Wilson's answer is great, but I'd like to clarify one point.
As a general rule, hyphens separate morphemes in the source language, and dots separate morphemes in the target language that aren't separate in the source language.
As an example, take the Latin word amō, "I love". I would gloss it as follows.
In other words, the single ...
Some of your examples have switched the roles of dots and of hyphens.
It seems like it.is.dot.separated to some degree
That's right. We want to use spaces to mark word boundaries, so we need some other way to mark morpheme boundaries. The dots are suggesting boundaries between morphemes. I say suggesting, since it's not always clear where they are:
The kind of structure you ask about is known as an interlinear gloss. It consist minimally of three lines: the first line being the language being analysed, with segmentable morphemes separated out by hyphens; the second line is in the analysis language and has a gloss (usually a grammatical category label) for each morpheme in the first line and is spaced ...
In interlinear glosses, I think PTC or PTCL are most commonly used to abbreviate "particle".
PRT or PART are sometimes used too, but should rather be avoided due to confusion with "preterite" and "participle", respectively.
But the name actually doesn't matter that much given that you provide a list of the abbreviations that you used with their intended ...
This sentence is glossed (sort of—not completely) according to the Leipzig Glossing Rules. The appendix lists the most common abbreviations, and indeed, everything here is in that list:
3 = third person
M = masculine
PL = plural
A more standard glossing would be 3.M.PL, with dots between the abbreviations. And a full gloss would look something like this:
You're exactly right that that is what the POSS (possessive) abbreviation is for. Have a look at example (21) given under Rule 5A in the version of the Leipzig Glossing Rules you link to:
'Here are my houses.'
Note, however, the order is 1SG....
As was said in the comments, just selecting one arbitrarily and sticking to it is probably a bad idea as this could be confusing. Your best options are probably to either:
Provide the necessary context so as to resolve the definiteness of what is being referred to.
Use 'a/the' in the translation line. An example of this can be found in the WALS Online entry ...
Interlinear glossing for isolating languages is often done without any extra tiers or labels beyond the usual ones. This is largely because, as is pointed out in a comment, the free translation in an interlinear gloss provides a way into understanding the constituency, even where this is not shown by morphosyntax and associated morphemic gloss.
But extra ...
Pat's answer works well and explains a lot, but I'd like to add something:
Logically, the most suitable HTML element for interlinear glosses is the not-very-well-known DL element ("description list"): The DL element wraps a list of definitions or descriptions, each consisting of one DT element ("description term") which defines a term that should be ...
A single program that supports both alignment and adding morphological annotation is impossible in the next 10 years.
Having a fully annotated and sentence-aligned version is everybody's goal. I'm working on a Sanskrit-Russian corpus and so I build upon http://kjc-fs-cluster.kjc.uni-heidelberg.de/dcs/index.php?contents=texte and add Russian parallel texts.
Given your examples, I'd recommend that you don't think of the case as GENITIVE at all but only a LOCATIVE with a metaphorical extension of property and possession.
You have a very good precedent with languages like Russian which expresses possession as location: SHE HAS A BOOK = A BOOK IS BY HER.
This sort of semantic extension is very common with cases. ...
I'm looking at the 2020 book The NP-strategy for Expressing Reciprocity by Elitzur Bar-Asher Siegal, so to answer your question what is used in the wild with but one example: this author simply does (p. 47, for Biblical Hebrew):
When I want to break it down further, I use angular brackets to ...
I would like to know basically a cheat sheet of their patterns across languages.
This is the wrong level to look for typological patterns. We should not expect to see large patterns of auxiliary words for modality across all languages, though there will be some similarity within language families. The exact meanings that are grammaticalised in each language ...
In a gloss, you can mark an element with an annotation without a label or literal translation of the word.
In this example, the word "da" is functional and not lexical, therefore it is appropriate to annotate it as "LKG" (linkage marker) without literally translating it as "from". So the answer is:
emu da ballà
we.are LKG dance.INF
'We will dance'
It's not clear what you are looking for (alternatively, your expectation is unrealistic). Drawing on the Cree example, you can locate the gloss "2-like-DIR?-N thus:CNJ-speak.Cree-3" or "1-see-INV-3" in that database. I assume you did not know that you have to enter those particular glosses (why not "see-1-3-INV"? – because the gloss ...
You should be able to use the ODIN site for this. The links to the XML data are all broken, but you can access the link to download the XML data directly from this URL, but replace the "xxx" with the 2- or 3-letter language code for the language you want (from here).
The languages you mentioned as ...
Short answer: I've never heard of such a thing, but it's hard to prove a negative.
Longer answer: every linguistic theory I know of agrees on a few fundamental points, which are sometimes called linguistic universals. These are features that appear in every single language in the world; if you believe in universal grammar, these are part of it. It seems ...
Let's look at the first example
The word form blame is lemmatised as blame, part-of-speech-tagged as verb V and and further anylysed as the infinitive Inf (which includes all of the present tense except the 3rd person singular Pres3s).
The other tags of the example should be no problem: Pret stand for the past tense aka preteritum, ...
First of all, lexical items should be glossed as words. That is, you just can't gloss the word meaning he as "3", "3p.MSg", or anything like that. It is "he". All the other stuff is for grammatical markers (e.g., agreement inflection, as you point out).
Second, in languages where gender differences are collapsed in pronouns, there's a good chance that the ...
I don't understand what would make such a gloss "Anglocentric", especially since "proximal" and "animate" are Latinate terms. I only partially understand "clunky".
You have to distinguish between translations of linguistic material (into English, or whatever language you are writing in), and word/morpheme glosses. A translation would not be "Ego.nominative ...
There are two possible situations I can think of, and how you'd gloss it depends on which situation it is.
The language has both locative and genitive cases, but for this word the allomorphs happen to be the same: if you can determine from context which case it is, then simply gloss it as that case. If you can't, then make a guess and note the ambiguity in ...
Looking up the parameter VerbForm in the Index Thomisticus treebank in Universal Dependencies I find Ger for Gerund, Gdv for Gerundive, but a tag for Supinum is missing.The PROIEL treebank has Sup for Supine (for strange reasons, only the Supine in -u is found there).