Module talk:category tree/poscatboiler/data/lemmas

For the Korean prefixes category, it would be useful to add "야".

More Tyap words
Nouns 1. Kyayak /kjɑ́jɑ̀ɡ/ = Food 2. Kwatak /kʷɑ́tɑ́ɡ/ = Shoe 3. A̠li /ə̀lí/ = 1. House 2. Eye 4. a̠yin /ə́jìn/ = person 5. A̠ɡwaza /ə̀ɡʷɑ́dzɑ/ = God

Verbs 1. nat /nɑ́d/ = to ɡo 2. bai /bɑ́í/ = to come 3. ya /jɑ́/ = to eat 4. swuo /sʷwó/ = to drink 5. doot /dóòd/ = to arise

Pronouns 1. nunɡ /nùŋ/ = me 2. nwan /ŋwɑ́n/ = you (sinɡ.) 3. nɡɡu /ŋ̀ɡú/ = him/her 4. nzi̠t /ǹdzɪ́d/ = we 5. mba /m̀bɑ́/ = them 6. nyin /ɲín/ = you (plu.) Camylevsky (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

More Tyap Words
Adjectives 1. a̠ɡba̠ndanɡ /ə̀ɡ͡bə́ndɑŋ/ = biɡ, ɡreat 2. a̠da̠dei /ə̀də́dei/ or a̠di̠dei /ə̀dɪ́dei/ = small, little 3. a̠junjunɡ /ə̀dʒúndʒuŋ/ = lonɡ 4. a̠ɡa̠nɡa̠nɡ /ə̀ɡə́ŋɡəŋ/ = tall 5. a̠kum /ə̀kúm/ = short

Adverbs 1. a̠nɡɡanɡ /ə́ŋɡɑ́ŋ/ = quickly, fast 2. a̠jenshyunɡ /ə̀dʒɛ́nʃʲǔŋ/ = in the eveninɡ 3. ma̠kyenkyai /mə̀kʲeɳkʲɑ̌í/ = briɡhtly 4. ma̠duduu /mə̀dúdúù/ = darkly 5. ma̠wurum /mə̀wúrûm/ = suddenly

Prepositions 1. tsi̠tsak /t͡sɪ́t͡sɑ̀ɡ/ = between 2. ɡbanɡ /ɡ͡bɑ́ŋ/ = far 3. ma̠nta /mə́ntɑ/ = behind 4. zaɡhyi /dzɑ́ɣʲi/ = before 5. kpa̠mkpaan /k͡pə́mk͡pɑ́ɑ̀n/ = near, close by

Conjuncts 1. ma̠nɡ /mə́ŋ/ = and 2. a mbeanɡ /ɑ́ mbɛjɑŋ/ = with, alonɡside 3. ke, ki, ko, ku /ké, kí, kó, kú/ = or, whether, neither 4. a̠wot /ə̀wə́d/ = but 5. a̠ɡhwon /ə̀ɣʷə́n/ = and, but 6. shimba /ʃìmbɑ́/ = althouɡh

Interjections 1. kwot! /kʷə́d/ = what?! 2. ki̠ka̠a̠u! /kɪ́kə́ə̀ù/ = ow ow! 3. ku swan a̠nia! /kú sʷɑ́n ə̀njɑ̂/ = amen! 4. za̠m! /dzə̂m/ = indeed 5. ka̠ni?! /kə́nì/ = riɡht?! Camylevsky (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Ojibwe (and other Alonguian) animate and inanimate nouns
The boiler generates a definition of animate nouns as "nouns that refer to humans or animals", with a corresponding definition of inanimate nouns. While this is accurate for many nouns in Ojibwe (and other Algonquian languages), it can be very misleading, as ultimately animacy is arbitraty, like gender in IE languages. I don't know what to do about this - I could just write a more accurate description for the Ojibwe categories - but i thought it best to raise it here first to see if there is a better solution. SteveGat (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We could potentially change the wording to be closer to what we have for feminine ("nouns that display grammatical relations associated with female beings"). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That would make sense for the Algonquian languages. I don't know any Russian or Ukrainian at all so can't comment on those. In your wording, i would say "living things", where you have "female beings". Here is a quote from the chapter on Algonquian languages in a soon-to-be-published book from Routledge:The division of nouns into animate and inanimate grammatical genders has a partial semantic basis, as all nouns that denote sentient beings are grammatically animate, but the animate gender also includes many nouns that denote non-living entities (Cree cistêmâw ‘tobacco’, apoy ‘paddle’). The classification of such nouns is ultimately arbitrary. For some nouns, gender shift expresses semantic contrasts such as individuation: Meskwaki šo·niya·h-i IN.SG ‘money’, šo·niya·h-a AN.SG ‘a coin, a bill.’ SteveGat (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, "nouns that display grammatical relations associated with [non]living things" seems good for [in]animate based on the languages I know., does this seem fine for Slavic? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Animate nouns are defined as "(...) nouns that refer to humans or animals" and inanimate nouns are defined as "(...) nouns that refer to inanimate objects (not humans or animals)". These are grammatical definitions, they don't necessarily describe the full usage of the animacy of nouns, e.g. personifications. Robots, for example, are animate in East Slavic languages. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , did you read the discussion here that led to me pinging you? I'm asking if you think the rephrasing is acceptable for Slavic, because the current phrasing is very poor for Ojibwe. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am struggling to understand why these definitions don't work for Ojibwe. Is it because the animacy is arbitrary or the categories should be more or less inclusive? what's the deal with "female being"? I am not familiar with these languages, so some examples would be helpful. Perhaps you want a BP discussion.
 * Slavic animate nouns don't include plants, so "living things" is imperfect. (Ukrainian, Belarusian also split animate nouns into humans and animals. Polish also but only in labels, no corresponding categories, which seems an oversight.) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , did you look at the example Steve gave above? And what do you not understand about "female being"? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you mean examples, like Cree cistêmâw and apoy? Are these animate? If they are grammatically animate, the definition won't work for them but I don't understand why they are animate. You're suggesting to just use "(non)living things". How is it going to help? If the defined animacy is not going to work for Ojbwe, maybe you need a new category. Why should where you have "female beings" even be mentioned. Isn't humans and animals enough? These have males and females or do Ojibwe animate nouns exclude worms, snails? (They are animate in Russian) I'm feeling dumb here. Perhaps you want to talk with experts on these languages, rather than me. The current definitions of animate/inanimate nouns is fine for Slavic but"(non) living" is less precise and it's still doesn't cover for the corner cases above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you don't seem to be able to understand me. I did not suggest that we just use "(non)living things", but that we use "nouns that display grammatical relations associated with (non)living beings". Those Cree examples are explicitly labelled as being animate, and it's not something for us to understand so much as a feature of that language's grammar. I mentioned the wording we currently use for feminine nouns as a template for the wording for animacy. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The specific difference between Algonquian animacy and Slavic animacy might be trees. In Algonquian languages, they are categorically animate. The other difference is, of course, that animacy in Algonquian languages is ultimately arbitrary. Why phlegm or underwear, neckties or tobacco are animate really can't be explained. You just need to know it. SteveGat (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)