You are again making a sever confusion between "lexemes" (your comment is true about them: it is a form in some orthographic system) and "lemmas" (strictly identical to "senses").
I just said that your schema makes 1-to-many relations between LEMMAS and SENSES where this should be 1-to-1.
there are 1-to-many relations from LEXEMES to LEMMAS=SENSES, I've not contested that. but we cannot use LEXEMES as the base of text abstraction (in an abstract language), we'll use LEMMAS.
We don't need any complex relation like LEXEME --(1-to-N)--> LEMMA --(1-to-N)--> SENSE (the second pair is non-sense it should be 1-to-1, and thus merged).
The abstract text will contain LEMMAS (semantic), from which some rules will decide which lexeme (lexical and very specific to each language) to use according to the target language and other constraints, and then which form of the lexeme (grammatical derivations/inflections/conjugation/contextual mutations or particles, plus capitalizing rules for some syntaxic or presentation forms)
Le mer. 30 juin 2021 à 13:18, Andy borucki.andrzej@gmail.com a écrit :
Most of most frequent lexems has more than one sense, one sense usually have only rare lexems. While adding lexem and sense, one must fill not "definition" but "gloss" which should be very short. For example for "dog" is gloss "mammal" although cat and cow are also mammals. It will be good if were both gloss and definition? _______________________________________________ Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list -- abstract-wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org List information: https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/abstract-wikipedia.lists.wikimed...