compare to Huet, present participle atmanepada

[funderburkjim]

This issue summarizes differences and similarities noticed in the comparison of present participle stems and declensions; the methodology is described in the readme for huetcompare/parts-prmp.

[funderburkjim]

stem comparison

huet_stems_prmp.txt summarizes the stems that appear in present participle (atmanepada) forms in the SL_parts.xml file from Huet. For each stem is shown all class-pada (pada always A) combinations which have declined forms. Two noteworthy details are

• the same stem value is used, regardless of the gender of the declined form. Specifically, there is no specific mention of a feminine stem.
• the underlying root of any participle is NOT specified in the SL_parts file. Some computation (probably involving the roots appearing with present tense conjugational forms in SL_roots.xml) could backtrack to find the root from which a given participle stem was derived; but it would be useful to have this root identified within the records of the SL_parts file.

pysan_stems_prmp.txt summarizes the stems and classes padas that appear in the present participle stems of
MW-verb-prmp.txt of the pysan system.

The two lists of roots and padas are compared in
compare_stems_prmp.txt.

This comparison is organized into categories:

• 222 cases of stems which appear in both sources, and with the same class-pada data
• 4 cases of stems that appear in both sources, but with Pysan showing conjugational classes in addition to those in Huet.
• 10 cases of stems where the Pysan and Huet classes are disjoint.
• 643 cases of stems which appear only in pysan.
• 168 cases of stems which appear only in the Huet source
  • 53 of these have
    conjugational class of 11, which in the present tense conjugations,
    are identified as from denominative roots.
  • 105 of these have some other conjugational class.

[funderburkjim]

declension table comparison

huet_decl_tables_prmp.txt contains 1212 present participle atmanepada declension tables derived from Huet's SL_parts.xml.

Each of these appears on one line of the file.

For each of these Huet computations, a comparable computation from the pysan
system was prepared, taking into account the class-pada information used by pysan present participle atmanepada declension computations. The result is
pysan_decl_tables_prmp.txt.

compare_decl_tables_prmp.txt summarizes the similarities and differences in the corresponding declensions from the two files just mentioned.
Some statistics resulting from the comparison:

• 678 (56% of the 1212) declensions are identical in the two systems.
• 534 (44%) of the Huet declensions have no comparable pysan declension. Some reason for this large percentage:
  • The presence of denominatives in Huet, which are not included in the Pysan work.
  • Differences in the root conjugational classes of roots in the two systems.
  • Possibly, differences in the derivation of the stem for a given root and
    conjugational class.
• 0 (0%) of the remaining declensions differ in one or more details.
  The lack of differences is understandable, since once the stem is known, the
  common declension of adjectives ending 'a' is all that is involved.

As with the comparison of declensions of nouns, Huet does not include vocative inflected forms in the SL_parts.xml data. This systematic difference is ignored in the comparison.