Contemporary language. [Database]

[thiudans]

I've updated editing to group members. Be nice. But I think a document
will be better for finality.
I would exhort some member (Llama Nom?) to take charge in unifying the
format and making a list in .doc or txt form, maybe a PDF too, and
keeping it updated on the files page in yahoogroups. Update after a
good number of additions / corrections are recorded, at least at the
beginning of every month or two.

As long as one clear system (e.g. by one editor) is used we should all
be able to get out of it what we wish. I see no reason for deviating
from accepted transliteration practice except perhaps if to clarify
the nature of a "ggw". I think reference should also be made in this
list or database to the extant Gothic lexicon, where existing words
may overlap in meanings, or perhaps even where synonyms or antonyms
exist. As you create words, it may be helpful to cite (by "cf.") other
Germanic instances such as in ON or OHG. Referring to "cognates" in NG
and WG both would be especially significant.

-Th.


--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 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@> 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/20070416/4e15d022/attachment.htm>