Finite state and Constraint Grammar based analysers, proofing tools and other resources
View the project on GitHub giellalt/lang-sme
This file documents the background for disambiguation approaches we use
in some specific cases. It describes ambiguities in detail and
interpretation and choice of tags. For a documentation of the structure
of our disambiguation file sme-dis.rle, see this
document. The constraint grammar formalism is
discussed here.
Here, we discuss numerals (and other topics to be added shortly)
As numerals we define single or a group of numbers or letters that represent a number. That means numerals can have the form:
“miljovdna” also gets the numeral tag, not the noun tag as Nickel would want it to be
Roman numbers can be nominative, genitive and accusative case without showing it overtly:
200 200+Num+Sg+Acc
200 200+Num+Sg+Gen
200 200+Num+Sg+Nom
Illative case can look like that:
"<Kontor>" S:11118, 11118, 11118, 11644
"kontor" N Sg Nom S:3818 @HNOUN
"<2000:i>"
2000" Num Sg Ill S:4409 @ADVL
There are several sets regarding numerals:
SET NUMERALS = Num - OKTA ;
SET NOT-NUMERALS = WORD - Num ;
LIST MANGA = "máŋga" "galle" ;
SET CARDINALS = Num - Ord - MANGA ;
Numerals can:
quantify a noun
modify a noun as
be PRO nouns
make up a time adverbial, such as 21.03.1980
There are various tags they can have:
@N<: ## Dat lea s. 240.
@Pron<: ## Mii golmmas finaimet Niillas-čeazi geahčen.
@COMP-CS<: ## Ráhkkásiiddán, allet vajáldahte ahte Hearrái lea okta beaivi
## dego duhát jagi ja duhát jagi dego okta beaivi.
@>N: ## Mii vuolgit ovttain biillain.
@N<: ## Mun boađán diibmu vihtta.
@ADVL: ## Mun lean riegádan 1962.
@>ADVL: ## Mun boađán geassemánu 16. b.
@APP-ADVL: ## Mun boađán geassemánu 16. b. 2002.
@SUBJ: ## Mus leat golbma oappá.
@SPRED: ## Doaimmabiju jahkásaš bušeahttarámma lea: 380.000 ruvnno.
@Num<: ## Mus leat golbma oappá.
@>Num: ## Mun lean ilus go beasan ovdanbuktit St.dieđ. nr. 33.
It is interesting to see that numerals following a noun react
differently with respect to the noun. A numeral in combination with
oassi, kapihtal, siidu, paragráfa respectively their abbreviations
s., kap. and § modifies the noun and therefore gets the tag N<,
while in the combination nr., nummár and nummir + numeral, the numeral
stays head and gets the syntactic tag depending on the larger context.
A possible explanation could be the implicitness of nr, nummár respectively nummir in expressions such as oassi (nr) 2 or kapihtal (nr) 34.
In expressions such as oassi nr 2 the numeral is head of thenr 2
expression but modifies oassi and therefore gets the tag @N<. The
abbreviations mentioned above are furthermore transitive, which means
the numerals following them have to refer to those abbreviations.
There are some complex numerals expressions that are identified as simple numerals by the preprocessor. Therefore, the two tags
+Date +Range exist. Both dates and ranges have particular syntactic
behavior in certain contexts that distinguishes them from other
numerals. Dates for example cannot be quantifiers such as other numerals
do. Furthermore it can be an adverbial in certain contexts.
The general expressions add the tags +Date and/or +Range to the following constructions:
+Date to:
21.03.1960, 21.3.1960 or 21.03.60 or 21.3.60 03-21-1960, 3-21-1960 or 03-21-60 or 3-21-60 1960-03-21, 1960-3-21 or 60-03-21 or 60-3-21
+Range+Date to:
21.-22.03.1960, 21.-22.3.1960, 21.-22.03.60, 21.-22.3.60 21.03.-22.03.1960, 21.3.-22.3.1960, 21.03.-22.03.60, 21.3.-22.3.60 21.03.1960-22.03.1970, 21.3.1960-22.3.1970, 21.03.60-22.03.70, 21.3.60-22.3.70
In expressions such as Fáksa: 22242786 the numeral gets the tag @SPRED. The “:” is interpreted equally as “lea”, which makes the numeral subject predicate.
Dates got many different formats. A couple of those will be explained in the following. Most important of all, this paragraph deals with the question: which part is head and which part is modifier?
There are different ways of combining day, month and year. There are variations with respect to order, wordborders and use of abbreviations and long date formats.
Both month+day+year and day+month+year exist:
With respect to wordborders, the whole expression can be one word, the day and “b./beaivvi” part can make up one word and be separated from the rest of the expression, and of course, the expression can constist separate words for each element
the expression varies with respect to the use of “b”, “beaivvi” or simply the nominalized numeral
depending on the format there are different analyses of the date expression.
in an expression like geassemánu 16. b. 2002, b. geassemánu modifies 16.b. and 16. modifies b. 2002 is an apposition to the “b”.
"<Mun>" S:4527, 4531, 16552
"mun" Pron Pers Sg1 Nom S:4266 @SUBJ
"<boađán>"
"boahtit" V IV Ind Prs Sg1 S:4095 @+FMAINV
"<geassemánu>" S:10483
"geasse#mánnu" N Sg Gen S:3628 @>ADVL
"<16.>"
"16" A Ord S:3207 @>ADVL
"<b.>" S:4527, 4527, 4531, 6674, 10520, 15603
"b" ABBR Gen S:3639 @ADVL
"<2002>" S:8525, 10492
"2002" Num Sg Nom S:3230 @APP-ADVL<
"<.>"
"." CLB
Roman digits differ in their use from arabic digits. Generally they are ordinals, in some cases cardinals, but usually they do not appear as quantifiers. Morphology and syntax differs from that of arabic digits:
Roman digits can stand to the left of nounphrases as ordinals such as in III. kapihtal or III kapihtal, and they can stand to the right of a nounphrase such as in Kapihtal III
Ambiguity:
Arkiivalága III kapihtal priváhta arkiivvaid birra máinnaša vuosttažettiin gáhttenárvosaš priváhta arkiivvaid.
III can modify both arkiiválaga and kapihtal.
Roman digits are usually ambiguous with acronyms.
LVI
LVI LVI+A+Ord
LVI LVI+Num+Acc
LVI LVI+Num+Gen
LVI LVI+Num+Nom
LVI LVI+N+ACR+Sg+Acc
LVI LVI+N+ACR+Sg+Gen
LVI LVI+N+ACR+Sg+Nom
Otherwise case is ambiguous (Nom=Gen=Acc) and ordinal or cardinal use (Ord vs. default cardinal).
Buot has several meanings:
everything, all, completely
it can be:
Nickel uses the term “indefinite pronoun” (ubestemt pronomen) for both quantifier and pronoun, which is a bit problematic, for the first because it uses “indefinite”, and secondly because it does not distinguish between quantifiers and pronouns.
buot buot+Adv
buot buot+Pron+Indef question:
1. should we take away Indef
2. should we add quantifier
a) for example with a restrictive relative sentence following such as in: Attášii sutnje buot maid dárbbašit.
In contrast to that, there is the non-restrictive relative sentence: Son lea njuoskan buot, mii lea fuones ášši. Here buot is adverb.
The comma distinguishes the restrictive from the non-restrictive
relative sentence.
But is the comma in non-restrictive relative sentences really
prescriptive?
Does a rule like REMOVE Adv IF (1 Interr OR N)(1 Rel); suffice?