Difference between revisions of "Talk:Annotating Runyankore-Rukiga"

Latest revision as of 09:23, 6 April 2010

Possessive Particles in Runyankore-Rukiga

Hello Justus, I would suggest that you maintain the apostrophe in the first line, since this shows the surface structure on the phrase and the pronunciation/orthography but when it comes to showing the morphological working please remove the apostrophe and show the morphology of each word independently. Consider the following sentence:

You will also notice that in the verb 'heemereireho', the first morpheme is ha- for class 16, but because of sound assimilation, a- changes to e-, (which is the first letter of the root -emerer-). So I think it is important to show all these levels.

--Justus Turamyomwe 11:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC) In Runyankore-Rukiga, we use apostophe to combine two phrases under the following cases. 1.When the possessive particle 'of'combines with a noun (apart from proper nouns), there is always a contraction and therefore an apostrophe is used to combine this particle and the proceeding noun. 2.In case of conjunctions, such as 'and' to combine two nouns where the proceeding noun is not a proper noun

3.When combining two phrases.

Mbwenu nkayenzire kureeba abakazi n’abaishiki baitu barikuvuga egaari na pikipiki, ningira ngu obwakare bakaba ni baremwa kutwaza batyo ahabw’okujwara ebiteeteeyi na bodingi, baitu hati obu baingi omuri bo barikujwara empare z’endabada nabo ni babaasa kwevuga aha gaari nari ahari pikipiki, bakareka kufakubi barikuronda abashaija kuba nibo babavuga.

“Therefore,i would like to see our women and girls riding bicycles and motorcycles, I think that in the past they couldnot ride because of wearing dresses and gomesi but since most of them now can wear trousers, they can ride themselves on bicycles and motorcycles and stop suffering looking for men to ride them”

Mbwenu

mbwenu

soCONJ

CONJ

nkayenzire
n	ka	yenzire
1SG	would	want
V

kureeba
ku	reeba
INF	see
V

abakazi
a	ba	kazi
IV	2	women
N

n’abaishiki
na	a	ba	ishiki
and	IV	2	girl
N

baitu
ba	itu
3PL	our
PN

barikuvuga
ba	ri	ku	vuga
3PL	COP	INF	ride
V

egaari
e	gaari
IV	bicycle
N

na

and

CONJ

pikipiki

motocycle

N

ningira
ni	n	gira
PRES	1SG	think
V

ngu

that

CONJ

mwena
mu	ena
you2PL	all
CONJ

obwakare
obwa	kare
time	ago
ADVm

bakaba
ba	ka	ba
they3PL	PAST	baAUX
V

ni

PRES

baremwa
ba	remwa
they3PL	failedPASS
V

kutwaza
ku	twaza
INF	behave
V

batyo
ba	tyo
like	that
ADVm

ahabw’okujwara
ahabwa	ku	jwara
because	INF	dress
V

ebiteeteeyi
e	bi	teeteeyi
IV	8	dress
N

na

and

CONJ

bodingi

dress

N

baitu

but

CONJS

hati

now

ADVm

obu

when

CONJC

baingi
ba	ingi
2	many
ADVm

omuri

in

PREP

bo

them

PN

barikujwara
ba	ri	ku	jwara
they3PL	COP	INF	dress
V

empare
e	n	pare
IV	10	trousers
N

z’endabada
za	e	dabada
ofPOSS	IV	typeoftrouser
N

nabo
na	bo
also	theyPOSS
PN

ni

PRES

babaasa
ba	baasa
2	manage
V

kwevuga
ku	e	vuga
INF	REFL	ride

aha

on

PREP

gaari

bicycle

N

nari

or

CONJC

ahari

at

PREP

pikipiki

motocycle

N

bakareka
ba	ka	reka
3PL	NEG	stop
V

kufa
ku	fa
INF	die
V

kubi
ku	bi
INF	bad
ADVm

ku

CONJS

barikuronda
ba	ri	ku	ronda
they3PL	COP	INF	find
V

abashaija
a	ba	shaija
IV	2	man
N

kuba
ku	ba
INF	be
Vcon

nibo

they

PN

babavuga
ba	ba	vuga
2	OBJ	ride
V

However, I have always faced challenges when annotating such phrases in TC. Should the apostrophe be left with the possessive particle 'of' as seen in example http://www.typecraft.org/TCEditor/1050/11643/or be separated from the noun so that the boundary is maintained instead of combining the two as seen in http://www.typecraft.org/TCEditor/662/?

To you all

I have observed that there exists inconsistency on how we number our Noun classes in the TC database. I attribute this inconsistency to 2 major grammar books that try to classify Runyankore-Rukiga Noun Classes. i.e. Taylor C. (Nkore-Kiga) and Moris and Kirwan (A Runyankore-Grammar). Can we therefore agree on one form or harmonise the two forms suggested by the above writers so that our database is clean.

--Justus Turamyomwe 14:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Justus, good idea --Dorothee Beermann 15:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

   a  tshimuma        tshi-d-ibu-a              mu nzubu         (kudi muana)  
      fruit           7.SU-eat-pass-I           in house         (by boy)
      ‘the fruit is eaten at home (by the boy)’
  
   b  mu nzubu        mu-d-ibua                 tshimuma         (kudi muana)
      in house        18.SU-eat-pass-I          fruit            (by boy)
     ‘*at home(subj.) is eaten the fruit (by the boy)’

The examples above come from Tshiluba (ISO 639-2 lua) and are taken from a paper by Gloria Cocchi about LOCATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN BANTU. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica - Università di Firenze 10 (2000): 43-54

Chocci uses the example to show, as many linguists before her (see her article for references), that locative nouns in Bantu behave like argument NPs.

How would the above sentence come out in Runyankore-Rukiga? --Dorothee 22:05, 16 September 2009 (CEST)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+== Possessive Particles in Runyankore-Rukiga ==
---[[User:Justus Turamyomwe|Justus Turamyomwe]] 11:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
+Hello Justus,
-In Runyankore-Rukiga, we use apostophe to combine two phrases under the following cases.
+I would suggest that you maintain the apostrophe in the first line, since this shows the surface structure on the phrase and the pronunciation/orthography but when it comes to showing the morphological working please remove the apostrophe and show the morphology of each word independently. Consider the following sentence:
-.The possessive particle 'of'. whenever it combines with a noun (apart from proper nouns), there is always a contraction and therefore an apostrophe is used to combine this particle and the proceeding noun.
-. In case of conjunctions,  such as 'and' to combine two nouns where the proceeding noun is not a proper noun
-. when combining two  phrases. See http://www.typecraft.org/TCEditor/662/, http://www.typecraft.org/TCEditor/1050/11643/, http://www.typecraft.org/TCEditor/35/, for details.
-However, I have always faced challenges when annotating such phrases in TC. Should the apostrophe be left with the possessive particle 'of' as seen in example http://www.typecraft.org/TCEditor/1050/11643/or be separated from the noun  so that the boundary is maintained instead of combining the two  as seen in http://www.typecraft.org/TCEditor/662/?
+<Phrase>9757</Phrase>
-== Possessive Particles in Runyankore-Rukiga ==
+You will also notice that in the verb 'heemereireho', the first morpheme is ha- for class 16, but because of sound assimilation, a- changes to e-, (which is the first letter of the root -emerer-). So I think it is important to show all these levels.
---[[User:Justus Turamyomwe|Justus Turamyomwe]] 11:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)In Runyankore-Rukiga, we use apostophe to combine two phrases under the following cases.
+--[[User:Justus Turamyomwe|Justus Turamyomwe]] 11:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC) In Runyankore-Rukiga, we use apostophe to combine two phrases under the following cases.
 .When the possessive particle 'of'combines with a noun (apart from proper nouns), there is always a contraction and therefore an apostrophe is used to combine this particle and the proceeding noun.
 .In case of conjunctions,  such as 'and' to combine two nouns where the proceeding noun is not a proper noun
-.When combining two  phrases. See http://www.typecraft.org/TCEditor/662/, http://www.typecraft.org/TCEditor/1050/11643/, http://www.typecraft.org/TCEditor/35/, for details.
+<Phrase>341</Phrase>
+.When combining two  phrases.
+<Phrase>9497</Phrase>
 However, I have always faced challenges when annotating such phrases in TC. Should the apostrophe be left with the possessive particle 'of' as seen in example http://www.typecraft.org/TCEditor/1050/11643/or be separated from the noun  so that the boundary is maintained instead of combining the two  as seen in http://www.typecraft.org/TCEditor/662/?