[Lingtyp] (no subject)
christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de
Sat May 30 12:42:09 EDT 2020
Am 30.05.20 um 17:55 schrieb Mattis List:
> What I still find problematic is that information on the
> direction of the boundary symbols is only implicitly encoded in another
> level of the annotation, as you correctly say.
I have been thinking about this. One might allow for optional additional
specification of boundary symbols: Wherever a binary combination of
morphs is asymmetric in the sense that one of them clearly depends on
the other (where the concept of morphological dependency would have to
be defined beforehand), it might be useful for some purposes as yours to
add the direction of dependency to the boundary symbol, like this:
You might also do a preparsing on an interlinearized text that lacks
this specification and add it, on the basis of such information as I
mentioned in my previous post.
Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
E-Post: christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Lingtyp