Inflectional paradigms - Revision history

imported>Martins at 16:49, 26 May 2014

2014-05-26T16:49:12Z

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 ;IRREGULAR (M1)
 : If the word is inflectional but does not follow any existing paradigm, as in irregular forms (such as "man", "mouse", "foot" and "child"). In this case, the corresponding inflectional rules should be provided as [[inflectional rules]].
 == How to create inflectional paradigms ==

imported>Martins at 10:11, 30 January 2014

2014-01-30T10:11:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:11, 30 January 2014
Line 19:		Line 19:

	Inflectional paradigms are not used in the following cases:		Inflectional paradigms are not used in the following cases:
	*When the word is ~~'''NOT INFLECTIONAL'''~~ (such as adverbs, in English); OR		*When the word is INVARIANT (such as adverbs and adjectives, in English); OR
			*When the word is NOT INFLECTIONAL, i.e., when it is CONCATENATIVE, in the sense that the word forms are formed out of the same base form simply by concatenating particles (such as auxiliaries, adpositions and even affixes) that do not affect the base form; OR
	*When the inflections are '''NOT REGULAR''', i.e., when they are too specific (such as ''mouse''>''mice'', in English); OR		*When the inflections are '''NOT REGULAR''', i.e., when they are too specific (such as ''mouse''>''mice'', in English); OR
	*When the inflections '''CANNOT BE EXPRESSED BY AFFIXATION''', i.e., when inflections are represented by periphrases (such as future, in English: ''go'' > ''will go'')		*When the inflections '''CANNOT BE EXPRESSED BY AFFIXATION''', i.e., when inflections are represented by periphrases (such as future, in English: ''go'' > ''will go'').

	Consider, for instance, the cases below:		Consider, for instance, the cases below:
	*The English adverb "now"		*The English adverb "now"
	*:The adverb "now" is ~~not inflectional~~ (i.e., it does not change its form according to number, gender, tense, aspect, etc.) and, therefore, must be associated to the paradigm M0 (INVARIANT)		*:The adverb "now" is invariant (i.e., it does not change its form according to number, gender, tense, aspect, etc.) and, therefore, must be associated to the paradigm M0 (INVARIANT). No paradigm must be created in this case.
			*The English possessive case marker 's or ' ("John">"John's", or "Hans">"Hans'")
			*:The possessive case marker in English is simply concatenative, and not a real inflection, in the sense that it does not affect the base form, even if it may take different forms depending on the ending of the base form ("'s" or "'"). The possessive case must not be included within nominal paradigms in English.
	*The English noun "mouse"		*The English noun "mouse"
	*:The noun "mouse" is inflectional (i.e., it changes its form in singular and plural), which can be expressed by two suffixation rules:		*:The noun "mouse" is inflectional (i.e., it changes its form in singular and plural), which can be expressed by two suffixation rules:
	*::SNG:=0>""; (do not add anything to the word in case of singular)		*::SNG:=0>""; (do not add anything to the word in case of singular)
	*::PLR:="mice"; (replace everything by "mice" in case of plural)		*::PLR:="mice"; (replace everything by "mice" in case of plural)
	*:These rules, however, are very specific ~~and~~, ~~therefore~~, should not be defined as a paradigm in the grammar, but as inflectional rules inside the dictionary:<br />		*:These rules, however, are very specific, because they apply to a very limited set of words. Therefore, this behavior should not be defined as a paradigm in the grammar, but as inflectional rules inside the dictionary:<br />
	*:In the grammar:<br />		*:In the grammar:<br />
	:Paradigm M1 (IRREGULAR), i.e., the inflectional rules are defined inside the dictionary because they are too specific		:Paradigm M1 (IRREGULAR), i.e., the inflectional rules are defined inside the dictionary because they are too specific
Line 41:		Line 45:
	:GER:=1>"ing"; (remove the last character and add "ing" in case of gerund)		:GER:=1>"ing"; (remove the last character and add "ing" in case of gerund)
	*:...		*:...
	*:Note, however, that some inflections of the verb cannot be generated by affixation, such as the future (''love''>''will love''), the present progressive (''love''>''is loving''), the present perfect (''love''>''has loved''), etc. In these cases, the inflection is not simply a matter of appending strings to the end of the word. Note, for instance, that the negation comes in-between: "will not love", "is not loving", "has not loved"; and that the order may be changed in interrogatives: "will he/Peter/the boy with the telescope love?". So, we cannot define these inflections as mere affixes, but as a whole new syntactic structures. These inflections, thus, are not included inside paradigms, and must be defined in a different way. Paradigms must only include SIMPLE FORMS (the paradigm for English verbs contain only simple tenses, for instance).		*:Note, however, that some inflections of the verb cannot be generated by affixation, such as the future (''love''>''will love''), the present progressive (''love''>''is loving''), the present perfect (''love''>''has loved''), etc. In these cases, the inflection is not simply a matter of appending strings to the end of the word. Note, for instance, that the negation comes in-between: "will not love", "is not loving", "has not loved"; and that the order may be changed in interrogatives: "will he/Peter/the boy with the telescope love?". So, we cannot define these inflections as mere affixes, but as a whole new syntactic structures. These inflections, thus, are not included inside paradigms, and must be defined in a different way. Paradigms must only include SIMPLE FORMS (the paradigm for English verbs contain only simple tenses, for instance) and must contain ONLY NON-REDUNDANT forms.

	== Predefined Paradigms ==		== Predefined Paradigms ==

imported>Martins at 16:39, 13 August 2013

2013-08-13T16:39:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:39, 13 August 2013
Line 67:		Line 67:
	\|PLR:=0>"s"		\|PLR:=0>"s"
	\|SNG:=0>"";PLR:=0>"s";		\|SNG:=0>"";PLR:=0>"s";
	\|Add "s" to the end of the form		\|Add "s" to the end of the form in case of plural
	\|table>tables, boy>boys, etc		\|table>tables, boy>boys, etc
	\|-		\|-
	\|PLR:="y">"ies"		\|PLR:="y">"ies"
	\|SNG:=0>"";PLR:="y">"ies";		\|SNG:=0>"";PLR:="y">"ies";
	\|Replace "y" by "ies" at the end of the form		\|Replace "y" by "ies" at the end of the form in case of plural
	\|baby>babies, city>cities, etc		\|baby>babies, city>cities, etc
	\|-		\|-
	\|PLR:="f">"ves"		\|PLR:="f">"ves"
	\|SNG:=0>"";PLR:="f">"ves";		\|SNG:=0>"";PLR:="f">"ves";
	\|Replace "f" by "ves" at the end of the form		\|Replace "f" by "ves" at the end of the form in case of plural
	\|wolf>wolves, half>halves, etc		\|wolf>wolves, half>halves, etc
	\|-		\|-

imported>Martins at 16:38, 13 August 2013

2013-08-13T16:38:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:38, 13 August 2013
Line 66:		Line 66:
	\|-		\|-
	\|PLR:=0>"s"		\|PLR:=0>"s"
	\|PLR:=0>"s";		\|SNG:=0>"";PLR:=0>"s";
	\|Add "s" to the end of the form		\|Add "s" to the end of the form
	\|table>tables, boy>boys, etc		\|table>tables, boy>boys, etc
	\|-		\|-
	\|PLR:="y">"ies"		\|PLR:="y">"ies"
	\|PLR:="y">"ies";		\|SNG:=0>"";PLR:="y">"ies";
	\|Replace "y" by "ies" at the end of the form		\|Replace "y" by "ies" at the end of the form
	\|baby>babies, city>cities, etc		\|baby>babies, city>cities, etc
	\|-		\|-
	\|PLR:="f">"ves"		\|PLR:="f">"ves"
	\|PLR:="f">"ves";		\|SNG:=0>"";PLR:="f">"ves";
	\|Replace "f" by "ves" at the end of the form		\|Replace "f" by "ves" at the end of the form
	\|wolf>wolves, half>halves, etc		\|wolf>wolves, half>halves, etc
	\|-		\|-
	\|PAS:=0>"ed"		\|PAS:=0>"ed"
	\|PAS:=0>"ed";GER:=0>"ing";PTP:=0>"ed";3PS&PRS&IND:=0>"s";		\|INF:=0>"";PAS:=0>"ed";GER:=0>"ing";PTP:=0>"ed";3PS&PRS&IND:=0>"s";
	\|Add "ed" in the simple past, "ing" in the gerund, ...		\|Add "ed" in the simple past, "ing" in the gerund, ...
	\|work>worked, ask>asked, etc		\|work>worked, ask>asked, etc
	\|-		\|-
	\|PAS:=0>"d"		\|PAS:=0>"d"
	\|PAS:=0>"d";GER:=e>"ing";PTP:=0>"d";3PS&PRS&IND:=0>"s";		\|INF:=0>"";PAS:=0>"d";GER:=e>"ing";PTP:=0>"d";3PS&PRS&IND:=0>"s";
	\|Add "d" in the simple past, replace the final "e" by "ing" in the gerund, ...		\|Add "d" in the simple past, replace the final "e" by "ing" in the gerund, ...
	\|use>used, arrange>arranged, etc		\|use>used, arrange>arranged, etc
	\|}		\|}

imported>Martins at 13:13, 13 August 2013

2013-08-13T13:13:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:13, 13 August 2013
Line 55:		Line 55:
	== Syntax ==		== Syntax ==

	Inflectional paradigms ~~and inflectional rules~~ are expressed by [[A-rule]]s, a special formalism for introducing prefixes, infixes and suffixes to the base form.		Inflectional paradigms are expressed by [[A-rule]]s, a special formalism for introducing prefixes, infixes and suffixes to the base form.


	== Examples ==		== Examples ==

imported>Martins at 13:13, 13 August 2013

2013-08-13T13:13:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:13, 13 August 2013
Line 43:		Line 43:
	*:Note, however, that some inflections of the verb cannot be generated by affixation, such as the future (''love''>''will love''), the present progressive (''love''>''is loving''), the present perfect (''love''>''has loved''), etc. In these cases, the inflection is not simply a matter of appending strings to the end of the word. Note, for instance, that the negation comes in-between: "will not love", "is not loving", "has not loved"; and that the order may be changed in interrogatives: "will he/Peter/the boy with the telescope love?". So, we cannot define these inflections as mere affixes, but as a whole new syntactic structures. These inflections, thus, are not included inside paradigms, and must be defined in a different way. Paradigms must only include SIMPLE FORMS (the paradigm for English verbs contain only simple tenses, for instance).		*:Note, however, that some inflections of the verb cannot be generated by affixation, such as the future (''love''>''will love''), the present progressive (''love''>''is loving''), the present perfect (''love''>''has loved''), etc. In these cases, the inflection is not simply a matter of appending strings to the end of the word. Note, for instance, that the negation comes in-between: "will not love", "is not loving", "has not loved"; and that the order may be changed in interrogatives: "will he/Peter/the boy with the telescope love?". So, we cannot define these inflections as mere affixes, but as a whole new syntactic structures. These inflections, thus, are not included inside paradigms, and must be defined in a different way. Paradigms must only include SIMPLE FORMS (the paradigm for English verbs contain only simple tenses, for instance).

	== ~~What is to be included inside an inflectional paradigm~~ ==		== Predefined Paradigms ==

	Inflectional paradigms must include '''only affixes''' (prefixes, infixes or suffixes) to the base form. Compound forms, such as those involving auxiliary words and other periphrastic constructions, must be defined as [[subcategorization frames]] and not as inflectional paradigms.

	Accordingly, the simple past and the simple present must be included into the inflectional paradigms for English verbs, but the compound tenses (past perfect, past progressive, future, etc) must be defined inside a subcategorization frame, because they involve the insertion of new words that play different syntactic roles and may not be contiguous to the base form (the negation, for instance, comes between the auxiliary verb and the main verb, as in ''I will not work'').

	~~== Reference ==~~

	~~The paradigms are referred as follows:~~
	*by its common name (such as "first declension", "first group"), in case of well-established reference;
	*by the rule itself, in case of single-rule paradigms;
	*by the most distinctive rule, if any; or
	*by a "leading form", i.e., a typical example (a prototype) representative of the whole category, otherwise.

	There are two predefined paradigms in the UNL<sup>arium</sup>:		There are two predefined paradigms in the UNL<sup>arium</sup>:
	;INVARIANT		;INVARIANT (M0)
	: If the word is not inflectional (case of adverbs in English, for instance) or does not accept any inflectional variant (case of "clothes", used only in plural, or "species", that has the same form in singular and plural).		: If the word is not inflectional (case of adverbs in English, for instance) or does not accept any inflectional variant (case of "clothes", used only in plural, or "species", that has the same form in singular and plural).
	;IRREGULAR		;IRREGULAR (M1)
	: If the word is inflectional but does not follow any existing paradigm, as in irregular forms (such as "man", "mouse", "foot" and "child"). In this case, the corresponding inflectional rules should be provided as [[inflectional rules]].		: If the word is inflectional but does not follow any existing paradigm, as in irregular forms (such as "man", "mouse", "foot" and "child"). In this case, the corresponding inflectional rules should be provided as [[inflectional rules]].

			== How to create inflectional paradigms ==
			[[How to create inflectional paradigms]]

	== Syntax ==		== Syntax ==
Line 67:		Line 57:
	Inflectional paradigms and inflectional rules are expressed by [[A-rule]]s, a special formalism for introducing prefixes, infixes and suffixes to the base form.		Inflectional paradigms and inflectional rules are expressed by [[A-rule]]s, a special formalism for introducing prefixes, infixes and suffixes to the base form.

	~~== How to create inflectional paradigms ==~~
	~~[[How to create inflectional paradigms]]~~

	== Examples ==		== Examples ==

imported>Martins at 13:08, 13 August 2013

2013-08-13T13:08:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:08, 13 August 2013
Line 41:		Line 41:
	:GER:=1>"ing"; (remove the last character and add "ing" in case of gerund)		:GER:=1>"ing"; (remove the last character and add "ing" in case of gerund)
	*:...		*:...
	*:Note, however, that some inflections of the verb cannot be generated by affixation, such as the future (''love''>''will love''), the present progressive (''love''>''is loving''), the present perfect (''love''>''has loved''), etc. In these cases, the inflection is not simply a matter of appending strings to the end of the word. Note, for instance, that the negation comes in-between: "will not love", "is not loving", "has not loved"; and that the order may be changed in interrogatives: "will he/Peter/the boy with the telescope love?"). So, we cannot define these inflections as mere affixes, but as a whole new syntactic structures. These inflections, thus, are not included inside paradigms (the paradigm for English verbs contain only simple tenses)~~, and must be defined in a different way~~.		*:Note, however, that some inflections of the verb cannot be generated by affixation, such as the future (''love''>''will love''), the present progressive (''love''>''is loving''), the present perfect (''love''>''has loved''), etc. In these cases, the inflection is not simply a matter of appending strings to the end of the word. Note, for instance, that the negation comes in-between: "will not love", "is not loving", "has not loved"; and that the order may be changed in interrogatives: "will he/Peter/the boy with the telescope love?". So, we cannot define these inflections as mere affixes, but as a whole new syntactic structures. These inflections, thus, are not included inside paradigms, and must be defined in a different way. Paradigms must only include SIMPLE FORMS (the paradigm for English verbs contain only simple tenses, for instance).

	== What is to be included inside an inflectional paradigm ==		== What is to be included inside an inflectional paradigm ==

imported>Martins at 13:07, 13 August 2013

2013-08-13T13:07:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:07, 13 August 2013
Line 41:		Line 41:
	:GER:=1>"ing"; (remove the last character and add "ing" in case of gerund)		:GER:=1>"ing"; (remove the last character and add "ing" in case of gerund)
	*:...		*:...
	*:Note, however, that some inflections of the verb cannot be generated by affixation, such as the future (''love''>''will love''), the present progressive (''love''>''is loving''), the present perfect (''love''>''has loved''), etc. In these cases, the inflection is not simply a matter of appending strings to the end of the word ~~(note~~, for instance, that the negation comes in-between: "will not love", "is not loving", "has not loved", and that the order may be changed: "will he/Peter/the boy with the telescope love?"). So, we cannot define these inflections as mere affixes, but as a whole new syntactic structures. These inflections, thus, are not included inside paradigms (the paradigm for English verbs contain only simple tenses), and must be defined in a different way.		*:Note, however, that some inflections of the verb cannot be generated by affixation, such as the future (''love''>''will love''), the present progressive (''love''>''is loving''), the present perfect (''love''>''has loved''), etc. In these cases, the inflection is not simply a matter of appending strings to the end of the word. Note, for instance, that the negation comes in-between: "will not love", "is not loving", "has not loved"; and that the order may be changed in interrogatives: "will he/Peter/the boy with the telescope love?"). So, we cannot define these inflections as mere affixes, but as a whole new syntactic structures. These inflections, thus, are not included inside paradigms (the paradigm for English verbs contain only simple tenses), and must be defined in a different way.

	== What is to be included inside an inflectional paradigm ==		== What is to be included inside an inflectional paradigm ==

imported>Martins at 13:05, 13 August 2013

2013-08-13T13:05:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:05, 13 August 2013
Line 20:		Line 20:
	Inflectional paradigms are not used in the following cases:		Inflectional paradigms are not used in the following cases:
	*When the word is '''NOT INFLECTIONAL''' (such as adverbs, in English); OR		*When the word is '''NOT INFLECTIONAL''' (such as adverbs, in English); OR
	*When the inflections are '''NOT REGULAR''', i.e., too specific (such as ''mouse''>''mice'', in English); OR		*When the inflections are '''NOT REGULAR''', i.e., when they are too specific (such as ''mouse''>''mice'', in English); OR
	*When the inflections '''CANNOT BE EXPRESSED BY AFFIXATION''', i.e., are ~~periphrastic~~ (such as future, in English: go > will go)		*When the inflections '''CANNOT BE EXPRESSED BY AFFIXATION''', i.e., when inflections are represented by periphrases (such as future, in English: ''go'' > ''will go'')
	Consider, for instance, the cases below:		Consider, for instance, the cases below:
	*The English adverb "now"		*The English adverb "now"

imported>Martins at 13:05, 13 August 2013

2013-08-13T13:05:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:05, 13 August 2013
Line 19:		Line 19:

	Inflectional paradigms are not used in the following cases:		Inflectional paradigms are not used in the following cases:
	*When the word is NOT INFLECTIONAL (such as adverbs, in English); OR		*When the word is '''NOT INFLECTIONAL''' (such as adverbs, in English); OR
	*When the inflections are NOT REGULAR, i.e., too specific (such as ''mouse''>''mice'', in English); OR		*When the inflections are '''NOT REGULAR''', i.e., too specific (such as ''mouse''>''mice'', in English); OR
	*When the inflections CANNOT BE EXPRESSED BY AFFIXATION, i.e., are periphrastic (such as future, in English: go > will go)		*When the inflections '''CANNOT BE EXPRESSED BY AFFIXATION''', i.e., are periphrastic (such as future, in English: go > will go)
	Consider, for instance, the cases below:		Consider, for instance, the cases below:
	*The English adverb "now"		*The English adverb "now"