take a look at the same idea explained and proposed at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Structured_text .
2018-03-04 11:12 GMT+03:00, dinar qurbanov <qdi...@gmail.com>: > 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. > _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
