verify initial normalisation of chapter 1
Opened this issue · 10 comments
I've implemented a tokeniser and a normaliser, adding to the latter the list of proper nouns used (which it needs to know whether to normalise a word to lowercase or not).
Here is the result of the normalisation (with normal form first then form in text then what was changed about the text form.
We should quickly review this list.
-μος -μος ['ERROR']
-τα- -τα- ['ERROR']
α Α ['capitalisation', 'ERROR']
Ἀθῆναι Ἀθῆναί ['extra']
Ἀθῆναι Ἀθῆναι []
αἱ αἱ ['proclitic']
Αἴγυπτος Αἴγυπτος []
ἀλλά ἀλλ’ ['elision']
ἀλλά ἀλλὰ ['grave']
ἀλλά ἀλλά []
Ἀντιόχεια Ἀντιόχειά ['extra']
Ἀντιόχεια Ἀντιόχεια []
ἆρα Ἆρα ['capitalisation']
ἆρα ἆρα []
Ἀραβία Ἀραβία []
Ἀραβίᾳ Ἀραβίᾳ []
ἀριθμοί ἀριθμοὶ ['grave']
ἀριθμοί ἀριθμοί []
ἀριθμός ἀριθμὸς ['grave']
ἀριθμός ἀριθμός []
ἀρχή ἀρχὴ ['grave']
ἀρχή ἀρχή []
ἀρχῇ ἀρχῇ []
Ἀσία Ἀσία []
Ἀσίᾳ Ἀσίᾳ []
Ἀτλαντικόν Ἀτλαντικὸν ['grave']
Ἀφρικῇ Ἀφρικῇ []
β Β ['capitalisation', 'ERROR']
Βρεταννία Βρεταννία []
Βρεττανία Βρεττανία []
γ Γ ['capitalisation', 'ERROR']
Γαλλία Γαλλία []
Γαλλίᾳ Γαλλίᾳ []
Γερμανία Γερμανία []
Γερμανίᾳ Γερμανίᾳ []
γράμμα γράμμα []
γράμματα γράμματά ['extra']
γράμματα γράμματα []
δ Δ ['capitalisation', 'ERROR']
δέ δὲ ['grave']
δεύτερα δεύτερα []
δεύτερον δεύτερόν ['extra']
δεύτερον δεύτερον []
Δῆλος Δῆλός ['extra']
δύο δύο []
εἷς εἷς []
εἰσί εἰσι ['enclitic']
εἰσί εἰσὶ ['grave']
εἰσίν εἰσιν ['enclitic']
εἰσίν εἰσὶν ['grave']
εἰσίν εἰσίν []
Ἑλλάδι Ἑλλάδι []
Ἑλλάς Ἑλλὰς ['grave']
Ἑλλάς Ἑλλάς []
Ἑλληνικά Ἑλληνικά []
Ἑλληνικαί Ἑλληνικαί []
Ἑλληνική Ἑλληνικὴ ['grave']
Ἑλληνική Ἑλληνική []
Ἑλληνικοί Ἑλληνικοί []
Ἑλληνικόν Ἑλληνικόν []
Ἑλληνικός Ἑλληνικός []
ἐν ἐν ['proclitic']
ἐπαρχία ἐπαρχία []
ἐπαρχίαι ἐπαρχίαι []
ἑπτά ἑπτά []
ἐστί ἐστι ['enclitic']
ἐστί ἐστὶ ['grave']
ἐστί ἐστί []
ἔστι ἔστι []
ἐστίν ἐστιν ['enclitic']
ἐστίν ἐστὶν ['grave']
ἐστίν ἐστίν []
ἔστιν ἔστιν []
Εὔβοια Εὔβοιά ['extra']
Εὐρώπῃ Εὐρώπῃ []
ἡ Ἡ ['capitalisation', 'proclitic']
ἤ ἢ ['grave']
ἡ ἡ ['proclitic']
Θύμβρις Θύμβρις []
Ἱσπανία Ἱσπανία []
Ἴστρος Ἴστρος []
Ἰταλία Ἰταλία []
Ἰταλίᾳ Ἰταλίᾳ []
καἰ καἰ ['ERROR']
καί καὶ ['grave']
κεφάλαιον Κεφάλαιον ['capitalisation']
Κρήτη Κρήτη []
Κωνσταντινούπολις Κωνσταντινούπολίς ['extra']
Κωνσταντινούπολις Κωνσταντινούπολις []
λέξει λέξει []
λέξεις λέξεις []
λέξις λέξις []
Λέσβος Λέσβος []
Λῆμνος Λῆμνος []
μέγα μέγα []
μεγάλαι μεγάλαι []
μεγάλη μεγάλη []
μέγας μέγας []
μέν μὲν ['grave']
μή μὴ ['grave']
μία μία []
μικρά μικρά []
μικραί μικραί []
μικροί μικροὶ ['grave']
μικρόν μικρόν []
Νάξος Νάξος []
Νεῖλος Νεῖλός ['extra']
Νεῖλος Νεῖλος []
νῆσοι νῆσοί ['extra']
νῆσοι νῆσοι []
νῆσος νῆσός ['extra']
νῆσος νῆσος []
ὁ ὁ ['proclitic']
οἱ οἱ ['proclitic']
ὀλίγαι ὀλίγαι []
ὀλίγοι ὀλίγοι []
Ὀρόντες Ὀρόντες []
Ὀρόντης Ὀρόντης []
οὐ οὐ ['proclitic']
οὐ οὐκ ['movable', 'proclitic']
οὐχί οὐχί []
πέλαγος πέλαγος []
πο- πο- ['ERROR']
πόλεις πόλεις []
πόλις πόλις []
πολλαί πολλαὶ ['grave']
πολλαί πολλαί []
πολλοί πολλοὶ ['grave']
πολλοί πολλοί []
ποταμοί ποταμοὶ ['grave']
ποταμοί ποταμοί []
ποταμός ποταμὸς ['grave']
ποταμός ποταμός []
ποῦ ποῦ []
πρώτη πρώτη []
πρῶτον πρῶτον []
Ῥαβέννα Ῥαβέννα []
Ῥῆνος Ῥῆνός ['extra']
Ῥῆνος Ῥῆνος []
Ῥόδος Ῥόδος []
Ῥωμαϊκά Ῥωμαϊκά []
Ῥωμαϊκαί Ῥωμαϊκαί []
Ῥωμαϊκή Ῥωμαϊκὴ ['grave']
Ῥωμαϊκή Ῥωμαϊκή []
Ῥωμαϊκῇ Ῥωμαϊκῇ []
Ῥωμαϊκόν Ῥωμαϊκόν []
Ῥώμη Ῥώμη []
Σάμος Σάμος []
Σικελία Σικελία []
Σπαρτή Σπαρτή []
Σπάρτη Σπάρτη []
συλλαβαί συλλαβαί []
συλλαβή συλλαβή []
Συρία Συρία []
Συρίᾳ Συρίᾳ []
τά τὰ ['grave']
τέ τε ['enclitic']
τῇ τῇ []
τί τί []
τό τὸ ['grave']
τό τό []
τρεῖς τρεῖς []
τρία τρία []
τρίτη τρίτη []
τρίτον τρίτον []
χίλια χίλια []
Χίος Χίος []
In particular, are there any proper nouns incorrectly being normalised to lower case?
Also, should ἔστιν and εἰσίν be normalised without the nu? (i.e. as basically have a movable nu?) I'm inclined so. They are context-sensitive variants of the same form (although there's obviously a different kind of relationship between ἔστι and ἐστί.
What are normalised forms with [ ] indicating?
I can't see any proper nouns incorrectly normalised here.
Yes, I'd normalise ἐστί and εἰσί without the νυ.
I would be inclined to normalise ἔστι as ἐστί too.
the bit in [...] is just what normalisation was done so if it says [] then no change was needed.
I'm not so sure about conflating ἔστι and ἐστί at the normalisation level, though. I've actually long struggled where best to model the difference (the same applies to the enclitic versus full pronouns).
Ironically? Serendipitiously? I was just talking to someone about whether ἐστί and ἔστι are the same. What's the argument for not treating them as one?
Well, it's not like τά versus τὰ. The speaker makes a choice whether to use the emphatic form or not; same with the emphatic vs clitic pronouns. I don't think we'd want to conflate ἐμέ and με would we?
Admittedly, it's complicated because sometimes whether ἐστί or ἔστι is used is entirely positional (and predictable). But there are other cases where an alternation between the two is possible with distinct meanings.
There are two possibilities (beyond just conflating them):
- treating them as the same lemma but adding some sort of additional property to the tagging to indicate that it's the emphatic versus enclitic form
- treating them as separate lemmas
The latter is generally how ἐμέ vs με is solved; or τίς vs τις.
It's interesting that τίς vs τις are genrally treated as different lemmata. I don't conceptualise them as different.
Anyway, I'm happy to be governed by you on this one, and I have no in-principle objection to treating them as different lemma.
I'm sympathetic to τίς and τις being lumped at some level. If you treat them (or ἐστί vs ἔστι ; or ἐμέ vs με) as the same lemma, though, it might be helpful to have some other property in an analysis that says which accentuation pattern is being followed.
In other words, saying they are the same lexical item is fine, but then you probably want to have some tag or field that says whether it's a clitic or not.
Of course the whole point of the lattice approach is to link to the split concept but still be able to view / retrieve by the lumped concept. The distinction exists somewhere and it doesn't really matter where.
At the end of the day this is a data modelling issue, not some deep linguistic insight :-)
Okay, to the main point, I can't see any proper names that are incorrectly being lower cased.
Other things on this you'd like to check?