{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T09:58:11Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 22.3, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a0950c-83f9-7010-b24d-786706b98e0c\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: genitive construction\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: XCT.QLT\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 043", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 71.6, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a0950c-83f9-7bc3-be4d-21dbec6dc237\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: genitive construction\nRegistry id: vr.tr.genitive-construction\nPlane / domain: XCT / XCT.QLT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into t" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:39:46+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "failure_modes_and_hazards", "owners" ] }, "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-07T10:10:29+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q2990588", "registryId": "vr.tr.genitive-construction", "name": "genitive construction", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "XCT.QLT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q2990588/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.genitive-construction", "name": "genitive construction", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise, interpret and compare genitive constructions while recording the language-specific evidence and grammatical analysis that justify their classification.", "definition": "A genitive construction is a grammatical construction relating a nominal expression to another nominal expression, typically expressing possession, kinship, part-whole relations, or association, with its precise scope and formal realization depending on the language and grammatical analysis.", "scope_statement": "This model owns genitive construction as a grammatical construction type relating a nominal expression to a nominal head or an understood nominal referent, including its formal marking, interpretation, distribution and disputed boundaries; classification must be grounded in the language and descriptive framework concerned.", "in_scope": [ "The nominal head, genitive dependent and any understood or omitted nominal material.", "Case morphology, linking elements, clitics, head marking and constituent order used to realise the construction.", "Relations expressed by the construction, including possession, kinship, part-whole and relations associated with event nouns.", "Language-specific restrictions on the form and distribution of genitive expressions.", "Competing analyses and diagnostics for distinguishing genitives from neighbouring nominal constructions." ], "out_of_scope": [ "The complete case system of a language, including genitive-case uses outside the construction.", "Possession as a legal, social or conceptual relation independent of its grammatical expression.", "Predicative possession constructions except as comparison points.", "A language's complete noun-phrase grammar.", "Compound formation, apposition and adjectival modification except where their boundaries with genitives require examination." ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Identify a nominal head or recoverable nominal referent and establish how the proposed genitive expression relates to it; semantic association alone is insufficient.", "Check whether the language's grammatical description supports a genitive analysis through morphology, distribution or construction-specific diagnostics; an English translation containing 'of' is insufficient.", "Separate construction membership from genitive case: a genitive construction need not display a genitive inflection, and a genitive-case form need not instantiate the nominal construction modelled here.", "Test whether the dependent behaves as a phrase or as part of a lexical compound using language-appropriate evidence such as internal modification, coordination and productivity.", "Record the relation conveyed independently of the formal classification; ownership is neither a necessary interpretation nor sufficient evidence for a genitive construction." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Language and variety", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Language, dialect, historical stage and register associated with the evidence.", "why_it_matters": "Genitive diagnostics and acceptable forms must be evaluated within the relevant variety." }, { "name": "Analytical definition", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Case-based, construction-based, possessive-domain or another explicitly attributed definition.", "why_it_matters": "Different definitions may classify the same expression differently." }, { "name": "Head and dependent realisation", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Overt nominal head; understood nominal head; nominal or pronominal dependent; disputed constituency.", "why_it_matters": "Identifies the expressions participating in the construction and exposes assumptions about omitted structure." }, { "name": "Marking strategy", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Dependent case marking, dependent clitic, adposition or linker, head marking, juxtaposition, combined marking or unresolved.", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes formal realisations without reducing genitive construction to one morphological pattern." }, { "name": "Constituent order", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Dependent-head, head-dependent, variable or discontinuous, with conditioning factors.", "why_it_matters": "Supports recognition and records restrictions on alternative arrangements." }, { "name": "Interpreted relation", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Contextually supported relation such as ownership, kinship, part-whole, authorship, source, event participant or unresolved association.", "why_it_matters": "Keeps grammatical form separate from the semantic relation inferred in context." }, { "name": "Head-conditioned dependent status", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Selected complement, modifier, analysis-dependent or unresolved.", "why_it_matters": "Relational and event-denoting nouns may constrain the dependent differently from freely associated nouns." }, { "name": "Acceptability assessment", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Accepted, marginal, rejected, variable or untested for a specified variety and context.", "why_it_matters": "Prevents isolated judgements from being treated as universal grammatical restrictions." }, { "name": "Diagnostic support", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Supported, contested or unresolved, with attributed analyses and supporting examples.", "why_it_matters": "Allows an agent to distinguish an established classification from a working hypothesis." } ], "affordances": [ "Annotate candidate expressions with their head, dependent, markers and construction boundaries.", "Classify a candidate under an explicitly identified language-specific definition of genitive.", "Generate diagnostic questions and minimal contrasts to test competing structural analyses.", "Enumerate contextually plausible interpretations without automatically assigning ownership.", "Compare alternative genitive forms or translations while recording changes in interpretation, distribution and register.", "Flag unresolved analyses and request the examples, judgements or grammatical references needed to decide them." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Explain what a genitive construction is and give examples from documented languages.", "Analyse or tag genitive constructions in a corpus it is authorized to process." ], "must_not": [ "Present one language's genitive pattern as the rule for all languages.", "Label speakers' grammar as wrong or inferior because it differs from a standard form.", "Invent examples and present them as attested data from a language." ], "requires_human": [ "Publishing grammatical analyses of an endangered language without the community's consent." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Judging dialect grammar as incorrect can stigmatise speakers.", "Grammars of small languages belong in part to the communities who speak them." ], "affected_parties": [ "Speakers of minority languages and dialects", "Language learners", "Linguists" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns it; it is a feature of the languages that use it.", "master_systems": [] }, "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Misreading a genitive can reverse who owns or belongs to what in a legal or historical text.", "Machine translation can mishandle genitives and distort meaning." ], "what_it_is_for": [ "Genitive constructions occur in spoken and written language when nominal expressions encode possession, kinship, association or related relationships.", "They are studied in grammar teaching, translation and linguistic analysis to explain how particular languages express these relationships." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "interfaces": "No universal official standard or regulation determines genitive constructions across languages and grammatical frameworks.", "recognition": "A genitive construction is an abstract grammatical relationship identified through linguistic analysis rather than intrinsic visual cues." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q2990588: genitive construction", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2990588", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Genitive construction", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitive_construction", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "genitive-identification-and-boundaries", "name": "Genitive identification and boundaries", "description": "Establishes what counts as a genitive construction in the relevant language and analytical framework.", "rationale": "The label can track case form, nominal syntax or a broader possessive domain; recognition requires an explicit criterion.", "layers": [ { "id": "definition-and-attribution", "name": "Definition and attribution", "description": "Records the operational definition and the grammatical tradition that supports it.", "findings": [ { "id": "criterion-for-genitive-membership", "name": "Criterion for genitive membership", "description": "A classification should identify its defining evidence and any competing definitions that change the set of included constructions.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the relevant description define genitive constructions by case marking, nominal dependency, possessive function or another criterion?", "kind": "definition", "id": "criterion-for-genitive-membership-q01" }, { "text": "Which grammar, author or analytical framework supports this definition, and which examples establish its intended coverage?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "criterion-for-genitive-membership-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "neighbouring-constructions", "name": "Neighbouring constructions", "description": "Tests boundaries with case uses, compounds and other nominal modifiers.", "findings": [ { "id": "boundary-diagnostics", "name": "Boundary diagnostics", "description": "The proposed genitive analysis needs diagnostics that distinguish it from plausible alternatives in the same language.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence distinguishes this expression from a compound, apposition, adjective modifier or non-genitive adpositional phrase?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "boundary-diagnostics-q01" }, { "text": "Which uses of genitive case fall outside this nominal construction, and which constructions qualify despite lacking that case form?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "boundary-diagnostics-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "formal-realisation-and-constituency", "name": "Formal realisation and constituency", "description": "Records how the head, dependent and linking material are expressed and grouped.", "rationale": "An agent needs language-specific structural evidence to locate a genitive construction and avoid mistaking marker position for marker scope.", "layers": [ { "id": "marking-and-order", "name": "Marking and order", "description": "Examines overt marking, its locus and the relative positions of the participants.", "findings": [ { "id": "exponents-of-the-relation", "name": "Exponents of the relation", "description": "Describe the observed markers and order before deciding whether a marker is a case suffix, clitic, adposition or another element.", "questions": [ { "text": "What marks the relation on the dependent, the head or between them, and what constituent order accompanies that marking?", "kind": "definition", "id": "exponents-of-the-relation-q01" }, { "text": "Which distributional or morphological tests support analysing each marker as an affix, clitic, adposition, linker or head-form alternation?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "exponents-of-the-relation-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "phrase-boundaries-and-omission", "name": "Phrase boundaries and omission", "description": "Locates the dependent's extent and evaluates constructions with an unexpressed nominal head.", "findings": [ { "id": "scope-of-the-genitive-expression", "name": "Scope of the genitive expression", "description": "Record whether marking targets a word or phrase and how coordinated, nested or independent genitive expressions are analysed.", "questions": [ { "text": "How do internal modification, coordination and nested genitives reveal the boundaries and attachment of the dependent?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "scope-of-the-genitive-expression-q01" }, { "text": "When the nominal head is absent, what supports an ellipsis analysis, an independent genitive analysis or a different construction?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "scope-of-the-genitive-expression-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "semantic-relations-and-interpretation", "name": "Semantic relations and interpretation", "description": "Separates the grammatical construction from the relation it expresses in a particular context.", "rationale": "Recognising a genitive does not determine whether its dependent denotes an owner, relative, whole, creator or event participant.", "layers": [ { "id": "relational-readings", "name": "Relational readings", "description": "Records candidate interpretations and the lexical or contextual evidence supporting them.", "findings": [ { "id": "relation-without-ownership-default", "name": "Relation without an ownership default", "description": "Interpretations should be stated as supported readings rather than derived automatically from a possessive label.", "questions": [ { "text": "What relation connects the head referent and dependent referent in this example, and what evidence favours that reading?", "kind": "definition", "id": "relation-without-ownership-default-q01" }, { "text": "Which alternative readings remain possible when the example is removed from its discourse context?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "relation-without-ownership-default-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "nominal-selection-and-event-roles", "name": "Nominal selection and event roles", "description": "Examines how the head noun's meaning constrains the dependent's role.", "findings": [ { "id": "dependent-role-under-the-head", "name": "Dependent role under the head", "description": "Relational and event-denoting heads require explicit analysis of the dependent's role and possible ambiguity.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the head select or strongly constrain this dependent, and what supports treating it as a complement or modifier?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "dependent-role-under-the-head-q01" }, { "text": "For an event-denoting head, can the dependent receive different participant readings, and which paraphrases or contexts distinguish them?", "kind": "definition", "id": "dependent-role-under-the-head-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "distribution-variation-and-agent-use", "name": "Distribution, variation and agent use", "description": "Connects grammatical restrictions and usage evidence to justified annotation, comparison and reformulation.", "rationale": "A structurally recognisable genitive may still be unacceptable in a variety or differ in meaning and discourse function from an apparent alternative.", "layers": [ { "id": "licensing-and-alternation", "name": "Licensing and alternation", "description": "Records conditions governing construction choice and the evidence for those conditions.", "findings": [ { "id": "conditions-on-genitive-choice", "name": "Conditions on genitive choice", "description": "Restrictions should distinguish categorical exclusions from preferences and identify the relevant language variety.", "questions": [ { "text": "How do definiteness, animacy, pronoun status, head meaning, phrase length or register affect the available genitive forms in this variety?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "conditions-on-genitive-choice-q01" }, { "text": "Which corpus distributions or contextualised speaker judgements show whether each proposed restriction is categorical, preferential or unresolved?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "conditions-on-genitive-choice-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "annotation-and-reformulation", "name": "Annotation and reformulation", "description": "Defines the evidence needed to annotate a construction or replace it with another expression.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-controlled-agent-decisions", "name": "Evidence-controlled agent decisions", "description": "Agent outputs should preserve unresolved structural or semantic ambiguity and check proposed alternatives in context.", "questions": [ { "text": "What minimum evidence is required to assign a genitive label, identify its participants and record an interpretation without concealing uncertainty?", "kind": "action", "id": "evidence-controlled-agent-decisions-q01" }, { "text": "Before paraphrasing or translating this genitive, how will the agent check that participant roles, reference, emphasis and register remain appropriate?", "kind": "action", "id": "evidence-controlled-agent-decisions-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-external-alignment", "name": "Evidence and external alignment", "description": "What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.", "rationale": "A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.", "layers": [ { "id": "reported-evidence", "name": "Reported evidence", "description": "Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes", "name": "Check these first", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "No sense is recorded; this description assumes the linguistic concept.", "The listed kinds mix formal strategies and semantic interpretations, which overlap rather than partition the concept.", "Whether adpositional and construct-state patterns are called genitive constructions varies by descriptive tradition; the treatment of English 's as case marking or a clitic also requires an explicit analytical choice." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of genitive construction this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-kinds", "name": "Kinds and varieties", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Constructions with a genitive-case dependent", "Adpositional genitive constructions", "Construct-state constructions", "Subjective genitives, expressing the participant corresponding to a verb's subject", "Objective genitives, expressing the participant corresponding to a verb's object", "Partitive genitives, identifying a whole from which a part is selected" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of genitive construction this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-real-world-use", "name": "Real-world use", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Expressing ownership, kinship, affiliation, and part-whole relationships", "Expressing participants associated with nominalized events", "Comparing how languages encode relationships between nominal expressions", "Teaching grammar and analysing texts", "Supporting parsing and translation of noun phrases" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of genitive construction this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards", "name": "Failure modes and hazards", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Treating every genitive relationship as ownership", "Equating genitive case with genitive constructions, although constructions can use other marking strategies", "Missing subjective-objective ambiguity, as in 'the destruction of the city' versus 'the destruction of the enemy'", "Assuming constructions translated with English 'of' have identical grammar or meaning across languages", "Treating formal and semantic classifications as mutually exclusive kinds" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of genitive construction this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-regional-variation", "name": "Regional variation", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "English uses both possessive 's and of-constructions, whose distributions overlap but are not interchangeable.", "Languages such as Russian and Latin use genitive case on dependent nominals for many relationships.", "Arabic and Hebrew use construct-state patterns in which the form or grammatical status of the head participates in marking the relationship." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of genitive construction this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-neighbours", "name": "Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "name": "genitive case", "difference": "Genitive case is a morphological or morphosyntactic category; a genitive construction is an arrangement of expressions and need not contain genitive-case morphology." }, { "name": "possession", "difference": "Possession is a semantic relationship; genitive constructions can express nonpossessive relationships, and possession can be expressed through other constructions." }, { "name": "noun compound", "difference": "A noun compound combines elements into a lexical unit; a genitive construction typically establishes a syntactic dependency, although the boundary can be disputed." }, { "name": "adjectival modification", "difference": "Adjectival modification characterizes a nominal through an adjective; a genitive construction relates it to a nominal expression, even when the resulting meanings resemble one another." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of genitive construction this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Does this registry entry intend a cross-linguistic comparative concept, constructions involving genitive case specifically, or a broader class of adnominal possessive constructions?", "Which reference grammars and linguistic frameworks should anchor the definition and document disagreements about its boundaries?", "How should possessive determiners, construct-state patterns and unmarked nominal juxtaposition be classified under the chosen definition?", "Which diagnostics adequately distinguish independent genitives from ellipsis and lexicalised expressions in the languages covered?", "What evidence threshold should separate a grammatical restriction from a usage preference when corpus observations and speaker judgements diverge?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 5, "layers": 9, "findings": 14, "questions": 22 } }