Re: CHAT: Idioms in interlinearizing (was: Re: CHAT: Umberto Eco and Esperanto)

On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, taliesin the storyteller wrote:

>=20
> I believe the dots are used when something is implicit, a part of the lex=
eme,
> and not the result of affixation and friends, here an example from ta:ruv=
en:
>=20
> su=E0=FE
> 1q.PAT
>=20
> "First person quintal, patient".
>=20
> First person singular is <su=EC>, patient is <-a=FE>, and there is no=20
> phonetic/sandhi- or whatever rule that generates <su=E0=FE>, therefore th=
e dot.
>=20
> (<su=ECa=FE>, 1q-PAT is also a legal form in ta:ruven)
>=20
That would be an entirely acceptable convention - but I've
read numerous recent grammars where it appeared to be exactly the
other way around. (Just as there are grammars that use dashes
exclusively, or dots exclusively.) And when I wanted to publish
one of my MA thesises, the editor told me I had to put dots where
I had dashes, and vice versa, but not everywhere, all the time.
It made me feel I'd been playing at morse code!


Boudewijn Rempt  | http://www.xs4all.nl/~bsarempt