Open rhdunn opened 9 months ago
EWT treats enrolled and appalled the same way
https://github.com/UniversalDependencies/UD_English-EWT/issues/480
Regarding the modals, I'm not so sure about that. Both EWT and GUM treat it as would
Re: lemmas of modal auxes, see UniversalDependencies/UD_English-EWT#450
Looks like the linked EWT issue is preserving the form of the lemma without converting it to the base form like with other verbs. I'll update my validator to follow this.
The question is whether we should annotate modal auxiliaries as having tense at all. If not, then "will" and "would" are morphologically unrelated words and it makes sense that their lemmas are different.
If modals are to currently preserve the form, then "wo" in "won't" needs to be "would" as well as the "'d" in "he'd" etc.:
ERROR: Sentence n01123024 token 3 -- MD lemma 'will' does not match lemma-exception applied to form 'wo', expected 'would'
ERROR: Sentence n01123024 token 8 -- MD lemma 'will' does not match lemma-exception applied to form 'wo', expected 'would'
ERROR: Sentence n01150051 token 3 -- MD lemma 'will' does not match lemma-exception applied to form 'wo', expected 'would'
Isn't won't a short form of will not?
Yes: won't = will not, wouldn't = would not
Ah yes, you are right!
Did the English spellings and the incorrect verbs. Anything else for this issue?
Modals
UK vs US
In the UK and Commonwealth, the lemma ends in "l", but in the US it ends in "ll":
Note: My validator cannot differentiate these variations yet to be able to report UK vs US English lemmas. As such, there may be other instances/examples I haven't spotted in the validation output.