Lundgren-2020-275 #811
Lundgren-2020-275 #811
Conversation
…n Hale, Snider and Marchese
|
Any volunteers to manage the PR? Christoph @chrzyki, do you mind if I pin you here? |
|
Sure, happy to do it. @Schweikhard, @CarolinHu, @AnnikaTjuka, would you mind reviewing? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Regarding the many ~ would have been preferable if those were just in different lines, then it'd be easier to map. Here they basically just mark that those things colexify in the elicited languages (if they do). But I guess we don't do such edits to the data.
Regarding the unclear ones, I agree, just leave them unmapped.
| Lundgren-2020-275-70 70 70 CROSS 1367 CROSS | ||
| Lundgren-2020-275-71 71 71 CRY (INTR.) 1839 CRY | ||
| Lundgren-2020-275-72 72 72 CULTIVATE (TR.) 1541 CULTIVATE | ||
| Lundgren-2020-275-73 73 73 CURE 499 CURE |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
dito, what I mentioned above. Important catch, @Schweikhard
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a difficult one. In Kokama this lexeme can act both as a noun and as a verb. In Omagua, however, this lexeme is translated as a noun (source: A Linguistic Analysis of Old Omagua Ecclesiastical Texts by Michael and O'Hagan (2016) (file:///C:/Users/krist/Desktop/A_Linguistic_Analysis_of_Old_Omagua_Eccl.pdf). There is more specific concept for CURE (NOUN) in the Concepticon and there are also a number of unmapped substantive 'cure' instances in other lists. I can add a new concept set then to refer to a medicine or a treatment as a whole (i.e. a hypernym to MEDICINE)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note that one change applies to the list of Hale-1973-17XX. This list is crucial for lexibank, so it means, if you submit this, an updated version of halenepal will be due. Can you make sure we do not forget this by making an issue for github.com/lexibank/halenepal/, which you may just title "Concepticon Conceptlist was Modified"?
As a general rule: if they mention those muddy concepts with ~, take the first. You can note that in the Note in the conceptlists.tsv, as it is difficult to deal with these cases consequently.
| Lundgren-2020-275-70 70 70 CROSS 1367 CROSS | ||
| Lundgren-2020-275-71 71 71 CRY (INTR.) 1839 CRY | ||
| Lundgren-2020-275-72 72 72 CULTIVATE (TR.) 1541 CULTIVATE | ||
| Lundgren-2020-275-73 73 73 CURE 499 CURE |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
dito, what I mentioned above. Important catch, @Schweikhard
|
Good point, @Kristina-Pianykh, I support your decision.
|
|
I've updated the bibtex record as well as some mappings in Lundgren according to the discussions above. Regarding the pairwise concepts with ~, I mapped them by the first item where possible. I've also introduced new concept sets: PET, SON (OF MALE EGO) and DAUGHTER (OF MALE EGO); and updated the concept relations. |
|
Yes, that would be very cool, as there is a kinship project in the
making and they complained we lacked the concepts here ;)
|
|
@SimonGreenhill, given your involvement in kinbank and parabank, could
you clarify what the usage of "ego" is? Is it just another word for
"person"? Or do you know whom we could ask?
|
|
No, I think that this is what this means. I guess, at some point we will
need to overhaul all kinship terminology in concepticon, but for now, it
may be best to just follow the "ego" style already. But I leave that to
the others to decide.
|
|
"ego" in this context is the referent, so "GRANDCHILD (F. EGO)" means "the term used by a female person to refer to their grandchild", i.e. what your Oma calls you, but not what Opa calls you. |
|
BTW: kinbank is coming soon, see concepts here: https://github.com/SimonGreenhill/kinbank/blob/master/kinbank/cldf/parameters.csv |
|
@SimonGreenhill this is absolutely mind-blowing as it only proves once again how poor English is when it comes to kinship terms (which is not such a bad thing now that I think about it!). |
|
I updated the mappings and introduced the new concept sets according to the comments and discussions above. Let me know if there is anything else I could improve, I'd be happy to do so. |
|
English is very impoverished in many ways :) |
|
Nice, thanks for all the contributions and for the neat list & concept refinements @Kristina-Pianykh. This can be merged as far as I'm concerned and will trigger a needed rebuild of |
Pull request checklist
Additional information
Concerning the mapping in Lundgren-2020-275:
Many glosses are vague and not narrowed down to a specific concept (e.g., BACK (part of the body or side of an object?), BE FAT (=obese or in relation to meat?), DRIP (INTR.) (could be both 808 and 2253), etc.)
Question
The gloss NECK~THROAT suggests a potentially new concept NECK OR THROAT (see also a similar gloss in Payne-1991-202). Shall I add it now in this PR or rather open an issue to discuss it in more detail?