Hi all,

Although this is not specifically grammar related, maybe you could offer
some good ideas on this:

I'm working on the development of an online dictionary for ISD
(Instructional Systems Design), and right now I'm trying to establish how
dictionary entries are "treated". So far, after analysing several
paper-based dictionaries, I've identified 4 main ways: words are defined,
described, explained, or exemplified (and I'm sure there's more, I'd like
to hear of others).

Now, some of those dictionaries use those strategies inconsistently:
sometimes, when they have similar categories of words (e.g., 2 nouns), they
would define one of them, but they would describe the other.

However, most of them are consistent in the use of conventions for word
types, e.g., noun, adj., etc. A few of them would still be sort of "lax" in
their categories, and they would mix "noun", with "plural", and call all of
it "word types", when actually "plural" is a characteristic of the word,
but not a "word type" in itself.

So, I guess my question is: for a specialized dictionary of this type
(which is more similar to a glossary than a dictionary), how detailed
should the meaning be? How extense? Would it be ok to include word types
and pronunciation (given that acronyms could be tricky if you haven't heard
them before)?

What other strategies could be used, apart from the 4 mentioned above?
Which categories of words would you say belong with each strategy (e.g.,
descriptions could be better for physical objects, while definitions would
work better for abstract ones, etc.)

Any other idea, suggestion, or advice you would offer for a project like
this to produce a good result?

Thanks in advance.


Regards,


Roberto Perez
[log in to unmask]

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/