-------------------------------------------
Comments

  Likewise we need to augment our PER.NUM mappings to accommodate the
  Italian grammar and idiosyncracies with the English grammar (3PL <<
  ! pl):

The English grammar gives pl with  underspecified person somewhere?
That's odd...

  Comment: For some reason, the variable property mapping is not
  working for us and we get all three tenses in the translation.  The
  English MRS is also ambiguous with regard to number, and in such
  cases we do not constrain it with VPM.  We also do not constrain
  obviation in the VPM, and this feature of course is not in the
  English MRS.  Finally, the arguments of the verb can appear in
  either order.  The latter three ambiguities we expect, for eight
  correct translations, but the three-way ambiguity in tense, yielding
  24 actual translations, is not correct.

I think the problem here is that the English grammar wasn't giving
any tense information at all.  * matches anything present, but you need
[e] to fill tense in where there is none.

14. Do cats chase dogs?
Actual translations: 4
Correct translations: 0
  
  Comment: Two direct/inverse choices and two argument orders yields
  four translations.  However, our question particle is not appearing,
  possibly because no constituent is focused in the English MRS, and
  our question particle places focus on whatever constituent it
  attaches to.  That our translation manages to have [ SF ques ]
  without the question particle is a bit alarming.

That's an interesting issue with the lack of focus, and it suggests
that taking in unmarked info-str as unmarked might not be the
best strategy.

The [SF ques] outputs without the question particle come from the assumption
that you can always get questions with just intonation, in any language.
(might not be right)   Thus your non-questions are [SF prop-or-ques], which
is consistent with [SF ques] in the input.

18. The dogs are in the park.
Actual translations: 0
Correct translations: 0
Comment: This yields the error message "error `invalid predicates: |"_in_p_rel"|'.".  This is because our locative nouns only express a general sense of location.  Nishnaabemwin does not have highly specific prepositions to express a relation like "in".

This is a place where you could have used a transfer rule, I think.

