Mapping of MDF's \ec
John Hatton
MDF has these etymology fields:
\et etymology Etym: Asal:
\eg etymology-gloss (combines with \et)
\es etymology-source (combines with \et)
\ec etymology-comment (combines with \et)
LIFT 0.13 does not appear to specify an explicit comment for etymologies,
though of course one could be added in a <field>. What I need is an agreed
convention to use. Should etymology comments be saved as <field
type='comment'>?
thanks
John Hatton
SIL Papua New Guinea, Palaso, & SIL International Software Development
Chat Google Talk: hattonjohn Skype: hattonjohn Google Wave:
hatto...@googlewave.com
Martin Hosken
> MDF has these etymology fields:
> \et etymology Etym: Asal:
> \eg etymology-gloss (combines with \et)
> \es etymology-source (combines with \et)
> \ec etymology-comment (combines with \et)
>
> LIFT 0.13 does not appear to specify an explicit comment for etymologies,
Apart from the <etymology> element ;)
> though of course one could be added in a <field>. What I need is an agreed
> convention to use. Should etymology comments be saved as <field
> type='comment'>?
Try the <etymology> element for size. Let us know if it doesn't fit.
Yours,
Martin
John Hatton
I see I lack credit. Here is the definition of a LIFT <etymology>:
etymology
An etymology is for describing lexical relations with a word that is not an entry in the lexicon.
For example proto forms. As such it holds a representation of the word and a gloss of that word
rather than a reference to an Entry or Sense in the lexicon.
Inheritance
extensible Adds date, field and trait elements to the content for extensibility.
Attributes
type [Required, key] Gives the etymological relationship between this sense and
some other word in another language. This is a reference to a range-element in
the etymology range.
source [Required, string] Gives the language for the source language of the
etymological relation. Where possible a lang type code should be used, but
proto languages tend not to appear in the Ethnologue and so a uniquely
identifying name may be given here.
Contents
gloss [Optional, Multiple, form] Gives glosses of the word that the etymological
relationship is with.
form [Optional, form] Holds the form of the etymological reference.
Note the absence of a comment element here, as described in the MDF book:
\ec Etymology comment: [\ec metathesis, \ec Expect fv:lesun rather than
fv:resun - possible loan]. Relevant comments where the connection between
the headword and the reconstructed form is not straightforward may be placed
in this field. It may also be used to posit tentative unattested reconstructions and
supporting data. Not intended for printing.
So a fully-packed <etymology> looks like this; I’ll add in the <field> which I’m asking about, for good measure.
\et tebel
\eg thick (dimension)
\es PANDW
\ec metathesis?
<etymology type="proto"
source="PANDW">
<form lang="en">
<text>tebel</text>
</form>
<gloss>
<form
lang="en">
<text>thick
(dimension)</text>
</form>
</gloss>
<field type="comment">metathesis?</field>
</etymology>
John Hatton
SIL Papua New Guinea, Palaso, & SIL International Software Development
Chat Google Talk: hattonjohn Skype: hattonjohn Google Wave: hatto...@googlewave.com
Cambell Prince
<note type="comment" ...
Currently this isn't allowed anywhere under <etymology>, or any of it's child nodes. So that brings a problem, to change or not to change.
The field option is compatible with the existing schema, but the note (to me at least) seems to carry a more similar meaning to the \ec.
Regards,
Cambell
Doug Cooper
Seems like as good a time as any to ask this question. Within
LIFT, is it possible for either:
-- the etymological relationship between a lexical item and a
proposed proto-language reconstruction, or
-- the relationship between proposed reconstructions at
different historical depths (e.g. branch and family)
to be presented as a standalone element? e.g.
<link type="etymology">
<from ... "some element" ... />
<to ... "some element" ... />
</link>
I'd be happy to present an argument for why it's useful to make
lexical citations, reconstructions, and links all equally first-class if
necessary (and if there's an appropriate time & place).
Thanks,
Doug Cooper
Ronald Moe
For your information:
1. I’ve been complaining about the inadequacy of the etymology fields in FLEx for about six years. So far nothing has been done to improve the system. I have written extensively on the subject, but until programmer time is alloted to it, there isn’t much point in repeating all of it. [I’m not bitter, just trying desperately to develop inexhaustible patience. <grin>]
2. The FLEx fields were taken directly from MDF.
3. The MDF \es Etymology Source field is for *bibliographical* source, not source language. But some users of FLEx use it for source language. So much for standardization. <sigh> MDF manual: “\es Blust 1993:46… It is a housekeeping field for data management and is not intended for printing. Abbreviations for works on Austronesian languages can be found in Wurm and Wilson (1975).”
4. The MDF \ec Etymology Comment field is a note field, not intended for printing. However we need both a printing comment field and a non-printing note field, as illustrated below.
5. The MDF \bw Borrowed Word field is for source language. FLEx does not have this field (which is one of my gripes). MDF manual: “\bw Sanskrit, \bw Swahili… This identifies the ultimate source language, where known, with the understanding that it may have been introduced through an intermediate language. The form of the original language may also be given [\lx emrimo, \bw Portuguese fi:meirinho].” What this is saying is that the \bw field can include both the language name and the original form of the word in the original language. So MDF handles borrowed words and inherited words in different fields.
6. There is no need for a separate fields for handling borrowed words and inherited words. The same set of fields can be used for both.
7. To handle etymology we need the following fields:
\beginning_comment [e.g. plural of, back-formation from, irregular diminutive of, or possibly]
\source_language [MDF \bw]
\etymology_form [MDF \et]
\etymology_gloss [MDF \eg]
\ending_comment [e.g. (unattested), probably imitative, with metathesis of t and i]
\etymology_note [MDF \ec, housekeeping, not for printing]
\etymology_bibliography [MDF \es, bibliographical reference, not for printing]
8. We might be able to get by without the \ending_comment field by putting the contents into the \etymology_gloss field. But this is not ideal. For one thing we would want to format the gloss in italics or bracket it with single quotes.
9. We need to be able to repeat this bundle of etymology fields in order to handle stages in a word’s history.
Here is an example from the American Heritage Dictionary:
clock n. …[Middle English, cloc, from Middle Dutch clocke, bell, clock, from Old French cloche, cloque, bell, from Late Latin clocca (imitative).]
\source_language Middle English
\etymology_form cloc
\beginning_comment from
\source_language Middle Dutch
\etymology_form clocke
\etymology_gloss bell, clock
\beginning_comment from
\source_language Old French
\etymology_form cloche, cloque
\etymology_gloss bell
\beginning_comment from
\source_language Late Latin
\etymology_form clocca
\ending_comment (imitative)
I don’t think we need the “type” element as in:
<etymology type="proto" source="PANDW">
Perhaps I am misunderstanding “type”. There are only three “types” of etymology—inherited words, borrowed words, coined words. The difference between inheritance and borrowing is implicit in the source language field. If source="PANDW" is a proto-language, it is redundant to say that the relationship between the headword and the etymology form is “proto”. Coinage would be indicated in the beginning comment field “coined from” or the ending comment field “imitative of a duck’s quack”. However if “type” can be anything (as in my “beginning_comment” field), then I would be prefer that it be renamed to something more descriptive. In this case the contents would not be a range element.
If anyone is interested, I have a lengthy Word document containing lots of examples, explanations, email threads, etc on this topic.
Ron Moe
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3232 - Release Date: 11/01/10
Ronald Moe
Doug,
I would be personally interested in knowing more about what you are talking about (perhaps off-list).
Ron Moe
From: lexiconinter...@googlegroups.com [mailto:lexiconinter...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Doug Cooper
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010
10:49 PM
To: lexiconinter...@googlegroups.com
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3233 - Release Date: 11/02/10