[sword-devel] lemma systems
dhowens at pmbx.net
Mon Apr 30 12:26:28 MST 2012
On 04/30/2012 12:03 PM, Chris Little wrote:
> On 04/30/2012 06:47 AM, Daniel Owens wrote:
>> The related discussion about TEI markup and lexicon keys raises another
>> issue: lemma systems.
>> Currently the only defined lemma system is "strong". It is easy to
>> connect to, but we need to move beyond it. I have several questions: 1.
>> Should we define new lemma systems? 2. How can we make such lemma
>> systems interoperable, at least in a fuzzy way?
> We have two or three other systems of lemmata defined for Greek. None
> for Hebrew, that I recall.
>> 1. Should we define new lemma systems?
>> The MorphGNT based on the SBL GNT (I have a module created from James
>> Tauber's Github repository last week) uses Greek lemma. The Westminster
>> Hebrew Morphology uses its own lemma in Hebrew. Should we define new
>> lemma systems such as: mgntlemma and whmlemma?
> MorphGNT isn't a lemmatization system, so no, we should not define
> mgntlemma. It employs two or three other lemmatization systems, but
> James Tauber never replied when I asked him to identify them over a
> year ago.
> WHMLemma might be worthwhile on some level, as it does define a
> lemmatization system.
>> A practical issue arises with whmlemma: Aramaic and Hebrew use the same
>> script. Currently lemma begin with @ for Hebrew and % for Aramaic.
>> Should we retain those or go with H for Hebrew and A for Aramaic?
>> Currently with Strongs there is no need for this difference because the
>> numbers distinguish the language, but when natural language keys are
>> used some system needs to be defined so that a lookup of a lemma in
>> Daniel 3 take you to the Aramaic portion of the lexicon not the
>> Hebrew one.
> The answer to your question depends on whether @ and % are
> well-known/standard/expected prefixes for these lemmata, from the
> perspective of the expected audience of this module. (I would say they
> are, and so they should be retained as is.)
That makes sense to me.
>> 2. How can we make such lemma systems inter-operable, at least in a
>> fuzzy way?
>> Some mechanism needs to be created to connect the many lemma systems to
>> each other. It seems to me that Bible texts will follow one lemma scheme
>> or another, but why not create a system in which various lemma systems
>> can be connected? For example, H1 (strong) and @אָב (whmlemma) should be
>> easy to connect. If you look up H1 from KJV in a dictionary keyed to
>> whmlemma, it should take you to @אָב.
> Link keys in a lexicon can point from one key value another entry,
> like an alias. I don't know whether this works currently, but it used to.
> So, you could assign both H0001 and @אָב as keys for a particular
> entry, with one of the two keys being a link to the other.
I have never seen this work. I have compiled lexica with multiple keys
with pipes between them, and the second key ends up an empty entry.
More information about the sword-devel