Omorfi Open morphology for Finnish

• Home
• Meta
• Articles
• Timeline
• TODO
• Releases
• News
• Contributing or helping
• AUTHORS
• Design
• Omorfi with moses
• Finnish morphosyntax
• Directory layout
• Database processing
• Statistics
• Speed tests
• Paradigms and stuffs
• Lexical statistics
• Inflection tables nominals
• Inflection paradigms by example
• Inflection paper dictionaries
• Faithfulness tests
• CoveragesTop100Deltas
• Coverages
• Automata sizes
• API Documentation
• Python API
• Java API
• Man pages
• omorfi-spell(1)
• omorfi-segment(1)
• omorfi-generate(1)
• omorfi-disambiguate-factorise(1)
• omorfi-disambiguate-text(1)
• omorfi-analyse-tokenised(1)
• omorfi-analyse-text(1)
• omorfi-analyse(1)

Introduction

The classification of nominals in Finnish morphology is based on three things: the stem variations they take, the suffix variants they use and … This page shows a table of possible suffix variants and their class numbers.

Nominal allomorph tables

The nominals differ in classification on one side by the suffix allomorphs they select. The possible allomorphs apply for following cases:

• singular partitive can be: a, ä, ta, or tä (some segmentations include also allomorphs tta, ttä, which in our case is just ta, tä attached to consonant stem)
• singular illative can be: an, en, in, on, un, yn, än, ön, han, hen, hin, hon, hun, hyn, hän, hön, or seen
• plural genitive can be: ien, jen, iden, itten, ten, in
• plural partitive can be: ia, iä, ja, jä, ita, itä
• plural illative can be: iin, ihin, isiin.

In following table, Our ID is a running number that is used internally in some parts of omorfi, the nssl is list of dictionary classes it applies to. The rest of the columns are the allomorphs, here plus sign ’+’ means that allomorph is regularly and normatively used, minus sign means ’-’ it is not used and would sound strange for natives, a question mark ’?’ is limited use, and a plus-minus sign ’±’ is not normative in current dictionaries, but may appear in old dictionaries, and minus-plus ’∓’ for typical sub-standard and dialectal forms that may be common enough that it needed to be implemented in our systems and is not really deemed even strange by native speakers. We have identified following combinations (this is the full table without phonemic collapsing):