Open AngledLuffa opened 10 months ago
So from my understanding there seems to be (at least) two use cases enkelt:
As an Adjective Describing a Concept: Where "enkelt" functions as an adjective directly modifying a noun (problem, state). It describes a quality of simplicity or straightforwardness. The word is used to convey that something is simple, straightforward, or uncomplicated. Lemmatized as "enkel" reflecting its adjectival role. As a Nominal Adjective Referring to an Individual: or "enkelt" still functions as an adjective, but it is used nominally to refer to a singular individual or entity (like saying "a single one" or "one person"). It’s more about identifying a specific individual from a group. In this usage, the lemma is "enkelt," which aligns with its role as a singular, indefinite, noun-like adjective.
"de" seems to be lemmatized differently depending on it being a determinant "de glade tressere" (the happy sixties)or a pron. "de må lære" (they will have to learn") referring to a formal singular (rarely used today, though some standard phrases uses it) or a group.
Hope it helps!
Thanks for the explanation!
Any thoughts on the de
differences, or on the few exceptions to the apparent UPOS rule for det
?
de/den is pron/det it seems.
The UPOS for "det" does seem inconsistent. The inconsistencies for DET seems to occur in a standard phrase "i det hele taget" (in general / all in all). I am not sure whether it annotation is correct, but at least it is consistent. For "det" PRON it seem to be differentiated by PronType=Prs
again not sure what the correct answer would be but at least consistent.
re steg/stige it has two different meanings (fry/climb). the cases with stort/stor also seem to be meaning-bearing e.g. "stort bagud" (greatly behind) vs "alarmerende stort" (alarmingly big).
I will close this issue for know, but do reopen it if there is anything
The only thing that comes to mind is the few cases where det
or Det
is tagged as DET
but lemmatized as det
instead of den
, or tagged PRON
with lemma den
instead of det
. Presumably there need to be either a few lemma changes or a few tag changes for those sentences.
If you have the knowledge to correct I would be very happy to review a PR
This is the current situation with lemma den/det (count – form – upos – lemma – feats – deprel):
921 det PRON det Case=Acc|Gender=Neut|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs nsubj 782 den DET den Gender=Com|Number=Sing|PronType=Dem det 683 de DET den Number=Plur|PronType=Dem det 492 det DET den Gender=Neut|Number=Sing|PronType=Dem det 188 det PRON det Case=Acc|Gender=Neut|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs obj 120 den PRON den Case=Acc|Gender=Com|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs nsubj 75 det PRON det Case=Acc|Gender=Neut|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs obl 42 den PRON den Case=Acc|Gender=Com|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs obj 17 det PRON det Case=Acc|Gender=Neut|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs nmod 14 de PRON den Number=Plur|PronType=Dem nsubj 12 det PRON det Case=Acc|Gender=Neut|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs root 12 den PRON den Case=Acc|Gender=Com|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs obl 9 de PRON den Number=Plur|PronType=Dem nmod 8 det PRON det Case=Acc|Gender=Neut|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs conj 6 de PRON den Number=Plur|PronType=Dem obl 5 det PRON det Case=Acc|Gender=Neut|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs dep 5 den PRON den Gender=Com|Number=Sing|PronType=Dem obl 4 det DET det Gender=Neut|Number=Sing|PronType=Dem fixed 4 den PRON den Gender=Com|Number=Sing|PronType=Dem obj 4 den PRON den Gender=Com|Number=Sing|PronType=Dem nmod 4 den PRON den Case=Acc|Gender=Com|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs root 3 det PRON det Case=Acc|Gender=Neut|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs xcomp 3 det PRON den Gender=Neut|Number=Sing|PronType=Dem nsubj 3 de PRON den Number=Plur|PronType=Dem obj 3 den PRON den Gender=Com|Number=Sing|PronType=Dem nsubj 3 den PRON den Case=Acc|Gender=Com|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs nmod 3 dén DET den Gender=Com|Number=Sing|PronType=Dem det 2 dét PRON det Case=Acc|Gender=Neut|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs obl 2 det PRON den Gender=Neut|Number=Sing|PronType=Dem nmod 2 den PRON den Gender=Com|Number=Sing|PronType=Dem dep 2 den PRON den Case=Acc|Gender=Com|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs iobj 1 det PRON det Case=Acc|Gender=Neut|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs vocative 1 dét PRON det Case=Acc|Gender=Neut|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs obj 1 dét PRON det Case=Acc|Gender=Neut|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs nsubj 1 det PRON det Case=Acc|Gender=Neut|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs iobj 1 det PRON det Case=Acc|Gender=Neut|Number=Sing|Person=3|PronType=Prs ccomp 1 det PRON den Gender=Neut|Number=Sing|PronType=Dem obj 1 det PRON den Gender=Neut|Number=Sing|PronType=Dem conj 1 de PRON den Number=Plur|PronType=Dem conj 1 d. DET den Gender=Com|Number=Sing|PronType=Dem det
My observations:
PronType=Prs
(some PRON
) from PronType=Dem
(some PRON
and all DET
). I suspect that all these are originally demonstratives, which just happen to be occasionally used in place of 3rd person pronouns. This happens in other languages too (e.g. Hindi). If I understand it correctly, truly personal pronouns in Danish are han/ham "he/him" and hun/hende "she/her", but for "it" and "they" only the demonstratives are available.PRON
from DET
. I'd probably make them all DET PronType=Dem
. The different usage can be told from the deprel: it is either det
or fixed
for current DET
UPOS, or anything else for current PRON
.
PRON/DET
distinction is kept, then I would unify all pronouns to be PronType=Prs
and all determiners to be PronType=Dem
(the latter already holds).Person=3
from them.Case=Acc
regardless whether we reclassify personal pronouns as demonstratives or not. Currently the pronouns are either labeled as accusative or they lack the Case
feature. If anything, then I would expect Case=Nom
for the non-accusatives. But I in fact don't believe that the accusatives are correct. More than 900 of them occur as subjects, which would be very unusual for an accusative.
BTW in the long run it would be useful to find a common solution for Danish, Swedish and Norwegian. That would be an issue for the main issue tracker in docs and I suspect it would be harder to reach consensus.
An agreement between Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian would be a great idea.
I completely agree that a common solution for Swedish, Danish and Norwegian would be highly preferable, so why don't we ping @liljao and @LarsAhrenberg and see if we can achieve this.
However, the situation is a little bit more complicated than @dan-zeman's analysis suggests. In Swedish, "den", "det", "de" have at least three distinct uses. (The object form "dem" has a more limited distribution.) They are used as (i) definite articles (corresponding to English "the" but with gender and number agreement), (ii) personal pronouns (corresponding to English "it" and "them", and contrasting in the singular with "han" (he) and "she" (her)), and (iii) demonstratives (corresponding to English "this" and "that", although the proximal-distal distinction is expressed by adding a pronominal adverb: "den här" = "this" (lit. "it here") vs. "den där" = "that" (lit. "it there")).
For the demonstrative, we could conceivable use a single tag and view the pronominal use ("den (här)" = "this") and the determiner use ("den (här) bilen" = "this car") as an alternation similar to the one in English (if they use a single tag for this). But it would be really weird to tag the personal pronoun use ("it") as DET, or to tag the definite article use ("the") as PRON.
When it comes to lemmatisation, I agree that "den"/"det" should definitely have the same lemma, and this could be extended to "de"/"dem", although there is the complication that "dem" is only ever used as a personal pronoun (never as an article or demonstrative). A further complication is that the distinction "de/dem" is neutralised in speech and informal writing to "dom".
Swedish-Talbanken currently uses different groupings for the pronominal and the article uses. For pronouns, "den" and "det" are both lemmatised to "den" (3rd person singular, inanimate), while "de" and "dem" are both lemmatised to "de" (3rd person plural). I think this is common in many treebanks, which prefer to keep (at least) the six person-number combinations distinct for pronouns. However, when it comes to the article use, Swedish-Talbanken takes a rather extreme approach and lemmatises all of "den", "det" and "de" not to "den" but to "en" (= "a(n)"). In other words, there is a single lemma for all articles, indefinite and definite, singular and plural. This was not a conscious decision on our part, but rather something that was built into the lemmatiser we used (from Språkbanken in Gothenburg).
I guess the first thing to do is to compare notes between the three languages and see how different they are (regardless of consistency errrors, of which there seem to be a few also in Swedish-Talbanken).
Thanks, Joakim. May I suggest that the cross-language-treebank discussion is continued in https://github.com/UniversalDependencies/docs/issues/992, which I created after contributing here? I added statistics from the other treebanks there, and also stepped back from some of the more radical thoughts I previously expressed here :-)
Sure. I am just trying to catch up. 😊
From: Dan Zeman @.>
Reply to: UniversalDependencies/UD_Danish-DDT @.>
Date: Thursday, 16 November 2023 at 21:43
To: UniversalDependencies/UD_Danish-DDT @.>
Cc: Joakim Nivre @.>, Comment @.***>
Subject: Re: [UniversalDependencies/UD_Danish-DDT] Inconsistent (?) lemma for enkelt
and den/det/de
(Issue #10)
Thanks, Joakim. May I suggest that the cross-language-treebank discussion is continued in UniversalDependencies/docs#992https://github.com/UniversalDependencies/docs/issues/992, which I created after contributing here? I added statistics from the other treebanks there, and also stepped back from some of the more radical thoughts I previously expressed here :-)
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/UniversalDependencies/UD_Danish-DDT/issues/10#issuecomment-1815282974, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABZ7ZVTWMXY2LKP5LGN6JIDYEZ3HVAVCNFSM6AAAAAA7FWS3XCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQMJVGI4DEOJXGQ. You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>
VARNING: Klicka inte på länkar och öppna inte bilagor om du inte känner igen avsändaren och vet att innehållet är säkert. CAUTION: Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
När du har kontakt med oss på Uppsala universitet med e-post så innebär det att vi behandlar dina personuppgifter. För att läsa mer om hur vi gör det kan du läsa här: http://www.uu.se/om-uu/dataskydd-personuppgifter/
E-mailing Uppsala University means that we will process your personal data. For more information on how this is performed, please read here: http://www.uu.se/en/about-uu/data-protection-policy
Looking for ambiguous lemmas, I came across
enkelt
, but I am wondering if the ambiguity is just a typo. There are 14 examples ofenkelt
in the training data, 8 of which haveenkelt
as the lemma, 6 haveenkel
There's also
de
which is lemmatized asde
241 times andden
20 times. That occurs often enough that I wonder if it's an actual feature of the languageAnother couple examples:
And then
det
is sometimes tagged DET, sometimes PRON, and it seems to have two different lemmas based on the tag. Not 100% consistent, though