Problematic Sample Clauses

Problematic. In this paper, we will try to focus on the following questions: • Does there exist an interesting clustering of people rooted in shared interests? • Based on this clustering, can we find a sort of fingerprint of the cluster? • Is it possible to predict user interest based on the knowledge of his cluster? • When a new user appears, is it possible to assign him to one of the existing clusters?

Problematic. 3>3 paradigms The third person subject and third person object transitive paradigm, given in table 5, is problematic, since the agreement suffixes seem to be monomorphemic. There is one fact that might oppose a monomorphemic approach to these morphemes: the 3>3sg paradigm ends in the familiar series of -∅, -k, -t. This is also the case for the 3>3du and 3>3pl paradigms. If these agreement suffixes were similar in composition to the suffixes encountered in tables (2)–(4) and the second part of these suffixes indeed cross-reference with the subject, we expect the first part of these agreement morpheme to consist of true agreement morphemes as in table (1). As we can see, this is not the case. And although the last part of these Subject 3rd person singular Object Language Singular Dual Plural Subject 3rd person dual 3 Nau. -a-ak -a-(g )xk k -a-xk t WIn˜u. -a-k -a-xkuk -a-kuk CAY -a-k -a- k k -a-k k CSY – – – WG -a-k -a-kik -a-kik WC -a-ak -a-ik -a-it/ik Subject 3rd person plural 3 Nau. -¯e -¯a-(g )xk t -¯et WIn˜u. -a-t -a-xk t -a-ait CAY -a-at -a- k t -a-it CSY -a-t -i-git -¯et WG -a-t -a-gik -a-at/-it† WC -a-at -a-ik/it -a-it Table 5: 3rd Person Subject–3rd Person Object agreement suffixes indeed seems to cross-reference with the subject, the complete paradigm in table 5 shows a remarkable similarity to the nominative case-marked third person possessed suffixes. Xxxxxxxxx (1994) claims that they are one and the same, and this fact might be evidence in support of an analysis that these forms are nominals (cf. Xxxxx (1992, 1996)), or at least that Inuit verbal agreement morphology in these paradigms has evolved from nominal morphology: these possessive suffixes have filled in a gap, or replaced previously existing morphology, in the verbal paradigm. In any case, it seems to be the case that these suffixes cannot be analyzed in the theoretical framework that I have presented above, since that would force us to adapt the constraint hierarchy in such a way, which is disastrous for the computation of the other agreement morphemes.