The "Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie" has in her TST centrale a resource where people with a need for lexicological content can choose what they need. All this material is copyrighted and it is made available at the lowest possible cost. The material is the result of many scientific projects and it is considered basic material for lexicology based on the Dutch language.
There are other resources that have importance to people interested in lexicology. Logos in its dictionary provides a rich tapestry of words with translations. In its link to wordtheque, you find the words in its context. In the philosophy of Logos, this often provides as clear an idea as a definition would do. A link to publicly available resource is not available through the resources of the TST centrale.
In the Kudoz open glossaries of Proz, you find a rich resource of hard to translate words. When you start looking for resources that have a relevance for the creation of dictionaries, there are many resources that are not created in a "scientific" manner. Practically they can be extremely usefull. It is a shame that the scientific resources are not Free and consequently that they make the "unscientific" resources unavailable for the enrichment.
Anyway, as long as these resources are used side by side there is nothing that stops the research of lexicology. As the Wikipedias are a rich resource of contemporary language, and as its content is categorised as to subject matter, it is good to know that scientists are free to use it for their research. I checked it with Jimmy Wales and he was happy to confirm this.
Tomorrow I will be going to Berlin. We will talking about interfacing the Ultimate Wiktionary using the TBX standard..
Thanks,
GerardM
4 comments:
Hi GerardM, I was pointed to your blog entry from the German wiktionary in a discussion over the use of a referencing system - to avoid entries of words that are not commonly used. Now I'm a bit puzzled by your comment that wiktionaries should be practical, not scientific. What exactly do you mean? I'd appreciate an answer, in your blog or on my discussion page: http://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:85.73.jo.nas
Best wishes, Jonas (85.73.jo.nas on de.wiktionary.org)
When you are talking about Wiktionary, you are talking about a system that is inherently not scientific. The reason is that there is no fixed method behind our madness. This cannot be denied.
There is however nothing wrong with the results of what we do with the Wiktionaries. It is practical. It is there to be used. It is Free to be used. This cannot be said of much of the scientific material that exists.
The purpose of scientific lexicology is to put it starkly is scientific publication. Wiktionary and Ultimate Wiktionary do not have this purpose. Wiktionary because of its format can only be used interactively on the Internet. Ultimate Wiktionary shares this purpose. When you read old entries of my blog and what I have written on Meta, you will read that there is more that can be done with lexicological content. You will also have read what my criterium is for success for Ultimate Wiktionary; people using our content for purposes that we have not considered. Now that does not satisfy scientific purpose. It is however eminently practical.
Thanks,
GerardM
Hi GerardM,
No fixed method, but some sort of method - and a goal (which, again, is only some sort of a goal and not entirely clear).
I disagree on the usefulness of scientific material. It is interesting, which is a use in itself (you talked of interesting people in dictionaries as something useful, if I remember correctly). And it is practical (I like using a scientific dictionary better than using a wiktionary) - well, of course not everything is, but then... looking at the German wiktionary there is a whole lot of stuff that is neither practical nor useful (and only sometimes interesting ;-)
And maybe a scientific approach is exactly one of the ways to use our method and content in a way we haven't considered...
Best, Jonas
I am at the moment in Berlin talking to some of the Gurus of standards relating to language technology. People who are into things like the ISO-639, people who are in the Lisa-Oscar committee.
After two days, the data design of Ultimate Wiktionary is still standing and there is a growing excitement about UW in these circles. It may mean that we are going to cooperate in the UW and its design.
The upshot is that UW may become a tool that is used by scientific people AND it may mean that we colloborate on its content.
Thanks,
GerardM
Post a Comment