entries earmarked as errors?

[m-linssen]

Please observe

https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C9384 - [error] to be owner of s.th. (κυριεύεσθαι is meant) https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C11161 - [error] to declare, to testify, to confirm (ὁμολογέω is meant) https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C8360 - [error] to deliver, hand s.th. over to s.o. (ἀναδιδόω is meant)

These appear to date from May 2019 - have they escaped attention perhaps? I ran across them in reltion to another issue, which I'll report next

[m-linssen]

There are a few more, here's the total list:

8360 9174 9384 9453 10730 10886 11161

The following also seems to contain "metadata": [phil.} and [theol.}

9876 10193 10790

[dwerning]

This label "[error]" is already in the raw data. Safe to just remove it?

[KaJohn-DDGLC]

This is neither a bug nor the entry or any part of it is considered a mistake from a data point of view. It is intentionally given information to catch the attention of the reader/user. The cause of the label being used is given in parentheses. The entry needs to be read with the three main information positions: Cpt form - Greek lemma - Cpt meaning.

Using https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C9384 as the example.

The label "[error]" is used to indicate that on formal-morphological ground - the main rule for the formation of Coptic lemmata in our project - encountering the given form, an occurrence of this form would need to be linked to Greek κελεύω in its medium form. But in its context semantically this conclusion wouldn't work. If this phenomenon (encountered regularly mostly in documentary texts) is observed more than once there is a certain likelihood that it is not a single mistake by the scribe but might have made its way into the lexicon (maybe under certain circumstances). We collected and labeled those instances to make sure to analyze them after all the data is collected. While originally we labeled those cases "[error]" - which contains unfortunately a judgment - we have since the pull of the data (Dec. 2017) changed the label to "[UFC]" = Unexpected form change to maintain an 'agnostic' position towards those finds.

In the case of https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C9384 the entry reads/works as follows:

Encountering/looking up ⲕⲉⲗⲉⲩⲉⲥⲑⲁⲓ - on morphological ground derived from a Greek lemma κελεύω - might be an "error"/"unexpected form change" with the meaning/usage "to be owner of s.th." rather than "to command", in those cases semantically "κυριεύεσθαι is meant" (given in parenthesis.) This system allows the form to be respected and accessible for the user/reader from both perspectives: morphologically and semantically. It is up to the user/reader to decide which of the two applies for a particular context or just to be informed here that a form ⲕⲉⲗⲉⲩⲉⲥⲑⲁⲓ can actually be placed into two Coptic lemmata (i.e. nature and identity of as a loanword (not a foreign words) in its own capacity in Coptic) and semantically has connections to κελεύω and κυριεύεσθαι while its morphology requires a Greek source lemma κελεύω.

[dwerning]

Would it be clearer, if we reorganized the string? [error] to be owner of s.th. (κυριεύεσθαι is meant) => to be owner of s.th. ([error] κυριεύεσθαι is meant)

[amir-zeldes]

Sounds good to me. I think I would prefer 'erroneous', because 'error' sounds like an automatic computer output, whereas 'erroneous' is perhaps a more human-like term?

[KaJohn-DDGLC]

The questions of label name and label position were considered and discussed today. We will keep the current structure of the definition consisting of the concatenation of “label” & “translation equivalent” & “definition comment”.

The label, not just used for “error”/”UFC” cases, is intended to give the reader/user an initial heads-up/marking/contextualizing remark that applies as an attribute to the entire definition (line). A function it would lose if it were moved inside the comment in parentheses. While the functional label “UFC” remains in all publishing formats (printed dictionary, GLC Online, and CCL/CDO) in the first position such as the contextualizing labels (e.g. [phil.], [theol.], …) the formatting differs between the printed and online dictionary – UFC in superscript – and the CCL/CDO – UFC in square brackets.

For the use in the CDO “error” would need to be renamed into the label that we currently use which is [UFC]. As a format, we arrived at two options: A) "([UFC] κυριεύεσθαι is meant)" B) "(unexpected form change: κυριεύεσθαι is meant)" We would prefer version A if it is possible to reveal the definition of the UFC label with a hovering effect or other in situ explanation for the abbreviation UFC with the description "Unexpected form change: The meaning of one word with the form of another". If this is not possible, we would prefer version B.

Encountering this ticket/issue and being reminded of differences in format and system between the DDGLC data and the Crum-oriented CCL structure we would like to request the following.

The disclaimer for the DDGLC data being in beta status vanished from the bottom of the page. The data remains in beta status until the publication of the forthcoming dictionary (printed/online) and the update of the data for the CCL/CDO following it. The disclaimer should also contain the following link (https://glc-online.org/glc_doc/) to a starting and growing introduction/explanation document on our GLC homepage giving explanations for the reader/user as it occurs typically in printed dictionaries. The link to the document could also appear on the About page on the CDO page.

[amir-zeldes]

I think option A should be possible - can I rely on the substring [error] in the sense as a trigger for this behavior?

I'm also happy to add the the disclaimer - can you formulate the text for each position you would like it to appear in, incl. for the About page?