Print

Print


Dear Geoffrey,

Good to hear that you've found a solution. Two nitpicks follow.

Firstly, it's not that <hom> is formally deprecated in the TEI. It might 
become deprecated if the Council decides so, but for now, a group of us 
working on the "Lex0" proposal have determined that there seem to be no 
cases where <hom> is in any way forced upon the encoder, and the world 
without <hom> might be slightly better. So <hom> is not used in 
TEI-Lex0, but that is not binding for anyone in the sense that if you 
use <hom> and wish to map your dictionary to TEI-Lex0, you need to find 
a way to express the information differently.

Secondly, @type on <sense> saying that it's homonymic strikes me as a 
bit odd, because being homonymic is a relational and conditional 
property. A sense becomes "homonymic" if it shares the same form (where 
"sameness" can be a matter of degree) and is sufficiently distinct from 
another sense anchored in the same form (and the cut-off point for 
"sufficiently" also varies, depending on your theory of meaning, 
depending on the other senses that you wish to recognize or ignore, and 
depending on diachrony as well). A way to express your (as an editor) or 
the author's view on the positioning of the cut-off line _could_ be 
captured by a globally assumed principle that polysemous senses are 
located (nested) inside a single <sense> element, while the presence of 
more than one <sense> element within an entry signals that some agent 
(author or editor) considers them homonymous. Given that, you don't need 
the awkward "type='hom'", because the structure expresses your intention 
well enough (and arguably better).

Best,

   Piotr



On 27/04/17 11:42, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Dear Piotr,
>
> Many thanks.
>
> This is pretty much what I agreed on with Laurent, after correcting one mistake in encoding in that the second sense is masculin, and therefore clearly a homonym. I know that hom is deprecated, but I would like to have had a type on sense so as to stress the homonymic nature of the word.
>
> Basnage is fairly consistent in grouping by orthographic word, except when their is a variation in spelling indicating a different word as in his entries for ‘Cane’ (bird) and Cane (plant). Grammar is given as simple abbreviations s. m. for substantive masculin. I am just adding this for the moment as I want to go over this later with specialists of 17th century grammar so as to link the information to current grammatical models.
>
> I am not at the end of surprises with this text as Basnage was constantly experimenting, thereby going far beyond what Furetière had given as entries, which is what makes this such a fascinating dictionary.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Geoffrey
>
>> Le 27 avr. 2017 à 11:21, Piotr Banski <[log in to unmask]> a écrit :
>>
>> Dear Geoffrey,
>>
>> Why not assume that repeated <sense> elements signal distinct senses? I assume that you feel bound to the original and need to repeat the form and grammatical information, even though it's fully redundant.
>>
>> Remarks:
>> * there's no need to keep <gramGrp> inside <form>
>> * @ana takes URIs as values
>> * I understand that the gender information comes from you, as an extra
>> * I added @n attributes to <sense>s
>>
>> So how about:
>>
>> <entry xml:lang="fr" xml:id="Canarie">
>>   <form><orth>CANARIE</orth></form>
>>   <gramGrp><pos ana="#subst">s.</pos><gen ana="#fem"
>>                         /></gramGrp>
>>
>>    <sense n="1"><def>Espece d’ancienne danse que quelques-uns croyent venir des Isles Canaries, &amp;. qui, selon d’autres, vient d’un balet ou mascarade dont les Danseurs etoient habillez en Rois de Mauritaine, ou Sauvages.</def>
>>    <note>En cette danse on s’approche , &amp; on se recule les uns des autres, en faisant plusieurs partages gaillards , étranges &amp; bizarres qui representent des Sauvages,</note></sense>
>>
>>   <sense n="2">
>>      <form><orth>CANARIE</orth></form>
>>      <gramGrp><pos ana="#subst">s.</pos><gen
>>                                 ana="#fem"/></gramGrp>
>>      <def>Sorte de petit oiseau qui chante bien qu’on apporte ordinairement des Isles Canaries. </def>
>>      <note>On l’appelle autrement ferin. Un canarie mâle, un canarie femelle.</note>
>>     </sense>
>> </entry>
>>
>> HTH,
>>
>>   Piotr
>>
>> On 24/04/17 20:56, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> I have been trying to avoid <hom>, but Basnage has done a dirty on me.
>>> He always puts everything under one main entry with a series of
>>> subentries for senses, but here we have two unrelated meetings.
>>>
>>> Any ideas on a better way of handling this?
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Geoffrey
>>>
>>> <entryxml:lang="fr"xml:id="Canarie"><form><orth>CANARIE</orth><gramGrp><posana="subst">s.</pos><genana="fem"></gen></gramGrp></form>
>>>                  <sense><def>Espece d’ancienne danse que quelques-uns
>>> croyent venir des Isles Canaries, &amp;. qui, selon d’autres,
>>>                      vient d’un balet ou mascarade dont les Danseurs
>>> etoient habillez en Rois de Mauritaine, ou Sauvages.</def>
>>>                      <note>En cette danse on s’approche , &amp; on se
>>> recule les uns des autres, en faisant plusieurs partages
>>>                          gaillards , étranges &amp; bizarres qui
>>> representent des Sauvages,</note></sense>
>>>
>>> <hom><sense><form><orth>CANARIE</orth><gramGrp><posana="susbt">s.</pos><genana="fem"></gen></gramGrp></form>
>>>                  <def>Sorte de petit oiseau qui chante bien qu’on
>>> apporte ordinairement des Isles Canaries. </def>
>>>                  <note>On l’appelle autrement ferin. Un canarie mâle, un
>>> canarie femelle.</note>
>>>              </sense></hom></entry>
>>>
>>>