-----------------------------------------------------------------

Comments:


 The clitic form may be attached to NPs to denote posession, part-whole
 relations, and a verbal noun's agent or patient (which is actually
 ambiguous; /qatlu-hu/ or 'his killing' can be interpreted to be either
 active or passive).

What do you mean by "part-whole relations"?  Can you give an
example?

I think the copulaless sentences that you meantion don't involve
the pronoun having the copula meaning, but rather involve a non-verbal
predicate.  Since there is no verb to bear person inflection, the
stand-alone pronouns are used.  Or is there independent reason to
believe that the pronouns are actually the copula?  (I remember hearing
this once about Arabic, I think.)

 The noun phrase in MSA is inflected for definiteness, case (though
 more precisely syntactic function), and feminine gender (nouns not
 given the feminine ending are generally masculine, though there are
 exceptions on either side).

We don't usually say that phrases are inflected --- is it the head
noun that's inflected only, or do you see matching inflection on
all dependents of the noun?  Regarding gender, is there in fact a 
masculine affix?  Or is there just one gender affix that is mostly
interpreted as feminine but sometimes as masculine?

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that nouns are inflected
for syntactic function (as opposed to case).  What is the distinction
you are trying to draw?

 What features are reflected in subject-verb agreement?  What are the
 facts connecting subject-verb agreement and order?  As discussed in
 the PRONOUNS section, the personal pronouns are rarely seen
 free-standing and are more often seen as pronomial affixes. Pronomial
 subjects are usually left out because of agreement on the verb, and
 while verbs do not show agreement for objects generally, they can
 incorporate pronomial objects.

Is it in fact ungrammatical to use free-standing subject pronouns,
or just dispreferred?  Regarding incorporated pronominal objects, I take
it this means that it is ungrammatical to "double" an incorporated pronoun
with an overt NP object.  Is that right?

 Nouns in MSA have three cases, Nominative, Accusative and
 Genitive. (Though the names for these cases have little to do with
 their "traditional" usage in European languages)

How are they different?

 Both declensions have three suffixes for definite nouns. The first,
 called the Triptotes, have only one for the all indefinites, while the
 diptotes have one for indefinites in the nominative and another for
 the accusative and genitive.

So then: Triptotes neutralize case distinctions in indefinites, while
Diptotes neutralize only accusative and genitive?  

 It should be noted that case markings are not traditionally written in
 standard orthography and appear to be optional in spoken MSA, but I
 will include them systematically, as it should be easier to create
 rules for optional deletion than for optional insertion.

I'm not sure "deletion" or "insertion" are really relevant ways of
thinking about it in this framework.  You can get optionality by
having the selecting environment require e.g., nominative, but making
the uninflected forms underspecified for case yet eligible to combine
in the syntax (i.e., INFLECTED +).

You meantion above that adjectives agree in case with nouns.  Is it
possible to have a case-inflected adjective combining with a caseless
noun?

Finally, when case markers are left out, what happens to the definiteness
marking?  It sounds from the description above that the markers of
definiteness and case are closely related (perhaps even portmanteau
morphs?), or is definiteness redunantly marked in the choice of
case marker?

 Source: {a:252}
 Vetted: {f}
 Judgement: {g}
 Phenomena: {word order, argument optionality, pronouns}
 ?ana ?inkili:zi:yun
 I    English
 'I (am) English'

Here you should use 'Vetted: {s}', since while you didn't check
it with a native speaker, you assume the grammar writer did.