[Lexicog] Theoretical constructs vs. practical reference dictionaries

[Kenneth C. Hill]

Re: Grammatical info in the Hopi Dictionary

I am not prepared to write a paper on this, but here are a few examples:

The "elsewhere" case for predicate pluralization in Hopi is the suffix
-ya. But in the listing of verbs, we cite the plural suffix whatever it
may be, including -ya.

There is a minor adjectival class in which the nominative is in -y(o-) and
the accusative is in -kw (or -ko-), plus elaborations. This pattern is
easlily explained in the grammar, but because the items involved are few,
we didn't bother suppressing the grammatical information at the specific
entries.

Some nouns are invariant regardless of singular or multiple reference. As
we found that such nouns had no plural form, we marked them as "n.sg."
Rather than simplify the notation "n.sg." to simply "n." and let the
absence of a cited plural form speak for itself, we have left stand the
mark "n.sg.

Presentational redundancy is often a good thing. One has to be careful to
keep it under control, but that is an editorial problem. And so far as I
know, there is no linguistic notion of an "editorial" component of a
language which might constrain this notion in any principled way.

--Ken


--- 'Lou Hohulin' <lou_hohulin at sil.org> wrote:
> Thank you, Ken Hill, for reminding us of this distinction.
>
> In your e-mail, you mentioned putting a fair amount of grammatical
> information in the Hopi dictionary.  I'd like to raise some questions
> about the amount of grammatical information that we should put in
> 'practical reference dictionaries'. I am writing a descriptive grammar,
> along with the compilation of a dictionary of a largely undocumented
> language (Tuwali Ifugao - Austronesian, Philippine-type), and am
> attempting to integrate the information between the two products.
> However, decisions regarding what should be put in the dictionary, as
> well as in the grammar, are difficult. Is there a principled way to make
> consistent decisions?
>
> I also noted Rich Rhodes comments about the lexicon and grammar being a
> 'continuum' -- that isn't the way he stated it, but essentially I agree
> with that theoretical position; however, when it comes to the practical
> task of producing helpful dictionaries and grammars, we desperately need
> a theoretically sound basis for deciding 'what goes where'.
>
> I am using the SIL-developed program, LinguaLinks, which allows me to
> interlinearize text, and then, attested examples from the texts can be
> seen in entries. Also, there is an annotation field that allows
> grammatical information, encyclopedic information, etc. In addition,
> there is a thesaurus program which allows ease in classifying words into
> domains. The domains are not always as unique as I need for the
> language; however, it is a tremendously helpful program for clearly
> defining the differences in large numbers of very specific words.
>
> Lou Hohulin
>
>
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 12:42:31 -0800 (PST)
>  "Kenneth C. Hill" <kennethchill at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I detect a common confusion in this interchange, the loss of the
> > distinction between "the lexicon" as a theoretical construct
> (alongside
> > "the grammar, the syntax, the phonology, the onomasticon," etc.) and
> "a
> > dictionary" as a specific reference work. A dictionary is motivated by
> the
> > perceived needs of the prospective users as well as by the author's
> > perhaps idiosyncratic interest in including certain information. In
> the
> > Hopi Dictionary, for example, there is a lot of stuff that properly
> > belongs in the grammar, but it was thought to be useful to remind the
> > potential user of various details of grammatical behavior within the
> body
> > of the dictionary. And the grammar we provided was a bare-bones
> practical
> > sketch. The Hopi Dictionary mixes encyclopedic knowledge in with
> > everything else in a somewhat unprincipled way simply because that
> > information was considered of potential interest to the reader and,
> > anyway, we weren't about to write a separate encyclopedia. Items
> appear in
> > the dictionary that pertain to the theoretical onomasticon but, I
> guess,
> > only where the onomasticon and the encyclopedia overlap: selected
> > placenames and a couple of personal names with historical importance.
> >
> > I urge the distinction between the dictionary-as-theoretical-construct
> and
> > the dictionary-as-practical-reference-work. Most of us, I believe, are
> > concerned overwhelmingly with the latter. I know some others have
> pointed
> > this out, but I hereby put my two cents in.
> >
> > --Ken H
ill


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Send the freshest Valentine's flowers with a FREE vase from only $29.99!
Shipped direct from the grower with a 7 day freshness guarantee and prices so low you save 30-55% off retail!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_iAw9B/xdlHAA/3jkFAA/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/