How to best/better present ambiguous analyses?

[aarppe]

Currently, ambiguous analyses may lead to voluminous results, e.g. e-maci-nipâyan, cf. https://itwewina.altlab.app/search?q=e-maci-nipayan, where there are four analyses due to maci- -> maci- or mâci- and -nipayan -> -nipâyan or -nipâyân, as well as mâci-nipâw being analyzed both as a lexicalized lemma mâci-nipâw as well as compositionally as maci-/mâci- + -nipâw. Now, each of the possible analyses is presented with the full word-form + lemma representation, even though there are only two possible lemmas, i.e. the lexicalized vs. compositional form.

Primary sources of frequent ambiguity are the conjunct suffixes -yân and -yan (+1Sg vs. +2Sg), -yâhk and -yahk (+1Pl and +12Pl) and the grammatical prefixes ka- and kâ- (conjunct future/infinitive PV/ka+ vs. relativizer PV/kaa+).

Possible options:

1. Show in full a translation entry for an inflected wordform as well as the regular entry for the lemma (current solution).
2. Show lemma entry only once for all possible wordforms with the same lemma.

Another conundrum results from certain preverbs having a potential interpretation as reduplicative elements, e.g. kâh- in ê-kî-nitawi-kâh-kîmôci-kotiskâwêyâhk, cf. https://itwewina.altlab.app/search?q=%C3%AA-k%C3%AE-nitawi-k%C3%A2h-k%C3%AEm%C3%B4ci-kotisk%C3%A2w%C3%AAy%C3%A2hk https://itwewina.altlab.app/search?q=%C3%AA-k%C3%AE-nitawi-k%C3%A2h-k%C3%AEm%C3%B4ci-kotisk%C3%A2w%C3%AAy%C3%A2hk

... or a combination of minimal pairs of preverbs and conjunct suffixes, e.g. ka-awasîsiwiyan in: https://itwewina.altlab.app/search?q=ka-awasisiwiyan

[aarppe]

@andrewdotn Based on today's discussion, we'd go for the second option, i.e. showing the lemma entry information only once, in conjunction with the ambiguous inflected forms. But as you noted, we might then want to include for such a lemma the information that is now shown for them only independently, i.e. the linguistic analysis (info button) etc.

[fbanados]

Other examples: ka-nipayan and ka-maci-nipayan