-headdjiid and -heddjiid (

[albbas]

This issue was created automatically with bugzilla2github

Bugzilla Bug 56

Date: 2005-03-04T14:55:52+01:00
From: Lena Gaup <>
To: Trond Trosterud <<trond.trosterud>>
CC: linda.wiechetek, sjur.n.moshagen, thomas.omma

Blocker for: #50, #186
Last updated: 2007-09-27T09:59:40+02:00

[albbas]

Comment 177

Date: 2005-03-04 14:55:52 +0100
From: Lena Gaup <>

There is a morfological problem that both forms are accepted, -headdjiid and -heddjiid, and now
the program only recognizes -heddjiid.

[albbas]

Comment 181

Date: 2005-03-05 09:16:41 +0100
From: Trond Trosterud <<trond.trosterud>>

This is a problematic bug. "oahpaheaddji" goes to GOAHTI, which has gođiid (god1iid) as gen pl. In
order to accept the diphtong in gen pl we must accept goađiid (goad1iid) as well, which we do not
want, I guess. Needed is thus an overview of what word types accept the diphtong forms, and
whether it is possible in front of all -ii- right contexts (Com Sg, oahpaheaddjiin and also
oahpaheddjiin, etc.). Could you provide that?

[albbas]

Comment 210

Date: 2005-03-16 18:34:55 +0100
From: Ilona Kivinen <<ilona.kivinen>>

I have also found other words that work the same way, i.e. the diphtong is accepted. These are -doalli
(eanadoalliide, boazodoalliin), oahppi (oahppiid, should be ohppiid), ealli (ealliid, shold be elliid). As
trond suggested, this might be accepted form always with -ii-.

[albbas]

Comment 211

Date: 2005-03-17 09:36:55 +0100
From: Trond Trosterud <<trond.trosterud>>

One way to find out would be to make an alternative continuation lexicon without the dipht. simpl. for
the relevant GOAHTI sublexicon, and then provide it with an ad hoc tag, say +dipht, in the spirit of the
+isauf, +asuf tags. Then we could run the corpus and see how widespread this is (hmm, this +dipht
would of course then hit also on the ones that do not have any diphtong to loose, it will thus be a bit
combersome). Before we do that, let us have some more examples, and also some native speaker
judgements.

[albbas]

Comment 217

Date: 2005-03-29 09:42:57 +0200
From: Thomas Omma <<thomas.omma>>

-headdjiid, -doalliid, -oahppiid etc. is eastern subdialect. Criteria for the diftong to be kept as a
diftong when -ii- in second syllable is that evensyllable nouns have strong grade in all cases. This is
possible in all cases, not only genitive. Compare with bug #50 where I too have reported these cases as
bugs, though they are not really bugs, but "subs".

[albbas]

Comment 690

Date: 2005-11-19 13:02:12 +0100
From: Trond Trosterud <<trond.trosterud>>

We await the solution from Lule Sámi. Meanwhile, we note that the missing solution also causes trouble for disambiguation, e.g. in the sentence:
Fágabargiid váilevaš giella ja kulturmáhttu sáhttá ráddjet
bálvalusaid

[albbas]

Comment 968

Date: 2006-05-24 14:45:35 +0200
From: Thomas Omma <<thomas.omma>>

This is the G3, awaiting port from smj. So, let's do it when the contract dust has settled.

[albbas]

Comment 1093

Date: 2006-08-18 13:26:36 +0200
From: Trond Trosterud <<trond.trosterud>>

Work has started, but we still struggle with the definitions.

[albbas]

Comment 1094

Date: 2006-08-18 13:29:10 +0200
From: Trond Trosterud <<trond.trosterud>>

The qurrent status quo can be found in twol-sme.txt.
We define G1, G2, G3. Currently, half the G2 and the whole G3 def are flawed.
We also wrote new rules, but they cannot be properly tested without the definitions.

Stay tuned.

[albbas]

Comment 1139

Date: 2006-09-13 15:19:36 +0200
From: Thomas Omma <<thomas.omma>>

I have put a lot of effort to the rules on diphthong simplification now and have succeded to make the Present Participles and G3 nouns and adjs. (without CG) work the way as we want them to. We now have a rule with optional diphthong simplification (for the Disamb. project) and a rule with not optional dipht. simpl. (for the Divvun proj.) - the latter at the moment commented out.

This means that we do not NEED to define G3, like in Lule sámi. There is a difference between Lule and North sámi in that Lule sámi G3 ALWAYS blocks diphthong simplification, while in North sámi G3 only blocks dipht. simpl. in Nouns and Adjs. whithout CG (in the Eastern subdialects). If we define G3 we will hence get unwanted blocking of diphthong simplification where there is CG. This could of course be avoided by Dummys, but are there advantagies that I do not see by defining G3?

[albbas]

Comment 1958

Date: 2007-09-27 09:59:40 +0200
From: Sjur Nørstebø Moshagen <<sjur.n.moshagen>>

Discussed it briefly with Thomas and Trond. This is fixed now, and closed.