Contemporary language.

[llama_nom]

Can that be set up so that multiple users can edit the same file?  And
how easy is it to convert to other formats (e.g. if someone wanted to
make a text file, a Word document, or a PDF of it)?  If there's no
problem on those fronts, it sounds like a fine idea to me.

We also need to agree on abbreviations, how declensions and verb-types
are marked.  I would suggest for nouns, following your example in the
existing database, as far as you've marked the declension, but
consistently giving full information for each entry, e.g.

ma. masculine a-stem
non. neuter on-stem
fc. feminine consonant-stem

Probably no need to mark regular irregularities such as the feminine
deverbal nouns in -eins, fi.  And since this is a list of neologisms,
I don't suppose we'll have to worry about unpredictable irregularities
like 'haims', fi. (fo. in plural).

We could follow the example of Mitchell and Robinson's A Guide to Old
English and mark weak verbs with Arabic numeral and strong with Roman
numerals.  Most of the time it's clear from the form how the verb is
to be conjugated, but not always, so worth marking them all, I think.

ga-geigan, 3.

I would suggest separating prefixes with hyphens for the sake of clarity.

To save on typing, forms where final 'þ' (thorn) becomes 'd' before
the vowels of inflections could be cited thus: stads, mi.  But if it's
felt that that might be confusing to people unaware of the grammar,
any noun or adjective with a final 'þ' or 'f' should have some further
clarification of whether this changes in inflection, e.g. staþs (d),
mi.; aiþs (þ), ma.

How do people feel about special letters?  Is it wise to continue the
practice of using 'y' for 'þ' (th) and 'v' for hv (hw)?  How about
marking the difference between, áu, ái : aú, aí?  Should we mark these
with acute accents in the traditional way, or ignore the distinction,
or mark them in some other way.  Since the short versions of these
vowels are rarer, any special marking could be applied just to those
without loss of clarity.  Likewise long vowels: þúhtus, yu:htus, or
some such...?  If hyphens are being used to separate elements of
compounds, then there would be no ambiguity with using 'th' and 'hw'.
 The main thing is to agree on a standard in advance, and (if several
people are able to update the database) probably make a file of
guidelines, in case the policy isn't obvious from previous examples.

LN




--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "thiudans" <thiudans at ...> wrote:
>
> Would it be impossible to work with the yahoogroups database tool? We
> have as you may know a database there, which however hasn't been
> updated in a while.
> 
> We could also keep an updated database file oon the gothic-l files
> page. Amendments could be proposed and a new version made every so
often.
> 
> Somewhere I have a list of older neologisms from the early days of the
> list. It might be a useful task to cull all the neologisms from the
> list history and compile them for review. Any enthusiastic members
> with lots of time on their hands?
> 
> -Th.
> 
> 
> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > Is there some way we could create a database / wordlist that can be
> > conveniently edited online by all interested parties?  Something like
> > Wikipedia.  Is there something in Google tools that would let us do
> > that?  The advantage, if this is possible, would be that the project
> > wouldn't get held up if one person was unable to work on it for a
> > while.  A potential disadvantage might be that it could get chaotic if
> > there were disagreements.  Maybe we could get around that if anyone
> > altering someone else's suggestion make a note of the reason, and
> > perhaps consult first with the group.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, Justïn <justinelf@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Freþureik,
> > > 
> > > I'm anxiously awaiting the new list.  Should we begin a post or a
> > > discussion board wherein we agree on or discuss amending neologisms
> > > and then create a unanimous, "officiated" list?  I'm not proposing
> > > that we are the end-all of the Gothic language, but I think we would
> > > all appreciate knowing that we can pull neologisms from one list,
> > > knowing that that list has passed before academic types as picky
about
> > > these words as we are.  Does this make sense?
> > > 
> > > Please voice questions, concerns, comments and criticisms.  I'm
> > > anxious to hear what others think, especially if they have better
> ideas!
> > >
> >
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20070414/79daf239/attachment.htm>