This has become a very long email correspndence. Languages: I have mostly knowledge about European languages. If proper names are linguistic objects in such languages, we need to include them as instances of E33. In many European languages a proper name can be inflected: in number, definite/indefinite and cases. Thus a name behave almost as any other noun in many languages. A proper noun can be used as a proper name and a proper noun can be used as a proper name (as place names for example). Participles and adjectives can be used as proper noun and proper names can be used as the first part of a compound etc. etc. So it should be relatively clear that a proper name can be a "linguistic object".
A linguistic object in CRM may have more than 1 language, Scope note of E72 " Linguistic Objects are composed in one or more human Languages. This property allows these languages to be documented." What about a linguistic object consisting of a single word e.g. inscription) which can be a word in more than one language? The author may have done this intentionally or we as readers cannot tell which of the languages it was meant to be. Loanwords (written languages): pub can be written 'pøbb' in Norwegian. Genre is written 'sjanger'. If I write 'pub' in Norwegian (as most do) is that a English word or a Norwegian? A Norwegian name is Eirin (written version of the Norwegian pronunciation of the English Irene (in a popular TV series). Another variant is Irene with a Norwegian pronunciation letter by letter. (similar to the German). I Eirin Norwegian or English and what about Irene? Proper names: A Finnish proper names lexicon is divided into three parts: Finnish names, Swedish Names, Saami Names (based on their origin). Still a Finnish text with a proper name of Swedish origin in it will be considered as a Finnish text. Another example: The name in the written form 'Peter' can be used at least in German (?), Norwegian and English. In general the possible vocabulary of a language does not define the language. The word inventory of a living language is open. If a word or a name (originating in another language) is used in a language and felt as a natural part of that language it is a part of the language even though academies and language councils may object. Returning to P72: What is meant by " This property describes the E56 Language of an E33 Linguistic Object. Linguistic Objects are composed in one or more human Languages. This property allows these languages to be documented."? Do we mean "the words felt as natural part of the vocabulary by the speakers/writers of the language", "official orthography", "is a loan from a language", "is a loan but has been adapted to the pronunciation or spelling of the languages" and so on? Finally the ISO 639, the International Standard for language codes, badly needs revision. So what is a language? C-E >-----Original Message----- >From: Crm-sig [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of martin >Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 11:28 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] More subclasses for E33_Linguistic_Object ? ISSUE P72 >quantification > >Dear Oeyvind, > >On 22/9/2014 12:00 πμ, Øyvind Eide wrote: > > > 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)” > >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 "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. > >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 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:crm-sig- >[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen > Stead > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 11:03 PM > To: [email protected]; crm- >[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:crm-sig- >[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 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 | >--------------------------------------------------------------
