Finite state and Constraint Grammar based analysers, proofing tools and other resources
View the project on GitHub giellalt/lang-sme
The immediate background for this list is the meeting of the Sámi language board meeting in Guovdageaidnu, in October, 2005. The list will be relevant also after this meeting, though. It is a key document to the normativity issued faced by the sámi spellchecker program, and lists open normativity issues.
In some cases it is also a question of digging up old documents, and find earlier decisions, as a certain normativity question has actually been decided, but is not really enforced, and practice is unstable.
In mail from the administration of SGL 09.03.2006 it is said that words already existing in dictionaries must be accepted: “Muhtinráje luoikkassániiin leat juo anus dihto čállinvugiin, vrd čállinvuogi sátnegirjjiin, iige daid sániid čállinvuogi leat nu álki rievdadišgoahtit. Mii čujuhit dohkkehuvvon tearbmalisttuide, sátnegirjjiide, ja giellalávdegotti mearrádusaide.” (≈To some degree loanwords are already in use and written in certain ways, for example in dictionaries, and it is not so easy to change the way that they should be written. We refer to accepted terminology lists, dictionaries and decisions made by SGL. )
We interpret this the way that the grammar of Nickel should be followed too regarding specific forms.
Should the speller accept short passive forms like this:
mannojun vs. mannojuvvon
And short forms like this:
čállon vs. čállojuvvon
Status/actions:
Should the speller accept short gerunds?
manadiin/manadin
For example Nickels grammar show both -dettiin and -diin/-din with the long form slightly predominating.
Status/actions:
Should the placename and the noun be written separately or not. Nickel does not separate them:
romssabárdni
Status/actions:
Verbs ending with -idit could teoretically have verbgenitive and neg. and imp. 2p.sg forms ending either with -d or with -t:
skilaidit—>skilait, háliidit—>háliit
skilaidit—>skilaid, háliidit—>háliid
In our corpus there are both forms.
Status/actions:
This is about second stem vowel in comparative forms of odd-stem adjectives:
**garraseabbo/garrasabbo vs. garraseabbu/garrasabbu**
In the eightees these forms were written predominantly with -u, but newer normative publications, like Nickels grammar from 1993, show predominantly -o.
Status/actions:
This is actually two sub-issues:
Status/actions:
There hasn’t been any normative decisions regarding second syllable deletion when compounding. Čállinrávagirji of the Norwegian Sámediggi says that forms with second syllable deletion should be avoided when compounding. They have the example johgáddi vs. johkagáddi. Čállinrávagirji doesn’t more than touches the subject in a few lines with just this one example. At the same time there are definitively occasions where the forms with second syllable deletion have become norm, as in sotnabeaiskuvla (sotnabeaivviskuvlla). The question is where to draw the line. Is the second syllable deletion something that should only occur in specific compounds, in specific words or in specific consonant clusters? If so: in what compounds, words or clusters and how? Pekka Sammalahtis article on compounding (Sátnegoallosteapmi ja čállinvuohki in Tearbmasympisia raporta, Dieđut nr. 3 1994 s. 35 ff .Sámi Instituhtta, Alta: 1994) has many examples on forms with deleted second syllable that has become norm.
1. bálddoalgái vs. bálddaoalgái……………4A
2. čázoaivi vs. čázeoaivi……………………….2
3. gabboaivi vs. gabbaoaivi………………….1
4. garroaivi vs. garraoaivi……………………..1
5. gaskoapmi vs. gaskaoapmi………………4A
6. guoddolggoš vs. *guoddáolggoš……..1
7. guoikkoaivi vs. guoikkaoaivi…………….4A
8. mieseadni vs. mieseeadni………………..1
9. muorroaivi vs, muorraoaivi……………….1
10. námmoaivi vs. námmeoaivi……………1
11. šlubboaivi vs. šlubbooaivi………………1
12. liigieres vs. liigegieres……………………4A
13. niiboagán vs. niibeboagán…………….4A
14. risbárdni vs. ristabárdni………………….4A
15. oaivvuloš vs. oaivevuloš………………..4A
16. njárgeahči vs. njárgageahči…………..4A
17. lihdoaŋggat vs. lihpedoaŋggat………2
18. čipbealli vs. cippebealli………………….1
19. vuohppbealli vs vuohppebealli………2
Using Nickels system (Samisk Grammatikk s. 27 ff. Davvi Girji o.s. 1994) the consonant clusters are divided into different groups. These are indicated by the numbers in the right column. Here we can see that the second syllable deletion isn’t always the same within the different groups. The clusters belonging to one group aren’t pronounced/written in the same way from compound to compound. Difference in case is the most obvious cause of this like in (3): nominative case vs. (8): genitive case. But difference in pronouncing/writing is also depending on the overall fonotactics of a bigger environment , as can be seen in (5): nominative case vs. (16): nominative case.
In our corpus we see that second syllable deletion isn’t at all unusual. Here are a few examples that reinforce what has already been told, regarding the consonant cluster types and differences in pronouncing/writing:
20. guovttgielat vs. guovttigielat………….4D
21. guoihgáddi vs guoikagáddi………….4A
22. gaskabeai- vs. gaskabeaivvi………..4A
23. geassesaj- vs. geassesaji…………….3A
24. maŋŋegeaš- vs. maŋŋegeahči……..2
We see here that the consonant cluster types are more than in Sammalahtis examples. The corpus also shows that there is some confusion about how second syllable deletion should be written, for example (21): guoikgáddi (?).
Other examples on this phenomenon can be found in the grammars of Konrad Nielsen (Lærebok i Lappisk, Bind 1, Grammatikk s. 287 ff. Universitetsforlaget Oslo 1979) and Klaus Peter Nickel (Samisk Grammatikk s. 387 Davvi Girji o.s. 1994). Especially Nickel reviews second syllable deletion only in the second part of three-part compounds though.
Status/actions:
This issue is very much alike the issue on second syllable deletion in compounds:
1. vihttanuppelot vs. vihttanuppelohkái………..2
2. viđanuppeloht vs. viđanuppelohkái………….2
Should the speller accept the deletion in these cases. How should it be written? What about when it is predicative, and when the word is an attribute?
Status/actions:
Usually there is dihptong simplification in first syllable when there is -ii the second syllable:
geavtit —> gevttii, beahci —> beziid
In Eastern dialects however this rule does not apply when the central consonantcluster in all inflectionforms is in the strongest grade, grade III:
oahpaheaddji —> oahpaheaddjiid
Western dialects here show the forms with diphtong simplification:
oahpaheaddji —> oahpaheddjiid
In grade III Western dialects show dipht. simpl. before second syllable. -ui as well:
goargŋu —> gorgŋuid
Also here the Eastern dialects lack dipht. simpl:
goargŋu —> goargŋuid
Normative publications (for example Nickel 1993) show predominantly the Western forms.
Status/actions:
This are the attributive shortforms of odd-stem adjectives and the division is between Western and Eastern dialects:
Western: garraset/garrasit
Eastern: garrasat/garrasut
Nickels grammar shows all these forms.
Status/actions:
The normal way to write is with š: jurddašit and dárbbašit. In dictionaries there are many times both variants though, for example jurddahit (but not dárbbahit). Should the speller accept just š or both?
Status/actions:
These are conditional forms and the division is again between Western and Eastern dialects:
Eastern: manašit
Western: manalit
Here Nickels grammar show both forms with the Eastern form slightly predominating.
Status/actions:
Usually there is diphtong simplification in u-verbs when the conditional forms apply. This is because the long -u shortens to -o.
soabbut —> soppolin/soppošin
Some Western dialects however lack this shortening of stem vowel and hence also the diphtong simplification:
soabbut —> soappulin/soappušin
Nickels grammar has not these Western forms.
Status/actions:
These are different conditional forms of the verb leat/leahkit. Nickels grammar shows both forms with a predominace for livččen.
Status/actions:
Unvoiced plosives are frequent in the Eastern dialects. Here Nickel only names them when he is talking of indigenius words:
pievlat
When talking about loanwords though he writes them with the original unvoiced plosives:
kušta, poasta, teaksta
So this is actually two sub-issues devided into 1. indigenius words and
Status/actions:
In Eastern dialects central consonant -b- softens to -v-:
rievan
Nickel only names this.
Status/actions:
Du1p og odd-syllable verbs shows many parallel forms:
hálede, hálededne, háledetne
Nickel has all three forms.
Status/actions:
Imperative forms differ quit a lot:
Evenstems (Nickel shows all forms):
Pl1: bohtot (Western) Pl1: boahttout (Eastern) Pl2: bohtet (Western) Pl2: boahttit (Eastern)
Oddasyllables (Nickel shows some):
Du1 háliideadnu háliideahkku Pl1 háliideadnot háliideahkkot háliidehkot háliidetnot Pl2 háliideahkket háliidehket
Leat/Leahkit (Nickel shows all forms):
Du1: leadnu Du1: leahkku Pl1: lehkot Pl1: leatnot
Status/actions:
In the Eastern dialects odd-syllable nouns have a short form in acc/gen:
beakkán, luopmán
The western form, which is in Nickel as well, is like this:
beakkána, luopmána
Status/actions:
Some western dialects have short nominative caritive form:
jeagohin
Nickel here only gives the long counterpart -heapmi.
Status/actions:
Nickel s. 33: dj og lj bør helst ikke deles, selv om de betegner en dobbeltkonsonant.
Status/actions: