Reformatskiy Aleksandr Aleksandrovich (Реформатский, Александр Александрович) said in his book "Introduction to Linguistics" (Введение в языковедение) about that the following linguists said same idea, (that there are no words):
Ferdinand de Saussure in Course in General Linguistics Charles Bally in Linguistique générale et linguistique française Edward Sapir in Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech Henry Allan Gleason, Jr. in Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics ( https://studfiles.net/preview/3068595/page:4/ ) And I have seen a video by Tom Scott where he tells that idea, (that there is no words): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8niIHChc1Y . 2017-12-03 13:43 GMT+03:00 dinar qurbanov <qdi...@gmail.com>: > "imperative mood suffix" - this is wrong, i wanted to say "causative > mood suffix". > > 2017-07-25 4:33 GMT+03:00 dinar qurbanov <qdi...@gmail.com>: >> i wanted to say tree leaves instead of tree nodes, because i use >> constituency trees (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parse_tree ) and >> there are morphemes only at leaf nodes and there are phrases at >> internal nodes. (see >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(data_structure). (and i use binary >> trees). but i see (now from wikipedia) that saying "nodes" is also ok >> (and maybe even better taking in account that tree can be dependency >> tree), because "leafs" are also "nodes" in tree data structure (i had >> forgotten it, though i know that from dom tree... ). (and i see that >> node is also named "vertex" in graph theory: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertex_(graph_theory) ). >> >> >> 2017-07-20 15:25 GMT+03:00 dinar qurbanov <qdi...@gmail.com>: >>> "words" are [scientifically] baseless things! >>> >>> where from they have come? just from spaces between them. who and why >>> decided to put spaces there? i think they had not good proofs, else we >>> would know that proofs. i know only theory about lexemes to put in >>> dictionaries, and their word forms. >>> >>> also "words" in grammar come from old grammars written in old times >>> for latin, arabic, etc. but it is not authoritative source. you should >>> know how much errors were in old sciences of chemistry, medicine, >>> astronomy. >>> >>> as i know apertium already does not stick with traditional words, for >>> example, as i know, for turkic languages some words which are written >>> separately are used as word modifier tags in apertium. >>> >>> but still lemmas with modifier tags are used in apertium and as i know >>> there is no way to show whether some another word is used with lemma >>> only, or with lemma with some suffix(es)... >>> >>> but i think real atoms of syntax are morphemes and it is an idea >>> written by several authors in several books. >>> >>> also i think that syntax and morpholgy should be redivided and >>> renamed. one of them (syntax?) should include all trees in both of >>> syntax and morphology. (similar idea is also suggested in a book). and >>> part of morphology should go to a science named like "surface >>> decoration of syntax trees". >>> >>> difference is in possible different priority/order of using morphemes. >>> in many cases resulting meaning is similar, because in that cases >>> a(bc) = (ab)c ; it can be written "a bc" but it can have meaning (ab)c >>> and there can be not much practical problem if translation program >>> uses it as a(bc), since a(bc) = (ab)c. for example "a" can be an >>> adverb, "b" - a verb and "c" - gerund suffix. for example, "frankly >>> speaking". >>> >>> i can give an example when this has practical differences. in turkic >>> languages verb negation suffix is written sticked and in apertium it >>> is also used as a tag. usually adverb is used with verb stem (ie to >>> part without negation suffix) and negation is used to the phrase >>> consisting of verb and adverb. for example: "кызу бармады" - "qozu >>> barmado" in tatar is "did not go fast" and has structure "{{кызу >>> бар}ма}ды" - "did not {go fast}". but you cannot use this as a rule, >>> similarly written sequence of morphemes can has also another >>> structure: "бөтенләй эшләмәде" - "botonlay islamadi" means >>> "(he/she/it/they) has not worked at all" and it has structure >>> "{бөтенләй} {эшләмәде}" - "{did not work} {at all}" , or "{{бөтенләй} >>> {эшләмә}}де" - "did {{not work} {at all}}". ( alternatively it could >>> have structure "{{{бөтенләй эшлә}мә}де}" and meaning "did not make >>> wholly" - "did not {make wholly}". ) >>> >>> to translate this correctly from tatar to english you should better >>> use morphemes as atoms, as tree nodes instead of words, because you >>> should find correct tree structure before you translate, and you >>> should be able to set morphemes at correct places of tree. as i >>> remember apertium does not use syntax trees at all for now, or uses >>> them only for some language pairs, or you have some instrument for >>> them and experimenting with them, but sets words as word forms in tree >>> nodes. >>> >>> probably there are also other examples with other suffixes. there is >>> also imperative mood suffix in tatar language, with which i expect to >>> find similar example, and i do not completely deny such problem with >>> other suffixes like negation and gerund suffixes when translating from >>> some language to some language. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
