Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Lambengolmor] [LDB] Analysis of _Elen Síla..._ - erratum

Expand Messages
  • Boris Shapiro
    Aiya! ... Vice-versa: the subject of a sentence is the member of a syntagma that does not define anything (in any of syntagmata it is include in) and therefore
    Message 1 of 16 , Jul 25, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Aiya!

      Oops, an error of mine:

      > So members of syntagmas define or are defined in several syntagmas,
      > and only the subject of a sentence comprises a single syntagma in
      > which it is the definitive. That's why it is called absolute
      > definitive. Here "elen" is not defined by anything.

      Vice-versa: the subject of a sentence is the member of a syntagma that
      does not define anything (in any of syntagmata it is include in) and
      therefore it is called absolute defined (or -able, I'm short of
      English terminology).

      Namaarie! S.Y., Elenhil Laiquendo

      : linde nar i oomar tolesse vanwa yaamala :
    • Fredrik
      Are we talking about a lexical database, or an annotated corpus, or what? I m not sure that we need or want to encode the syntactical structure of sentences or
      Message 2 of 16 , Jul 25, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Are we talking about a lexical database, or an annotated corpus, or what?
        I'm not sure that we need or want to encode the syntactical structure of
        sentences or clauses in a database, since they are not given things. In
        many cases the structural analyses are precisely what we're after: Tolkien
        did not provide them. There are bound to be disagreements on how to parse a
        certain sentence; often, two or more analyses are equally possible. Whose
        analysis should be in the database? I think that the best tool in this case
        would be one that helps us find all the data we need, telling us exactly
        where in the texts they are, and where any other (possible) occurrences of
        the word/ morpheme are, so that we can go there and see for ourselves.

        /Fredrik


        [I just want to voice my strong agreement with what Fredrik has said
        here. Simply recording the occurrence of every "foreign language"
        element in Tolkien's writings will be an enormous undertaking. If
        analysis is to be incorporated into such a compilation at all, it is
        best left until after the compilation is complete. Having the compilation
        alone, if fully and properly indexed to the corpus, will be enormously
        useful. So long as the database is designed with extensibility and
        expansion in mind, analytical information can always be added later. Carl]
      • Boris Shapiro
        Aiya! Thursday, July 25, 2002, 1:03:55 AM, Beregond. Anders Stenström wrote: BAS The general idea of having collocutions registered in the BAS database
        Message 3 of 16 , Jul 26, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Aiya!

          Thursday, July 25, 2002, 1:03:55 AM, "Beregond. Anders Stenström" wrote:

          BAS> The general idea of having collocutions registered in the
          BAS> database seems sound. But as Rich Alderson's reply indicated,
          BAS> this could easily become too theory-dependent to look quite good
          BAS> to me.
          But the problem of theory dependence seem to me a problem for
          real-world language treebanks only - when there are multiple treebanks
          that need to cooperate but are having problems with that because of
          different linguistic theories used in their architecture.

          Do you think ELDA would need to be connected with other LDBs?

          BAS> It seems to me that the best idea would be to register all
          BAS> 'contexts', from two-word constructions like _Minas Tirith_ up to
          BAS> long texts like "Namárie" (with full references, or 'attestation
          BAS> details' for each), and then link words to all contexts they
          BAS> occur in. The syntactical analysis can be left to fora outside
          BAS> the database.

          For me that seems to be a regrettable way of development. That
          abolishes every use (every extended search query) that I've imagined.
          What is left then? Just basic number/gender/case descriptions? Is this
          price good enough, and for what?

          Thursday, July 25, 2002, 2:11:22 PM, Fredrik wrote:

          F> I'm not sure that we need or want to encode the syntactical
          F> structure of sentences or clauses in a database, since they are not
          F> given things. In many cases the structural analyses are precisely
          F> what we're after: Tolkien did not provide them. There are bound to
          F> be disagreements on how to parse a certain sentence; often, two or
          F> more analyses are equally possible. Whose analysis should be in the
          F> database?

          Carl wrote:

          C> [I just want to voice my strong agreement with what Fredrik has
          C> said here. Simply recording the occurrence of every "foreign
          C> language" element in Tolkien's writings will be an enormous
          C> undertaking. If analysis is to be incorporated into such a
          C> compilation at all, it is best left until after the compilation is
          C> complete. Having the compilation alone, if fully and properly
          C> indexed to the corpus, will be enormously useful. So long as the
          C> database is designed with extensibility and expansion in mind,
          C> analytical information can always be added later. Carl]

          There is one vital aspect of planning the database. As far as I know,
          the only way to create an optimized database is to thoroughly design
          its architecture from the very beginning, otherwise adding more and
          more elements to it will greatly decrease its performance in speed and
          size. I'm afraid trying to extend an indexed corpus database to a
          full-scale LDB would be a failure.

          The problem of work load could be solved by sharing the tasks,
          provided that there is a unitary analysis scheme. Such a scheme is
          to be implemented in the programme/interface itself: imagine a
          template with given description variants. For example, a user enters
          "Elen siila luumenn' omentielvo" and starts the analysis "wizard". On
          the lexical analysis step, describing each word he would have to
          choose between predefined fields, like noun/verb/adjective/adverb etc,
          sg/pl, m/fem, nom/acc/gen/poss/dat/loc/abl/all/inst/resp, and so on.
          Provided a comprehensive universal and unitary scheme entering the
          analysis results would be greatly eased.

          Namaarie! S.Y., Elenhil Laiquendo [Boris Shapiro]

          : avartuvan i tauri ni ontar : an luumenya tyeela ar loanyar sintar :
        • Kai MacTane
          ... Sorry I ve taken so long. Do you have email but not Web access? Or do you not have a graphical browser? ... Elements are things like parma or -uva- or
          Message 4 of 16 , Jul 26, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            At 7/24/02 10:49 AM , Boris Shapiro wrote:

            >First, I have to say that I didn't have the possibility of seeing QH
            >by myself, so I'll rely on your answers and patience :)

            Sorry I've taken so long. Do you have email but not Web access? Or do you
            not have a graphical browser?

            >Does it make sense? But the question should be what do you regard as
            >an individual element and are they stored absolutely independently of
            >their context?

            Elements are things like "parma" or "-uva-" or "-llo". OTOH, "A ná X lá B"
            is also listed as one single element. They're generally stored
            context-independent, though the attestations field lists all places where
            the element is attested in use, so that people can look up the various
            contexts in which Tolkien used it.

            >I suppose I lack proper vocabulary and knowledge in programming, but
            >in my view the desired LDB [linguistic database] (or should we call it
            >_ELDA_ for "Elvish Linguistic DAtabase"? :) should be object-oriented,
            >and have a nested structure so that there are multiple levels of
            >objects like a nested doll. In my view an object is a linguistically
            >important element in of a given text stored in LDB which possesses the
            >required linguistic description. But there are different types of
            >objects: two words could be two individual lexical objects, but at the
            >same time they could be a sole syntactical object! And a sentence
            >could itself be a clause, a part of a complex sentense, thus being a
            >syntactical object, too! And all these objects viewed on different
            >levels should possess different descriptions.
            >
            >I'd like to know how does your QH deal with such information

            It doesn't. It stores things pretty much only at the morphological level,
            and leaves it to humans to do higher-level stuff.

            The sort of multi-level analysis you suggest, and which also seems to be
            suggested by Rich Alderson's mention of treebanks, might be valuable and
            useful, but it is certainly beyond the level of something I could write.

            --Kai MacTane
            ----------------------------------------------------------------------
            "But every night I burn,/Every night I call your name.
            Every night I burn,/Every night I fall again..."
            --The Cure,
            "Burn"
          • Kai MacTane
            ... I suppose we could add a category somewhere for phrases . I agree that sytactic analysis should be left to the humans, not machines -- I m honestly not
            Message 5 of 16 , Jul 26, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              At 7/24/02 02:03 PM , Beregond. Anders Stenström wrote:

              > The general idea of having collocutions registered in the
              >database seems sound. But as Rich Alderson's reply indicated,
              >this could easily become too theory-dependent to look quite
              >good to me. It seems to me that the best idea would be to register
              >all 'contexts', from two-word constructions like _Minas Tirith_ up
              >to long texts like "Namárie" (with full references, or 'attestation
              >details' for each), and then link words to all contexts they occur in.
              >The syntactical analysis can be left to fora outside the database.

              I suppose we could add a category somewhere for "phrases". I agree that
              sytactic analysis should be left to the humans, not machines -- I'm
              honestly not sure they can handle it at all yet; I know I personally can't
              make them do it. (Consider the current state of Babelfish, which has had
              years of research and the efforts of a large number of people poured into
              it. It can give you the general idea of what something means, but it's
              painfully obvious that it's not about to put professional translators out
              of business any time soon, *especially* regarding poetic and artistic works.)

              --Kai MacTane
              ----------------------------------------------------------------------
              "Deadly angels for reality and passion..."
              --Shriekback,
              "Gunning for the
              Buddha"
            • Kai MacTane
              ... Interesting point. Though I think this means that nearly any noun in ELDA would be entered at least twice: once in definite form, and then again in
              Message 6 of 16 , Jul 26, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                At 7/24/02 09:59 PM , Boris Shapiro wrote:

                >KM> [A]: Not necessary (or possible) in Quenya; no indefinite article
                >KM> exists in Quenya. Necessary in translation into English to conform
                >KM> with English grammar, which requires articles.
                >
                >That is why any noun as a syntactic object in ELDA should have as one
                >of its descriptions the indication of its definite/indefinite status,
                >linked to the word it is defined by (not necessarily and article), and
                >Q _i_ (when used as the article) should be linked to the noun it
                >describes; the same applies to virtually any word that defines
                >another.

                Interesting point. Though I think this means that nearly any noun in ELDA
                would be entered at least twice: once in definite form, and then again in
                indefinite form. (After all, most nouns can be used both definitely and
                indefinitely.)

                >That's why any object (presently, a word-object) should not be stored
                >independently from its context (on which he obviously does depend),
                >and share a date-description with the text-object it is included in.
                >Thus one should be able to search for every case of the word "elen"
                >used with chronology and other contextual conditions for search.

                Ouch! While I agree that a context-dependent database would be an
                interesting and probably very useful thing, I must admit I'm a bit confused
                about how one would use it. Would searches be things like: "_elen_, where
                used as subject (not object) and only where indefinite", and so on? (I can
                sort of see how that search should at least return "_elen síla lumenn'
                omentielvo_", while not returning "_Aiya Earendil elenion ancalima_".)

                At the moment, QH's means of dealing with context is simply to provide
                references to all attested uses of the element in the "Attestations" field.

                >Next, a lexical word-object should definitely have a vocabulary
                >description for referential purposes. That was outlined in your lines
                >three paragraphs above. Probably we'll need a dictionary module.

                Which, to figure out homonyms, will need to be able to carry out some
                actual syntactic analysis. (Which you do explicitly call for elsewhere in
                your post.) Unfortunately, I'm afraid I don't know how to get software to
                do that, and I'm especially wary of the concept of getting software to be
                able to carry out accurate syntactic analysis on poetic material.

                >And so on. I hope that gives you some idea of the nested structure we
                >need. Objects in objects in various hypostases with different
                >descriptions.

                It does give me some idea of it, yes. I think that what you propose is an
                impressive and worthwhile project, but it is one which is utterly beyond my
                abilities. I'm sorry.

                >Kai, forgive me for skipping most of your own analysis, I've seen that
                >in some aspects I simply repeat your one, but I've tried to present it
                >in a more systematic and complex way.

                No problem there; it was, after all, just an example analysis. I think it
                served its purpose, and you did right to skip large chunks of it.

                --Kai MacTane
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                "Then, when they spill the demon seed
                Turn and face into the wind.
                All along you still believed...
                Believed you were immune."
                --Thomas Dolby,
                "The Flat Earth"
              • Kai MacTane
                ... What sorts of search queries do you envision? Can you give me some examples? --Kai MacTane ... In another life I see you/As an angel flying high, And the
                Message 7 of 16 , Jul 26, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 7/26/02 01:09 AM , Boris Shapiro wrote:

                  >For me that seems to be a regrettable way of development. That
                  >abolishes every use (every extended search query) that I've imagined.
                  >What is left then? Just basic number/gender/case descriptions? Is this
                  >price good enough, and for what?

                  What sorts of search queries do you envision? Can you give me some examples?

                  --Kai MacTane
                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                  "In another life I see you/As an angel flying high,
                  And the hands of time will free you/You will cast your chains aside,
                  And the dawn will come and kiss away
                  Every tear that's ever fallen from your eyes...
                  --Concrete Blonde,
                  "Caroline"
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.