Re: Intermediate forms

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.
>
>
>