Re: Intermediate forms

I meant *padrem and *padre of course :)

Il giorno lun 25 nov 2024 alle ore 13:49 Fahad Khan <anasfkhan81@gmail.com>
ha scritto:

> Dear Cristiano,
> Either ontolex:Form is always an attested form, or there is enough leeway
> to allow for unattested/hypothetical forms; afaik, this is underspecified
> in the W3C report (although I'm happy to be corrected...), so it's really a
> case of being pragmatic. In the latter case, both *patrem and *patre could
> be listed as individuals of type ontolex:Form and the asterisk (in the
> written form) would mark them out as both being (alternative) hypotheses,
> or you could create a subclass of Form called something like UnattestedForm
> for these cases. After all, a hypothetical form is still a kind of form:
> just like a hypothetical missing link between two animals for which we have
> fossil evidence would still be an animal.  As Gilles points out, it's not
> just forms, but Lexical Entries can also be unattested, and whole
> (proto)languages made up of reconstructions.
> Cheers,
> Fahad
> Il giorno dom 24 nov 2024 alle ore 11:48 Cristiano Longo <
> cristianolongo@opendatahacklab.org> ha scritto:
>
>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>