Difference between revisions of "Mixe/Disambiguation"
(→Sentences) |
(→Ambiguous terms) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
= Ambiguous terms = | = Ambiguous terms = | ||
| − | + | == juuꞌ == | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | '''What I think is happening:''' | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ''juuꞌ'' is always a relativizer. When introducing a relative clause, one ''juuꞌ'' is required at the beginning of that relative clause. For emphasis, focalization, or other discourse-y things, you can have another ''juuꞌ'' right before the main noun phrase. This ''juuꞌ'' is mostly (or maybe always; I haven't seen any cases not like this) followed by discourse enclitics like ''=ts'' ASSERTIVE and ''=veꞌe'' FOC | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ... ''juuꞌ''=enclitic NP ''juuꞌ'' relative-clause ... | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | Both uses are relativizers, but only the first is required. Furthermore, the second type is more accurately translated as "that" or "which" in English, whereas the first type may or may not be translated. | |
| + | '''Solution:''' | ||
| − | + | We'll tag both as relativizers, but only the second type will have the lemma "that". We will need to change the juuꞌ morphTest and remove the <dem> possibility from the transducer. | |
| + | === Sentences === | ||
| − | + | * ex. (238) in Guzman (p 114 | 148/312) | |
| + | * ex. (112.b) in Guzman (p 69 | 103/312) | ||
| + | * ex. (185) in Guzman (p 99 | 133/312) | ||
| + | * ex. (238) in Guzman (p114) -includes both | ||
| − | |||
The examples from the coffee story (which is mainly what we're using for our corpus) are generally more complicated than the examples in Guzman. (We could add some Guzman examples to the corpus, I guess.) | The examples from the coffee story (which is mainly what we're using for our corpus) are generally more complicated than the examples in Guzman. (We could add some Guzman examples to the corpus, I guess.) | ||
| Line 38: | Line 33: | ||
*'''juuꞌts''' viijnk kajpün jayuda, vèꞌèts, ?oytyunükts jè jyèꞌè du tumpivda. (Suslak p85) | *'''juuꞌts''' viijnk kajpün jayuda, vèꞌèts, ?oytyunükts jè jyèꞌè du tumpivda. (Suslak p85) | ||
| + | |||
| + | * ꞌax kutseꞌe yakmujùydat, ꞌakijpxa cheꞌe nmujùꞌyumdat, veꞌem juuꞌ laata tü dü ꞌapivꞌùtsta, nay veꞌem juuꞌ kajha tü dü apivꞌùtstup. (Suslak p87) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == ja'a == | ||
| − | + | * jaꞌa (jèꞌè in corpus) | |
| + | ** <prn> | ||
| + | ** <dem> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
[[category:Sp22_Disambiguation]], [[category:Mixe]] | [[category:Sp22_Disambiguation]], [[category:Mixe]] | ||
Revision as of 17:27, 7 May 2022
Initial evaluation of ambiguity
Using the script shown in the Calculating ambiguity section of the Morphological Disambiguator wiki page, the initial level of ambiguity in our corpus is about 1.025.
Ambiguous terms
juuꞌ
What I think is happening:
juuꞌ is always a relativizer. When introducing a relative clause, one juuꞌ is required at the beginning of that relative clause. For emphasis, focalization, or other discourse-y things, you can have another juuꞌ right before the main noun phrase. This juuꞌ is mostly (or maybe always; I haven't seen any cases not like this) followed by discourse enclitics like =ts ASSERTIVE and =veꞌe FOC
... juuꞌ=enclitic NP juuꞌ relative-clause ...
Both uses are relativizers, but only the first is required. Furthermore, the second type is more accurately translated as "that" or "which" in English, whereas the first type may or may not be translated.
Solution:
We'll tag both as relativizers, but only the second type will have the lemma "that". We will need to change the juuꞌ morphTest and remove the <dem> possibility from the transducer.
Sentences
- ex. (238) in Guzman (p 114 | 148/312)
- ex. (112.b) in Guzman (p 69 | 103/312)
- ex. (185) in Guzman (p 99 | 133/312)
- ex. (238) in Guzman (p114) -includes both
The examples from the coffee story (which is mainly what we're using for our corpus) are generally more complicated than the examples in Guzman. (We could add some Guzman examples to the corpus, I guess.)
(juu' "which" is referring to earlier mentioned "coffee") -- A relative pronoun here, I think
- juuꞌts viijnk kajpün jayuda, vèꞌèts, ?oytyunükts jè jyèꞌè du tumpivda. (Suslak p85)
- ꞌax kutseꞌe yakmujùydat, ꞌakijpxa cheꞌe nmujùꞌyumdat, veꞌem juuꞌ laata tü dü ꞌapivꞌùtsta, nay veꞌem juuꞌ kajha tü dü apivꞌùtstup. (Suslak p87)
ja'a
- jaꞌa (jèꞌè in corpus)
- <prn>
- <dem>,
