(no subject)
2006-Dec-07, Thursday 17:59![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
qiihoskeh* I still haven't been getting much done.
* I reread Putting Up Roots by the late Charles Sheffield.
* Project Rho has a number of pending issues. Here's one:
I want to distinguish tangent vs. non-tangent spatial relations whenever the difference makes sense. I've come up with three possibilities.
(1) double the number of words for spatial relations, e.g. on_top_of vs. above
(2) double the genitive case; this would impact other uses of the genitive, for instance how would the cases apply to verbstem nouns? For divalent nounstems other than spatial relations the tangent case could be used for inalienable possession while the non-tangent case could be used for alienable possession.
(3) double the number of locational cases. This could be done easily if the dynamic cases were derived from the static case, because all I'd have to do is double the static (locative) case and add the same dynamic endings to both forms.
Here's another:
How do I make possessives of monovalent nouns? These are some possibilities, not necessarily mutually exclusive.
[1] use one of several specific relational words as adjective, taking the same case of the possessum (the possessor would take the genitive case of course)
[2] derive a possessive adjective from the possessor; this will work only for single words like pronouns, not multiword phrases
[3] derive a divalent wordstem from the possessum so that it can take a possessor
[4] define more nouns as being divalent; note that the monovalent word can be made by using an article proclitic instead of a possessor.
[5] see (2) above concerning inalienable vs. alienable possession.
While I'm at it, here's yet another issue:
I need to decide on the component order of phrases. Right now I have:
NOUN ADJECTIVES RELATIVE_CLAUSES
The NOUN either has a possessor preceding it (possibly a proclitic genitive pronoun) or a proclitic article. Requiring a noun in that position takes care of some ambiguities. The problem I have is with the placement of quantifiers and the construction of the partitive and the superlative. Some possibilities for the partitive:
(1) add a partitive case, to be used on the source phrase
(2) derive divalent quantifiers which take the source phrase as their possessors.
* I reread Putting Up Roots by the late Charles Sheffield.
* Project Rho has a number of pending issues. Here's one:
I want to distinguish tangent vs. non-tangent spatial relations whenever the difference makes sense. I've come up with three possibilities.
(1) double the number of words for spatial relations, e.g. on_top_of vs. above
(2) double the genitive case; this would impact other uses of the genitive, for instance how would the cases apply to verbstem nouns? For divalent nounstems other than spatial relations the tangent case could be used for inalienable possession while the non-tangent case could be used for alienable possession.
(3) double the number of locational cases. This could be done easily if the dynamic cases were derived from the static case, because all I'd have to do is double the static (locative) case and add the same dynamic endings to both forms.
Here's another:
How do I make possessives of monovalent nouns? These are some possibilities, not necessarily mutually exclusive.
[1] use one of several specific relational words as adjective, taking the same case of the possessum (the possessor would take the genitive case of course)
[2] derive a possessive adjective from the possessor; this will work only for single words like pronouns, not multiword phrases
[3] derive a divalent wordstem from the possessum so that it can take a possessor
[4] define more nouns as being divalent; note that the monovalent word can be made by using an article proclitic instead of a possessor.
[5] see (2) above concerning inalienable vs. alienable possession.
While I'm at it, here's yet another issue:
I need to decide on the component order of phrases. Right now I have:
NOUN ADJECTIVES RELATIVE_CLAUSES
The NOUN either has a possessor preceding it (possibly a proclitic genitive pronoun) or a proclitic article. Requiring a noun in that position takes care of some ambiguities. The problem I have is with the placement of quantifiers and the construction of the partitive and the superlative. Some possibilities for the partitive:
(1) add a partitive case, to be used on the source phrase
(2) derive divalent quantifiers which take the source phrase as their possessors.
