A webapp for the syntax-prosody analyst working in Optimality Theory, with automated Gen, Con and Eval. Download build files from syntax-prosody-ot/build
The notion of head-marking used in the tree-marking option does not fully accord with the notion used by accentAsHead. Consider:
{( a u)}
{(LH H*L -)}
This receives 0 violations of accentAsHead, because in Ito & Mester's system "a" is actually the head here.
I don't think we should change the head-marking option, but what would be a good way of indicating that this version is incompatible with the Ito & Mester system? If someone clicked "mark heads" (because they saw accentAsHead in Con) when using the built-in I&M system, they would end up confused.
Something compatible with the I&M system would be "The head of a node is either its rightmost child of the highest category, unless the node's children are all ω's, in which case its head is the rightmost accented ω." I see no reason to implement anothter version of head-marking based on this, though we could.
The notion of head-marking used in the tree-marking option does not fully accord with the notion used by accentAsHead. Consider:
{( a u)} {(LH H*L -)}
This receives 0 violations of accentAsHead, because in Ito & Mester's system "a" is actually the head here.
I don't think we should change the head-marking option, but what would be a good way of indicating that this version is incompatible with the Ito & Mester system? If someone clicked "mark heads" (because they saw accentAsHead in Con) when using the built-in I&M system, they would end up confused.
Something compatible with the I&M system would be "The head of a node is either its rightmost child of the highest category, unless the node's children are all ω's, in which case its head is the rightmost accented ω." I see no reason to implement anothter version of head-marking based on this, though we could.