[Lexicog] Dictionary of a language with classifiers

[Kim Blewett]

In response to Ron's comments about noun+classifier combinations,

The problem with Kim's solution (below) is that using \se makes it appear
that iyá 'a' and iyá kap are phrasal lexemes. They are not, if I understand
you correctly. Also using \se causes each sense to begin a new line:

iyá n. stone.
  iyá 'a' n. stone.
  iyá kap n. gravel.

This is not at all what you want. At least it does not accurately
communicate the nature of iyá 'a' and iyá kap. 

Actually, this format, beginning each compound form on a new line and
bolding it, is exactly what we want for Rapoisi. I guess it depends on who
your target audience is; we plan to produce a Rapoisi-English-Tokpisin
dictionary for local distribution. However, I don't see that either of these
solutions necessarily implies that these are "phrasal lexemes." They are
forms that need to be easy to locate in a bilingual dictionary, (1) because
the meaning can not always be deduced completely from the parts, especially
for a new learner of the language, and (2) the correct classifier can not
always be predicted for a form. Consistency in dictionary entries is
important, and perhaps an introduction explaining what certain fields
convey/contain, but I was not aware of rules for how a dictionary is allowed
to treat certain forms. A dictionary format should reflect the structure of
the language it's displaying. 

Our classifiers are technically "suffixes" rather than compounds, so they're
not written with a word break, but the set of "roots" overlaps somewhat with
the set of "classifiers", which resembles compounding. I have seen languages
where the orthography breaks up phonological words, either compounds or
clitic markers, for ease of reading. Actually, I was not sure, from Nilson's
example, how independent the classifiers in Karo are.

Currently you are making each
sense of iyá into a separate entry:

iyá 'a' n. stone.
iyá kap n. gravel.

This format also makes it look like these are phrasal lexemes. There are two
possible formats that would convey the information correctly:

iyá n. 1. iyá 'a' stone. 2. iyá kap gravel.

Or:

iyá n. 1. stone. iyá 'a'. 2. gravel. iyá kap.

This second format is preferred because, by tradition, examples of usage and
collocation are placed after the definition. 

This looks good for a dictionary targeted for linguists, but my feeling is
that Rapoisi speakers, or other PNGans who would like to learn Rapoisi,
would be confused by the switching of position here.

However some dictionary
traditions place parts of the paradigm toward the beginning of the entry:

have v. had, having, has Used as an auxiliary verb before...

We do the same sort of thing in Bantu dictionaries to give the plural of
nouns:

muntu n. bantu A person, someone...

Your examples here demonstrate grammatical forms. There is a big difference
between these and noun+classifier forms, which in Rapoisi function as a unit
with respect to plural, possessive, and even can be verbalized. 

Unfortunately MDF does not have a vernacular field that occurs between the
initial fields (\lx \lc \se \ps \sn) and the definition fields (\dv \de
\dn). Some of us have complained about this. There are some solutions, but
they all involve modifying the MDF Consistent Changes tables or modifying
the Word document once MDF has processed the file. Neither solution is easy.
So I would recommend that you put the classifier in a lexical function field
and label it as a classifier:

\lx iyá
\ps n
\sn 1
\de stone
\lf Classifier
\lv iyá 'a'
\sn 2
\de gravel
\lf Classifier
\lv iyá kap

You will get the following output (or something very similar):

iyá n. 1. stone. Classifier: iyá 'a' 2. gravel. Classifier: iyá kap.

The main problem I see with using the lexical field is with reversals. I
want the defs of these forms to show up in a reversed finder list, for the
benefit of language learners in the Rapoisi community. Under \se I can add a
\re field. With \lf, I can't sort out noun+classifier forms from all the
other things that \lf contains that do not need a reversal entry. (It's MDF
that wants to see a \re field under \se; if not using MDF you could probably
make the first word of the \de field appear, or something similar.

So, I still feel that for some languages the Subentry field is the way to
go, although Ron's comments are good and have caused me to think things
through more carefully--thanks, Ron!

Kim Blewett

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20050615/34785371/attachment.htm>