Am Donnerstag, 29. Mai 2003 um 22:35 schrieb Kenneth Whistler: KW> Kent:
>> Others gave references where it in most cases did NOT look at all like the >> empty set symbol. KW> Gustav Leunbach (1973), Morphological Analysis as a Step in KW> Automated Syntactic Analysis of a KW> Text.http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/C/C73/C73-2022.pdf KW> uses an empty set symbol to denote a morphological zero. KW> (see p. 272). [Typographically, this could arguably KW> have been taken from a type tray for a Norwegian � KW> character, rather than from a mathematical symbol font, KW> but this is *clearly* not a slashed zero.] And this is KW> a document type set the old fashioned way, with actual type, KW> in 1973. See: KW> http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/C/C73/C73-2000.pdf KW> bearing the publication logo of Firenze. KW> A. S. Liberman (1973), Towards a Phonological Algorithm. KW> http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/C/C73/C73-1015.pdf KW> uses an empty set symbol to denote a phonological zero. KW> (See pp. 196-197 for numerous examples.) These are KW> clear examples, and show that this is used symbolically, KW> to indicate a "something which is not there". Look at KW> the type style. These are included in *italic* word KW> citations, but the null set symbol (used to denote the KW> phonological zero), is *not* set in italic. KW> Harri J�ppinen and Matti Ylilammi (1986), Associative Model KW> of Morphological Analysis: An Empirical Inquiry. KW> http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/J/J86/J86-4001.pdf KW> Displays a distinctive usages, with an italic epsilon to KW> denote a morphological zero. (Not the same as the set theory KW> use of epsilon to denote set membership.) KW> You can dig further in these archives of old editions of KW> Computational Linguistics and other journals from the 1970's KW> to find other instances illustrating the use of the empty KW> set symbol in linguistics to denote a phonological or KW> morphological zero. >> From what I've heard on this thread, a slashed zero glyph appears common >> in this situation in linguistics. KW> See examples cited above. >> A slashed zero is completely >> unrelated to the empty set symbol. KW> This is nonsense. You have found the correct citations KW> on the web regarding Andr� Weil's claim to have introduced KW> the empty set symbol, as part of the Bourbaki group. And KW> for Weil, the source of the symbol may well be Norwegian �. KW> (What the Weil citation doesn't specify is why he chose KW> a symbol vaguely reminiscent of a zero, while not actually KW> being a zero, to represent the empty set.) And what I pointed KW> out earlier is that, in *linguistic* usage, the slashed zero KW> glyph is clearly an acceptable glyphic variant of the KW> empty set symbol. So to claim it is "completely unrelated" KW> is to manifestly ignore actual practice. >> The empty set symbol and slashed zero remain unrelated. KW> Another bald assertion contradicted by Pullum (1996), who KW> *does* relate them, in linguistic usage. Nobody is claiming KW> that in *mathematical* usage they are connected, or would KW> be acceptable alternative glyphs in a treatise on set theory. >> [The EMPTY SET symbol] does not appear to have wandered >> into linguistics in any way (except by occasional typographic mistake, >> and that does not count), even though there is use of a similar-looking >> symbol. KW> What you are missing here is that the use of the empty set KW> symbol in linguistics is associated with structuralist KW> linguistics, which was in intellectual development roughly KW> contemporaneously with the Bourbaki group. And structuralist KW> morphology, in particular, was influenced by formal set KW> theory, and many morphologists borrowed the kind of formalisms KW> used by logicians and set theoreticians. KW> A phonological zero or a morphological zero has nothing to KW> do with numeric values, nor is it conceived of as part of KW> a word, per se. It is a pattern gap, an absence, a set with KW> no elements. And while I can't track you back, from web KW> citations to some earliest usage and give you a morphologist KW> explicitly talking about his notational conventions, without KW> spending more time at it than I can manage today, I can KW> assure you that it is perfectly reasonable and expected to KW> find clear examples of use of the empty set symbol in this KW> linguistic usage. What's the reason that this thread becomes that long and emotional? There is a need to express some emptiness/missingness concept by a symbol resembling somehow a circle or vertical oval form, overlayed by a slash. At present, Unicode has not a character which fulfills this need uniquely and unanimously (as this thread shows). If there was a need to include such a character into Unicode, this would have happened long before (considering the many linguists here), or at least nobody would have objected to the idea as it was expressed in this thread. Such, there seems to be *no* need for a dedicated symbol. As a consequence, other symbols are sufficient and cannot be called "wrong" without looking at the context of their actual usage. If you want to express the concept "empty phoneme/morpheme/whatever", use any symbol which is unambiguous in *your* context. Use U+2205, U+2298, U+A01C or whatever. If these characters are missing or ugly in your font, use U+00D8, as long as this is unambiguous within *your* text. Or create an OpenType font with your favourite glyph for U+0030 U+0338 if you have time and resources. *Every* symbol which your readers interpret correct *is* correct. - Karl
