Precodes and continuation markers

[Brian MacWhinney]

Dear Kevin,

    Yes, the forms that can precede the precodes are the punctuation marks beginning with the +

--Brian

On Dec 7, 2011, at 6:09 AM, Kevin Donnelly wrote:

> Hi Brian
> 
> Thanks for the info, but just to clinch this ...
> 
> ::::On Tuesday 06 December 2011 Brian MacWhinney said::::
>> On Dec 6, 2011, at 2:47 PM, Kevin Donnelly wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> We are using the new(er) precode system for marking language stretches in
>>> bilingual files.  There is not a great deal of information about this in
>>> the manual, so perhaps I could post a query on the list.
>>> 
>>> We have been putting the precodes first in the speaker tier, for reasons
>>> of readability, and also because it makes computer analysis of the tier
>>> a bit easier.  So we have, for instance:
>>> *IRI:    [- spa] +< no eso es totalmente natural .
>>> 
>>> However, when we run CHECK on these files, we get error messages saying:
>>> Item '+<' must be used at the beginning of tier.
>>> 
>>> Presumably this means that we have to write:
>>> *IRI:    +< [- spa] no eso es totalmente natural .
>> 
>> Right, the above form is the correct one.  We have to have a strict order
>> of codes in order to guarantee verification through XML.
>> 
>>> So:
>>> (a) Is it the case that precodes must follow markers like +< ?
>>> (b) Are there any other markers or other things to which this applies?
>>> (c) Are there any other "gotchas" we should watch out for when using
>>> precodes?
>> 
>> Nothing very serious.  As long as you run CHECK frequently, you will always
>> know if you have run into some problem.
> 
> We do need a list of markers, since we're also refactoring the file into a 
> database, which is our main analysis medium.
> 
> Would I be correct in saying that the issue applies to all the continuation 
> markers (linkers) listed in Section 7.10 of the CHAT manual, ie:
> +"
> +^
> +<
> +,
> ++
> 
> Are there any other markers which need to come first in the line?
> 
>>> As a subsidiary question, I assume that using the 3-letter ISO-639-3 or
>>> ISO-639-2 codes (http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/codes.asp) instead of the 2-
>>> letter ISO-639-1 codes is OK, and fits in with the trend in CLAN towards
>>> those.
>> 
>> Yes, in accord with the more recent standards, we are now using the
>> 3-letter codes.
> 
> -- 
> Pob hwyl / Best wishes
> 
> Kevin Donnelly
> kevindonnelly.org.uk
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "chibolts" group.
> To post to this group, send email to chibolts at googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to chibolts+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chibolts?hl=en.
> 
> 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "chibolts" group.
To post to this group, send email to chibolts at googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to chibolts+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chibolts?hl=en.