[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [edict-jmdict] Particles and Edict
[Stutzman Kale ([edict-jmdict] Particles and Edict) writes:]
>> Quoting Paul from the Submissions page:
>> >>Coverage of particles in Edict is somewhat patchy, I
>> >>sometimes think they're better off in a specialised
>> >>grammar dictionary. (See を for one of the better Edict
>> >>particle entries)
Originally I only had the multi-kana particles covered, and then only
lightly. Paul has contributed many of the others. I'm quite happy to
see summaries included.
>> The definition for を seems like it borrows a great deal
>> from the
>> 大辞林 entry (it's basically the first 6 senses translated
>> and in the same order), but I agree with Paul that
>> を is the best out of the most common particle entries. I
>> would like to see some of the other entries get a similar
>> treatment in the hopes that someday the example sentences
>> could show how these particles are used, specifically when
>> comparing the different senses, or, if that is reaching a
>> little too far, at least cleaning up the particles and
>> giving the more important ones a similar depth of
>> information.
Amendments welcome 8-)}
>> Any thoughts, objections? Comments about copyright
>> infringement from translating another dictionary's
>> entries?
One of the facts of life about lexicography is that everyone
pinches off everyone else. The art is to use traditional
lexicographic techniques (AKA covering your tracks) - rewrite, reword,
reorder, merge.
I always use several refs to "check" and I try never to end up
with something too close to one of them. 大辞林 tends to overdo
polysemy for my taste, but actually most good monolingual dictionaries
go further in sense marking than major bilingual ones.
Jim
--
Jim Breen http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/
Clayton School of Information Technology, Tel: +61 3 9905 9554
Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia Fax: +61 3 9905 5146
(Monash Provider No. 00008C) ジム・ブリーン@モナシュ大学