Difference between revisions of "Prefixes and infixes"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: <pre> <mlforcada> I haven't thought much about it but I think the solution would be <mlforcada> to see lexical forms as sets and not as sequences <spectie> sergio said something about 'car...) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
One solution would be to see lexical forms (LFs) as sets and not as sequences. e.g. pl.n.kitabu or pl.kitabu.n would be the same (swahili) |
|||
<pre> |
|||
<mlforcada> I haven't thought much about it but I think the solution would be |
|||
Two possible ways: |
|||
<mlforcada> to see lexical forms as sets and not as sequences |
|||
<spectie> sergio said something about 'cartesian product' |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
<spectie> would this require changing the 'translation as a stream' thing ? |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
<mlforcada> so that pl.n.kitabu or pl.kitabu.n would be the same (swahili) |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
<mlforcada> in fact vitabu would naturally be pl.kitabu.n |
|||
<mlforcada> I think we should only change transfer |
|||
<mlforcada> something that either normalizes it or deals it in whatever order |
|||
<mlforcada> so that one could deal with pl.n.kitabu |
|||
<mlforcada> in fact |
|||
<mlforcada> in basque |
|||
<mlforcada> it would be very nice to have this for verbs: |
|||
<mlforcada> dakarzu: you bring it ; nakarzu : you bring me |
|||
<spectie> yep |
|||
<mlforcada> the morpheme for object/absolutive comes first |
|||
<mlforcada> so there are two possible ways |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
<mlforcada> and a middle way |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
<mlforcada> however |
|||
<spectie> i think sets is probably cleaner ... although is there any information lost in the loss of ordering ? |
|||
<mlforcada> I think tagger rules should also be changed |
|||
<mlforcada> and we could have moyogo discuss lingala morphology which is also prefix, word classes, etc. as swahiki is |
|||
<mlforcada> I like it that verbs come marked with the classs of their object |
|||
<mlforcada> sw: nilikisoma: I read it where -ki- is it for a ki- class noun as kitabu |
|||
<spectie> is this inflectional or derivational ? |
|||
<mlforcada> ni-li-ki-soma : I-past-[ki object] soma |
|||
<mlforcada> I think it is inflection |
|||
</pre> |
|||
Revision as of 15:03, 26 May 2007
One solution would be to see lexical forms (LFs) as sets and not as sequences. e.g. pl.n.kitabu or pl.kitabu.n would be the same (swahili)
Two possible ways:
- normalization of some kind, perhaps specified with some rules
- treating LFs as sets
- detecting lexical forms in the sequence they are generated by the tagger
