}}}
!!Seamma gilkorat: NomAg dáidá leat sihke sme and smX. Jus ii leat - lasihit NomAg dix-fiilii, omd.
{{{$ usme
oahpaheaddji oahpaheaddji+N+NomAg+Sg+Nom}}}
{{{
oahpaheaddjixxxxxxx
}}}
!!Special cases - and how to handle them
!!sme lemma is Pl, smX lemma is Sg
Muhtumin sme lemma is Pl and smX lemma is Sg – or the other way round. \\
Some lemmas are lexicalised as plurals. As long as it is the same for sme and smX, it is no problem. But if the number is not the same for these two languages, then the number tags must be given to the dix-file.
E.g. {{ávvodoalut+N+Pl}} vs. {{juhlálâšvuotâ+N+Sg}}. Add plural and singular tags to the dix-file:
{{{
ávvodoalutjuhlálâšvuotâ
}}}
!!sme lemma is an adverb, smX lemma is not lexicalised as adverb, but a noun in locative.
Many adverbs are really inflected nouns, usually locatives, illatives or genetives. Sometimes the lemma can be lexicalised as an adverb in one of the languages, but not in the other language. One could consider if the word should be lexicalised also in the other language. If the bidix-worker is not responsible for the FST for the language in question, she should just leave a comment about it.
E.g. {{iđđes}} vs. {{iđedist}}. Give correct tags, and a comment:
{{{
iđđesiiđeed
}}}
!!sme lemma is not lexicalised
Sometimes the lemma can be lexicalised as a postposition in one of the languages, but not in the other language. One could consider if the word should be lexicalised also in the other language. If the bidix-worker is not responsible for the FST for the language in question, she should just leave a comment about it.
E.g. {{háldui+Po}} vs. {{haaldun+Po}}. Add a comment:
{{{
hálduihaaldun
}}}
!!sme lemma has no counterpart in smX, in stead smn has an inflection of the noun:
e.g. {{haga+Po}} vs. abessive case in smn.
Give explanations and examples at the wiki-pages, and quasicode in the transfer file and a comment about it in the dix-file:
{{{
haga
}}}
!!Adjektiiva vástida dihto vearbahápmái
Ovdamearkan lea go davvisámegiel sátni lea geatnegahttojuvvon ja julevsámegielas lea adjektiiva bákkulasj:
geatnegahttitbákkulasj
!!Leksikaliserejuvvon adjektiiva sme:as muhto ii nubbi gielas
Guokte sme-adjektiivva (guoskevaš, gulavaš) + guokte anárašgielas. Nubbi lea leksikaliserejuvvon (lohtâseijee), muhto nubbi ii. Okta vejolašvuohta lea leksikaliseret dan, nubbi lea lasihit bidixas vearban, na (fuom: bidix-lemma ii leat ''kyeskee'', muhto infinitiiva ''kuoskâđ'' + taggat).
{{{
guoskevaškuoskâđ
gulavašlohtâseijee
}}}
!!Guokte vejolaš jorgalusa
# In cases where more than one translation is ok, remove the less general (or less common) ones
# You are allowed to leave two translations only in the following case:
## You are able to state explicitly when to use one, and when to use the other, e.g.
### This verb is translated to X for human subjects but to Y for non-human subjects
### This adjective is translated to X when it modifies words for food, but to Y when it does not
### ..
## In that case, you do the following:
### Keep __both__ lines
### Open the file {{apertium-sme-smn.sme-smX.lrx}}, and ''make a rule''
(see documentation on [lexical selection|LexicalSelection.html])
### Note that if we are not able to formalise the difference, we should just keep one pair.
Omd.
{{{