------------------------------------------------------
Comments

 One tricky bit is that class 10 is the plural of both classes 9 and
 11.  For this I created two supertypes c9-or-c10 and c11-or-c10 (the
 eleven is first so I'll remember it's singular).  Class 9 inherits
 from the first one, class 11 from the second one, and class 10 from
 both.

Nice!

 I wrote these as infl-ltow-lex-rules, as that's what I had written
 down in my notes from class, but I wonder now why that works, because
 I am usually changing the NCL value.  Perhaps because I am further
 constraining the value, rather than changing it entirely?

Right --- further constraining something counts as "adding" information.
The output is consistent with the input (which is why we have to go
out of our way to make sure they don't spin).

 In building my test suite, I encountered some strange variations of
 the agreement system.

Such as?

 (object concord) - ltol
 verb tense -ltol
 subject concord -ltow
 (negation) -ltow(?)

This is an example of what's currently wrong with the way the customization
script produces lexical rules.  We just assume there's at most one affix,
and call the rules ltow.  For Zulu, apparently what you want is word-to-word
(so [INFLECTED +] ltol, actually) for the negation rule.  The question is
how to figure out things like *that* from the questionnaire in the general
case.

 One side effect of implementing tense is that I can no longer parse
 imperatives, which don't have tense markers.  I felt this was an
 acceptable trade off for now.

Indeed.

 Subject concords are implemented pretty much the same as object
 concords.  The DTR value of subj-concord-lex-rule is
 verb-tense-lex-rule, because every verb form has both a subject
 concord and a tense marker, or neither.  The agreement information is
 also pulled from the PNG values of the (one element on the ) SUBJ list
 of the input verb.

"pulled from"?

 My grammar also generates as I would expect it to.  A sentence with an
 intransitive verb generates two sentences: one declarative and one
 with the question marker.  This isn't surprising, as we haven't
 provided any means of differentiating the two yet.  With a transitive
 verb, there are 4 generations: the declarative/interrogative pairs as
 above, for verbs with and without the object concord.

Nice!  The double generation from declaratives is expected: Because we
allow for intonation questions, the MRS for the declarative is
underspecified between a proposition and question.