On Possessive, Existential and Locative Clause Types in the Haisla Language
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is intended to provide a preliminary overview of how possessive, existential and locative clause types are structured in Haisla, a Wakashan language spoken in British Columbia, Canada. Possessive and existential clauses are structured according to two patterns: (1) Deriving a denominal verb with the meaning ‘to have X’/’there is/are X’ with a derivational suffix. (2) Using a clause in which the predicate expresses thenumber, thequantity or a quality of the possessee or the entity whose existence is in question. Thevery productive suffix -nuxʷ can be used to form both possessive and existential clauses while another suffix -[z]ad seems to be possible to be used mainly for possessive clauses only. Locative clauses are structured with thelocative verb laa‘to (be) locate(d) in/at’or with a locative stem as the predicate. When the locative verb is used, the location is expressed with an independentnoun phrase or prepositional phrase.Some problematic data concerning word order in locative clauses and inalienability in the possessive clauses is shown. Also, the difference between possessive constructions and constructions denoting belonging is discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".