[KS] QUERY> Opinions on lexicographical/orthographical point
Charles Muller
cmuller-lst at jj.em-net.ne.jp
Wed Aug 25 07:20:40 EDT 2010
Dear Koreanists,
Some of you know that I have been editing a pair of online
dictionaries for East Asian studies for some time now. We've been
running dictionaries off of the same backend framework and
functionality for the last ten years, since Michael Beddow[1] first
created the Perl/XSLT infrastructure to deliver the data through a
search engine.
After ten years with basically the same infrastructure, I am happy to
tell you that we are in the midst of a major overhaul of the entire
system, and that we expect to be able to announce this much improved
version within a couple of weeks. I will of course make an
announcement here at that time.
In the process of getting the new search engine to work efficiently
with Korean, Michael has forced me to go through the Korean
pronunciations and clean up the inconsistencies and errors as much as
possible. While the situation is not perfect yet (sometimes my head
swims in assimilation rules...) it is certainly far better than it
was a few weeks ago.
One issue has arisen, for which I would appreciate the opinions from
any members of this learned group who might interested. This is:
For a long time, we were handling the presentation of phonemes
beginning with _rieul_ ᄅ in a variety of inconsistent ways. For example:
This:
[ko-hg] 량 (양)
or this:
[ko-hg] 량/양
or else reversed, and also just one or the other. The problem was that
this was handled in the XML node (I'm simplifying here) as <pron>량/양
</pron>, etc, which made the node difficult to search.
We have now changed this to
<pron initial="양">량</pron>
...which the user sees in HTML output as:
[ko-hg] 량 (initial = 양)
However, it was suggested to me by a colleague that it may in fact be
better to put the actual pronunciation in the main node, and move the
orthographic reading to attribute status, thus resulting in:
[ko-hg] 양 (orth = 량)
Do any learned scholars on the list have an opinion about this?
I think that the major Hanja dictionaries do something closer to the
first option, but that need not be determinative.
Regards,
Chuck
-----------------------
Note:
[1] In the process, Michael has become a fanatic about the Korean
language and culture, having basically taught himself to speak, read,
and write by downloading soap operas, studying Korean through the
Internet, and so forth. So much of his energy has been focused on
getting the Korean aspect of the dictionaries to work well.
---------------------------
A. Charles Muller
Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology
Faculty of Letters
University of Tokyo
7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku
Tokyo 113-0033, Japan
Web Site: Resources for East Asian Language and Thought
http://www.acmuller.net
<acmuller[at]jj.em-net.ne.jp>
More information about the Koreanstudies
mailing list