Further Directions Sample Clauses

Further Directions. “PROGRESS OF 3rd DIRECTIONS On September 2, I gave further Directions described as “Progress of 3rd Directions” which were substantially drafted on August 22, 2022 in which I stated that the jurisdictional issue raised by the PsO required determination at the outset. I noted that this issue was bound up in questions relating to the subsistence or otherwise of a statutory trust of 1949 relating to the churchyard. In my judgment, this too was a fundamental issue that needed determining. The parties agreed that these issues would be conveniently dealt with as preliminary points of law. Both parties were content that these issues should be determined as preliminary matters of law; no party requested an oral hearing. Having given some directions as to process, I agreed that I would either deliver judgment on these issues or seek further submissions on specific aspects, either in writing or orally.

Further Directions. Recall from Proposition 2.2.16 that the singular locus of a nonnegatively curved polyhedral 3-manifold is a union of graphs (of minimum degree 3 and possibly with some unbounded edges), circles, and lines embedded in the manifold. The vertices of the graphs are called singular vertices and the graph edges (bounded or unbounded), the circles, and the lines are collectively called singular edges. In this chapter, we have classified the local isometry types of singular vertices (and thus all points) when integrality is imposed and have shown that number of singular vertices is bounded. A natural extension is to attempt to control the size of the singular locus as a whole, rather than just its vertices. Conjecture 3.4.1 (Singular edge bound). There is a constant B in N such that any nonnegatively curved integral polyhedral 3-manifold has fewer than B singular edges. This result, of course, implies Theorem 2, but ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2 is probably needed to prove it. We know from [LN20, Cor. 1.4] that the sum of the lengths of the singular edges is less than some constant times the diameter of the space, but as yet we have no way to bound the total number. Conjecture 3.4.1 can also be weakened in another way, this time by neglecting the graph components of the singular locus.

Further Directions. As mentioned at several points throughout, we attempted to pursue several lines of research in our fieldwork that did not deliver any conclusive results. We hoped to find interpretive differences 31 To derive the K’iche’ pattern as described by England, one would need only to propose that the feature that is targeted by the agreement probes is [ANIMATE]. Inanimates would therefore never control agreement, as it appears to be the case. between agreeing and non-agreeing variants but found no such effect. Specifically, given that our analysis partly relies on the presence/absence of D0 (or some related feature), we searched for definiteness/specificity correlations. However, we found no systematic and reliable difference based on the presence of absence of demonstratives, determiners, or relative clauses within nominals. Further, since another part of our analysis relies on the lexical specification of v0 in different constructions, we looked for the effect of Aktionsart and telicity. We also found no systematic and reliable differences in that area either. Nevertheless, there are two primary areas of investigation worth exploring in the future. First, it would be valuable to find independent evidence corroborating the distinction between base- generated complement and specifier argument that ST references in the domain of agreement. As we have pointed out, there are no subextraction asymmetries in ST, unlike what is reported for closely related Kaqchikel (Imanishi 2014), since ST seems to disallow subextraction altogether. The second area of future work is to find corroborating evidence for the differences in the lexical specifications of transitive vs. intransitive constructions that would explain the optionality of agreement with animate controllers. For instance, we expect that adding more material to the structure between the Agreement probe and its potential target might cause AGREE to fail under some circumstances. We have some preliminary evidence showing that this is true. Consider that agreement with the sole-argument in a positional stative is mandatory (101), but causativization of a positional stem renders agreement with a similar controller optional. On the assumption that causativization adds syntactic structure in between the inflectional(=aspectual) head and the absolutive patient, we might hypothesize that the low argument is now base-generated further away from the new Agreement probe and needs to move in order to AGREE (rather than being b...