19

I have a list of GRE words which I am getting a list of synsets for. 

for word in words:
    synsets = wordnet.synsets(word['name'])

    for synset in synsets:
        print synset.pos #prints part of speech

For many of the words in the list, I see familiar parts of speech like verbs, nouns, etc. However, I am coming across many words which are classified with "s". I can't for the life of me figure out what part of speech "s" stands for. The only thing I can think of is that "s" stands for "singular", but that isn't a part of speech classification.

For example, the word "admonitory" is an adjective. The two synsets which are returned are "admonitory.s.01" and "admonitory.s.02". Both list the part of speech as "s".

I would really appreciate it if someone could explain this to me, or point me in the direction of some good resources where I might find the answer.

I have already read through the NLTK documentation on the subject and didn't find the answer there.

Mark Amery
  • 143,130
  • 81
  • 406
  • 459
Peter Kirby
  • 1,915
  • 1
  • 16
  • 29

2 Answers2

15

https://wordnet.princeton.edu/documentation/wndb5wn documents this as ADJECTIVE SATELLITE. https://wordnet.princeton.edu/documentation/wngloss7wn explains that adjectives are subcategorized into "head" and "satellite" synsets within an "adjective cluster":

Adjectives are arranged in clusters containing head synsets and satellite synsets. Each cluster is organized around antonymous pairs (and occasionally antonymous triplets). The antonymous pairs (or triplets) are indicated in the head synsets of a cluster. Most head synsets have one or more satellite synsets, each of which represents a concept that is similar in meaning to the concept represented by the head synset. One way to think of the adjective cluster organization is to visualize a wheel, with a head synset as the hub and satellite synsets as the spokes. Two or more wheels are logically connected via antonymy, which can be thought of as an axle between the wheels.

mitja
  • 61
  • 8
tripleee
  • 175,061
  • 34
  • 275
  • 318
6

To add to the technical detail tripleee shared, following gives better understanding of what satellite adjectives are -

Certain adjectives bind minimal meaning. e.g. "dry", "good", &tc. Each of these is the center of an adjective synset in WN.

Adjective satellites imposes additional commitments on top of the meaning of the central adjective, e.g. "arid" = "dry" + a particular context (i.e. climates)

Source: https://www.englishforums.com/English/AdjectiveSatellite/nwzhv/post.htm

Community
  • 1
  • 1
comiventor
  • 3,922
  • 5
  • 50
  • 77
  • -1 because this explanation doesn't match that of the official documentation (quoted in tripleee's answer above) and you've provided no reason to believe that the official documentation is wrong. – Mark Amery Feb 08 '17 at 15:43
  • 4
    @MarkAmery if it doesn't match literally doesn't mean its incorrect. I found the explanation intuitive to understand at a more lingual than mathematical. Also, I haven't hidden anything and provided source of the document. I never said that official documentation is wrong. Its bit more abstract and I have tried to help the reader to understand. – comiventor Feb 09 '17 at 10:51
  • My issue isn't that the wording doesn't match literally, it's that it makes a significantly different claim. The official docs claim that satellite adjectives are *"similar in meaning"* to the central adjectives they are attached to, while the passage you have quoted suggests that satellites have the *same* meaning but limited to a particular context. Those two explanations are fundamentally different; it *isn't* possible for both to be correct. – Mark Amery Feb 09 '17 at 11:03
  • For instance, the central adjective "careful" (*'exercising caution or showing care or attention'*) has as satellites "blow-by-blow" (*'providing great detail'*) and "particular" (*'providing specific details or circumstances'*). Those clearly aren't context-restricted synonyms of "careful"; a blow-by-blow account of an event may nonetheless be an incautious, careless and inattentive one. That suggests to me that the broad claim made in the docs is true, and the more precise claim made in this answer is false. – Mark Amery Feb 09 '17 at 11:14