Next: Lexical lists
 Up: Introduction
 Previous: Multext-East work and approach
The proposal has been prepared in the usual Multext table format, which
displays the specifications (as sets of attribute-values, see below for
further details about the notation), with their respective codes used to
mark them in the lexicons. Two types of features are distingished:
- (i)
 - the minimal core features
These are shared by most of the languages and are highlighted in the
  tables with asterisks (*).  We tried to keep this set in common to
  all the Multext and Multext-East languages.  In such a way, the
  comparability across the information encoded in the lexical lists of
  Central & Eastern and of the six original Multext languages is
  ensured to a certain extent.
 -  (ii) the Multext-East language-specific features
These are shared by the Multext-East languages, but differ from the
  Multext ones. The formulation of this set has been, as already
  mentioned, highly delicate, due also to the fact that many
  language-specific values were presented in the applications and
  sometimes the same (or 'similar enough') morphosyntactic phenomenon
  was referred to with two different attribute or value names. The
  phase of recognition and harmonization of semantics of some
  attributes, values and naming conventions has, hence, required much
  effort.
 
If a feature-value is used by only one Multext-East language (i.e. if a
value is language-specific) it has been marked with l.s..
This marking is used only when a subset of the feature's values is
language specific -- in case a whole attribute (i.e. all its
features) is language specific, then the mark l.s. is not used.
This representation, with the concrete applications which display and
exemplify the attributes and values and provide their internal
constraints and relationships, makes the proposal self-explanatory.
Other groups can easily test the specifications on their language,
simply by following the method of the applications.  The possibility
of incorporating idiosyncratic classes and distinctions after the
common core features makes the proposal relativelly adaptable and
flexible, without ruining compatibility.
 
 
 
  
 Next: Lexical lists
 Up: Introduction
 Previous: Multext-East work and approach
Multext-East