Talk:Alternation

"This substantially limits the generalisation power of paradigms."

I agree entirely - limiting the generalisation power of paradigms substantially limits the generalisation power of paradigms :P

Let's shuffle the deck a little:

 guolli 	N+Sg+Nom 	guolli
 guolli 	N+Sg+Ill 	guollái

 guolli 	N+Sg+Gen 	guoli 	guole
 guolli 	N+Sg+Acc 	guoli
 guolli 	N+Sg+Loc 	guolis
 guolli 	N+Pl+Nom 	guolit

 guolli 	N+Sg+Com 	guliin
 guolli 	N+Pl+Gen 	guliid
 guolli 	N+Pl+Acc 	guliid
 guolli 	N+Pl+Ill 	guliide
 guolli 	N+Pl+Loc 	guliin
 guolli 	N+Pl+Com 	guliiguin

Now it becomes more clear how we can generalise better: treat those sub paradigms separately, then add a parent paradigm:

    <pardef n="g/uolli__n">
      <e>
        <p>  
          <l>uoll</l>
          <r>uoll</r>
        </p>
        <par n="-uoll-__SUB"/>
      </e>
      <e>
        <p>  
          <l>uol</l>
          <r>uoll</r>
        </p>
        <par n="-uol-__SUB"/>
      </e>
      <e>
        <p>  
          <l>ulii</l>
          <r>uoll</r>
        </p>
        <par n="-ulii-__SUB"/>
      </e>
    </pardef>

Yep, but you still have the same problem, that between the stem and the suffix you still need one paradigm per word. - Francis Tyers 13:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)