On the questions in developing computational infrastructure for Komi-Permyak Jack Rueter Niko Partanen University of Helsinki University of Helsinki
[email protected] [email protected] Larisa Ponomareva University of Helsinki
[email protected] Abstract вычислительнӧй ресурсісь, медбы керны сыись пермяцкӧйӧ. Медодз There are two main written Komi vari- энӧ вежсьӧммесӧ колӧ керны FST-ын, eties, Permyak and Zyrian. These are mu- но мийӧ сідзжӧ видзӧтам, кыдз FST tually intelligible but derive from different лӧсялӧ Быдкодь Йитсьӧммезлӧн схемаӧ parts of the same Komi dialect continuum, морфология ладорсянь. representing the varieties prominent in the vicinity and in the cities of Syktyvkar and 1 Introduction Kudymkar, respectively. Hence, they share The Komi language is a member of the Permic a vast number of features, as well as the branch of the Uralic language family. By nature, it majority of their lexicon, yet the overlap in is a pluricentric language, which, in addition to hav- their dialects is very complex. This paper ing two strong written traditions (Komi-Zyrian and evaluates the degree of difference in these Komi-Permyak), can be divided into several vari- written varieties based on changes required eties. Although some of the other varieties do ex- for computational resources in the descrip- hibit written use, no actual new written standards tion of these languages when adapted from seem to be emerging (Цыпанов, 2009). Both Zyr- the Komi-Zyrian original. Primarily these ian and Permyak have long and established writ- changes include the FST architecture, but ten traditions, with continuous contemporary use. we are also looking at its application to the There are also numerous dialect resources currently Universal Dependencies annotation scheme available, i.e.