Dear Hugh, this has been addressed in the context of the emerging OntoLex-Morph vocabulary (https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Morphology, https://github.com/ontolex/morph; most recent diagram under https://github.com/ontolex/morph/blob/master/doc/diagrams/Readme.md). Here, a morph:Morph object (a lexical entry of a lexical resource for morphemes, depending on the type of resource, this can be a morpheme or an allomorph of a morpheme), can be the object of a morph:involves property that connects it with a morph:Rule. This morph:Rule can have one or more morph:replacement properties. The morph:Replacement objects that this points to use regular expressions to formalize source and target strings of the rule associated with that particular morph(eme). These use Perl/Java/SPARQL-style regex syntax, which includes the support for capturing groups.
Note that this formalizes the form side of morphemes only, not the meaning side. However, a morph:Rule can also have a morph:grammaticalMeaning property to which such information can be added. Last week, Max Ionov and Mike Rosner have described the application (and an extension) of this mechanism for Maltese in a recent LDK paper: Beyond Concatenative Morphology: Applying OntoLex-Morph to Maltese *Maxim Ionov, Mike Rosner*. (Not online, yet.) We were also looking into other Semitic languages (and related phenomena such as Umlaut in German or vowel harmony in Turkic), but only on individual examples. If anyone is interested in discussing this further, please join the biweekly OntoLex-Morph calls ;) The OntoLex-Morph vocabulary is relatively advanced, and we are in the process of freezing it in order to prepare its publication. Finalization of the report is expected for mid-next year. Best, Christian Am Mo., 18. Sept. 2023 um 15:31 Uhr schrieb Hugh Paterson III via Corpora < [email protected]>: > Greetings, > > Does anyone know of any descriptions or approaches to using Ontolex/lemon > with non-concatenative morphology? Is the assumption that Cv1Cv2C shaped > words will have their own entries for each instance of changes for v1 and > v2? If this is the case, then this radically increases the number of items > in a dictionary when compared with languages with affix type morphology. > > > Any pointers appreciated, > > Kind regards, > Hugh > _______________________________________________ > Corpora mailing list -- [email protected] > https://list.elra.info/mailman3/postorius/lists/corpora.list.elra.info/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Corpora mailing list -- [email protected] https://list.elra.info/mailman3/postorius/lists/corpora.list.elra.info/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
