Dear Oeyvind,
On 22/9/2014 12:00 ??, Øyvind Eide wrote:
Two comments:
20. sep. 2014 kl. 18:58 skrev martin <[email protected]
<mailto:[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)"
OK, we can correct that I believe without decision. Thank you!
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 "??????????" for Stuttgart in modern
Greek, or Athens (plural!) for
"??????".
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.
I see two problems with your argument: First, "harddisk" is a proper
noun, not a proper name.
My argument was about proper names. I assume linguists do not regard
foreign proper names as "loan words"? Any linguist here?
Second, a smaller placename may appear in all languages in the same form,
or by standard phonetic transliteration, such as "Bei Jing", formerly
transliterated as "Peking".
That would make the set of languages open ended. Therefore I'd propose,
similar to your argument,
that only placenames used in foreign countries that deviate from the
vernacular form are regarded
as language specific.
That poses again a principle of current practice against a principle of
substance. But in a way, it is consistent with translation practice I
think: Only loan words historically introduced into a language would be
used in a proper translation. Words without equivalent would be
circumscribed in words of the language. Possibly the original term would
be cited, but not regarded as part of the language. In case of proper
names, the meaning is the thing named.
"Deutsch" and "Tysk" I believe is more than a transliteration. I think
it has a common etimological root,
whereas "Alemania" pertains to the local German tribe at the
south-western borders.
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.
I think so!
Best,
Martin
Regards,
Øyvind
Best,
Martin
On 20/9/2014 11:27 ??, 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
[email protected]
LinkedIn Profilehttp://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] <mailto:[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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
