Two comments: 20. sep. 2014 kl. 18:58 skrev martin <[email protected]>:
> Dear All, > Of course it is debatable if anything we use in speech is regarded a > Linguistic Object. I may > however point you to the fact that E33 is defined as: > "This class comprises identifiable expressions in natural language or > languages." > > We exclude artificial languages of any kind. > > We understand (per default) that the direct properties of a class express the > potential of its > instances of having such properties. Of course, the question is not, as > Vladimir remarked, if the > translation exists, but if it has a natural language and if it has the > potential to be translated. > E33 has two properties: Has language and has translation. > > P72 is defined as "Linguistic Objects are composed in one or more human > Languages. This property > allows these languages to be documented." > > This poses an ISSUE: Following this, the quantification of P72 should be 1:n. This seems to be merely a typo. It says “many to many, necessary (0,n:0,n)” > > Proper names are normally referred to in texts, but not translated, so we can > argue that they > do not belong to a particular language, but rather to the carrier. > > One could argue, that language equivalents of placenames are name use cases > of groups, loosely > bound to language, and not linguistic objects at all, once they are not > expressions. > For instance, German authorities may not use German placenames for the Balkan > area anymore. > The translation of Bei Jing is "Northern Capital", which would not be used in > English. > > All Chinese and Japanese proper names can be translated, but the translation > would not be the > language equivalent. > > Another argument would be that a proper name is "translated", if it is > phonetically/grammatically adapted to a particular language, > for instance with a gender ending as "Στουτγαρδη" for Stuttgart in modern > Greek, or Athens (plural!) for > "Αθηναι". > > One could argue, that a proper name belongs to a natural language if it fits > to its phonetic > or symbolic (han characters). > > The Getty TGN refers to placenames used by the locals as being "vernacular", > a nice solution I believe. > > I'd vote for the practical aspect, to denote a name as linguistic object of a > language if translation > into that language should take that into account. > > Opinions?? I would say that a place name belongs to all languages in which it is used. When I say “München” in a Norwegian sentence it would make little sense to claim it is not a Norwegian word, especially when I pronounce it according to Norwegian rules (which happens to give a very similar pronunciation to High German (but different from Bavarian) but that is not relevant). What is the difference between saying München in Norwegian and saying harddisk in Norwegian? Both are (were) foreign words used in Norwegian (are foreign place names load words?). In some cases they have their original spelling (as München), in other cases the spelling is different (Tyskland for Deutschland). Same for pronunciation. However, it makes sense that place names are seen as linguistic objects only when complexities such as translation comes in, as you say. I would guess that documentation practice in museums is in line with this. Regards, Øyvind > > Best, > > Martin > On 20/9/2014 11:27 πμ, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote: >> Or K2, U2, R2D2 for that matter. On the other hand. As soon as a symbol is >> used to denote something and is used as a name (and us pronounced) , one may >> conclude that it has become a part of the vocabulary and thus is a part of a >> natural language. For a modern language user without a special interest for >> etymology and language history propria like K2 or Martin are names (words) >> in the natural language without internal meaning according to my in-house >> onomasticist Solveig. So the test is in the use and not in the form. >> >> C-E >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Crm-sig [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen >>> Stead >>> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 11:03 PM >>> To: [email protected]; [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] More subclasses for E33_Linguistic_Object ? >>> >>> Martin or Steve, can you give some examples of Place Names in *unnatural >>> language*? Yes "K10" >>> >>> Stephen Stead >>> Tel +44 20 8668 3075 >>> Mob +44 7802 755 013 >>> E-mail [email protected] >>> LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Crm-sig [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Vladimir >>> Alexiev >>> Sent: 19 September 2014 10:43 >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] More subclasses for E33_Linguistic_Object ? >>> >>>> We use to solve this with multiple instantiation (E49, E33). >>> This is a good solution. >>> We had many examples of multiple instantiation in BM, esp of Events. >>> >>> E.g. often an Acquisition is also Transfer of Custody, Part Addition (to the >>> new collection), Part Removal (from the old collection), maybe even Move. >>> >>>> Note that most place names or not language specific. Few bigger places use >>> to have language variants. >>> >>> But I don't think that's a criterion on whether something is a Linguistic >>> Object! >>> If it was, every unilingual book without translation would NOT be a >>> Linguistic Object. >>> >>> The criterion is the scope note: Linguistic Object "identifiable expressions >>> in *natural language* or languages". >>> Let's consider the clases given by Dan, taking into account the class >>> hierarchy >>> http://personal.sirma.bg/vladimir/crm-graphical/#cidoc_class_hierarchy >>> >>> - E49_Time_Appellation: is not, eg "20140919" is not in natural language. >>> This comes from its E50_Date subclass >>> - E48_Place_Name: I think it is!! >>> Martin or Steve, can you give some examples of Place Names in *unnatural >>> language*? >>> The class name includes "Name", which suggests it is in *natural >>> language*. >>> The scope note "particular and common forms of E44 Place Appellation" is >>> not helpful in making the distinction. >>> Certainly its superclass E44 Place Appellation is not Linguistic Object, >>> since it includes Coordinates etc >>> - E75_Conceptual_Object_Appellation: "specific identifiers of intellectual >>> products or standardized patterns." >>> The examples are not linguistic: ISBN 3-7913-1418-1, ISO2788-1986 (E) >>> >>>> e.g. "Querelle des Bouffons" >>> Dan, you should use E35_Title since P102 has title applies to E70_Thing, >>> therefore also applies to E28_Conceptual_Object. >>> >>> But I fail to see the utility of E75_Conceptual_Object_Appellation: >>> - for "specific identifiers" use E42 Indentifier >>> - for names use E35_Title >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Crm-sig mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Crm-sig mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >> > > > -- > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 | > Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 | > | Email: [email protected] | > | > Center for Cultural Informatics | > Information Systems Laboratory | > Institute of Computer Science | > Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | > | > N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, | > GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | > | > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
