search

globalwordnet / schemas

WordNet-LMF formats
https://globalwordnet.github.io/schemas/
20 stars 11 forks source link

New Relations from plWordNet #36

Closed jmccrae closed 3 years ago

jmccrae commented 4 years ago

The following new synset relations have been suggested by Ewa

I think we could add these quite easily, right?

fcbond commented 4 years ago

Yes, they look good to me. I have a strong preference for ir_synonym over interregister_synonym, as it matches eq_synonym, and I won't have to wonder if there is hyphen between inter and register everytime I type it.

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 5:15 PM John McCrae notifications@github.com wrote:

The following new synset relations have been suggested by Ewa

  • simple_aspect: czytać "read/be reading (habitual/progressive)" -> przeczytać "have read" [pl]\
  • secondary_aspect: kopać "dig/be digging" -> nakopać "have dug out a lot of sth" [pl]
  • feminine_form: pig -> sow
  • masculine_form: & pig -> boar
  • young_form: pig -> piglet
  • diminutive: pig -> piggy
  • augmentative: дом "house" -> домище "great house" [ru]
  • anto_gradable: hot <-> cold, warm <-> cool
  • anto_simple: complete <-> incomplete
  • anto_converse: wife <-> husband, employer <-> employee
  • ir_synonym or interregister_synonym: money <-> dough, loot informal, 食べる taberu "eat"<-> 召し上がる meshiagaru "honored person eats" honorific [ja]

I think we could add these quite easily, right?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/globalwordnet/schemas/issues/36, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIPZRVRYMLHKOPBPHCMVIDSLACMLANCNFSM4STBTQNQ .

-- Francis Bond http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/fcbond/ Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies Nanyang Technological University

goodmami commented 3 years ago

Discussion of these is scattered over a few issues, but piecing together the various conversations, it sounds like maybe we'll have the following changes to #40.

I also suggested that the diminutive and augmentative are syntactic/semantic depending on whether they annotate senses or synsets. If people agree, then that means we don't need separate relations for the two uses. Can this also apply for masculine and feminine regarding natural genders versus grammatical gender?

In general I have some reservations about the feminine/masculine gender relations, and not just from an inclusivity standpoint for non-binary genders. For example, would we need a neuter or ungendered relation, e.g., for swine versus sow or boar? We could add this later as a need arises, but would that mean the relations, and their reverse relations, apply to both (e.g., (sow has_feminine boar) AND (sow has_feminine swine))?

jmccrae commented 3 years ago

Okay, the changes sound good. Will you implement or shall I?

Inclusivity is certainly important, for the case you mentioned I think it makes more sense to use has_feminine/has_masculine as the link from a gendered word to its ungendered form. Of course, in the future we may need to model explicitly ungendered words such as in German, Lehrer (teacher, male), Lehrerin (teacher, female), LehrerIn or Lehrer*in (teacher, inclusive), but I think we can leave this for the current release.

goodmami commented 3 years ago

Ok good. Would you mind making the changes? I don't have write access to the repo.

jmccrae commented 3 years ago

Sure, I notice that the gwadoc site still lists the relation as augmentative_of not augmentative, can you fix this?

https://globalwordnet.github.io/gwadoc/#diminutive_of

goodmami commented 3 years ago

Ok I made a PR for renaming the relations in gwadoc. I'm waiting on Francis to review, but he's quite busy this week so I might just merge it myself.

jmccrae commented 3 years ago

Closed by #38