Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- prefixes [2023/02/02 11:30] – [Issues] pm
+++ prefixes [2023/04/20 11:51] (current) – pm
@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 In what follows we describe how prefixation is annotated in the database
-The general guideline that we followed in determining if a verb is prefixed or not is ‘if it can be taken to be a prefix, then it is a prefix’ where the starting point were existing lists of prefixes in BCS and Slovenian (reference).
+The general guideline that we followed in determining if a verb is prefixed or not is ‘if something can be taken to be a prefix, then it is a prefix’, where the starting point were existing lists of prefixes in BCS and Slovenian (Babić 1986, Klajn 2002 for BCMS, Toporišič 2000 for Slovenian).
 To this end, the first step was to determine if a verb that seems to be prefixed has an unprefixed pair, e.g. Slovenian //prebrati// ‘to finish reading’ has the pair //brati// ‘to read’, the BCS //pročitati// ‘to finish reading’ has the pair //čitati// ‘to read’.
-If the seemingly prefixed verb does not have an unprefixed pair, we have checked if a verb with the same root, but a different prefix exists. If it does, the verb was taken to be prefixed and annotated as such. Examples of this kind are, for example, verbs with the root  //četi//://za-četi// ‘start’, po-četi ‘to do’, //na-četi// ‘start’, //pri-četi// ‘start’,  //za-četi// ‘start’ (even though //četi// does not exist).
+If the seemingly prefixed verb does not have an unprefixed pair, we have checked if a verb with the same root, but a different prefix exists. If it does, the verb was taken to be prefixed and annotated as such. Examples of this kind are, for example, verbs with the root  //četi//://za-četi// ‘start’, po-četi ‘to do’, //na-četi// ‘start’, //pri-četi// ‘start’,  //za-četi// ‘start’ (even though //četi// does not exist). Finally, if there are no corresponding unprefixed verbs or verbs with the same root but other prefixes, verbs were still marked as prefixed if their root is independently attested in other categories (e.g. nouns, adjectives, compounds). Examples of this kind include e.g. //uz-nemiriti// ‘upset’ in BCMS, where //nemiriti// is not attested on its own or with other prefixes, but //nemir// ‘unrest’ exists as a noun.
 In general, the annotation shows if the verb is prefixed and, if it is, which prefixes are present on the verb (see below). The column **Prefixed_verb** shows if a verb has prefix or prefixes (1) or not (0).
@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 This information is relevant for the  column Simplex_verb too - in this colomn either a prefix or any type of an affix, it is marked with a 0.
-Prefixes are marked in 3 additional columns (common name Prefixes, columns 1, 2 and 3). In these columns we show both which prefixes the verb has and the position of each individual prefix with respect to the root, where position 1 marks the position closest to the root (hence the order of prefixes in the columns is reversed compared to their linear order in the verb itself). If there has no prefix in the position, we annotate this with 0. If the verb has one prefix, we give the prefix in column 1. More examples are given below. Verbs with no annotated prefixes have zeros in all three columns.
+Prefixes are marked in 4 additional columns (Prefixes (list), 1, 2 and 3). In the column Prefixes (list), we show all the prefixes that the verb contains, separated by a “+”. The next three columns show specific prefixes, as well as the position of each individual prefix with respect to the root, where column 1 refers to the position closest to the root, column 2 the second one, and column 3 the prefix that is most distant from the root. This means that the order of prefixes in the columns is reversed compared to their linear order in the verb itself (and in column Prefixes (list)). If there is no prefix in the respective position, we annotate this with 0. More examples are given below.
 Note that this annotation only marks the linear position of the prefix and that we are making no claims about the syntactic position of each prefix (whether it is lexical, intermediate, super-lexical etc.).
@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 | Slo| sporazumeti| raz| po| s|‘to understand.pfv’; the verb has 3 prefixes  |
-===== Issues =====
+===== Additional information =====
-Some verbs cannot be annotated as prefixed using the criteria described above, however, they seems to contain a prefix. This is marked in the **Potentially prefixed** column. Verbs that are potentially prefixed are annotated with 1 in this column.
+==== Potentially prefixed====
-For instance, in BCS, the verb //zataškati// ‘to cover up.pfv’ seems to include the prefix za- (which seems to retain the same meaning as in some other verbs with za-), but the base //taškati// is not attested independently nor with other prefixes.
+If the verb cannot be annotated as prefixed using the criteria described above, but there is a strong intuition that the verb contains a prefix, this is marked in column **Potentially_prefixed_verbs** with 1. For instance, in BCMS, the verb //za-taškati// ‘to cover up.pfv’ seems to include the prefix //za//- (which retains the same meaning as in other verbs with //za-//, e.g. //za-kopati// ‘burry’), but the base //taškati// is not attested independently or with other prefixes).
-Also marked in the Potentially prefixed column are verbs that seem prefixed, but no unprefixed pair or a pair with a different prefix exist, however there exist a noun that has the same base. Consider the example //predsedovati// 'to chair.ipfv'in Slovenian - the perfective pair *predsedeti is not attested, nor the unprefixed version //sedovati// (note that the imperfective //sedeti// 'to sit' exists). However, the noun //predsednik// 'president/chair' exists.
+^ Language ^ Example   ^ Translation^ Potentially prefixed   ^ Explanation^
+| BCS  | za-taškati| ‘to cover up’| 1 |+po-taškati, *na-taškati ... *taškati  |
+| Slo| odmevati| 'to echo'| 1 |*za-mevato, *pri-mevati ... *mevati  |
-Finally,  verbs that could be taken as derived form a preposition are marked with a 1 in the Potentially prefixesd column. There is, however, a difference in marking this in the [[root|Roots]] column.
+Finally, verbs that are taken to be potentially prefixed are not taken to be simplex (i.e. they are marked with a 0 in column **Simplex_verbs**).
-^ Language ^ Example   ^ Root ^ Potentially prefixed   ^ Gloss^
-| BCS  | prednjačiti| pred+njač| 1 |‘to lead.ipfv’  |
-| Slo| prednjačiti| prednjač| 1 |‘to lead.ipfv’  |
@@ Line 58: / Line 57: @@
 | Slo| odmevati| 1 |‘to echo.ipfv’, //od// is a potential prefix, the verb //mevati// is not attesed, the noun //odmev// echo |
+=== Issues ===
+In some cases it is unclear whether the item in question is a single prefix or if it could be further separated. One such example is Slovenian //izpod//-  where prefixes //iz//- //and// pod- also exist (as do prepositions //iz//, //pod// and //izpod//). In the database we decompose these prefixes.
+Loan prefixes were not annotated as prefixes (e.g., //re//- in  //reciklirati// ‘recycle’).
+^ Language ^ Example   ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 ^ Gloss & Notes   ^
+| Slo| izpodbiti| pod| iz| 0|‘to refute’|
+| BCMS| destabilizovati | 0| 0| 0|‘to ‘destabilize’|