[Lexicog] one practical question re. weak verbs

[Wayne Leman]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Moe" <ron_moe at sil.org>
To: <lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 1:05 PM
Subject: RE: [Lexicog] one practical question re. weak verbs


> I believe the needs of the user are paramount in this discussion. Where
will
> he look to find what he is looking for? If he looks for the first word and
> the phrase is listed under the first word, all is well. But if he looks
for
> the second word and the phrase is not there either as a head word or a
> subentry, then he either is disappointed or has to go looking again. I
> suspect most languages have phrases in which the second item is not a free
> standing word. An English example is the (slightly archaic) 'to and fro'.
To
> handle the need of the user to find 'fro' we need two entries:
>
> fro  /only used in the phrase/ to and fro  /adv./ Back and forth; first in
> one direction then the opposite direction. /He paced to and fro./
>
> to and fro  /adv./ Back and forth. /He paced to and fro./
>
> In this way the user finds the information he needs where he is most
likely
> to look, assuming he already knows the words 'to' and 'and', and is
puzzled
> by the unfamiliar 'fro'. In order to save space, we could use a minor
entry:
>
> fro  /see/ to and fro
>
> But this does not give the user the information he needs in the first
place
> he looks. So we may have to make a difficult decision--whether to save
space
> or be maximally helpful. If you include lots of phrases, listing them all
> under each word in the phrase will radically increase the size of the
book.
> So we have to decide if the user wants a maximally helpful book or an
> inexpensive book.
>
> We need to decide for each phrase where the user might look to find it. I
> don't think we would want to list 'to and fro' under 'and'. With each of
the
> following phrases I would expect the user to look first under the starred
> member:
>
> come into *view, make *eyes at, see something with your own *eyes, get an
> *eyeful
>
> I don't think anyone would look under the functors:
>
> come *into view, make eyes *at, see *something *with *your *own eyes, get
> *an eyeful
>
> Some people might look under the verb in each of these cases, which also
> happen to be the first word and where the phrase would be alphabetized:
>
> *come into view, *make eyes at, *see something with your own eyes, *get an
> eyeful
>
> But each of the verbs is common and their meaning would most likely be
> known, either as a strong verb or a weak verb. So we need to ask if the
user
> would identify these phrases as idioms, if they would be able to identify
> which words make up the idiom, if they would be able to give the citation
> form of the idiom (i.e. extract 'see something with your own eyes' from "I
> wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes"), and if
> they would know where to look to find the idiom in the dictionary.
>
> So the procedure for phrases is:
> (1) Identify the citation form.
> (2) Determine which word the user is likely to look under to find the
phrase
> (usually the contentives).
> (3) Enter the phrase as a main entry under the first word of the phrase.
> (4) Enter the phrase under each other word the user is likely to look
under,
> either as a main entry, minor entry, or subentry.
>
> Ron Moe
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: John Roberts [mailto:dr_john_roberts at sil.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 10:11 AM
> To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Lexicog] one practical question re. weak verbs
>
>
>   David,
>
>   It depends on what type of dictionary you are producing. If it is to be
> form-based, then you would have a main entry for the weak verb with the
> compounds listed as sub-entries, i.e.
>
>   \lx jang
>   \ps n.
>   \de bell
>   \se jang etmek
>   \de to telephone, ring
>
>   This is the way traditional English dictionaries, such as Chambers, do
it.
> But if the dictionary is to be semantic-based then the compound with the
> weak verb gets its own main entry - since it is a lexeme, i.e.
>
>   \lx jang etmek
>   \ps v.
>   \de to telephone, ring
>
>   and the weak verb only gets a main entry if it can occur alone. This is
> the way modern English dictionaries, such as Collins COBUILD, do things,
and
> it is my preference for a dictionary layout. There is nothing to stop you
> doing it both ways. Give all the compounds based on weak verbs as main
> entries with definitions of meaning, etc. but have a cross-reference in
the
> entry for the weak verb itself to all its formatives.
>
>   John Roberts
>
>
>
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>               ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --
>   Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/
>
>     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>     lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
>     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>