We fixed a tiny error in our tree file. A node labeled t is in fact supposed to be labeled t2. Now rec works with our new combined grammar. Now there is an example of rec returning the tree with the proper states for "does Carol t2 think that Alice did see the man with a telescope".
CP gets the state '@' meaning that the tree is accepted.
CP @[0](~,~,CP CP[3](~,Cb Cb[0](~,that C[1](Ib Ib[0](~,did I[1](VP VP[0](~,see Vt[0](DP DP[0](~,~,DP DP[0](~,the D[0](man Nc[0](~,~,~),~,~),~)),~,~),VP VP[1](~,VP VP[0](PP PP[0](~,with P[0](DP DP[0](~,~,DP DP[0](~,a D[0](telescope Nc[0](~,~,~),~,~),~)),~,~),~),~,~),~)),~,~),IP IP[0](~,DP DP[1](Ib Ib[0](~,~,~),~,DP DP[0](~,Alice Np[0](~,~,~),~)),~)),~,~),Cb Cb[0](~,does I[1](Ib Ib[0](~,t2 It[1](VP VP[0](~,think Vb[1](Cb Cb[0](~,~,~),~,~),~),~,~),IP IP[0](~,DP DP[1](Ib Ib[0](~,~,~),~,DP DP[0](~,Carol Np[0](~,~,~),~)),~)),~,~),~)),~))
The fixed automaton:
3 0 ~
Alice Np ~
Carol Np ~
Bob Np ~
man Nc ~
see Vt ~
with P ~
telescope Nc ~
a D ~
the D ~
CP CP ~
D D ~
Cb Cb ~
C C ~
IP IP ~
I I ~
DP DP ~
N N ~
VP VP ~
PP PP ~
who DPwh ~
does I ~
like Vt ~
think Vb ~
t2 It ~
t DPt ~
Cb Cb ~
Ib Ib ~
VP VP ~
that C ~
CP CP ~
IP IP ~
Cb* Cb* ~
did I ~
does* I* ~
CP @ CP[3](~,Cb(~,C[1](Ib(~,I[1](VP(~,Vt(DP(~,~,~),~,~),~),~,~),~),~,~),~),~)
Ib Ib IP(~,DP[1](Ib(~,~,~),~,~),~)
DP DP DP(~,D(Nc,~,~),~)
DP DP DP(~,Np,~)
VP VP VP[1](~,VP(PP(~,P(DP(~,~,~),~,~),~),~,~),~)
DP DP DP(~,DP(PP(~,P(DP(~,~,~),~,~),~),~,~),~)
CP @ CP[2](~,DPwh[1](Cb(~,C[1](Ib(~,I[1](VP(~,Vt[1](DPt(~,~,~),~,~),~),~,~),~),~
,~),~),~,~),~)
Cb Cb Cb(~,I[1](Ib(~,It[1](VP(~,Vb[1](Cb(~,~,~),~,~),~),~,~),~),~,~),~)
Ib Ib IP[0](~,DP[1](Ib(~,~,~),~,~),~)
CP @ CP[2](~,DPwh[1](Cb*(~,I*[1](Ib(~,It[1](VP(~,Vt[1](DPt(~,~,~),~,~),~),~,~),~
),~,~),~),~,~),~)
CP @ Cb*[1](~,I*[1](Ib(~,It[1](VP(~,Vt[1](DP(~,~,~),~,~),~),~,~),~),~,~),~)