Microplanning v0.01

Currently for "declarative" sentences; see the included formatted README.md for more detailed information.

This will require more additions to SuReal to see real working results (and for proper chunking), but the code logic should work.

As development is still on-going, some debug `display` messages are left in for now.

* Also worth considering whether using scheme is the best or not.
Hmmm.  Yes, I see why these are problems . . . perhaps it is time to revise some of the code so that these things make better sense, and so they can work with the microplanner and Surreal?  Linguistically speaking, it would make th emost sense to treat be+adj as a PredicateNode, even a "verb" like a "stative verb" in Chinese, especially if that would make life easier for the Microplanner.  I also don't like the BE rule, especially because questions of that form get the _%copula representation, so it's inconsistent and I needed to have two rules.  I'm not convinced that Inheritance is the right relation for that either.  It makes sense for "Socrates is a man" but less so for "Bill is my boss."  Logically, these two sentences should have two different relations -- Inheritance for the Socrates sentence and Identification for the Bill sentence, but that would require coding the semantic algorithms to distinguish between the two uses of "be" depending on whether the object is definite or not, and that would still not solve the problem for the microplanner.  Stepping back . . . it seems like the Microplanner should be looking for a verb, whether there is any PredicateNode in the sentence or not -- that would seem to get around all of these problems?