Print

Print


The dictionary fascicle doesn't give a very strong content-based treatment
of etymologies, and since they're a difficult area, I can understand why.
That doesn't stop me from wanting to do content tagging of etymologies, though!
 
Is anyone else doing this?  I have some notes that I could gladly share, in
trying to come up with a generic set of content-specific tagging sutable
for etymologies in dictionaries from the 18th C. and onward.  I don't have
easy access to any earlier dictionaries that try to explain the origin of
words, but I do have a 1727 copy of Nathan Bailey's dictionary, the first
English dictionary to mark pronunciation :-).. as well as more modern
dictionaries.
 
Is there a forum for discussing such things?
 
I'm particularly interested in ways of expressing the different types of
relationships between roots.  I'd like to be able to mark that when Bailey
says Algebra comes from Al, excellent, and Geber, the name of its supposed
inventor (!), that these are parallel, as opposed to where an English
word comes from a French word that the lexicographer believed to derive from
a Greek word.
 
I'll append a single example; stop reading now if this is numbingly tedious!
 
Lee
 
 
Justice [_giustizia_, It. _justicia_, Sp. _justissa_, Port. of _justitia_, L.]
 
<Etymology>
  <Derivation>
    <word.group>
      <word><root>giustizia
            <language>Italian
      </word>
            <word><root>justicia
            <language>Spanish
      </word>
      <word><root>justissa
            <language>Portugese
      </word>
    </word.group>
    <connector>of</>
    <word>
       <root>justitia
       <language>Latin
    </word>
  </Derivation>
</Etymology>
 
The word.group is a placeholder to group together all the parallel roots;
this is a many-to-one relationship, as a DBMS person would say.
A one-to-many (which also happens) would have a <word> before the connector
and a <word.group> after, and so on.