Re: Dictionaries of agglutinating languages

>Message: 23
>    Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:48:24 -0400
>    From: Robert Hailman <robert@...>
>Subject: Re: Dictionaries of agglutinating languages
>
>dirk elzinga wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Robert Hailman wrote:
> >
> > > Adrian Morgan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Robert Hailman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I haven't seen any dictionaries of any languages of a similar
>nature to
> > > > > yours, but my idea is to only put in words the meaning of which
>can't be
> > > > > derived easily by the root & the affixes; or perhaps you could
>only
> > > > > include the words using uncommon affixes.
> > > >
> > > > Well, quite. The problem is in defining 'derived easily' and
>'common'.
> > > > These qualities /can't/ be defined except as one end of a very fuzzy
> > > > and subjective continuum -- but to compile a dictionary I have to be
> > > > definitive.
> > >
> > > Very true. Another idea: Provided all these affixes are regular in how
> > > they alter the meaning of the root, just put the root words in the
> > > dictionary, and have an appendix at the end with a table of all the
> > > affixes.
> >
> > 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.
>
>That's also a very good idea, but I could see a flaw if there were a
>good number of affixes, because then I could see repeating this pattern,
>and a similar one for every part of speech, for every entry could make
>the dictionary quite hefty. It would make the dictionary easier to use:
>pick out the root, and the meaning of the derived term is right there,
>mit definition. With the idea I proposed, it takes a little more work:
>find the root in the dictionary, get it's definition, go to a table in
>the back, find every affix used, and figure out how the combine to give
>the derived work it's meaning. That would be quite a laborious task.
>
>Basically, the same amount of work has to be done, but using my idea
>it's up to the reader to do most of the work, and with your idea, Dirk,
>it's up to the person writing the dictionary to do most of the work. I
>could see either working.
The root method of organization saved the original version of Lahabic from
premature extinction because it forced me to memorize the common roots. My
current dictionary, however, is not compiled this way so that I can copy
words from Early Lahabic to Classical Lahabic more easily. I still use the
root method for generating words (there are 33 prefixes and 22 suffixes, not
counting case endings, so additional roots are not really necessary).
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.