Book 05: Sentence 064

[ftyers]

# sent_id = Book_05_-_The_Omens.txt:64
# text = Niman ic conana: homaxac concaoa.
# text[norm] = Niman ic conana: omaxac concahua.
# text[orig] = Niman·ic·conana·:·homaxac·concaoa·.
# text[osp] = Y luego tomaua aquella sauandija, y ponia la en la diuision de dos caminos: y alli la dexaua.
# references = A&D/172:6
1   Niman   niman   ADV _       3   _   _   Folio=9r|Paragraph=1|Line=18|Norm=Niman|Analysed=Yes
2   ic  ic  ADV _   _   3   _   _   Folio=9r|Paragraph=1|Line=18|Norm=ic
3   conana  ana VERB    _   Directional=On|Number[obj]=Sing|Number[subj]=Plur,Sing|Person[obj]=3|Person[subj]=3|Subcat=Tran|Tense=Pres|VerbForm=Fin 0   root    _   Folio=9r|Paragraph=1|Line=18|Norm=conana|Analysed=Yes
4   :   :   PUNCT   _       6   punct   _   Folio=9r|Paragraph=1|Line=18|Norm=:|Analysed=Yes
5   homaxac omaxac  NOUN    _   NounClass=Loc   6   _   _   Folio=9r|Paragraph=1|Line=19|Norm=omaxac|Locative=Yes|Gloss=cruce|Analysed=Yes
6   concaoa cahua   VERB    _   Directional=On|Number[obj]=Sing|Number[subj]=Plur,Sing|Person[obj]=3|Person[subj]=3|Subcat=Tran|Tense=Pres|VerbForm=Fin 3   _   _   Folio=9r|Paragraph=1|Line=19|Norm=concahua|Analysed=Yes
7   .   .   PUNCT   _       3   punct   _   Folio=9r|Paragraph=1|Line=19|Norm=.|Analysed=Yes

[ftyers]

Probably:

advmod(conana, Niman)
advmod(conana, ic)
obl(concaoa, homaxac)

But I'm not sure about the ic.

[Lguyogiro]

yeah, i think advmod(conana, ic) makes the most sense.

[ftyers]

What should the relation be between conana and concahua ? parataxis or conj?

[ftyers]

conj

A conjunct is the relation between two elements connected by a coordinating conjunction, such as and, or, etc. We treat conjunctions asymmetrically: The head of the relation is the first conjunct and all the other conjuncts depend on it via the conj relation.

parataxis

The parataxis relation (from Greek for “place side by side”) is a relation between a word (often the main predicate of a sentence) and other elements, such as a sentential parenthetical or a clause after a “:” or a “;”, placed side by side without any explicit coordination, subordination, or argument relation with the head word. Parataxis is a discourse-like equivalent of coordination, and so usually obeys an iconic ordering. Hence it is normal for the first part of a sentence to be the head and the second part to be the parataxis dependent, regardless of the headedness properties of the language. But things do get more complicated, such as cases of parentheticals, which appear medially. Side-by-side sentences (“run-on sentences”) The relation parataxis is used for a pair of what could have been standalone sentences, but which are being treated together as a single sentence. This may happen because sentence segmentation of the sentence was done primarily following the presence of sentence-final punctuation, and these clauses are joined by punctuation such as a colon or comma, or not delimited by punctuation at all. In a spoken corpus, it may happen because what is labeled as a sentence is more commonly an utterance turn. Even if the treebanker is doing the sentence division, it may happen because there seems to be a clear discourse relation linking two clauses. Sometimes there are more than two sentences joined in this way. In this case we make all the later sentences dependents of the first one, to maximize similarity to the analysis used for conjunction.

[ftyers]

I think given the above, parataxis makes the most sense, what do you think @Lguyogiro ?

We could make a decision that, we use parataxis for:

Clauses that do not have any explicit coordination or subordination, regardless of agreement morphs.

[ftyers]

Final

[Lguyogiro]

LGTM