Difference between revisions of "Talk:Documenting Lule Sami"
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
The N/ADJ could be written '''N-ADJ''' - with capitals because it is a POS. | The N/ADJ could be written '''N-ADJ''' - with capitals because it is a POS. | ||
| − | (Dorothee): right, so some consistency is needed: let's for the time being go with the following: | + | We need derivational tags. I prefer to write it like this: |
| + | |||
| + | '''Nstem->Vtype-of-derivation''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Vstem->Ntype-of-derivation''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Vstem->Vtype-of derivation''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Nstem->ADJ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Nstem->ADV''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''ADJ->ADV''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''' Nstem->Ntype of derivation''' and so on... | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''We should decide all these things NOW''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | (Dorothee): right, so some consistency is needed: let's for the time being go with the following, since | ||
| + | at this point it seems better to keep things a little underspecified: | ||
ADJ->N | ADJ->N | ||
V->N | V->N | ||
N->ADJ | N->ADJ | ||
| − | ADJ->N | + | ADJ->N |
| + | ADJ->ADV | ||
These are all gloss tags. | These are all gloss tags. | ||
Revision as of 11:45, 6 November 2008
Derivational tags
(Kristin): I see you have made a gloss V-Adj.
I would like derivations to be written with an arrow ->: Vstem->ADJ
The N/ADJ could be written N-ADJ - with capitals because it is a POS.
We need derivational tags. I prefer to write it like this:
Nstem->Vtype-of-derivation
Vstem->Ntype-of-derivation
Vstem->Vtype-of derivation
Nstem->ADJ
Nstem->ADV
ADJ->ADV
Nstem->Ntype of derivation and so on...
We should decide all these things NOW
(Dorothee): right, so some consistency is needed: let's for the time being go with the following, since
at this point it seems better to keep things a little underspecified:
ADJ->N V->N N->ADJ ADJ->N ADJ->ADV
These are all gloss tags.
Nouns and Adjectives
There is no clear categorial distinction between adjectives and nouns in Lule Saami. (Reference???)
(Dorothee):This statement is somewhat dubious: if there would be no distinction between adjectives and nouns, how come we have derivational morphology on an adjective when it appears as a noun? (See example) *Strange* (-dorothee)
(Dorothee): Sammallahti, already in his Table of Contents, talks about derivational nouns and derivational adjectives; so I think we should not talk about there being no categorial distinction between nouns and adjectives!!!
(Kristin) It is not as simple as that!
ADJ and N
Anders Kintel writes in his "Veiledning i bruk av ordboka (foreløpig versjon):
"Vi gjør oppmerksom på at de fleste adjektiv i samisk kan også fungere som substantiv og også motsatt, derfor står det ikke alltid en markering bak ordet som tilsier at dette er et adjektiv eller et substantiv".
Lulesamisk-norsk del. Ajluokta /Drag, biehtsemanon 2005. Upublisert (under bearbeidelse).
(I go away for the weekend. Back on this page on monday 10th.)
(Dorothee): Here something different
Concerning subcategorization of nominalizers' you gave a list which looks interesting:
- Betegner selve handlingen: tjállem - the act of writing
- Betegner redskap, midlet til å utføre handlingen med: gåjvun - ??
- Gjenstand for handlingen: gåbtjås ??
- Resultatet (produktet) av handlingen: tjála - text ???
- Vær- og føreforhold, eller stedet hvor handlingen skjer: jådådahka - godt føre ; tjuoladahka - sted hvor en har hugget ved - som heter ? og forkortes ? (Kristin)
Yet, in its present form I cannot quite make sense out of the above listing. It would help if you could indicate the words citation form and the affix, and provide some more context for the Norwegian translations. Thanks
Dorothee
Please add the full reference for Spiik
(Kristin): NOUNS
DEM are nouns, QUANT are also nouns, NUMB are nouns too,
They can all be a free noun.
(Dorothee): now I am lost. Could you please explain :=)