Re: Dictionaries of agglutinating languages

dirk elzinga wrote:

[...]

> Instead of confining affixes to a separate section of the dictionary
> (a very fine idea, IMO), you could also include derived lexical items
> under the root from which they are derived in a tree-like structure.
> So from the hypothetical root PAD there may be the derived lexical
> items padit, pada, padismo, padismoti, padamaa, padakt, etc. They
> would be arranged in this way
>
>         PAD ...
>           padit ...
>             padismo ...
>               padismoti ...
>           pada ...
>             padamaa ...
>             padakt ...
>           &c.
>
> each with its own definition. This accomplishes a couple of things.
> First, you acknowledge the relationships among derivationally related
> words by including them in the same "macro" entry. Second, you provide
> a partial analysis of the derivation by virtue of the visual
> appearance of each macro entry; ie, the indentation shows you the
> "derivational history" of a particular complex form. Third, each
> lexical item gets a separate definition which can be especially useful
> for irregular or exceptional meanings. The burden is then on the user
> to know what the root of any given form is, though that would be true
> for any dictionary which is organized according to roots.
i wonder why i havn't seen any dictionary built this way. wouldn't it be the
best treatment for an ethymological dictionary? two parts - the first one
with the roots listed alphabetically and its derivants (?) and the second
one with all the words also in alphabetical order, of course, with the
reference to the root.

i've organized this way my work on my slavic conlang. (unfortunately it's
not webbed; if someone interested i can send some samples)

--
lukasz korczewski