Bad forms for the entry ⲟⲓⲕⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲏ -- ϯⲕⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲏ and ϯⲕⲱⲙⲏⲛⲓ forms incorporating determiners?

[ouromi]

Hi CDO team,

Re: TLA lemma no. C9921 ⲟⲓⲕⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲏ

I wonder if, as with issue number #258, the forms ϯⲕⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲏ and ϯⲕⲱⲙⲏⲛⲓ incorporate the feminine definite article and should be corrected to (ⲉ)ⲓⲕⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲏ and (ⲉ)ⲓⲕⲱⲙⲏⲛⲓ respectively. I don't have the context of the attestations to tell but they could be determined by the feminine (affective) demonstrative article, leaving ⲕⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲏ (already attested) and ⲕⲱⲙⲏⲛⲓ as the forms.

Best wishes,
Ambrose

[amir-zeldes]

Thanks @ouromi - if I understand you correctly, your issue is not with the example sentences (which do not have the fused article), but with the list of citation forms, right? I'll add @KaJohn-DDGLC as before and @dwerning and @simondschweitzer for the discussion, but it seems like the DDGLC policy is to include the fused forms in the list of attested options, so we do have forms like "ϯⲕⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲏ" listed. I understand this is maybe confusing, but on the other hand, not including them also creates bad options for cases where independent forms spelled like "ⲓⲕⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲏ" are not actually attested.

I don't have a strong opinion on what to do here, but it should ideally be consistent with #258 and other similar cases.

[ouromi]

Hi @amir-zeldes. Yes, I mean the attested forms rather than the examples. (I've amended the thread title now.) In my opinion, it is best to give forms without articles even when giving them as such would result in a form not otherwise attested. In a sense, you could argue ⲓⲕⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲏ is actually attested in ϯⲕⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲏ (assuming the article is ⲧ-) and likewise for the other form. There are comparable attestations with (ⲉ)ⲓ- for "standard" ⲟⲓ- in Fay ⲓⲕⲟⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ [TLA lemma no. C9918] and Sah ⲉⲓⲕⲟⲛⲟⲙⲉ(ⲓ) [TLA lemma no. C9916], for example.

[KaJohn-DDGLC]

Hi @ouromi and @amir-zeldes. Thanks for the posted issue, considerations, and thoughts. Yes, these are an issue in the current representation of the CDO data. The data used here in the CDO from the DDGLC project is based on a data export from 2017, for which our tagged Loanword occurrences, not dividing up biphonemic characters in the context of article and initial character fusion, were processed by the TLA to create these beta versions of Graeco-morph forms attested. Our database, by now, has a separate level of variant spellings, taking these cases into account. With the completion of our project, they will first be available on our online platform and, very likely with a certain delay, also in the CDO. Until then, it is fair to call them an issue and pending. Manual fixing or updating seems rather unlikely, plus two types of IDs have to be taken into account for a clean update: the initial TLA-form-ID and the actual DDGC-variant spelling ID, which would apply to all the forms.

For the moment, the current variant spellings from our corpus for ⲟⲓⲕⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲏ (DDGLC CL ID 1728 ⲟⲓⲕⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲏ, GL 1521 οἰκουμένη) are: ⲟⲓⲕⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲏ S [111], B [6], A [4], F [1], M [18], L [3];
ⲟⲓⲕⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲉ S [1];
ⲟⲓⲕⲟⲩⲙⲏⲛⲉ S [1];
ⲟⲓⲕⲟⲩⲙⲏⲛⲏ S [4];
ⲉⲕⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲏ S [1], P [1];
ⲉⲕⲟⲩⲙⲏⲛⲏ S [1];
ⲉⲓⲕⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲏ S [1];
ⲓⲕⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲏ S [13];
ⲓⲕⲱⲙⲏⲛⲓ F [1];
ϩⲏⲕⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲏ A [1]

Neither the order of the forms nor the final done marker is set for those variant spellings. Changes might occur. The number in [] gives the number of occurrences per spelling and dialect. Those only include fully entered attestations, but we also have a considerable number of occurrences that are only entered without the co(nt)ext, just spelling and reference (156 additional occurrences for GL 1521). Those are not included in the listing above.

[amir-zeldes]

Thanks @KaJohn-DDGLC - generally I'd like to see these improvements and updates on CDO, but I wouldn't want to try to do a side-update without the CCL getting the same update, since CDO relies on CCL for the rest of its data. @dwerning @simondschweitzer would it make sense for DDGLC to make its data available to you once they are ready, and then CDO can ingest the update together with the rest of that updated version of CCL?