grammarians do not separate morphemes while build dependency tree, they make like this:
this is my example. another example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_grammar :
better way of grammarians is to connect not only words but blocks of words, like this:
this is my example. another example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_and_binding_theory :
and i make analysis / dependency tree separating morphemes and using them as if they are “separate words”, like this:
2013-november-30: this was not correct, order of have, he, s, read – i fix it:
in other words, the separateness of words is only in writing, it is not feature of language itself.
though there is past tense shown as “[PAST]” in the 2nd image in the 2nd article ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/HeSmashedTheVase1.png ), it is not written like separate word (ie as “ed”) , even it is not written at all, only root of verb is written, so it is not clear. but in other images they do not separate morphemes: “likes”, “saw” have only 1 connection per every of them. and they show some “almost glued” parts separately in the first article i have linked/shown:
– ” ‘s “, ” ‘ll “, ” ‘ve ” are separated, but again, “would” is not separated as will+ed.
i have written (about) this in tatar language yesterday: http://qdinar.wp.kukmara-rayon.ru/2013/11/25/grammatika-no-nicik-yasa-w-doros/ , https://vk.com/wall17077748_2708 .
i had written suggestion to write morphemes separately in ural-altaic languages, last year in several forums.
2015-02-21 : i have made a paper about this and other things: //qdb.wp.kukmara-rayon.ru/?attachment_id=311 .
i have updated , edited , but i am still not sure:
he (has read the last known bug)
(he (have read the last known bug))*s*
i have written a little text about this and have sent it to a scientific journal.
they have not responded; i edited and sent it to other journal, they have not accepted; i am going to ask some people.
i asked some people. there were some useful advices from the journal and from the people.
i have just now sent a new version of my paper to this journal and to these people.
feb17 : a reply , the paper is not going to be accepted
i have futher edited my paper and submitted it to arxiv.org.
now 22:43, as i understand, i should submit it until 00:00 , and it will be announced at 03:00 > 03:06 : no, 04:00 < tomorrow (february 19), (00:33 : ) if god wills .
it has not been published on arxiv.org, and it is not bad, i have found some previous works that should change my text
i have unsubmitted it, made a little edition, and submitted to cogprints.org , it is under premoderation now.
i had written a email to arxiv at morning; they have replied now; now i have sent new text to them.
they have not published it
i have unsubmitted it there for now, i think, until i get a reply from email.
it is published now.
17:42 : i have requested to delete it, and it is deleted…
i uploaded a newer version and it is published now. http://cogprints.org/9827/
march 23 : its md5 sum 49fe6b2f6d6e9ff9c1b39cfdd176c4b9 .
the new version has one more topic: semantically ordered trees.
I have decided now to publish my paper here. I have edited it and I have uploaded it into this blog. See http://qdb.wp.kukmara-rayon.ru/?attachment_id=311 .