Re: [FLEx] ideophones: lexical relations or variants?

[Beth-docs Bryson]

Oumar-

On a different list some folks were discussing the best way to represent ideophones in FLEx.  

One aspect that came out is that in the entry for the ideophone, one may want to list the specific items it can modify, but in the entries for those items, one may not want to list all the ideophones that can go with them.  Thus, the need for a unidirectional relationship.

Others noted that normally when providing ideophone information, it may be quite important to include an example, to show how it is used in context.

In your example towards the end of your message, it sounds like you don't want an entry for the ideophone itself, but you want the information about it in the entry it modifies--is that correct?

To respond to a couple specific technical aspects of your question:

 - When you set up a Lexical Relation, you have the choice of *what kind* of relation it is, as well as what level of the hierarchy it occurs at.  Thus, a relation can be an entry-level relation, or sense-level, or "entry or sense"-level.  If you created a relation but don't see it on the Senses, please to to the Lists area and look at your lexical relation, and in the field "reference set type", see if it has the word "entry" or "sense" or "entry/sense".

 - Lexical relations are bidirectional links between two main entries.  If you want a link where one entry is a main entry and the other is a minor entry, then that relation would need to be either Variant or Complex Form.

I'll stop here; there is much that could be written about this topic.

-Beth

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 5:34 PM, 'Oumar Bah' via FLEx list <flex...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Dear all,

I have created a new lexical relation for ideophones in Flex but when I go to the lexical relations at the sense level, the new item is not available. In the Fulfulde language, ideophones are intensifiers that are specific to certain qualifiers, for example kesum "new", kesum pul "brand new" or lakasɗum "unsavoury, tasteless", lakasɗum baras, "extremely tasteless". These ideophones are unpredictable and need therefore to be cross referenced with the qualifiers. Ideally, the lexical relation should look like as follows:

kesum adj new; ideoph: pul (main entry)

pul ideoph. of: kesum (minor entry)

 

Is this a bug? I think, I can use the variant field for my purpose but I don't want to misuse it for something it is not designed for. Does anyone have an idea?

Regards

Oumar

--
You are subscribed to the publicly accessible group "FLEx list".
Only members can post but anyone can view messages on the website.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FLEx list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to flex-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to flex...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/flex-list/591611703.23518989.1471127673456.JavaMail.yahoo%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.