-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Incorrect lemmas for verbs #39
Comments
EWT treats enrolled and appalled the same way |
Regarding the modals, I'm not so sure about that. Both EWT and GUM treat it as |
Re: lemmas of modal auxes, see UniversalDependencies/UD_English-EWT#450 |
Looks like the linked EWT issue is preserving the form of the lemma without converting it to the base form like with other verbs. I'll update my validator to follow this. |
The question is whether we should annotate modal auxiliaries as having tense at all. If not, then "will" and "would" are morphologically unrelated words and it makes sense that their lemmas are different. |
If modals are to currently preserve the form, then "wo" in "won't" needs to be "would" as well as the "'d" in "he'd" etc.:
|
Isn't won't a short form of will not? |
Yes: won't = will not, wouldn't = would not |
Ah yes, you are right! |
Did the English spellings and the incorrect verbs. Anything else for this issue? |
@rhdunn call this complete? |
Modals
UK vs US
In the UK and Commonwealth, the lemma ends in "l", but in the US it ends in "ll":
Note: My validator cannot differentiate these variations yet to be able to report UK vs US English lemmas. As such, there may be other instances/examples I haven't spotted in the validation output.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: