[Lexicog] definitions vs glosses and domain/context

[Ron Moe]

Mike,
Actually your point is hugely critical. A list of glosses is not a
definition. Greek lexicons are notorious for listing translation equivalents
and failing to define. Look up a word like proskuneo and you will find "to
make obeisance, do reverence to, worship" (Abbott-Smith). (It actually means
"to bow before a king signifying submission to his authority.") Your desire
for "full but precise" definitions challenges and confounds us all.
Generally a list of translation equivalents in a bilingual dictionary or a
list of synonyms in a monolingual dictionary does little but identify the
semantic domain to which the word belongs. I've found that the only way to
understand the meaning of a word is to thoroughly study the contexts in
which the word occurs, looking for patterns in the collocates and scenarios.
Once you have found the patterns, it usually isn't too hard to word your
definition to include each major feature. For instance proskuneo collocates
with words like 'king, kingdom, crown, throne, lord, servant'. Aha, the word
has something to do with kings! It also collocates with 'bow, kneel,
ground'. Aha, it is a physical action, actually a symbolic act. What does it
symbolize? Clue--the failure to bow is punished by death. The grammar is
'someone proskuneo toward/before someone'. Put it all together and you have
a full definition. Then the challenge is to tighten it up, cut out the
verbage, and make sure it is clear.

Ron Moe

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Sangrey [mailto:msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 5:45 PM
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Lexicog] definitions vs glosses and domain/context


On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 20:17, Rudolph C Troike wrote:
> An interesting point: the first word that sprang to mind for me when Mike
> posed his question was "repulsed" (not even Ron Moe's extensive analysis
> of the "shock" domain included this), based on his description of the
> desired meaning, but when the context was revealed, it was clearly not the
> appropriate choice. This points up again the difficult problem of
> definitions vs domain/context.

I think I'm going to be a little unfair to Rudolph and use his posting
as a jumping off point.  But, anyway, here it goes.

I'm not a lexicographer by any imaginative stretch--I can't speak
manglish--but...

Is the difficult problem with defintions vs domain/context?  Or, is it
between glosses and domain/context?

Is this one of those types of questions the naive ask on an email list,
step back, and then the experts "fight" it out?  <laugh out loud>

In all seriousness, I ask because glosses bother me (especially in Greek
lexicons).  I'd LOVE to have full but precise definitions.  Yeah, yeah,
I know, "full" and "precise"...how on earth dare those two words
collocate?  <chuckle>  I do like definitions.  Really!

--
Mike Sangrey
msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Landisburg, Pa.
                        "The first one last wins."
            "A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth."





Yahoo! Groups Links







------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/HKE4lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/