[Lexicog] question about markers

[Crockett]

The \se field is included in the reversed finderlists. I really can't
imagine leaving off either the \ge, \re, or \de fields from any entry. They
each have an important role in a dictionary database. Often, you will not
need to use all three, but you'd almost always have to use two of them. And
very often separate kinds of entries are needed in all three fields. Maybe
you are just doing interlinearizing and are not planning on producing a
dictionary. If that is the case, your strategy might be okay for you, but it
would not work for someone producing a dictionary with finderlists.

 

Crockett

 

From: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Blewett
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 5:07 AM
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [] Re: [Lexicog] question about markers

 

Thanks for your comments, I guess I didn't explain myself well enough. I do
interlinearizing in TB, and this has been my experience, though I haven't
done much with more recent versions of TB, which is why I added a disclaimer
at the end of my posting--the behavior might have changed. Here's a
clarification on Crockett's first two paragraphs below (I can't seem to
insert text between his paragraphs).

TB's interlinearizer doesn't know what to do with a \se field, it just
ignores it. So in the case of Neal's suggestion to Dimitris, TB finds two
\ge lines underneath the \lx kaboo. TB will parse "kaboo and happy" as three
separate words. It will ask which gloss (normal or stoned) you want to
insert under this instance of kaboo.  If you WANT TB to gloss "kabo and
happy" as an idiom meaning 'stoned'  you must create another record like
this:

\lx kabo and happy
\ps idiom (or whatever...)
\ge stoned

I didn't say I'm not using \ge for a bunch of entries; I said I don't use it
under \se. But I admit I'd forgotten about the reversal feature. Does the
reversed finder list include \se fields? My guess is that it doesn't, but if
so, and if the  \re field will work for the finder list, I would recommend
that people add it instead of \ge to  get their subentries reversed, because
\ge under \se really does cause problems when interlinearizing.

Kim 

Crockett wrote: 

I don't know for sure since I don't do interlinearizing, but I would be
surprised if TB sees kaboo and kaboo and happy as the same word. I would
think TB would see the \se as the same as an \lx. Unless the text actually
has the whole phrase kaboo and happy, then TB would not think that kaboo was
kaboo and happy; so only the \ge for kaboo would come up. Does someone know
if Kim is right about that?

 

Kim, If you are not using the \ge fields for a bunch of entries, then I hope
you are using the reversal fields. If not, none of the entries where you
only have \de will come out in your reversed finder list. That is to say,
none of the entries with only \de filled in will be in your index. TB only
uses \ge and \re to make the index. You might have a problem on your hands
if you were hoping to have fully indexed entries.

 

As far as how to handle idioms, I would check national dictionaries to see
how they do it. Lots of dictionaries just list an idiom as a part of speech.
It is not called a noun or a noun phrase or any of that; it is just listed
as an idiom. That may make some people shudder, but I think it is a
practical solution. If you want to do it that way, then also list a \ps
under your \se and call it \ps idiom.

 

Crockett

 

From: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Blewett
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 7:06 PM
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [] Re: [Lexicog] question about markers

 

Just a comment here about the use of \ge vs \de. If you plan to use Toolbox
to produce interlinearized glossed texts, you should normally use \de under
\se "Subentry" rather than \ge. In the case below, each time "kaboo" is
encountered in a text, the interlinearizer will ask you to choose between
'normal meaning' and 'stoned,' since it sees two \ge fields in this record.
If you instead enter the meaning of the \se phrase as "\de stoned", Toolbox
interlinear will ignore this when glossing. 

I believe that if you want TB interlinear to recognize and automatically
gloss "kaboo and happy" as 'stoned', you need to enter the phrase as a
separate record under \lx (interlinear ignores \se). TB is not really very
adept at automatically glossing phrases, however, and if you have any
morphology so that the exact phrase string is variable it won't work at all.

So my habit is to use \de for all definitions EXCEPT those that I want the
interlinearizer to recognize. In other words, I believe that \ge, \a, and \u
are markers specifically designed for the interlinearizer rather than for
dictionaries. The MDF formatter does, however, pull in \ge for a dictionary
entry if the record contains no \de, thus saving us from entering
single-word definitions twice for each entry.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here...
Kim Blewett

Neal_Brinneman at sil.org wrote: 

/lx kaboo
/ps n
/ge stoned

but how am I to handle the rest?

\lx kaboo

\ps n

\ge normal meaning for kaboo

\se kaboo and happy

\ge stoned

Neal

http://www.ncbrinneman.com

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20080320/b4c41651/attachment.htm>