чор + -Iр form

[ryskina]

Opening an issue per @ftyers' request.

чор:чор<v><iv><aor><p3><sg>

Is this inflection correct, or should it be чоор?

[ftyers]

$ echo "чор<v><iv><aor><p3><sg>" | hfst-lookup ~/source/apertium/languages/apertium-tyv/.deps/tyv.LR.lexc.hfst 
чор<v><iv><aor><p3><sg>	чо{р}>{I}р	0,000000

The grammar doesn't have чор as p3.sg, but it does have чор мен as p1.sg and the person ending for p3.sg is Ø.

@jonorthwash what do you think?

[ryskina]

Could it be behaving differently in this example because here it is an AUX for бодап?

[jonorthwash]

Is this inflection correct, or should it be чоор?

The grammar doesn't have чор as p3.sg, but it does have чор мен as p1.sg and the person ending for p3.sg is Ø.

Tons of examples of чор in corpora; these are all pretty clearly чор<v><vaux><aor><p3><sg>.

Tenishev gives чоруур for both чор<v><iv><aor><p3><sg> and чор<v><vaux><aor><p3><sg>, and Krueger lists чоруур for the former (and doesn't seem to address the latter?).

Everyone gives both чор- and чору- as lemmas.

I believe it might make sense to analyse чоруур+ as forms of both чору<v><iv> and чор<vaux>, while we analyse чор+ only as forms of чор<vaux>. They appear to only differ in <aor>, and then only optionally. Forms like чораан appear to be possible for both, and appear to be built on чору- and not чор-.

Note that there appears to be a similar situation for other auxiliaries, e.g. чыдар for чыд<v><iv><aor> and чыдыр for чыд<vaux><aor>. Also note a similar situation in Kazakh, where you get жатар for жат<v><iv><aor> and жатыр for жат<vaux><aor> (and жүрер for жүр<v><iv><aor> and жүр (previously жүрір) for жүр<vaux><aor>).

The form чоор is an adjective ("predicate-nominal" type); I don't believe it should be a form of this verb.