[Corpora-List] Why some languages has complex morphology meanwhile other not?

[Francis Tyers]

El dl 12 de 12 de 2011 a les 20:15 +0330, en/na Majid Laali va escriure:
> Thank you for your replays, however, I think it is better to shed a
> light to my question:
> I formally define complex morphology as the role of clitics in a
> language, for example see this(1):
> "Similarly, the following list, excerpted from Hakkani-Tu ̈ r et al.
> (2002), shows a few of the words producible in Turkish from the root
> uyu-, ’sleep’:
> uyuyorum ‘I am sleeping’
> uyuduk ‘we slept’
> uyuman ‘your sleeping’
> uyutmak ‘to cause someone to sleep’"   

I'm not sure if that is very formal!  

How about a language like Basque, which does not have possessive
"clitics" (or attached possessive morphemes), but does have a rich
number of cases (more than Turkish) and polypersonal verb agreement ?

> As you can see, clitics in Turkish play more syntactic and semantic
> roles than English. So in such language we found more inflectional
> surface form from a word. This properties arise many different problem
> in different NLP tasks such as POS tagging, SMT, IR, and etc. Maybe
> the most dominant problem is you need more data (text) in learning
> stage for any statistical approaches for these tasks.
> 
> 
> Another plus point that should be taken in consideration is that, I
> want to know can we group different language to some types by features
> like what I mentioned, so that morphology analysis of them is similar
> to each other? 

I think the thing to look up here, in terms of grouping different
languages by different kinds of morphology would be morphological
typology.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphological_typology

Fran


_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE from this page: http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora