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

	We changed our determiner rules so we could apply the
	_exists_q_rel on the determiner supertype and the
	demonstrative relation in the lexicon.

This should be spelled exists_q_rel (no leading underscore, because
in some grammars its a "grammar predicate") for consistency with
the other grammars.

  Nishnaabemwin also distinguishes between inclusive and exclusive
  first-person pluarl, but we do not cover this in our grammar.

Did the version of this provided by the customization system
not work?

		The inflection of the main verb may or may not agree
		with the main subject or object of the sentential
		complement. We have constrained our analysis to not
		require agreement and created our test sentences based
		on the most straightforward sample sentences in the
		reference grammar.

The inflection on the main verb sometimes indicates something
about arguments within the embedded clause?  That is pretty
unusual...

How do the VTA clausal complement verbs handle the dir-inv marking?
Are they always dir?

		The lexicon contains both types of the same verb:

		gkendang := verb-class-VTI-verb-lex &
		  [ STEM < "gkendang" >,
		    SYNSEM.LKEYS.KEYREL.PRED "_know+something_v_rel" ].

		gkendang_2 := verb-class-VTI-C-verb-lex &
		  [ STEM < "gkendang" >,
		    SYNSEM.LKEYS.KEYREL.PRED "_know+something_v_rel" ].

What is the difference between these two then?  When is one used
instead of the other?  Also, it's better to use _know_v_rel as the PRED
value, for MT purposes.

		We are using the 0- morpheme to indicate missing person prefix in conjunct order:

		person-conj-lex-rule := person-prefix-lex-rule &
		  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT [ HEAD +vc,
				       MC - ] ].

		person-conj-prefix :=
		%prefix (* 0-)
		person-conj-lex-rule.

It's not clear to me why you need this.  Is it to make the rest of the slots
still work?  

		#196b   
		Source: author
		Vetted: f
		Judgment: g
		Phenomena: emb-d, adv
		ngiigkendaan wiimaajanid
		n-gii-gkendang-am-n 0-wii-maajaad-nid
		1SG-PAST-know+something-DIR.THM-3.OBV FUT-go+away-3.OBV.CONJ
		'I knew that they would go away'

This gets 18 parses, 15 of which involve coordination.  I know you can't
rule out coordination entirely, but 18 seems like too many here.  I advise
you to look into the sources of ambiguity, and see if you can reduce it at all.
(One thing would be to require coordinated Ss to have the same MC value.)

Also, the embedded clause is [SF prop-or-ques], when it seems like it should
be [SF prop].

		mc-bool-headed-phrase := headed-phrase &
		   [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.MC bool,
		     HEAD-DTR.SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.MC bool ].

		and the constraint

		binary-headed-phrase :+ mc-bool-headed-phrase.

You could just add that constraint to binary-headed-phrase with :+ ...
no need to add a type if there's only one type that will inherit from it.

		#151	
		Source: author
		Vetted: f
		Judgment: g
		Phenomena: q
		Gaag na zhiishiiban wminpawaawaan?
		Gaag na zhiishiib-an w-doo-mnopwaad-aa-an
		porcupine.AN.3SG QUES duck.AN-3.OBV AC.3SG-PRES-like+the+taste+of-DIR.THM-GL.3SG
		'Is it porcupines that like to eat ducks?'

You get too many parses for this one.  Part of the problem seems to be
the way YNQ is handled in the NP coordination rules.

 There is also nothing that could appropriately be called a
 preposition, so non-verbal PP predicates also seem to be no problem.

"Non-verbal predicates" includes all predicates that are not verbal:
NP, AP, and PP, not just PP.

		#245	
		Source: author
		Vetted: f
		Judgment: g
		Phenomena: cop
		Nmamaa yaa gaasmoonijiimaaning
		Nmamaa w-doo-yaa-0 gaasmoonijiimaan-ing
		my+mother be sailboat-LOC
		'My mother is on the sailboat'

This one gets 12 parses, including some with int-cl.  I suspect
that YNQ is under constrained somewhere.  The semantics is also broken,
as the boat isn't related to the ARG2 of the verb.  I think the problem is that
the noun-loc-suffix-lex-rule isn't copying up enough information.  Try
head-change-only-lex-rule as a supertype.  It also seems to me that the
copula type for the locatives should be the same as for the NP-complement
copula ... only the KEYREL.PRED needs to be different.


No IGT examples for NP predicates --- had to dig around in your
test suite, which fortunately is well commented.

Which non-verbal predicate examples aren't working, and why?

In general, you seem to have lots of ambiguity in your grammar, and
I recommend working to cut it down.

