-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Questions about INTJ #27
Comments
Thanks for raising this issue - this is another one of those cases where UD guidelines conflict with the PTB guidelines. Since GUM's native POS tags are PTB-based, and the UPOS column is just an automatic conversion output, there are some mapping issues. In all of these cases, I believe
The example of 'gosh' in particular questions the guideline for "god" being a noun in this context, since they are interchangeable, but "gosh" is not a noun (it's a euphemism for the word "god" only in this use). Personally I'm comfortable with these things having UPOS as |
This is partly a multiword expression issue: The phrase "my god" functions like an interjection but I see no reason why internally it shouldn't be a standard noun phrase. Same with "my gosh". I would argue that there are lexical items that are pure interjections, like "yay", and there are other words/phrases that get repurposed with interjection pragmatics and |
Another example of a phrase with transparent internal structure used as an interjection: "Son of a bitch!" |
I think the latter would probably not be tagged as UH (there is one instance in ON, tagged literally with NN). Still for "gosh" I find it odd, since it can't actually occur as a normal noun - only as an interjection. And maybe leaving "god/gosh" aside, I think "please" and "welcome" make very little sense as VERB synchronically. We don't go by etymology for a great many things that are lexicalized, and I don't see the motivation to do so here. |
What about ADJ for "welcome" in "You are welcome"? |
That seems like a normal adjective to me, and indeed no one is trying to say that's a passive participle there (the VBP tagging cases of "Welcome!" seems really bizarre to me) |
In UD definition, INTJ is defined as follows:
However, in GUM, there are some words that have their original category and are not feedback particles, while they are annotated as INTJ.
For example, in the following sentences, the "god"/"gosh"s are annotated as INTJ, which is conflicted with the definition.
In the following sentences, the words tagged as INTJ are not feedback particles and have the original category, although their annotations are consistent in GUM.
Perhaps we should refine the definition?
Commit: d38df82
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: