User Tools

Site Tools


pos_marking

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

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 "drink". This is simple, and the fact that nouns often have an article helps. The disadvantage is that ambiguity can arise due to the lack of marking - hence the present page in the wiki! +  * Use the same word for the noun and verb, like with "drink". This is simple, and the fact that nouns often have an article helps. The disadvantage is that ambiguity can arise due to the lack of marking - hence the present page in the wiki ! 
-  *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/verbs. Root nouns and root verbs would have no markers, but their related derivatives would. This offers similar advantages and disadvantages to the verb-inflection system, but it's hard to imagine what the noun marker would be.   * Have markers for derived basic nouns/verbs. Root nouns and root verbs would have no markers, but their related derivatives would. This offers similar advantages and disadvantages to the verb-inflection system, but it's hard to imagine what the noun marker would be.
   * Have separate roots, like with "song/sing". This gives you clarity, but it makes the language harder to learn - although if the number of such pairs was low, the increased learning burden might not be so bad.   * Have separate roots, like with "song/sing". This gives you clarity, but it makes the language harder to learn - although if the number of such pairs was low, the increased learning burden might not be so bad.
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:
   * //sing/song//: **singe** as the verb and **singung** as the noun   * //sing/song//: **singe** as the verb and **singung** as the noun
Line 22: Line 22:
   * //bath/bathe//: **bade** as the verb and **bad-sted** as the noun   * //bath/bathe//: **bade** as the verb and **bad-sted** as the noun
   * //drink/drink//: (no satisfying solution yet, maybe **drink** as the noun and **take en/de drink** as the verb or a new affix for these situations)   * //drink/drink//: (no satisfying solution yet, maybe **drink** as the noun and **take en/de drink** as the verb or a new affix for these situations)
-Though admit that this ain't possible or satifsying in all cases. +Though admit that this ain't possible or satisfactory in all cases. ~~~ Fenris 
- --- //[[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/adjective + E = plural, but verb root + E = infinitive. If we have full POS-marking, this works nicely, because ambiguity is impossible, although to people who don't know the words there would be //apparent// ambiguityIf POS-marking is limited, however, then ambiguity becomes possible, and this can be problematicIt's not too bad with, for example, "I want drinks" versus "I want to drink", but in the case of "I want to wound" versus "I want wounds", we're in trouble. 
 +  * 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 "stuttering effect" in certain derivatives, e.g. "offerers" being **offerere**. 
 +  * Past tense and past/passive participle the same. As everyone in the world knows (well, 10% of 'em) in regular weak English verbs, the same word is used here, ending "-ed". This could theoretically happen in Folkspraak too, although most proposals seem to insist on a distinction.
pos_marking.1392311960.txt.gz · Last modified: 2014/02/13 18:19 by fenris