compare to Huet, present participle passive

[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-prpp.

[funderburkjim]

stem comparison

huet_stems_prpp.txt summarizes the stems that appear in present participle passive forms in the SL_parts.xml file from Huet. For each stem is shown all stems 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_prpp.txt summarizes the stems that appear in the present participle passive stems of MW-verb-prpp.txt of the pysan system.

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

This comparison is organized into categories:

• 492 cases of stems which appear in both sources
• 1156 cases of stems which appear only in pysan.
• 49 cases of stems which appear only in the Huet source

[funderburkjim]

declension table comparison

huet_decl_tables_prpp.txt contains 1623 present participle passive 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 passive declension computations. The result is pysan_decl_tables_prpp.txt.

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

• 1476 (91% of the 1623) declensions are identical in the two systems.
• 147 (9%) of the Huet declensions have no comparable pysan declension.
• 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.