not_segment.md

🚫 When not to segment

This section specifies cases where segmentation should be avoided to prevent over-fragmentation or the introduction of noise into the dataset.

1. Delimiters at the end of the chunk without context

To prevent noise and ambiguity, do not mark segmentation when the surrounding context is incomplete.

• Some segments, particularly those at the beginning or end of randomly extracted passages, may lack a clear delimiter due to truncation. If the syntactic structure cannot be confidently completed, do not mark segmentation.

Example: nos couvenoit aler dusqu’a outrance, car il est preuz et vistes et... → Last et is ambiguous (enumeration or new clause? → 🚫 no segmentation)

2. Delimiter Sequences

Delimiter sequences are characteristic of paratactic languages, in which clauses are often intricately embedded within one another. In such contexts, a logical unit is frequently suspended to introduce a new clause, and the initial discourse thread is later reactivated through a residual delimiter or connective left earlier in the sequence.

• To avoid over-segmentation and semantic fragmentation, only the first delimiter in a sequence of delimiters should be marked as a segmentation point.

£E, em quanto elle esto fazia,

« £ca, pois Deus he ẽ nossa ajuda, £todos venceremos.

& venja Urian delante de todos £mas por mucho que ellos se cujtaron

In these examples, although multiple elements could suggest a break, only the first delimiter (shown in bold) is annotated as a segment boundary — even when subsequent markers also introduce distinct clauses.

2.1. Handling ambiguous delimiter sequences

The following medieval Catalan excerpt illustrates an ambiguous case:

£los parens del jovencel, emperò, aprés •!• dies mortz, £en - i - moniment foren cebelitz. (Literal English translation: The parents of the young man, however, after •!• days dead, were buried in a tomb.)

This example also illustrates a sequence of discourse markers. Following the segmentation principle for delimiter sequences, only the first delimiter — here, emperò — would normally be marked as a segmentation point. However, this case presents a more complex segmentation scenario.

Although emperò functions as a discourse connector and appears first in the sequence, it remains structurally integrated with the preceding clause (los parens del jovencel) and does not, semantically, trigger segmentation.

By contrast, aprés introduces a new clause and thus constitutes the appropriate segmentation point. Consequently, segmentation should be applied at aprés, not at emperò.

Rule reminder: In ambiguous cases, the annotator should prioritize segmentation on syntactic dependency and semantic continuity over mere sequential position.

3. Coordinating Conjunctions

Annotation Principle:
Segmentation depends on the syntactic scope of coordination.

• Simple coordination (word-level or short phrase) → no segmentation.
• Complex coordination (verbal, nominal, or clausal units) → segmentation.

Coordinating conjunctions do not trigger segmentation when linking short elements (typically one or two words) within an enumeration. However, when coordination connects longer syntactic units—such as verbal groups, nominal groups, or full clauses—it marks a segmentation boundary.

[...] espandire sobre casado de Jacob e de David £e sobre los estageros de Jherusalem spiritu

In this example:

• The first e coordinates two complements (de Jacob e de David) within a single noun phrase, and therefore does not trigger segmentation.
• The second e introduces a new clause (e sobre los estageros de Jherusalem spiritu) and thus marks a segmentation boundary.

E fuemos a surgir sobre Çepta, £e deçendimos en tierra; £e luego tomaron una caravela £e escrivieron a Caliz a fazerlo saber, non vo guarentisce, £né ella non vo puote guarire se prenenta flatir et a debatre. £et il commence

4. Enumerations (with or without coordinating conjunctions)

Enumerations remain unsegmented unless their internal structure becomes complex enough to hinder syntactic readability or semantic cohesion. Enumerative sequences — whether coordinated by conjunctions or simply juxtaposed — are not segmented by default. They are considered part of a single syntactic and rhetorical unit, even when they include several coordinated items.

4.1 With Coordinating Conjunctions

Examples:

pero tiene buen puerto e muchas tierras, e frutas, e aguas. 🚫 no segmentation applied

del molt noble et molt alt et molt poderos Seynor Don Sancho 🚫 no segmentation applied

£que seia sospenso ou emtridito ou escomungado 🚫 no segmentation applied

£o quall foi mui honrrado, avomdoso de rriquezas e boas comdiçoões. 🚫 no segmentation applied

£E partio logo o reyno cõ seus irmããos £que foron estes: £Eribeto e Gruntano e Sigaberto. 🚫 no segmentation applied

Tribulacion, or angwiȝss, or hungir, or nakidnesse, or persecucion, or perel, or swerd? 🚫 no segmentation applied

4.2 With juxtaposed elements

Examples:

£per logica sabrás conexer los jenres, les especies, les differencies, les proprietats e los accidents, 🚫 no segmentation applied

£ne burguezes, cavalers, princeps, prelats £no purien viure sens [...] 🚫 no segmentation applied

4.3. Very long enumerations

Exceptionally, very long or structurally complex enumerations may be segmented for clarity or syntactic disambiguation:

[...] £per gracia de Deu Rey de Castella, de Toledo, de Leo, de Galicia, £de Sibília, de Cordova, de Murcia, de Jayen et del Algarbe,

5. Appositions

Appositive structures are not segmented when they form a continuous syntactic and prosodic unit with the noun they modify.
They remain within the same clause or nominal phrase.

Annotation Principle:
Appositions are segmented only when they display syntactic detachment or prosodic independence,
even if their referential anchor remains implicit or distant.
In embedded or interrupted structures, syntactic separation overrides the appositive link.

Examples (no segmentation):

£E dona Orraca, sua filha del rey, lhe fazia muyta honrra.. 🚫 no segmentation applied

£Mas, da desaveença £que ouve antre mĩ e Moluca, o senhor de Calçom, 🚫 no segmentation applied

£E estableçio el cardenal legado don frey Gillem, obispo de Sabina, 🚫 no segmentation applied

Exceptions:

Appositions are segmented in the following cases:

• Detached appositions in embedded or interrupted clauses
  When the apposition is syntactically separated from its head noun by another clause or by intervening material, making it prosodically and structurally autonomous.

£Mas jo, malastruch e desaventurat, £embalçat e caüt en tants de mals, £foragitat del regne de mon pare, £don mirayl de les coses humanals.

jo ─ malastruch e desaventurat └─ close apposition 🚫 (embalçat... foragitat...) └─ intervening clause ─ don mirayl de les coses humanals └─ detached / segmented apposition ✅

• Prosodically independent apposition

£E il conte di Fondi, £nipote che·ffu di papa Bonifazio VIII, £entrò in San Germano colle'nsegne del re d'Ungheria ✅

---

6. Cases Where que (and equivalents) Should Not Be Annotated

The form que — whether functioning as a relative, interrogative, exclamative pronoun, or as a subordinating conjunction — usually serves as a segmentation trigger. However, a number of specific contexts require that it not be annotated. These exceptions prevent over-segmentation in cases where que does not introduce an autonomous syntactic or rhetorical unit.

Annotation Principle:
que, comme, and comment are not annotated when they:

• are part of fixed or pleonastic expressions,
• serve a purely coordinating or comparative function, or
• lack an explicit subordinate verb.

⚠️ Cases of Non-Annotation

1. When que has a coordinating value

   que here joins two syntactically parallel elements rather than introducing a dependent clause.
   Example:

   £quil ert las et traueillies. que del combatre que del cheualchier 🚫 no segmentation applied → Both que’s are coordinating and do not trigger segmentation.

---

3. When que plays a redundant or pleonastic value

   Common in medieval French, this construction does not mark a new syntactic boundary.
   Example:

   les dens £que a pou qu il ne les luy a brisiees 🚫 no segmentation applied → second que is redundant .

---

4. When que has a restrictive value

   que is then equivalent to “only”, “except”, or “save”, and does not introduce a clause.
   Example:

   ne se relieue que a grans peine et si estoit il
   → Restrictive use, not segmenting.

---

5. When que appears in a comparative structure without an expressed verb

   In elliptical comparatives, que links nominal or adjectival terms rather than clauses.
   Example

   cheualiers et preus £et plus pris sa cheualerie que la monseignor Gauuain
   → No segmentation: comparative linker que.

   Example (annotated):

   a censeiller mieulx £que ung aultre ne fera
   → Segmentation occurs: que introduces a subordinate comparative clause.

   5.1. comme or comment behave similarly

   In comparative or idiomatic uses, comme and comment are not annotated as segment markers.
   Example:

   comme li lievres devant les chiens
   → No segmentation.

Practical Reminder:
Annotators should verify whether que, comme, or comment introduce a verbal predicate.
If no verb follows, or if the element belongs to a frozen or comparative phrase, it must not be treated as a segmentation marker.