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
pos_marking [2014/02/13 18:19]
fenris [Discussion]
pos_marking [2014/10/16 14:06] (current)
ob affix overloading
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. ~~~ Fenris+Though ​admit that this ain't possible or satisfactory ​in all cases. ~~~ Fenris
  
 +===== 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//​ ambiguity. If POS-marking is limited, however, then ambiguity becomes possible, and this can be problematic. It'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.txt ยท Last modified: 2014/10/16 14:06 by ob