Re: Lexicon counting (was: Weekly Vocab #1.1.1...)

    Hi! Let me join the conversation...

Iain E. Davis wrote:


> ----------------------> Carsten Becker wrote:
>
>> I'm counting my entries like this: I have a database that is
>> Ayeri -> English at first hand (it's reversible, but then you
>>
> What software are you using for your database? I use Excel as a flat file
> "database" and then use a macro to 'generate' a word document in dictionary
> style, if I desire. Which is rare, I prefer to use the spreadsheet for the
> advanced filtering, searching, sorting, etc.
>
I used Excel as well, but I'm using the Openoffice equivalent for the
Unicode compatibility. Then I save it as a CSV file, and open it with
PHP. That part is quite easy. Then I show it through PHP, and I'm now
fighting against inflection ; ). Here is the result so far:
http://ausonia.parnassum.org/dicionario.tudo.php

But I just realized that I can't reverse the entries. I guess I should
have a English dictionary, for instance, and link my Ausonian entries to
the English entries? Ouch.

>
>> haven't got the pronunciation and whatnot for the English
>> words), so the main entry always an Ayeri word. The problem
>> is that my database does not accept sub-entries, so every
>>
>
> I have the same issue, although I don't believe Taraitola has any
> constructions like tapiao, so it is less of a concern.
>
>>   tapiao - to put; to set
>>   tapiao dayrin - to save ("to put aside")
>>
> ...[snipped]
>
> Hmm. Since each of those have a distinct meaning, I'd argue that in terms of
> counting, you should count them all. :)
>
I would add it as a derivative meaning from the same verb. For instance:

tapiao
1. to put; to set.
2.  ~ <i>dayrin</i> - to put aside; to save.

or something like that.

>
>> Where my German-English dictionary would list all those
>> entries just under "to put", my database makes a new record
>> out of all of these (unfortunately).
>>
> It probably would.  But your English->German dictionary wouldn't, so you
> have to make some sacrifices somewhere. :).  I have something of the same
> problem on the _other_ end. There are words that have distinctions that
> English doesn't make. So the 'english word' column/field can potentially
> have apparent duplicates. It doesn't matter too much to me, since the more
> important field is the 'definition' field. English word is merely for
> creating a 'index' of english-->Taraitola words (no meaning or adornment,
> just a pointer to the Taraitola word).
>
Could you not be more specific in the entries? Or it is a word-to-word
association?
>
>> As for names, I keep them in an extra list, so they are not counted.
>>
> Common
> Which is a reasonable separation. Arguably, when I generate the dictionary,
> mine _are_ separated...into Appendix C: Famous People and Places.  In my
> data, though, the only real difference is that they're flagged as 'C'
> entries (for appendix C) instead of 'A' entries.
>
> We did similar things, just different approaches.
>
Both are good ideas. I need to categorize the entries in this way... by
semantical domain. Do anyone know a good list of classes for it?

I would put the names on the main dictionary just for the etymology. Who
were the bearers of the name is a matter for another publication : ). Do
gods count on this restriction?
>
>> expressions usually have their own entries as well. There are
>> not many expressions listed in the dictionary, though, just a
>>
> I have very few expressions and in fact, they are all out of date since I've
> never revisited them since I completely revised the phonology. They are
> stored completely separately, but they may pre-date the spreadsheet...
>
And these expressions are entries on the dictionary, or 'sub-meanings'
on the main word? for instance:

bhâma:
1. that which is said, fame.
2. ~ ambrotós - the immortal fame, used in poetry &c &c
>
>> handful. Futhermore, since Ayeri is an agglutinative
>> language, it has lots of suffixes -- these are also counted
>> as words, even the ones that only have a syntactical meaning.
>>
>
> We differ here...as I mentioned to Henrik, I don't list any suffixed forms.
> There are some exceptions where some affixes completely change the meaning,
> but for the most part, it is only the 'original' form. :)
>
>
>> If you removed those from the list, you'd still have
>> something around 1300 words, maybe a little more or less than that.
>>
>
> Wow.
>
Someday, hopefully, I will pass the thousand frontier ; ).
> Our discussion prompted me to add a 'statistics' worksheet, just to see what
> I had. I won't bore you with the full details, but a brief look:
>
> 916 Entries, 162 of which are "Names"/"Proper Nouns". I need to dig in and
> work my way through the swadesh list and all the weekly vocabs I haven't
> done yet...:)
>
> Feaelin
>
>
What about giving for each word/entry an example phrase? Specially for
verbs, it would be useful for showing the prepositions... the case of
the object, and for exercising  the fluency, too...

Edgard Bikelis.

Reply