Having been away for a few days and not really able to follow or contribute to
this email discussion, I now find it hard to engage. There seems to be a lot
shouting.
For those who may be wondering how this erupted, look at the chain of edits and
comments on entry 2652170 (???). I had hoped that moving the dialogue to
this list may help, but I am not sure it has - at least it's not
cluttering the database.
The ongoing development of this dictionary depends on the cooperation
of a number
of people. Sure we have differences of opinion, but we work around them. Sure we
are guided by other dictionaries, but we are not bound by them - after
all we are
primarily building a Japanese-English dictionary for English speakers
whereas most
of the published JE dictionaries are for Japanese speakers. It's not a
trivial task, as
Atkins and Rundell wrote in The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography
"the bilingual
dictionary is more complex, and less amenable to clear explanations,
than all but the
most scholarly and sophisticated of the monolinguals." A guiding
principle, as Robin
and others have commented, is to have entries that are useful.
Jim
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 21:11, 'Zarlan .' zarlan@spray.se
[edict-jmdict] <edict-jmdict@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> >but the original reference including both "no one" and "nobody" was in fact the "Bible" of all Japanese-English dictionaries:
>
> It says "????(…??) no one; nobody"
> "????(…??)" is obviously not the same thing as "????".
> (that said, I still think GG5's entry is flawed)
>
> >I agree that there is some inconsistency
>
> ....but you don't care, and won't do anything about that?
>
> Furthermore, you will not explain anything.
> You are not going to acknowledge that my edit, that you so strongly disagreed with, was made to make the entry more in line with what YOU (and others) had agreed to, nor are you going to explain why you disagreed with it
> ....and why you have gone back from your agreement with Robin's solution, to preferring your old one. (not to mention being fine with having _both_ coexist, which is far worse and completely contradictory and incoherent)
> ....
> I thought the point of this mailing list, was to _discuss_ things.
> There is no discussion, if one part refuses to address things. "Two monologues do not make a dialogue."
>
> >but I don't understand why you claim that "with neg. verb" does not correspond with/.../
>
> Because it doesn't.
> In any conceivable way, shape, or form.
> At all.
> How it could possibly be thought to do so, is completely incomprehensible to me.
>
> /Alan
>
>
>
> <-----Ursprungligt Meddelande----->
> From: Ren? Malenfant rene_malenfant@*********** [edict-jmdict] [edict-jmdict@***************]
> Sent: 9/9/2019 6:37:41 PM
> To: edict-jmdict@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [edict-jmdict] About entries containing "with negative"
>
>
>
> Hi, Alan.
>
> You claim that there are no dictionaries that include "no one" or "nobody" as glosses for ??? and that "no one has shown any counter examples", but the original reference including both "no one" and "nobody" was in fact the "Bible" of all Japanese-English dictionaries:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GG5
>
> I agree that there is some inconsistency, but I don't understand why you claim that "with neg. verb" does not correspond with ????????? as in koj or (???) as in gg5".
>
> In any case, it is the opinion of at least three of the editors that the added glosses "no one" and "nobody" improve the clarity of the entry, and I think that is unlikely to change. Perhaps the "with neg. verb" note could be modified/clarified, however.
>
>
> Rene
>
>
>
> On Sep 8, 2019, at 6:23 AM, 'Zarlan .' zarlan@spray.se [edict-jmdict] <edict-jmdict@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> So Robin fixed issai, by making the negative bit say:
> �with neg. verb�
> ? absolutely (not)
> ? (not) at all
> ? (none) whatsoever
>
> That's all well and good, but...
> He made Darehitori (???) into:
> �with neg. verb�
> ? (not) anyone
> ? (not) a single person
> ? no one
> ? nobody
>
> How does that make any sense?
> The former two meanings follow the same logic/system as in the above "issai", but the latter two have the same problem I originally pointed out.
>
> And the two systems completely contradict each other.
> They are mutually exclusive.
>
> "(not) anyone" means that darehitori means anyone but, with negation, becomes "not anyone". (as should be obvious)
> This is true and accurate.
> Perfectly fine.
>
> "no one" means that darehitori, with neg. verb, means "no one" + negation
> .....which is to say "not no one", i.e. "someone/anyone".
> This is clearly wrong.
>
> Conversely, if I were to accept that "with negative" "no one" means that darehitorinai (dunno if that specific construction is possible. Sounds weird, but just accept it for the sake of the example) means "no one", despite how that makes no sense, and is the opposite of what that says... Then "with negative" "(not) anyone", then darehitorinai would mean...
> well it would make any sense, but if anything, it would mean "anyone".
>
> The "no one" and "nobody" meanings were defended by Rene, by his stating that
> ""with neg. verb" is our way of indicating ????????? as in koj or (???) as in gg5"
>
> .....which makes no sense, as "with neg. verb" does not say that.
> At all.
> In any way, shape, or form.
>
> He further stated
> "Rather than re-editing an entry approved by three of the editors, this is an issue for the mailing list. The entry for ??? is not the place to relitigate how an entire class of entries is written."
>
> .....despite the fact that I was merely trying to make it more in line with what was apparently agreed upon (including by Rene himself!), on the mailing list. Also making it more internally consistent/coherent. More inline with what Robin was apparently trying to do.
>
> However, it would appear that I failed to understand what Robin was doing, as even he objected, saying:
> "I'd just like to add that we include "no one"/"nobody" here for the same reason other JE dictionaries do: it's helpful."
>
> .....which makes no sense, as no other dictionaries every include those meanings.
> I've checked. I've shown this to be true
> .....and no one has shown any counter examples.
>
> Only examples that are more or less in the style of "(not) anyone", or of complete sentences (including negation) with translations of the whole sentence (note: Not translations of the specific word, by itself, within the sentence)
>
> "These are the most common English translations."
>
> Not of the word, by itself, no.
> I have never seen any instance of that. Not in a dictionary, nor anywhere else.
>
> ""??????" translates to "no one knows", not "everyone doesn't know"."
>
> ?????? is not ??.
> Those are two very different things.
> Also ?????? DOES (literally) translate to "everyone doesn't know".
> That isn't how it is usually translated, but that is the direct/literal meaning
> .....which is what matters, if you are trying to talk about the meaning of the specific terms, in question.
> As is the purpose of a dictionary.
>
> Including example sentences, and providing "natural" (rather than direct/literal) translations of them, is often done in most (all?) dictionaries (though notably never done, in this one)
> However, the sentences are always clearly separate, from the definitions.
> When it comes to the definitions, only that specific term, in isolation, is what matters. Not the meaning of whole sentences.
> Natural translations are wrong to use, and invalid, in that context.
>
> "This difference in structure between English and Japanese is not especially difficult to grasp, especially in context."
>
> And yet what he appears to be arguing, seems to be that it is impossible to grasp.
> Would you, Robin, argue that we need to include translations of all possible sentences?
> Please do clarify and explain, what it is that you are trying to say.
>
> /Alan
>
>
>
--
Jim Breen
Adjunct Snr Research Fellow, Japanese Studies Centre, Monash University
http://www.jimbreen.org/
http://nihongo.monash.edu/