Auxiliaries should not depend on auxiliaries

[heacu]

Under "The Status of Function Words" in the UD syntax guidelines, it says:

The primacy of content words implies that function words normally do not have dependents of their own. In particular, it means that multiple function words related to the same content word always appear as siblings, never in a nested structure, regardless of their interpretation. A typical case is that of auxiliary verbs, which never depend on each other.

In the following example from page 11a, auxiliaries are chained, with one depending on another:

I will correct this example in light of the above advice, and see if there are other sentences to fix from the other annotated pages.

[heacu]

Here's a similar example from Mila 13a which an auxiliary depends on a copula.

[heacu]

Another example from Mila 13a:

[heacu]

Examples from Mila 13b:

[heacu]

From Mila 14b:

And from Mila 15b:

[heacu]

I have now modified all of the above examples in accordance with the advice that auxiliaries should not depend on auxiliaries, etc.

[heacu]

Here is one other example from Mila 13b:

Fixing this example required loosening the linking conditions for auxiliaries. Now the aux relation is permitted to point back to all manner of POS categories, due to the possibility of an intervening copula. This might seem surprising, but it does follow the UD guidelines for cop, where it states:

If the copula is accompanied by other verbal auxiliaries for tense, aspect, etc., then they are also given a flat structure, and taken as dependents of the lexical predicate.

[heacu]

The documentation now mentions the requirement that stacked auxiliaries should all depend on the main verb rather than hierarchically depending on each other: https://tibetan-nlp.github.io/lim-annodoc/#auxiliaries