This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
pos_marking [2014/02/13 18:19] fenris |
pos_marking [2019/08/22 18:49] (current) ob example of -er for verb ending (Scandi) |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
The big question is this: how should these words be morphologically related to one another? Here are some options. | The big question is this: how should these words be morphologically related to one another? Here are some options. | ||
- | * Use the same word for the noun and verb, like with " | + | * Use the same word for the noun and verb, like with " |
- | *Inflect all verbs for the present tense and imperative mood, e.g. with **-e** or **-a**. This would make the noun/verb distinction always clear, and derivation between the two would be simple. The disadvantage is all verbs having an extra syllable, which would often feel tedious and redundant. | + | *Inflect all verbs for the present tense and imperative mood, e.g. with **-e** or **-er** or **-a**. This would make the noun/verb distinction always clear, and derivation between the two would be simple. The disadvantage is all verbs having an extra syllable, which would often feel tedious and redundant, mainly to non-Scandinavians. |
* Have markers for derived basic nouns/ | * Have markers for derived basic nouns/ | ||
* Have separate roots, like with " | * Have separate roots, like with " | ||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
The POS-marking issue relates to the language as a whole, and should be borne in mind when the noun, adjective, and verb morphologies are being defined. | The POS-marking issue relates to the language as a whole, and should be borne in mind when the noun, adjective, and verb morphologies are being defined. | ||
- | ===== Discussion | + | ==== Discussion ==== |
I prefer to use as much word-derivation and -composition as possible. Possible solutions for the mentioned examples: | I prefer to use as much word-derivation and -composition as possible. Possible solutions for the mentioned examples: | ||
* // | * // | ||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
* // | * // | ||
* // | * // | ||
- | Though | + | Though |
- | --- //[[fenris@wh17.tu-dresden.de|Fenris Wolf]] 2014/02/13 17:03// | + | |
+ | ===== Affix overloading ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | This is a continuation of the POS-marking issue. In summary, the same affix can be used on words from different parts of speech to produce words of different meanings. Here are three examples. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Suffix **-e** for plural AND infinitive; thus noun/ | ||
+ | * Suffix **-er** for agents AND positive comparative adjectives. The rule would be that noun/verb + ER = person, but adjective + ER = "more ...". It is likely that many roots will end ER (**offer, bruder, fujer**, etc.) so whatever we choose, there will be //superficial// ambiguity here. The only restriction with this overload is that when a standalone adjective is to denote a person, it cannot take the personal suffix; e.g. "the good one" must be **de gud** and NOT **de guder**. And an unfortunate consequence is a " | ||
+ | * Past tense and past/ |