compare to Huet, pronouns
Opened this issue · 3 comments
This issue summarizes differences and similarities noticed in the comparison of pronoun declensions; the methodology is described in the readme for huetcompare/pronouns.
stem-gender comparison
Refer to compare_pron_stems_genders.
As to which stems should be considered pronominal, the two systems agree on 24 stems.
The pysan (elisp) system has 11 additional stems not included in Huet system.
The Huet system has 4 stems not included in the pysan system; one of these ena appears actually to
be included in the pysan system, but as a set of variants to the declension of etad.
Within the 24 common stems, both systems have declension information for all three genders for 14 stems.
In the 8 of the 10 other stems, the huet system has declensions only for the feminine stem (why?).
In the other 2 stems (asmad and yuzmad), Huet identifies the gender as 'd' (deictic), while the pysan system identifes the usualy 3 genders. Deictic means that the gender is context dependent (on the one hand). The pysan declension tables (cf. MW-pco.txt) for feminine and neuter genders are present, although empty (value = nil).
declension table comparison
Refer to compare_pron_tables.
This compares the declension tables for the cases where the pronominal stem and gender appear in both systems; it also compares the two Huet deictic declensions with the pysan masculine declension for these stems.
There are 50 cases for comparison.
The declensions are identical for the stem adas in all three genders.
For numerous cases, the declensions are identical except for case 8 (vocative). In these, the Huet system does not have a vocative declined form, while the pysan system does have vocative forms.
These cases are:
anya (f,m,n),
itara (f,m,n),
eka (f,m,n),
etad (f,m,n) - there are also other differences
katama (f,m,n)
katara (f,m,n)
kim (f,m,n)
tad (f,m,n)
dakziRa (f,m,n) m and n have additional differences
yad (f,m,n)
viSva (f,m,n)
sarva (f,m,n)
aDara(f)
antara(f)
apara(f)
avara(f)
uttara(f)
para(f)
pUrva(f)
sva(f)
In several cases, there are other differences:
idam (f,m,n). Differences in cases 2s,2d,2p, 3s, 6d, 7d.
etad (f,n) Differences in 2s,2d,2p, 3s, 5s,5d,5p,6d,7d
etad (m) Differences in 2s,2d,2p, 3s, 5s,5d,5p,6d,7d, and also 1s
tad (f,n) Differences in 5s,5d,5p
tad (m) Differences in 5s,5d,5p and also 1s
dakziRa (m) Differences in 1p,5s,7s
dakziRa (n) Differences in 5s,7s
asmad (m) Differences in 1d,2s,5s,5p
yuzmad(m) Differences in 1d,2s,5s,5p
This finishes a summary of the differences.
Huet system does not have a vocative declined form
Indeed not all pronouns have a Vocative form. But some still have it. So right now both (Huet vs. Funderburk) are wrong. idam, adas have no V., Huet is right. enad is defective and has not all forms in use.