Closed fmatter closed 2 years ago
Actual morphemes and (morpheme) glosses are not validated, but do you want to enforce Leipzig Glossing Rule #2 in CLDF datasets? Using pyigt
would be an option for that.
Ah, yes, that's true. We fail to cover the morpheme level. While there may be ways to do that in CLDF (see https://github.com/cldf/cldf/blob/master/faq.md#how-can-i-specify-tertiary-separators-for-csv-files), I think you are right that pyigt
might be the better place - also to wire in stuff like the recommended gloss abbreviations from LGR.
superseded by #148
The
valid_igt
validator talks about morphemes and glosses, but what is meant are words (i.e. analyzed object language words) and word glosses (or whatever you want to call them). What is validated is Leipzig Glossing Rule # 1, not # 2.