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

[Cheryl Reitz]

Many thanks, David.  Although I haven't a chance to prepare the raw data, I just made this 6-page excerpt (2MB) available for viewing/download at this link:
http://www.e-multiweb.com/secure/DikDik_20071219_excerpt.pdf
 
The "new-line" problem does not show up only for idioms, but for all parts of speech. Samples of the problem in this excerpt are: 
ammo (2-idm, 3-idm, 4-idm), aŋka (2-p), baalo (3-idm, 4-idm), baala (2-auxv), baawo (2-idm).  
 
We would prefer these members of the \ps Range Set to be "behaving" under the sense numbers like members of the \de or \ge Range Sets, using "wrap-around" behaviour.  While it is probably not possible to do this for the various parts of speech, which really must be under \ps, the category idiom seems a little more like a separate definition, behaving like a \de member.  You can see the "wrap-around" behaviour we are hoping to get in:
ammo (1-v), amo (1, 2), baalo (1, 2), baawo (1), baaŋja (1), babdo (1,2)
 
This is a display problem which I can hand-correct in an hour or so (maybe even create a macro), but of course would prefer to have it fixed once and for all instead of having to manually correct it each time we export the dictionary.  Sorry, I'm only an amateur and may not know correct terminology for describing this problem.
 
Please note that this is very much a DRAFT, full of other minor problems as well, some of which we have corrected since the PDF and others we're still addressing.  So we'd really appreciate it if you do not use this in any way other than to troubleshoot this issue.
 
Thanks so much.
Cheryl

  _____  

From: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com [mailto:lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Frank
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:48 AM
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Lexicog] Lexical Relations vs. Etymology - using "idiom" in the \ps field



 

As I have said recently, I would discourage adding anything in the part of speech field that is not really a part of speech label. You could put labels like noun, verb, adj., etc., but I wouldn't put anything in the part of speech field for entries that are more than one word. I would not use labels like phrase or NP or idiom in the part of speech field nor anywhere else. Crockett has already pointed out that such labels don't belong in the sense number field either. My feeling [and the use of this term brings to mind the other discussion we were having] is that they don't belong anywhere. But I don't know what people are normally taught to do in the case of idioms or phrases when using Shoebox or Toolbox and MDF, and I don't know how the printout would look if the part of speech field were left out or left blank. The software ought to be programmed in such a way as to give reasonable results, or at least there ought to be a way of tricking the software into doing what you need it to do.
 
I don't use Toolbox and MDF and I am not a programmer, but I believe there should be some Toolbox/MDF experts listening in who can tell how to get the results you want, if the software is capable of it. Cheryl, if you could send examples in an e-mail rather than as an attachment, you might get some help. Show the raw Toolbox or Shoebox output with backslashes and field codes, and then show how that is formatted with MDF, and then reformat it the way you think it should look and ask for help getting it that way.
 
-- David Frank
 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Cheryl Reitz <mailto:cheryl.reitz at shawcable.com>  
To: lexicographylist@ <mailto:lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 2:51 AM
Subject: RE: [Lexicog] Lexical Relations vs. Etymology - using "idiom" in the \ps field


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

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20080306/79248a81/attachment.htm>