search

DARIAH-ERIC / lexicalresources

Data space of the DARIAH Lexical Resources Working Group
https://dariah-eric.github.io/lexicalresources/
BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" License
18 stars 24 forks source link

we need form type "derived" #65

Open ttasovac opened 5 years ago

ttasovac commented 5 years ago

another parked issue from my meeting with Laurent this morning, will supply examples and rationale later

laurentromary commented 5 years ago

This is the dual to 'inflected' when dealing with morphological issues...

iljackb commented 5 years ago

In the (hopefully soon to be published) Lex-0 Etym section we already have

. But it occurs on the //entry/form level (not in etym), as derivational morphology is both morphological and etymological. On Wed, Oct 2, 2019, 9:34 PM laurentromary wrote: > This is the dual to 'inflected' when dealing with morphological issues... > > — > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > , > or mute the thread > > . >
laurentromary commented 5 years ago

Do we all agree that we adopt "derived" as a parallel to "inflected"? It would be easy at least to add this value to the spec, and adapt the TEI Lex Etym document. Thoughts?

bansp commented 4 years ago

Many derived forms will be inflected. Are we talking about <form type="derived"> as a top-level constituent describing the lemma, or as a container for a paradigm? (Which, in the case of derived forms, would standardly be defective and ridden with idiosyncrasies) More concretely, assume washables to be worthy of an entry -- what is/are the suggested value(s) of @type on <form>, please? Are we talking multiple values here? Aaaand (he said, wiggling the stick further into the anthill), imagine an entry for the noun "run", zero-derived from the corresponding verb. Should it's <form> be typed (as "derived") in such cases as well?