[Lingtyp] Cross-morpheme glosses

[Christian Lehmann]

Dear Konstantin,

the option of either analyzing a morphologically complex lexeme of 
treating it as a whole is discussed in
https://www.christianlehmann.eu/ling/ling_meth/ling_description/representations/gloss/index.php?open=deriv_morph
As you say, apart from observing the distinction between synchronic 
morphological analysis and etymology, the choice essentially depends on 
the purpose of the example. Also, several of the options in interlinear 
glossing depend on the publication context. If your glossed text edition 
is accompanied by a grammar, esp. a morphology, this will explain the 
relationship between structure and meaning; then even such elements of a 
text or of an example where the relationship between structure and 
function is rather opaque may be analyzed morphologically and 
accompanied by a gloss, and the reader who does not put two and two 
together may be expected to consult the grammar. In such cases, the 
analysis performed in the text/example brings the reader closer to the 
relevant chapter of the grammar than its lack.

You are, of course, free to define a boundary symbol which only appears 
in the L1 text and there indicates a morphological boundary which is not 
taken up in the gloss. If you do not need syllable boundaries, one of 
the many unicode raised dots
https://www.christianlehmann.eu/sonderzeichen/?open=symbole
may be available. Another option would be the vertical slash '|'.

Best,
Christian
-- 

Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
Rudolfstr. 4
99092 Erfurt
Deutschland

Tel.: 	+49/361/2113417
E-Post: 	christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
Web: 	https://www.christianlehmann.eu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20250711/9fc8a10d/attachment.htm>