dorsey film conversion questions and estimate

[Mark-Awakuni Swetland]

Aloha all,
I'm looking a the JOD reels as I am writing this (multi tasking, enit?). The
majority of the ms cards with translations appear to have been typed.

However, I've encountered a few ms cards with translations that have NOT
been typed on adjoining cards.

Also, I've encountered ms cards that appear to have been typed... but there
are differences between the two.

e.g. JOD3:198
ms card
wedajiaditaN (Wdj)

ts card
wedajiatataN (Wdj)
WHERE THE PREVIOUS D HAS BEEN CONVERTED TO A T MARKED WITH AN UNDER-X

Perhaps there is a formula that John or others have noticed that JOD used
when going from ms to ts that includes that d=>t(x) shift.

Bottom line, I'd recommend shooting everything to keep it together. Somebody
might find a use for what we are currently called "duplication".

While my particular reader screen shows 1-1/2 frames that may not be the
case universally. I have to center the upper and lower frames for best focus
(with tri-focals and a kinked neck)

Ideally, a single card per image would allow for maximum flexibility in
sorting, deleting, etc. However, I would not impose that obsessive
compulsive approach on someone other than myself. So the efficient
comporomise that I would recommend is that we adopt a single frame per image
approach.

uthixide

Mark Awakuni-Swetland
University of Nebraska
mawakuni-swetland2 at unl.edu

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rory M Larson" <rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: dorsey film conversion questions and estimate


>
>
>
>
> John wrote:
> >> I suspect Dorsey originally wrote his notes on cards by hand, then
typed
> >> them on another card, but all these cards were kept and sorted
> >> alphabetically in the same deck.
> >
> > Is there substantial duplication?  I don't remember that.  I'd expect
him
> > to remove handwritten cards as they were typed.  Elsewhere he speaks of
>
> Well, I haven't looked at them for about a year myself,
> but I seem to recall quite a lot of handwritten notes
> that matched type-written ones elsewhere.  At any rate,
> I'm sure I didn't have to puzzle out handwritten words
> that were unique, except for a few miscellaneous ones
> at the very beginning.
>
> Mark is planning to look up some things on the reels
> Sunday afternoon.  Perhaps he can set us straight here.
>
> Rory
>
>
>
>
>                       Koontz John E
>                       <John.Koontz at colorad        To:
siouan at lists.colorado.edu
>                       o.edu>                      cc:
>                       Sent by:                    Subject:  Re: dorsey
film conversion questions and estimate
>                       owner-siouan at lists.c
>                       olorado.edu
>
>
>                       01/09/2004 05:53 PM
>                       Please respond to
>                       siouan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Rory M Larson wrote:
> > No, the 20,000 figure is rough estimate of the total number of words,
> > and it's probably high.
>
> The estimate antedates microfilming.  I think they probably took an inch
> of cards, counted the cards in it and multiplied by the number of inches
> in the file boxes.  At least that's what I would have done. I doubt they
> counted the actual cards, and I don't think Dorsey did, either.
>
> > Each frame includes typically 4, but often fewer, index card images.
>
> I'd forgotten the four cards per frame reduction.  It's been a while since
> I've been able to consult the microfilm.  The CU Library microfilm
> facilities (if not changed lately) must be much worse than those in
> Minnesota.
>
> > I suspect Dorsey originally wrote his notes on cards by hand, then typed
> > them on another card, but all these cards were kept and sorted
> > alphabetically in the same deck.
>
> Is there substantial duplication?  I don't remember that.  I'd expect him
> to remove handwritten cards as they were typed.  Elsewhere he speaks of
> notes and slips as needing to be typed.  What I do remember is that
> somewhere he has a manuscript on how one might go about generating the set
> of all OP words of certain lengths - basically an approach based on
> knowledge of the canons of OP words qualified by their morphosyntax.  It
> looked to me like some slips were more or less blank, except for having a
> potential form on them, and I think these may have been "potential form"
> cards that he kept so he would be reminded to check whether such a form
> actually existed and, if so, what it might mean.  This was only one of his
> discovery procedures, of course. There were a certain number of such
> cards, but I don't think they were anything like half the number.  I
> couldn't say what percentage they might have been.
>
> I once did a count of unique word forms in the texts and I believe I came
> up with about 5-6K, though it has been a while since I thought about that
> and I don't have the file handy.  I remember immediately concluding that
> the slip file had material from sources other than the texts, because that
> count certainly includes different inflected forms of a single stem.  The
> slipfile itself, however, lists inflected forms of a single stem on the
> same slip.  Different slips may be different derivations from the same
> underlying stem.
>
>
>
>
>