[Lexicog] one practical question re. weak verbs
List Facilitator
lexicography2004 at YAHOO.COM
Fri Jan 16 01:32:14 UTC 2004
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Roberts" <dr_john_roberts at sil.org>
To: <lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 1:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Lexicog] one practical question re. weak verbs
Thanks, Ron. I will check out the article. With the multiplicity of
different types of English dictionary being published today and the ever
increasing sophistication of hand-held computing devices I would have
thought there would be a ready market for a hand-held electronic dictionary
(in English, at least) of the kind you dream about.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Moe
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 4:07 AM
Subject: RE: [Lexicog] one practical question re. weak verbs
You are absolutely right. We strive for the ideal, but too often reality
dictates our choices. Electronic dictionaries don't have the size problems
of printed dictionaries. With printed dictionaries the general rule is
abbreviate, shorten, minimize. So minor entries are good. Better to find a
minor entry than nothing at all. But if size is everthing, even the minor
entries must go. Gilles-Maurice De Schryver sent me (off list) a recent
article of his:
De Schryver, Gilles-Maurice. 2003. Lexicographers' Dreams in the
Electronic-Dictionary Age. International Journal of Lexicography 16/2:
143-199.
This is a fascinating read for those of us who dream. The bottom line is
that our craft is constrained by multiple needs and issues. I want full
entries instead of minor entries, but cost constrains us. I want all
derivatives and phrases as subentries, but the article becomes too long and
complex. I want to find things quickly, but who will be my guide? I want to
display data along multiple dimensions, but who will bend my computer
screen? I want standardization, but need an army to enforce it. I want. I
wish. I dream.
Ideally I would sit at my computer terminal and type "f r o" and a soft
woman's voice would reply, "Are you looking for the idiom 'to and fro'
meaning 'back and forth', the archaic Scottish 'fro' meaning 'from', or did
you mistype and want the preposition 'for'? In the real world my conscience
would feel guilty about the woman's voice and a dialog box would appear on
my screen, "Program has produced a fatal error and will shut down. To
correct the problem please increase your budget by $1,000,000."
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: John Roberts [mailto:dr_john_roberts at sil.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 2:26 PM
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Lexicog] one practical question re. weak verbs
Ron,
Note that Collins COBUILD has
fro /see/ to and fro
while Chambers has 'to and fro' as a subentry under the preposition
'to', with no entry for 'fro' (at least not the 'fro' in 'to and fro').
Your recommendation to give definitions, usage etc. in every place an
item from a compound or phrase occurs is only practical where there are a
few instances. If you have a language with hundreds of compounds or phrases
based on a single weak verb, for example, and you gave definitions, usage
etc. under subentries, you would end up with a very large complex entry - a
dictionary within a dictionary. This might be more difficult to negotiate
than just referring the user to the main entry where the compound or phrase
is listed according to the first item. In practise you are only giving the
user one more search to do.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Moe
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:05 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 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
SMS 8
More information about the Lexicography
mailing list