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

caused translation to stop working for the clausal verbs with CP
complements. Without the [ SF-RESOLV na-or-- ] constraint, translation
overgenerates by allowing SF-RESOLV-DECL to CP S complements, which is
incorrect. But with the constraint, in these specific instances
translation doesn't work at all. Of note, with the constraint in place
the monolingual parse results in a single, correct parse. We left the
constraint in place, and generally ascribe the problem to the fact that
the SF-RESOLV mechanism is not very well tested and may have some
undesired side effects.

EB> I still find this mysterious, but don't have time to debug right
now.  If you continue grammar development later and want me to
look into it, let me know.

* Translation revealed a problem with our implementation of
  subj-raise-aux: we had previously been constraining agreement between
  the matrix head subject and the clausal complement's subject; however,
  we had failed to account for subj-drop. Our revised rule constrains
  both SUBJs to have the same OPT value:

EB> This is an interesting point of interaction between phenomena!
