Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Sino-Tibetan

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Proto-Sino-Tibetan phylogeny[edit]

For page creation:


*[[Category:Proto-Sino-Tibetan roots]]

# [[]]

* Old Chinese
** Middle Chinese
*** Modern Mandarin
**** Beijing
*** Jin
*** Wu
**** Shanghai
*** Xiang
*** Gan
*** Hakka
*** Cantonese
**** Guangzhou
** Min
*** Amoy
* Kamarupan
** North Assam
*** Tani
*** Deng
** Kuki-Chin
*** Peripheral Chin
**** Northern Chin
**** Southern Plains Chin
*** Central Chin
*** Maraic
*** "Old Kuki"
** "Naga"
*** Northern Naga
*** Central Naga (Ao Group)
*** Angami-Pochuri Group
*** Zeme Group
*** Tangkhulic
** Meithei
** Mikir
** Mru
** Bodo-Garo = Barish
** Chairel
* Himalayish
** Tibeto-Kanauri
*** Western Himalayish
*** Bodic
**** Tibetan
*** Lepcha
*** Tamangic
*** Dhimal
** Newar
** Mahakiranti
*** Kham-Magar-Chepang-Sunwar
*** Kiranti
**** Eastern Kiranti = Rai
**** Western Kiranti
* Tangut-Qiang
** Tangut
** Qiangic
** rGyalrongic
* Jingpho-Nung-Asakian
** Jingpho
** Nungic
** Asakian
* Tujia
* Lolo-Burmese-Naxi
** Lolo-Burmese
*** Burmish
*** Loloish
**** Northern Loloish
**** Central Loloish
**** Southern Loloish
** Naxi
* Karenic
* Bai 00:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


Per the Grease Pit, apparently some current PST entries are "lemmatized" in an ugly enough form to break templates/modules.

This looks more like lack of editor attention than a necessary problem. Considering the above example — Reconstruction:Proto-Sino-Tibetan/p(r)an/t ~ b(r)an/t — the function of all these extra symbols is not to be a part of the reconstruction per se, it's to highlight that it's not clear what the reconstruction should be. The intended set of reconstructions to consider seems to be {pan, pat, pran, prat, ban, bat, bran, brat}. This is of course a bit long to be a lemma by itself, but even with the conventions on show, it seems completely arbitrary why this should be abbreviated as "p(r)an/t ~ b(r)an/t" and not as "p/b(r)an/t", "p/b(r)an ~ p/b(r)at" or "p(r)an ~ p(r)at ~ b(r)an ~ b(r)at".

Also, instead of any of this playing around with slashes and tildes, I would suggest capital letters as a first recourse on this kind of disambiguation (e.g. "P(r)an"), followed by superscripts (e.g. "p(r)an¹").

At some point we should be also divvying up the given reflexes according to which reconstruction variant they point to (compare e.g. Proto-Uralic *kolme), but that's surely less pressing. --Tropylium (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

“Ugly”? You should provide this feedback to the Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus instead – the best Sino-Tibetan etymology resource there is at the moment. This “playing around with slashes and tildes” is not a “kind of disambiguation”; this phenomenon is called allofamy. Instead of the rebuke here, the templates/modules need to be fixed to take into account the fact that not every proto-language reconstruction works like European languages. Wyang (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I know it's allofamy. If allofamy is a form of disambiguation is a more philosophical question, but what I question is to what extent it needs to be explicitly spelled out in lemmatization, and if so, by what means?
At minimum, if we do want to keep doing this, the conventions should be explicitly spelled out on this About page, not left for the reader to decrypt by themselves. --Tropylium (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)