`NONSNACS` cleanup & vālā

[lgessler]

The validator expects the supersense columns to be blank in this case.

[nschneid]

OK, is there a consensus then?

Since this thread is long I request that somebody document the justification in the guidelines. Vālā is mentioned on pp. 39–42:

While vālā is not a standard postposition, it mediates between nouns and noun-phrases, assigning one as a CHARACTERISTIC of the other.

The genitive kā and adjectival vālā indicate a Possession when its object is the item being possessed and the governor is a possessor (i.e. the reverse of the genitive Possessor).

As a noun modifier, binā is often coordinated with the postpositions kā or vālā.

I take it the discussion in the thread may have identified new examples that should be added—but also, it would be helpful to have a Discussion box summarizing the morphosyntactic properties (and noting the aspectual use that is not annotated).

[nitinvwaran]

OK, so for those advocating treating (2b) and (3b) as adpositions, would the same analysis hold above?

Yes. The inflected vaale form in 'chai vāl-e ko' and 'karne vāl-e ko' appear in (many) more Google search results than the non inflected forms 'chai vālā ko' and 'karne vālā ko'.

Would it be the sole adposition that can be suffixed with -e (M.SG.OBL)?

Going to say no, given the genitive postposition ka does indeed inflect for gender and number based on the governor (i'd always thought of them as separate, but we learn something new everyday...).

'jaisa' and 'sa' could be up for debate...but maybe that's for another thread ('sa' may actually be very similar to vālā - it also makes adjectives out of nouns...)

Since this thread is long I request that somebody document the justification in the guidelines. Vālā is mentioned on pp. 39–42:

While vālā is not a standard postposition, it mediates between nouns and noun-phrases, assigning one as a CHARACTERISTIC of the other.

Given that restrictive relatives aren't part of the SNACS criteria, i guess vālā is now plain Characteristic for all ADP-tagged vālā in the corpus. If there's consensus, I'll update the corpus accordingly.

[lgessler]

FWIW Daniel Chen ran into the same basic problem in Latin/Finnish (adjective-like phrase serving as an NP) and decided to treat them as annotation targets:

Adjectives modifying these token types were not included, as they cannot be considered a governor or object. The exception is when an adpositionally marked adjective has no noun object present at all and an implicit noun object along the lines of “thing”, “person”, or “place” can be construed, e.g. the Latin dative plural word ignotis, meaning “to the unknown (places)”.

[nitinvwaran]

Decisions incorporated in #34 and merged with the master. Pending adjudication of SNACS v2.6 Causer/Force labels, and treatment of sab-se as weak MWE. For follow up, see #31

[lgessler]

Came across this paper: https://www.academia.edu/5145531/Hindi_wala?email_work_card=thumbnail

Author thinks there are at least two homonyms here:

We thus may appear to have a distinction between two uses of –wala: a lexical –wala (henceforth l-wala) is a word-level suffix that does not trigger OBL versus a syntactic –wala (henceforth s-wala) isa phrasal level clitic that triggers OBL and shows the adjectival agreement pattern typical of phrasal-level clitics in the language. I will return to this matter at the end of the discussion