13

Your guess is correct; the equals sign/double hyphen separates clitics from the words they attach to. For example, from the Ten-Year Annals (KBo 3.4 ii 65): nu=us=si=kan widār arha dahhun Then I took away the waters there. nu =us =si =kan widār arha da -hhun then=3PL.ACC=3SG.LOC=MOD water.ACC.PL away take-1.SG.PAST This isn't ...


10

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. am-ō love-1P.SING.PRES In other words, the single ...


8

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: gås (...


5

The full brackets mean that these signs have been restored by the editor; the tablet is broken and nothing is visible at this point. The half-brackets mean that the enclosed signs are partially damaged, but at least partially legible. This is the standard convention in Assyriology.


5

These are so-called determinatives. They are not part of the word, but help to define the semantic scope of the following word. The raised “l” means that it is a male personal name. The sign which Knudtzon transcribed as a raised “ilu” means that it is the name of a god. (ilu is the Akkadian word for “god”; the practice of modern Assyriology is to transcribe ...


4

The standard statement of that rule would be: [+syllabic,+hi,+round] → [–syllabic]/ [+syllabic,–round] [-syllabic]₁__ # There are other imaginable expressions that have the same effect, depending on (1) what other vowels there are in the language and (2) what you mean by "consonant". Also, this is in SPE theory, whereas when you get into autosegmental rule ...


3

The notion of "sound change notation" is a bit of a problem. It is a (not unreasonable) attempt to use a device of a different domain of linguistics, but you have identified a case where the concepts of historical linguistics do not translate into the phonological analogs that you are asking about. There is some relationship between a given synchronic ...


2

There has been no systematic meta-typological study of such conventions in linguistics. The closest that you could get would be journal style sheets. Even then, there are outliers, for example use of bold for linguistic examples in-text, found in NLLT, contrary to the more general practice of using italics. It is interesting that while the Unified Style ...


2

When a tableau is comparing two candidates, a W indicates that the constraint in that column favors the winning candidate, while an L indicates that it favors the losing candidate. In the example above, Candidate A is the loser and Candidate B is the winner. FAITH(Neg) favors the winner, since the winner violates it zero times and the loser violates it once....


2

The best answer to this question is to explain why it can't be answered, as is. There is no single theory of features for rule-writing – I don't think anyone has done a thorough survey covering the last 70 years, but it probably is in the hundreds of systems, just in terms of names of features alone. Some theories have features with plus-and-minus values; ...


1

Your question applies to languages written in cuneiform. Sumerian "blocks" are separated by points => su.zi.an.na Cuneiform "blocks" are separated by hyphens => wa-a-ar-ta-an Morphemic analyses are (usually) written with = signs. Personally I find these = signs ugly and useless. Hyphens are just ok.


1

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).


1

Arguments that are neither subject nor object nor adjunct are obliques. For example, indirect objects and causees are obliques. They are usually indexed by θ roles.


1

The answer depends on your metatheory. In standard feature theory, there is no feature "place" or "manner", so "αplace" or "αplace,βmanner" is meaningless. However, that doesn't stop people from writing rules like that: essentially what they do is redefine the notation and redefine what a feature is (I disapprove, but it happens). The basic problem is that ...


1

Let me introduce you to the David Stampe's Natural Phonology theory of morpheme structure -- i.e. what patterns of segments in morphemes are possible. It's simple and elegant. The possible phonological processes in human language are universal among languages, but we don't necessarily apply all of them, so languages differ in regard to which processes ...


1

The premise that grammatical theory should be responsible for predicting diminishing probabilities of occurrence is a problem. All you can do is generate / not generate a class of structures; so you'd have to identify something about the class that distinguishes it from other structures that are generated. What you can do with just C and V is very limited. ...


1

I am not directly aware of a source that produces phrase structure rules for coordinate structures, but I can imagine a notation like the following: NP --> NP, ... and NP VP --> VP, ... and VP In these rule, the three dots "..." represent an unspecified number of coordinate NPs or VPs, zero to very many. Note that the "and" is positioned ...


1

Answer: mismatches in syntactic category are acknowledged.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible