Applying Leipzig glossing rules
kazuto.matsumura at nifty.com
Tue Oct 13 00:09:09 UTC 2009
In order to fully appreciate your proposal (B), I need some enlightenment
because I am not particularly familiar with the Leipzig Glossing Rules.
Should the Sami and Mari examples imply that you want to gloss Finnish verb
forms, if need be, something like this?
rgruntha at mappi.helsinki.fi wrote:
>Secondly (B), connegative forms of verbs are seldom marked overtly.
>The Leipzig glossing rules, for instance, do not include an
>abbreviation for connegative forms. However, in the Uralic languages
>the connegative verb form often diverges from the verb stem and could
>therefore be encoded. Moreover, the connegative usually corresponds to
>imperative 2SG forms that, in practice, always have to be encoded. So,
>in our view the connegative should be encoded as well as in the North
>Saami (5) and Mari (6a-b) examples.
>(5) Dasgo ii oktage olmmos dahkkojuvvo vanhurskkisin
> for NEG.3SG anyone human do-PASS.CONNEG righteous-ESS
> ‘No one will be made righteous…’
>(6a) tyshke tol!
> this-LAT come.IMP.2SG
> ‘Come here!’
>(6b) tyshke ot tol mo?
> this-LAT NEG-2SG come.CONNEG Q
> ‘Won’t you come here?’
>Department of Finno-Ugrian Studies
>P.O.Box 24 (Unioninkatu 40)
>FI-00014 University of Helsinki
ura-list at helsinki.fi - list for Uralic linguistics and related disciplines
to (un)subscribe, send majordomo at helsinki.fi a message:
(un)subscribe ura-list my.own at email.address
Mirror archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/ura-list.html
More information about the Ura-list