compare to Huet, future participle parasmaipada

[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-fap.

[funderburkjim]

stem comparison

huet_stems_fap.txt summarizes the stems that appear infuture participle (parasmaipada) forms in the SL_parts.xml file from Huet. For each stem is shown all class-pada (pada always P) 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, nor is the conjugational class of this underlying root.

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

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

This comparison is organized into categories:

• 450 cases of stems which appear in both sources,
• 1108 cases of stems which appear only in pysan.
• 270 cases of stems which appear only in the Huet source

[funderburkjim]

declension table comparison

huet_decl_tables_fap.txt contains 2160 future participle parasmaipada 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 parasmaipada declension computations. The result is pysan_decl_tables_fap.txt.

compare_decl_tables_fap.txt summarizes the similarities and differences in the corresponding declensions from the two files just mentioned.

Some statistics resulting from the comparison:

• 900 (42% of the 2160) declensions are identical in the two systems.
• 810 (37%) of the Huet declensions have no comparable pysan declension. Some likely contributors to this large percentage might be:
  • The presence of denominatives in Huet, which are not included in the Pysan work.
  • Differences in the future participle stem formation in the two systems.

• 450 (21%) of the remaining declensions differ in one or more details.

  • All of these are due to a systematic difference in the feminine declension. This differences appears to be that the Huet feminine forms are based on a stem ending in 'antI', while the Pysan forms are based on two stems, one ending in 'antI' and the other ending in 'atI'. Here is a typical example:

  akzizyat pfut Pf: declension differences @ 1s,1d,1p,2s,2d,2p,3s,3d,3p,4s,4d,4p,5s,5d,5p,6s,6d,6p,7s,7d,7p 
  1s (huet) akzizyantI != akzizyantI,akzizyatI (pysan)
  1d (huet) akzizyantyO != akzizyantyO,akzizyatyO (pysan)
  and similarly for the other cases and numbers

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.