Re: FRaC Faliscan language Example

Dear Gilles, dear all,

Am Mo., 8. März 2021 um 14:22 Uhr schrieb Gilles Sérasset <
Gilles.Serasset@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr>:

> 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.
>

Does it? That would be a major flaw, because that occurs frequently. Think
of irregular verbs in English, some have both a regular and an irregular
form, sometimes even with differences in meaning, but most at least
differences in usage, that cannot be expressed other than at the level of
the form (dream - dreamt vs. dreamed, get - got vs. gotten).

But I don't think it does, because the spec says "Different forms are used
to express different morphological forms of the entry." That doesn't say
that they are *only* used to represent different morphological forms. It
*does* say that "They should not be used to represent ortographical
variants". But this is not the case in your case nor in Fahad's. For
Fahad's, we can at least suspect that there are phonological (rather than
just orthographical) differences. In your case, the diachronic morphology
may be different (not quite sure, though). OntoLex doesn't say anything
about phonological differences -- which are intermediate between
orthographical and morphological. However, the moment that these require
metadata, we are basically forced to make them distinct forms due to the
lack of alternatives. And basically, this is what the OntoLex criterion is
grounded on, because purely orthographical variation can be captured with
language tags (actually, it cannot in some cases, but that is what is
commonly assumed), whereas the explanation of morphological variation
requires (or, can be described with) additional triples.

Best,
Christian

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
>
>
>