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

Comments:


 One challenge that I had was in deciding how to
 analyze the verb roots.  One of my grammars and the dictionary I have
 both analyze the roots as including the final 'a' (e.g. -bona,
 'see'). Under this analysis, the future tense of 'see' would be:

This is the famous "final vowel".  I'm not yet sure what the
right answer is here, but it is common to across the Bantu languages.
It might be interesting to see what Dan Jinguji decided to do for
his Swahili grammar, which I have sent you.

 My grammars have proven to be unhelpful in finding examples.  The
 grammar's examples are not in future tense, or only use first or
 second person arguments, or are full of adverbials or other extraneous
 information that I am not ready to include in my grammar.  Most of my
 sample sentences are modeled after samples provided in the text, but
 none are taken word-for-word.  The site isiZulu.net has a message
 board that appears to be frequented by native speakers of Zulu; I
 think I will try asking there for grammaticality judgments.

You might also see if the Rosetta Project has a discussion
"room" yet for Zulu.

 I have not found any mention of ditransitive verbs, so I don't know if
 there aren't any or if they just weren't covered in my grammars.
 Until I find out, I am not including any ditransitive test data,
 because I can't make grammaticality judgments.

Most Bantu languages have interesting valence-changing morphological
alternations (applicatives, etc) which should lead to sentences
with 3 or more arguments.  I would recommend this as something to
look into instead of case.

 I did not include examples where the subject concord is the same for
 two classes.  For example, the subject concord for both class 1 and
 class 3 is u-.  Since I don't have a means of differentiating them
 yet, it seemed silly to list the u- prefix twice.

Presumably the classes are still differentiated in other ways?
(Adjective concord, object concord?)  You might be able to construct
examples such as:

C1-noun C1-that u-verb
C3-noun C3-that u-verb

The only problem with "1SG.SC" is that the period is meaningful
in the Leipzig glossing rules, and it's not that the morpheme glossed
this way is a portmanteau of 1sg and some subject concord class.  I
think that just 1SG might be a better plan.

It sounds like your demonstratives are probably more like adjectives
than "determiners".  Can other adjectives appear "outside" of them?