compare to Huet, future participle atmanepada

[funderburkjim]

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

[funderburkjim]

stem comparison

huet_stems_fmp.txt summarizes the stems that appear in future participle (atmanepada) forms in the SL_parts.xml file from Huet. 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 future 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_fmp.txt summarizes the stems that appear in the future participle stems of
MW-verb-fmp.txt of the pysan system.

The two lists of stems are compared in
compare_stems_fmp.txt.

This comparison is organized into categories:

• 241 cases of stems which appear in both sources
• 591 cases of stems which appear only in pysan.
• 622 cases of stems which appear only in the Huet source

[funderburkjim]

declension table comparison

huet_decl_tables_fmp.txt contains 2589 future 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 future participle atmanepada declension computations. The result is
pysan_decl_tables_fmp.txt.

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

• 723 (28% of the 2589) declensions are identical in the two systems.
• 1866 (72%) of the Huet declensions have no comparable pysan declension. Some reason for this large percentage might be
  • 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.
  • Many differences in the way one or more future atmanepada participle stems are formed from a given root. This is certainly an area that needs to be further
    examined.
• 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.