Technical orthography for Word forms

[Kevin Penner]

Hi,
My interlinear texts use a practical orthography for the Baseline text. In my linguistics papers, however, I would like to use a technical orthography. I have a CC table that would make most of the changes that need to be made, but I don't know I should go about it. Can you have two Baseline writing systems with parallel content for each text like you can do in the Lexicon? Should I use Edit Bulk Wordforms to convert each wordform into its equivalent form in the technical orthography? But if so, how do you use the same field for both the Source and Target fields without overwriting the Source field? I don't see a way to specify different writing systems for the Source and Target fields, when they are the same field.
Thanks for your help.
Kevin

[Kevin Penner]

Okay, I have a solution for this (but would be happy to hear any alternatives). Andy Black told me (off list) how to use the same field as Source and Target in Bulk Edit Wordforms, and specify a different writing system for each. Using this method I was able to run the Form field with the vernacular writing system through a CC Table process (Process tab), converting the wordforms to a technical orthography in an IPA writing system for the Form field. In the Interlinear Texts area of Texts & Words, Print View tab, I can then configure the Interlinear (Tools menu) to show the IPA writing system for the Word line, and I get my technical orthography to display instead of the practical orthography (Vernacular Writing System)!

For those interested, in how to get two instances of the Form field with different writing systems in Bulk Edit Wordforms:
1. In Text & Words > Bulk Edit Wordforms, click in the upper righthand corner to configure which columns to display.
2. At the bottom of the popup box, click "More column choices".
3. Click on the Form field in the left column, and then click the Add button.
4. Do this again if you don't already have two Form fields in the right hand column.
5. Click on one Form field in the right hand column and then at the bottom of that column check that the Writing System is Default Vernacular.
6. Click on the other Form field, and change the writing system to IPA, or whatever you want to use for your technical orthography (but it needs to be different from the first one or you'll just be overwriting your Vernacular Writing System).

Hope this helps, and do let me know if you know of another method to implement both a practical and technical orthography for interlinear texts.

Best regards,
Kevin

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the discussion group "FLEx list". This group is hosted by Google Groups and is open for anyone to browse.
> To post to this group, send email to flex...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to flex-list+...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/flex-list

[Beth (work) Bryson]

This is one way to do it, but I urge caution when working in the Interlinear.

Specifically, it works best if you choose one to be your baseline orthography, and then always use that. You can use your alternative orthography when you are printing--you can configure the Print View tab to show this instead of the main one. But once a text has been created, it is not possible to change the Baseline that is used for looking words up in the lexicon.

Another alternative (or additional strategy) is to do something similar in the lexicon. Use Bulk Edit Entries, do something similar to get one column for the Lexeme in one orthography and another column for the Lexeme in the other orthography. Then use your CC table and the Process tab to populate the second orthography.

Then back in the Texts area you can configure the Interlinear (Tools/Configure Interlinear) to show the Lex. Entry in either or both orthographies. This row is much more interchangeable than the Baseline row.

You can experiment with different things and see what works. If you are trying to use two Baselines for analysis, you are likely to end up with duplicate entries, or with FLEx not finding things you expect it to.

Note that applying these processes is static, not dynamic. That is, at the time you applied it, it changed all the Wordforms you currently have. If you add more, then will not be in both orthographies until you apply it again. The same would apply if you do this with the Lexemes.

Glad you are started on a way to do what you want!

-Beth

[Bob Eaton]

Just to point out one other theoretical possibility: if you only feel the
need for the technical orthography in your publications and not necessarily
in your Flex database, you could export your texts, etc, and convert the
data afterwards (e.g. Bulk Word Document Converter or XML Data Converter
from SILConverters, or Jim Kornelsen's converter for within Open Office).

Contact me offline for how to get any of these things (the regular site is
out of date and there's been some updates to these programs).

Bob

[Mike Maxwell]

On 4/21/2012 12:59 PM, Beth (work) Bryson wrote:
> Specifically, it works best if you choose one to be your baseline orthography, and then always
> use that. You can use your alternative orthography when you are printing--you can configure
> the Print View tab to show this instead of the main one. But once a text has been created, it
> is not possible to change the Baseline that is used for looking words up in the lexicon.

I'd be curious to know how people are doing this sort of thing with languages that have
right-to-left scripts. Independently of using FLEx, we decided that if we're glossing in a
left-to-right script, it only made sense to run the aligned lines off of a left-to-right
transcription. So at the top of the interlinear, we have the utterance in its native R2L script,
but un-aligned; then any aligned lines, in L2R script; and finally the free translation, which of
course is in a L2R script.

Published interlinears will be similar, although they may not show all the lines of aligned text.

Is this how others are doing it? Any suggestions specific to using FLEx to do this?
--
Mike Maxwell
max...@umiacs.umd.edu
"My definition of an interesting universe is
one that has the capacity to study itself."
--Stephen Eastmond

[Kevin Penner]

Thanks for these insights, Beth. --Kevin