Closed rhdunn closed 12 months ago
Not sure about this one... I mean, X is a variable here so it's more math than letters. But it would be simpler to just go by orthographic criteria...
On the other hand, and this is the reason for the error, Combi is currently only used for ordinal numbers. If we change this, it would be the only Card + Combi in the entire corpus, not sure we want to allow it just for one case? Thoughts @nschneid ?
It's a weird, nonstandard case - not a standard combined form like ordinals. I'd probably call it Card
because X is a placeholder for a digit.
Card is fine, but the question is whether it's Combi. That would be the only Combi Card in the corpus then, and I'm not sure this really justifies that (it really behaves as if X is a number, it doesn't spell a number using letters)
Yeah I'd prefer the simpler value (just Card). Let's not create a whole new class of numbers just for this one weird example.
So would it make sense for the lemma to be X000
-- i.e. remove the ,
from the form -- like is done with the other NumType=Card|NumForm=Digit
tokens? In that case, it would be a special exceptional variant of Digit as X
is being used as a placeholder for any digit value.
Sorry I always get NumForm and NumType confused. I thought the proposal was NumType=Card,Combi
, a new hybrid value of one feature. I think NumForm tends to be a pretty superficial feature defined in terms of character sets, not what the characters represent, so NumType=Card|NumForm=Combi
would be fine.
Hm, fine - done
NumForm=Word
is used for words like "five". The following looks to be aNumForm=Combi
due to the combined letters and numbers: