Re: interlineal text for the web

Jim Grossmann wrote:

> For instance, would it be good to do it this way?
>
> CONLANG PLAINTEXT        ha filocad=E9 mun=ED c=E1fui.
> morpheme by morpheme    ha # filoca - d=E9 # mun=ED # c=E1fui.
> m by m translation                OSV # dog - plural # 1st sing # see
> ENGLISH PLAINTEXT            I see the dog.
>
> What else do I need beside word-boundary vs. morpheme boundary markers?
What most linguistic texts I've seen do is:

(a) the text of the language itself
(b) a morpheme by morpheme translation
(c) an English gloss

So, with a Degaspregos sentence, this would work out as:

(a) kwonom ailuromkwe meos ne weidakwibat.
(b) dog:N:ACC cat:N:ACC:and first-person:PR:N:NOM
     not see:TR:PF:PRES.
(c) I haven't seen (the) dog and cat.

[You'd also have to make sure your readers can clearly understand
your notation, thus:

N         nominal marker
ACC    accusative case
PR       pronoun root
TR       transitive verb
PF       perfective aspect
PRES  present tense]

Also, the texts I've seen usually don't explicitly say "Line (b) is the
morpheme by morpheme breakdown" etc.  They just assume you
know that if you're bothering to read their high level text. The only
mark they do give is the example number.  So if you are aiming for
a different audience, I'd suggest marking those explicitly in some way.

> Is this convention clear enough, even though the words don't match up
> vertically?
Most linguistic texts I've seen try to line everything up, but it's more
of a stylistic thing.  So, I'd advise it, but it's not necessary.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
AIM: Deuterotom ICQ: 4315704
<http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D