- From: Cristiano Longo <cristianolongo@opendatahacklab.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 08:16:28 +0100
- To: public-ontolex@w3.org
- Message-ID: <154250a6-b5ad-4f97-b9a7-f95344ce6489@opendatahacklab.org>
Dear Max, thanks for your reply. On 25/11/24 16:36, Max Ionov wrote: > Dear Cristiano, > > You raise a very good point, this kind of intermediate forms are > important to model and it is not restricted to historical linguistics. > And it is indeed something that was discussed in the context of the > upcoming Ontolex Morph module, with regard to representing > intermediate stages for morphophonological transformations (which is > what you were referring to previously). We ultimately decided that it > was out of scope for the Morph module but maybe later this will be > dealt with in a separate module devoted to automata and transformations. Yes, concerning this is feel that the morph:Rule and morph:Replacement are suitable to be generalized to encompass generic phonological rules, like the ours. However, we must keep in mind that these phenomena are not necessarily "regular". > For now I think the solution you suggested originally — to use a > user-defined superclass of an ontolex:Form is perfectly valid. > Alternatively, maybe an ontolex:Observable class from the upcoming > FrAC module > <https://ontolex.github.io/frequency-attestation-corpus-information/#observations> could > be used? It is an abstraction over any ontolex entity that can be > observed (including forms). > It might sound counter intuitive, since these forms are hypothetical, > but if they are observed in any source (e.g. a reconstruction), I > think they /are/ Observables. Honestly, I can't say anything about that. However, being Observable or not it is orthogonal to the problem of how to represent these forms. CL > > Best, > Max > > On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 at 11:46, Cristiano Longo > <cristianolongo@opendatahacklab.org> wrote: > > Thank you Gilles, I'm very convinced that this discussion is not > restricted to historical lingustics. I identified some > peculiarities of these intermediate forms which distinguish them > from ontolex forms: > > - they are not bounded to any lexical entry (or, at least, to one > belonging to an hypothetical language) > > - they must have almost one written representation and > > - almost one associated phonetic representation. > > CL > > On 25/11/24 10:16, Gilles Sérasset wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Very interesting discussion. >> >> I am not a specialist in any way, hence maybe a naive question, >> but in which way are such hypothetical forms related to lexical >> entries in reconstructed language ? >> >> They may be of different nature, but share the “hypothetical” >> feature, hence are there any similarities that could be used to >> treat them similarly. >> >> It also remind me of non lexicalized forms in derivational >> morphology when 2 derivations are used to model the derivation >> process, eg. Verb -> adj -> adv where the adjective form is not >> lexicalized and never attested. In the process modelling it is >> often “computed” and represented (with a star prefix). >> >> Maybe these could inspire a similar modelling. >> >> Regards, >> >> Gilles, >> >>> On 24 Nov 2024, at 11:46, Cristiano Longo >>> <cristianolongo@opendatahacklab.org> >>> <mailto:cristianolongo@opendatahacklab.org> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Fahad Khan, thanks for your observations which deserve >>> careful considerations. In the meanwhile, >>> >>> at first glance, I observe that of course etymologies (in the >>> sense of lemonEty) are just hypotheses, >>> >>> but stating that a lexical expression is a ontolex:Form is an >>> assertion with a precise meaning. In other words, etymologies >>> are hypothetical derivations grounded on well attested lexical >>> expression in some language. Instead, our case is quite >>> different as our intermediate forms are properly hypotetical. >>> This is clarified by observing that a source expression (which >>> of course is a form) can be turned into the corresponding one in >>> the recipient language through more than one derivation. >>> >>> In the example we have two derivations from patrem to padre: >>> >>> patrem -> padrem -> padre, and >>> >>> patrem -> patre -> padre. >>> >>> For these reason, I think that asserting that "padrem" or >>> "patre" was lexical expression of some intermediate language is >>> quite hazardous. >>> >>> CL >>> >>> On 22/11/24 17:22, Fahad Khan wrote: >>>> Dear Cristiano, >>>> As far as I'm aware an intermediate form is an unattested form >>>> that is hypothesized by linguists on the basis of (usually >>>> well-attested) linguistic rules; as such it is usually prefixed >>>> with an asterisk (e.g., /*patrem/). But the hypothesis *is* >>>> that it was used by speakers at a certain point in the >>>> evolution of a word, and therefore did belong to a certain >>>> historical stage of a language. In which case, I don't >>>> understand why you couldn't use Form, or at least create a >>>> subclass of Form for asterisked forms? >>>> Cheers >>>> Fahad >>>> >>>> Il giorno mer 20 nov 2024 alle ore 12:49 Cristiano Longo >>>> <cristianolongo@opendatahacklab.org> ha scritto: >>>> >>>> Good morning all. In my last work I faced with strings >>>> that, in my >>>> opinion, cannot be modelled using ontolex:Form, as they are >>>> just >>>> "intermediate forms" which does not belong to any language. >>>> >>>> An example is reported in Figure 2 at >>>> https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3809/paper2.pdf. Here the latin >>>> word "patrem" >>>> changes to an intermediate form "padrem" through lenition, >>>> and finally >>>> becomes the italian word "padre". >>>> >>>> However, the notion of intermediate forms was previously >>>> introduced in >>>> the areas concerning phonology and morfology, as reported >>>> in [1]. >>>> >>>> To deal with such intermediate forms I introduced a new >>>> superclass of >>>> ontolex:Form (i.e., LanguageObject). However, I'm not >>>> really sure that >>>> this design choice is correct. Of course, intermediate >>>> forms are not morphs. >>>> >>>> I wonder if there are other works where these kind of >>>> strings have been >>>> modelled in OWL. >>>> >>>> Any suggestion and hint is wellcome, >>>> >>>> thanks in advance, >>>> >>>> CL >>>> >>>> [1] A. Hurskainen, K. Koskenniemi, T. Pirinen, L. Antonsen, >>>> E. Axelson, >>>> E. Bick, B. Gaup, S. Hardwick, >>>> K. Hiovain, F. Karlsson, K. Lindén, I. Listenmaa, I. >>>> Mikkelsen, S. >>>> Moshagen, A. Ranta, J. Rueter, >>>> D. Swanson, T. Trosterud, L. Wiechetek, Rule-Based Language >>>> Technology, >>>> 2023. >>>> >>>> >>
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2024 07:16:40 UTC