[Lexicog] Lexical Relations vs. Etymology - using "idiom" in the \ps field

Thu Mar 6 07:51:04 UTC 2008

Thanks, Crockett,
Yes, this problem does turn up, as you surmised, with any Data Range item under \ps other than the first \ps item for the lexeme.  There is both a new sense number listing and a new line.  There should be one or the other, but not both, I think.  If you can help us to troubleshoot this problem, we will be most grateful as we hope to publish the first "official" version this weekend.  I have prepared a 2MB PDF file of the first few pages of our Mabaan (a Sudan language) dictionary, which illustrates this problem. I would have attached it but don't know the protocol here.  If you (or anyone else) wants to see this, let me know if I am allowed to attach it to something sent out to the group.  If not, please send me an e-mail address outside the group and I will send the PDF to you.
Warm greetings,
Cheryl
  _____  

From: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com [mailto:lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Crockett
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:34 PM
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Lexicog] Lexical Relations vs. Etymology - using "idiom" in the \ps field

I guess when some other \ps, like noun or adverb, comes out in the printed dictionary the formatting is okay. Is that right? If so, I don’t know why \ps idiom would change the formatting. It should just come out like any other part of speech in the printed dictionary. I would not put “idiom” under \sn. That is supposed to be something like a number or a letter.

Here is what the MDF manual says about \ps:

\ps Part of speech: [\ps vt, \ps n, \ps PREP, \ps PRO]. This is used to classify the

vernacular form, not the English or national language gloss. For example, the

quality fat might be an adjective in English, but a verb in the vernacular

language. \ps labels should be refined as one’s understanding of the language

grows. In other words, don’t believe your early labels. Consistency in labeling

is important. The RANGE SETS in SHOEBOX can help with this. There should

be no final punctuation. MDF prints the \ps contents as italics (case is printed

as entered in the original file) and adds a period [\ps vt * vt.]. See chapter 9 for

a variety of relevant issues and Appendix E for a starter list of abbreviations. If

more than one \ps is used in an entry (e.g. one sense as a noun and another as a

verb), then MDF starts each new \ps within an entry or subentry at the

beginning of a new line, dividing the entry into sections on the basis of the \ps.

It looks like what is happening to your friend’s data falls under the last sentence, but that should not just affect \ps idiom. Maybe you can send an example of the data and output to show better what is happening.

Crockett

From: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com [mailto:lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cheryl Reitz
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 6:51 AM
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Lexicog] Lexical Relations vs. Etymology

My colleague, a retired linguistic missionary (to Sudan) who is in the process of producing a Toolbox dictionary, had been advised several years ago to put "idiom" in the \ps Range Set, and she has several hundred idioms in her database.  The hierarchy is \lx (lexeme)>\se (subentry)>ps (part of speech)>\sn (sense number).  The positioning of "idiom" under \ps creates a problem when we try to print the dictionary.  Each idiom, like any new subentry, starts on a new line. The items under \sn do not start on new lines, which looks better and saves space. For the purpose of printing, then, it might be better if "idiom" (like other items such as \de [definitions] or \sy [synonyms]) were under \sn.  However, I'm not sure how we can do this using the standard MDF categories.  Any advice?

Cheryl

  _____  

From: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com [mailto:lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Crockett
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 10:16 PM
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Lexicog] Lexical Relations vs. Etymology

Ken,

Where do you label something as an idiom? I think some people label idioms in the part of speech field. I would think you could use the part of speech field to call it a calque.

Crockett

From: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com [mailto:lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Frank
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 5:18 AM
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Lexicog] Re: Lexical Relations vs. Etymology

I can't read Cyrillic script and I'm not too familiar with Shoebox or Toolbox or FieldWorks, but I think I see two problems here. It looks to me like you are citing an example of a phrase, and I would not try to give an etymology for a phrase. Words have etymologies; phrases don't. Or in the case of a calque, I suppose you could consider the source from another language as being a kind of etymology, but we wouldn't usually describe phrases as having etymologies.

Also, I wouldn't assign a part of speech to a phrase either. It looks like you are calling this phrase a noun, and I don't think that is appropriate. A phrase may contain a noun but wouldn't be called a noun or any other part of speech. Instead of a word class label, some people might want to assign a label that would be appropriate to phrases such as "phr" or "np", but I prefer to just leave the part of speech blank for anything I would put into a dictionary that is comprised of more than one word.

-- David Frank

---- Original Message ----- 

From: Kenneth Keyes <mailto:ken_keyes at sil.org>  

To: flex at lists.sil. <mailto:flex at lists.sil.org> org ; lexicographylist@ <mailto:lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com 

Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 9:24 AM

Subject: [Lexicog] Lexical Relations vs. Etymology

Dear All, 

Hi, I have another brainteaser for you:

What relation do Calques bear to the language they are borrowed from? For example, I have the following entries:

АЗАМАТТЫҚ ХАЛ АКТІЛЕРІН ЖАЗУ  (АХАЖ) N  Eng vital statistics offfce - where changes in the lives of citizens are recorded Kaz азаматтардың өмір өзгерістерін тіркеп жазып отыратын бөлім Rus отдел записи актов гражданского состояния 

АХАЖ  Contr АЗАМАТТЫК ХАЛ АКТІЛЕРІН ЖАЗУ

Cf. SFM export: 

\lx АЗАМАТТЫҚ ХАЛ АКТІЛЕРІН ЖАЗУ

\sn 1

\ps_en N

\d_en vital statistics offfce - where changes in the lives of citizens are recorded

\d_kk азаматтардың өмір өзгерістерін тіркеп жазып отыратын бөлім

\d_ru отдел записи актов гражданского состояния

\lx АХАЖ

\et Contr

\mn АЗАМАТТЫК ХАЛ АКТІЛЕРІН ЖАЗУ

This a calque from the Russian: 

ЗАГС  N  Eng The government office where vital statistics are recorded. Kaz азаматтық хал-ахуалды тіркейтін бөлім актілерін жазу Rus отдел Записи Актов Гражданского Состояния calq: АХАЖ. (sem. domains: admin. - administration.) {coll.}

\lx ЗАГС

\sn 1

\ps_en N

\d_en The government office where vital statistics are recorded.

\d_kk азаматтық хал-ахуалды тіркейтін бөлім актілерін жазу

\d_ru отдел записи актов гражданского состояния

\lf calq

\lv АХАЖ

\is_en admin.

\sd_en administration

\u_en coll.

To handle this case, I created a lexical function called “Calque”. However, this is also the etymology of the word. How do I deal with the etymology? There are tons of these cases (of calques from Russian) in Eurasian languages. 

Thanks for considering this! 

Best regards,

Ken

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20080305/ca26c7b2/attachment.htm>