Notes
-------------------------------------------------------

	1) Monosyndeton coordination with conjunction "gye" before the coordinand
	2) Monosyndeton coordination with conjunction "miinwaa" before the coordinand
	3) Polysyndeton coordination with conjunction "gye" before all but the first coordinand
	4) Polysyndeton coordination with conjunction "miinwaa" before all but the first coordinand
	5) Asyndeton coordination (juxtaposition)

Monosyndeton gives you polysyndeton for free (since you can get
A and (B and C)), so you are getting some spurious ambiguity.  I suggest
dropping 3 and 4.  You should see the same coverage over your test suite,
but fewer parses on average.

	The next phenomenon to consider was the behavior of matrix
	yes/no questions.  In Nishnaabemwin, this is very simple: the
	particle "na" appears in second position in the sentence.  The
	item which is being questioned appears first, and "na"
	attaches to it.  Interestingly, for multi-word NPs (for
	example, "maaba nishnaabe" meaning "this Indian"), the
	particle intervenes in order to appear in second position:
	"Maaba na nishnaabe... ".  Of course, since the customization
	only allows sentence-initial or sentence-final positions for
	the question particle, we got zero parses of grammatical
	examples of this phenomenon (and one parse of an ungrammatical
	example, in which the particle appeared first).  For the sake
	of making a choice, we elected to say that the question
	particle comes first in the sentence, but this obviously will
	need to be adjusted later.  Here are some examples of yes/no
	questions:

Interesting indeed.  Unfortunately, I don't think the sentence-initial
question particle strategy is going to be a useful starting point for
this kind of question marker, so you might as well leave it out.

The follow up questions I have are:

--- Is there any flexibility to the NP-internal word order, and if so,
do you get different focus effects depending on which word is
first in the NP?
--- Can a word from an embedded clause appear in that initial
position, as in the translation of "Was it Kim that you thought saw Sandy"
(Did you think KIM saw Sandy)?
--- When you have a "neutral"/verb-focus/whole-sentence focus
question, does the verb go first, followed by na?

  As mentioned before, the customization system is not sufficient to
  capture the facts of coordination and yes/no questions in
  Nishnaabemwin.  Yes/no questions should be an easy fix.  Rather than
  insist on sentence-initial position for the question particle, we
  will insist on second position.  However, this will require manual
  editing of the grammar files, as the customization system does not
  allow such specifications.

And it's not that straightforward, but we'll do it in the lab on information
strucutre, if not before.

  The situation is more complex with coordination, as there are a
  range of facts that are not acknowledged by the customization
  system.  Agreement is manifested in many areas of Nishnaabemwin
  grammar, so it comes as no surprise that it must be considered in
  coordination as well.  In particular, the way noun phrases behave as
  arguments of verbs requires a more precise grammar.  When nouns are
  coordinated in Nishnaabemwin, the phrase assumes the agreement
  properties -- person, number, gender, obviation -- of the first
  coordinand.  Therefore, in our test suite we have illustrated that a
  grammatical sentence can become ungrammatical simply by reversing
  the order of the nouns in the coordination structure:

Oddly, this is the easier one to fix.  You just need to go into the NP
coordination rules, and make sure that the PNG and obviation values of
the coordinated phrase are the PNG and obviation values of the
left-hand conjunct.  Done! (You want to play with the top-coord rule.)
From the perspective of our analysis of coordination, this is much
easier that then case where the value on the whole coordinated phrase
is some function of the value on the daughters...

  As mentioned, coordination was handled well, although important
  facts are missing: 10 of 11 grammatical sentences parsed, and the 1
  ungrammatical example did not parse.

Only one ungrammatical example?  You give two just above.  Also,
you should be able to make more by putting the conjunction itself in the
wrong place...

The new header in the testsuite is very clear, and I appreciate the careful
work you are doing.  One slight correction:

#   .  a period delimits a word or morpheme from its gloss

This is not what the period does in the Leipzig glossing rules, nor do
I think it's how you're using it.  A period separates the information
about two separate morphemes/grams combined in the same portmanteau
element.  That is, when there are two separate things to gloss about
the same morpheme, they can be separate by .


