Re: FRaC Faliscan language Example

Hi all,

This may be related to a problem I’m dealing with just now ("Les grands esprits se recontrent")… 

The French entry “ail” (garlic) has 2 different plural forms : “ails”  \aj\ and “aulx” \o\

As you may see, both the writtenRep AND phoneticRep are different.

If I use only one ontolex:Form, then, I have no way to link each writtenRep to its correct pronunciation.

I may use 2 ontolex:Form, but this seems to contradict the ontolex model that seems to ask for a unique Form for the same inflection.

As Fahad, the one inflection scheme - one ontolex:Form will also prevent me to encode the fact that “aulx” is now dated (or to encode the fact that it was rather related to one specific word sense).

Regards,

Gilles,

> On 8 Mar 2021, at 12:17, Fahad Khan <anasfkhan81@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Everyone, 
> I have been working on modelling an entry from a lexicon currently being compiled as part of an Italian project on Italic languages and I think it potentially shows some limitations in the current ontolex/FRaC approach.  I would like to discuss this at the next telco but I will give a description here in order to get some feedback from the list too. 
> 
> In the example in question we have a Faliscan word, ekupetaris, which has different attested representations for the same form (or same morphological variant). That is, the masculine, nominative, singular form has been attested in the following written variants:  "ECVPETARIS", "EQUPETARS", "ekupetaris", "ekvopetaris", "ekvopetars", "epetaris", "eppetaris".  Each of these written variants has at least one attestation in some inscription. In the case of "ekupetaris" there are four different attestations; the others have one apiece. 
> 
> According to the ontolex-lemon model these are all written representations of the same Form element (the masculine, nominative, singular form of the noun).  This approach would give us something like (elipsis added for readability): 
> 
> :ekupetaris a ontolex:Form ;
>     lexinfo:case lexinfo:nominativeCase ;lexinfo:gender lexinfo:masculine ; lexinfo:number lexinfo:singular ;
>     frac:attestation :att_0, :att_1, :att_2, :att_3,..., :att_9 ; ontolex:writtenRep "ECVPETARIS"@xfa, "EQUPETARS"@xfa, ... "eppetaris"@xfa .
> 
> In other words (pardon the pun) we would lose the link between each written representation and its attestations.  We could recuperate this (to an extent) by making the written representation the value of the FRaC quotation property for each attestation, e.g., (for the first and sixth attestations)
> :att_0 a frac:Attestation ;
>     frac:attestationGloss "Pa2 lines 2-3, Certainty: certain, Bibliography: Pellegrini-Prosdocimi 1967, pp. 328-331" ;
>     frac:quotation "ekupetaris" .
> 
> :att_5 a frac:Attestation ;
>     frac:attestationGloss "Pa6, Certainty: certain, Bibliography:Pellegrini-Prosdocimi 1967, pp. 344-348" ;
>     frac:quotation "EQUPETARS" .
> 
> This feels unsatisfactory to me for several reason (though it might not to others): not least because we might want to associate other information to the variant written representation (e.g., a certain written representation might have been used for a certain period or in a certain geographical region and this isn't always possible to specify with a language tag). Two additional possibilities that come to mind here are creating different Forms for each of the written representations (forms with the same morphological feature but with a different writtenRep value and different attestations) and then using the sameAs property to say they're the same Form. Another possibility could be the creation of a new class (in FRaC), something like AttestedRepresentation which is also a FRaC observable with associated properties attestedRep stringValue such that writtenRep is equivalent to attestedRep o stringValue. 
> 
> What does everyone else think?
> Cheers
> Fahad