Difference between revisions of "Talk:Documenting Lule Sami"

Revision as of 13:08, 21 November 2008

Annotation of Verbal inflection

There are similar problems for other inflections too, as for the PAST inflection -j. For 3SG the PAST inflection is not followed by any inflection for 3SG: -Ø.

For this case there is an allomorph for -j that is PAST.3SG. (Kristin)

Sry, can you explain this some more. Take the case of 'rabáj' 'opened' as in:

the morpheme -j expressed PAST.3SG. I do not see the need to postulate a zero morpheme.

(Dorothee 14:08, 21 November 2008 (CET))

V > Vpass

(Kristin) we start out with a V stem. It is introduced as vstem, but I would prefere to write it Vstem. There is a derivation that works on the stem only (!) that makes the word passive - and the meaning changes: gulla-t > gullu-t and meaning from hear/listen to belong. (There is a discussion whether this way of making passives is "true" passivisation). We need to say this in one glossing space.

I searched for the gloss PASS in our Lule Sami annotations and found the sentence below

which illustrates what is said above. (Dorothee 14:08, 21 November 2008 (CET))

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!

In English we have a N fx dress. If we want to put on this dress, we dress. There is no difference between dress and dress except when we start to use the word.

The same we see in Lule Sami: many Ns can also be used as ADJs and vice versa, fx:

sáme - which means: 1) Sami N (person), 2) Sami ADJ (... culture, dress, language etc.) - "sáme attr. - samisk; sáme álmmuk det samiske folk, den samiske befolkning [...] sámij álmmuklávla - lávllag- samenes nasjonalsang, samefolkets sang" (Kintel).

sájgge - which means 1) miserly/stingy/tight ADJ, 2) tightwad N (person) - "sájgge jg attr. sájges - gjerrig, påholden, knipen; s. gnier; jf gánek, hánes" (Kintel).

sáluk (the -k is an inflection that shows that this is a N) - which means 1) blessed N (person), 2) blessed ADJ (thing) - "sáluk sálug- attr. sálugis - salig" (Kintel).

vuonnak (N inflection -k) - which means 1) spoiled child N, 2) spoiled ADJ - "vuonnak vuonnag- attr. vuonnak - adj. bortskjemt, forvent; s. et bortskjemt barn; jf. vuolok" (Kintel).

"hálmuk hálmug- attr. hálmugis - søt [sweet], søtaktig [sweetish] [ADJ]; søtsaker [sweets], noe søtt [smth sweet] [N]; jf. hálmes, njálggá" (Kintel).

"diejddis attr. - treffsikker [sharp-shooting, accurate; exact, precise] [ADJ]; som lett finner veien [who easily finds the way] [N]" (Kintel).

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 :=)