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

Comments:


#	could use the wrong case ending for the phonological ending

I wouldn't bother with this:  That's a morphophonological fact
rather than a moprhosyntactic one, so you're likely to be abstracting
away from it anyway.


* noun-nom intrans-verb
Source: {a:107}
Vetted: {s}
Judgment: {g}
Phenomena: {case}
avan unanaunnu
avan unanaunnu
he eat-PRES   
he is having his meal

You should probably gloss 'avan' as he-NOM, corresponding
(perhaps) to avan-0 in the morpheme by morpheme line.  Alternatively,
you can call it he.NOM, corresponding to just avan.

No examples for negation of non-copular sentences?  I think
you'll want some!

 Yes-no questions are marked with the interrogative particle -oo. The
 declarative and the corresponding yes-no question are the same aside
 from the addition of -oo. To negate the sentence, the particle is
 attached to the end of the sentence.

I don't think you mean "to negate the sentence" here.


 kumaar naalae varumoo enn? kutatai coodiccu
 Kumar tomorrow come-FUT QP child ask-PAST
 the child asked whether Kumar would come tomorrow.

This is an example of an embedded question.  It appears that Malayalam
does not overtly mark it as such, relying instead on the embeding verb
to constrain the sentence force of the embedded clause.  Can you find
some examples of embedded declaratives?  ("think", "believe", "claim"
etc tend to embed declaratives.)  ... Wait!  Isn't that -oo on the embedded
verb making it phrased as a yes-no question?  You've glossed it as future,
but isn't that the question marker?

You might also try putting the question marker at the beginning of
the embedded clause, for another type of ungrammatical example.


 The modal verbs (expressed as a prefix for a verb, verb, or suffix
 for a verb) in Malayalam are

	-aam	become
	-anam	want
	-atte	to be suitable
	kali	can
	sa:dhik-	can
	okk-	can
	parr-	can
	
 Modal suffixes can be used to express potential.
 Physical ability, learned ability and permission may be expressed by a dative 
 subject, and the modal suffic -aam appended to the verb.

What is the difference between all of those things glossed 'can'?
Why is -aam glossed as 'become' in this chart, but used as 'can' or ABIL
in the examples?  How does the modal suffix interact with any
suffixes for agreement or tense?

Regarding coordination, it looks like Cases II and III are 
non-constituent coordination, so we probably won't be covering them.


 # It's ungrammatical to mark only one of the NPs with the coordinating suffix
 Source: {WBannister}
 Vetted: {f}
 Judgment: {u}
 Phenomena: {Coordination}
 raaman kr^shanaane goovindan maadhavaneyum kanatau
 raaman kr^shanaane goovindan maadhavane-yum kanatau
 Raman Krishnan-ACC Govindan Madhavan-ACC-COORD see-PAST
 Raman saw Krishnan and Govidan saw Madhavan.

Probably better to phrase this in terms of marking conjuncts,
since there are four NPs there.