Work at SourceForge, help us to make it a better place! We have an immediate need for a Support Technician in our San Francisco or Denver office.

Close

#425 description of usg@type='colloc'

GREEN
closed-fixed
Kevin Hawkins
5
2012-08-10
2012-08-01
Kevin Hawkins
No

Section 9.3.5.1 (#DITPEG) gives this example:

<sense n="4">
<usg type="colloc">
<oRef type="cap"/> and <mentioned>any</mentioned> are used with
<mentioned>more</mentioned>
</usg>
<cit type="example">
<quote>Give me <oRef/> more</quote>
<pron extent="part">s@'mO:(r)</pron>
</cit>
</sense>

However, the explanation of type="colloc" at http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-usg.html says:

contains a collocate of the headword

I suggest revising the explanation of "colloc" to say:

typical collocate of the headword

Compare with the explanations of other values of @type and with the definition of <usg>, which is meant for an explanation, not a related lexeme.

Alternatively, we could leave the explanation for usg@type='colloc' as it is, but if so I would like to come up with a different value for @type in the example in 9.3.5.1.

Discussion

  • Piotr Banski
    Piotr Banski
    2012-08-01

    I'm not sure I understand. Perhaps the term "collocation" is not the most fortunate there, we should rather stick to "collocate", the two are not the same.

    Collocate is not a related lexeme (I'm not sure if you meant to say that, Kevin), it's a representative of the possible collocation range, while not necessarily being member of a typical collocation itself.

    <usg> is about usage, rather than explanation, I'd say, and the @types are sample values, because various dictionaries may want to use this element in various ways, and I think we should not tighten this too much, to accommodate the possible differences, with each project ideally defining/enumerating its set of @types.

     
  • Kevin Hawkins
    Kevin Hawkins
    2012-08-01

    Piotr mentions the term "collocation", which was not in the original ticket. For the record, this is given as the <gloss> of the value type="colloc" in the element spec for <usg>. I didn't include it in the my quotation above and hadn't considered it in my ticket.

    I understand "collocation" to mean a set phrase that often occurs, whereas a "collocate" is a word that often appears with another in a collocation. But I've been out of linguistics for a while, but it sounds like this correspond to what Piotr writes below. I was using "lexeme" loosely to mean the sort of thing that has a definition in a dictionary, as opposed to the definition itself. That is, I meant that <usg> is for explanations, not for forms (which would go in <form>).

    So my complaint is that <usg type="colloc"> seems to be meant for an explanation relating to a collocation or collocate (not sure which ... perhaps for either) but does not contain a collocation or collocate itself, except as mentioned in passing.

    For parallel structure with the explanation of other values of @type, I suggest revising to:

    typical collocate of the headword

    To be even more explicit, it could instead say:

    describes a typical collocate of the headword

     
  • Piotr Banski
    Piotr Banski
    2012-08-01

    Ah, indeed, I got "collocation" from the references provided.

    I see no problem with the proposed change of the fragment of the description for @type.

    And FWIW, I wouldn't say that <usg> is for "explanation".

     
  • James Cummings
    James Cummings
    2012-08-09

    Assigning to Kevin and agreeing with Piotr that I seen no problem with the proposed change.

     
  • James Cummings
    James Cummings
    2012-08-09

    • milestone: --> GREEN
    • assigned_to: nobody --> kshawkin
     
  • Kevin Hawkins
    Kevin Hawkins
    2012-08-10

    Implemented at revision 10737.

     
  • Kevin Hawkins
    Kevin Hawkins
    2012-08-10

    • status: open --> closed-fixed