked: The \oldstylenums{3}\textsc{s} \DO pronomithe morpheme ___l the morpheme ___ (see \sectref{sec:7.3.2}) is identical to the presupposition marker the morpheme ___ and some ambiguity can be encountered in contexts where the morpheme ___ immediately follows a verb that has no locatiothe morpheme ___l or directiothe morpheme ___l extensions (which follow the DO pronomithe morpheme ___l but would precede a its gloss ___ marker). Two examples showing the ambiguity are (\ref{ex:11:52}--\ref{ex:11:53}). In \REF{ex:11:52}, the underlined the morpheme ___ could be interpreted as the presupposition marker since there are multiple the morpheme ___{}-marked elements in the clause and this fithe morpheme ___l underlined the morpheme ___ appears immediately before the fithe morpheme ___l (presumably) focussed element mənjəye ata ‘their habits.’ On the other hand, the morpheme ___ could be the \oldstylenums{3}\textsc{s} \DO pronomithe morpheme ___l for the verb mədakan ‘instructing to him,’ since the verb is in a construction which marks significant events (see stem plus ideophone auxiliary \sectref{sec:8.2.3}), so it is the event of the husband instructing his wife that is highlighted by the preceding the morpheme ___-marked elements.
A: word: akar=ahaj	 gloss: theft=Pl
B: word: na-faɗ	 gloss: oneS-place
C: word: lɪmɛ	 gloss: 1PEX
D: word: na	 gloss: PSP
Please only return the letter (A–D). Do not say anything else.
Correct Answer: D
Question 17:
You are a linguist specializing in Moloko. 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): ndɛ asa bahaj a ɬa ___ ndahaŋ aka baj na asa ɬa=ahaj na
Gloss (with missing item): so if chief GEN cow ___ 3S on NEG PSP if cow=Pl PSP
The English translation of this sentence is:‘So, if the owner of the cows wasn’t there, [and] that the cows’
Here is a relevant knowledge point for this example, with the related morphemes and glosses masked: In \REF{ex:11:53} the situation is more clear. We consider the two underlined the morpheme ___ markers to be the \oldstylenums{3}\textsc{s} DO pronomithe morpheme ___l since even though there are multiple the morpheme ___{}-marked elements in the clause, these underlined markers are neither at the end of the noun phrase (as they would be if they were the definite marker), nor are they immediately before the fithe morpheme ___l focussed element (as they would be if this was a presupposition-focus construction). The verb and noun phrases in question are each delimited by square brackets in the example. We found no uthe morpheme ___mbiguous instance of the presupposition marker the morpheme ___ breaking up a verb phrase except for the purpose of isolating the fithe morpheme ___l focussed element in a verb phrase (cf. integrity of the \VP, \sectref{sec:8.1}). Thus the first underlined the morpheme ___ is \oldstylenums{3}\textsc{s} \DO for the verb tozom ‘they eat.’ It is doubling the direct object noun phrase gəvax ‘field.' Likewise, we found no uthe morpheme ___mbiguous instance of the presupposition marker breaking up a noun phrase in any context and so consider the second underlined the morpheme ___ as \oldstylenums{3}\textsc{s} \DO pronomithe morpheme ___l for the nomithe morpheme ___lised verb məgəye ‘doing’ within the noun phrase məgəye the morpheme ___ ahan ‘his doings.’
A: word: na	 gloss: PSP
B: word: á-sak=aka	 gloss: 3S+IFV-multiply=on
C: word: na-faɗ	 gloss: oneS-place
D: word: a-ndaɗ-aj	 gloss: 3S-love-CL
Please only return the letter (A–D). Do not say anything else.
Correct Answer: A
Question 18:
You are a linguist specializing in Moloko. 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): ndɛ asa bahaj a ɬa na ndahaŋ aka baj ___ asa ɬa=ahaj na
Gloss (with missing item): so if chief GEN cow PSP 3S on NEG ___ if cow=Pl PSP
The English translation of this sentence is:‘So, if the owner of the cows wasn’t there, [and] that the cows’
Here is a relevant knowledge point for this example, with the related morphemes and glosses masked: In \REF{ex:11:53} the situation is more clear. We consider the two underlined the morpheme ___ markers to be the \oldstylenums{3}\textsc{s} DO pronomithe morpheme ___l since even though there are multiple the morpheme ___{}-marked elements in the clause, these underlined markers are neither at the end of the noun phrase (as they would be if they were the definite marker), nor are they immediately before the fithe morpheme ___l focussed element (as they would be if this was a presupposition-focus construction). The verb and noun phrases in question are each delimited by square brackets in the example. We found no uthe morpheme ___mbiguous instance of the presupposition marker the morpheme ___ breaking up a verb phrase except for the purpose of isolating the fithe morpheme ___l focussed element in a verb phrase (cf. integrity of the \VP, \sectref{sec:8.1}). Thus the first underlined the morpheme ___ is \oldstylenums{3}\textsc{s} \DO for the verb tozom ‘they eat.’ It is doubling the direct object noun phrase gəvax ‘field.' Likewise, we found no uthe morpheme ___mbiguous instance of the presupposition marker breaking up a noun phrase in any context and so consider the second underlined the morpheme ___ as \oldstylenums{3}\textsc{s} \DO pronomithe morpheme ___l for the nomithe morpheme ___lised verb məgəye ‘doing’ within the noun phrase məgəye the morpheme ___ ahan ‘his doings.’
A: word: dzijga	 gloss: all
B: word: tɔ-zɔm	 gloss: 3P-eat
C: word: na	 gloss: PSP
D: word: na-faɗ	 gloss: oneS-place
Please only return the letter (A–D). Do not say anything else.
Correct Answer: C
Question 19:
You are a linguist specializing in Moloko. 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): ndɛ asa bahaj a ɬa na ndahaŋ aka baj na asa ɬa=ahaj ___
Gloss (with missing item): so if chief GEN cow PSP 3S on NEG PSP if cow=Pl ___
The English translation of this sentence is:‘So, if the owner of the cows wasn’t there, [and] that the cows’
Here is a relevant knowledge point for this example, with the related morphemes and glosses masked: In \REF{ex:11:53} the situation is more clear. We consider the two underlined the morpheme ___ markers to be the \oldstylenums{3}\textsc{s} DO pronomithe morpheme ___l since even though there are multiple the morpheme ___{}-marked elements in the clause, these underlined markers are neither at the end of the noun phrase (as they would be if they were the definite marker), nor are they immediately before the fithe morpheme ___l focussed element (as they would be if this was a presupposition-focus construction). The verb and noun phrases in question are each delimited by square brackets in the example. We found no uthe morpheme ___mbiguous instance of the presupposition marker the morpheme ___ breaking up a verb phrase except for the purpose of isolating the fithe morpheme ___l focussed element in a verb phrase (cf. integrity of the \VP, \sectref{sec:8.1}). Thus the first underlined the morpheme ___ is \oldstylenums{3}\textsc{s} \DO for the verb tozom ‘they eat.’ It is doubling the direct object noun phrase gəvax ‘field.' Likewise, we found no uthe morpheme ___mbiguous instance of the presupposition marker breaking up a noun phrase in any context and so consider the second underlined the morpheme ___ as \oldstylenums{3}\textsc{s} \DO pronomithe morpheme ___l for the nomithe morpheme ___lised verb məgəye ‘doing’ within the noun phrase məgəye the morpheme ___ ahan ‘his doings.’
A: word: ʃɛʃɛ	 gloss: meat
B: word: na-faɗ	 gloss: oneS-place
C: word: na	 gloss: PSP
D: word: baj	 gloss: NEG
Please only return the letter (A–D). Do not say anything else.
Correct Answer: C