MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079853232 · doi:10.1353/utq.2005.0195

Onondaga-English/English-Onondaga Dictionary (review)

2004· article· en· W2079853232 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Keren Rice

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLexicography and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryLinguisticsGrammarOrthographyPopulationSociologyDemographyReading (process)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Onondaga-English/English-Onondaga Dictionary Keren Rice (bio) Hanni Woodbury. Onondaga-English/English-Onondaga Dictionary University of Toronto Press. viii, 1564. $175.00 Many years ago now, the Ontario government and the University of Toronto Press entered into an agreement to publish dictionaries and grammars of the major Aboriginal languages of Ontario. The Onondaga dictionary is the fourth Iroquoian dictionary to be published by the Press in recent years. The Press is to be applauded for taking on this commitment. The results have been consistently high quality reference materials that set the standard for work on languages of this family. Onondaga is an Iroquoian spoken at the Six Nations Reserve near Brantford, Ontario and at Onondaga Nation near Syracuse, New York. The language was once spoken by a large population, but now has only a small number of speakers. The dictionary is an extraordinarily rich resource, the product of thirty years of work. It is based both on work with speakers and reference to earlier grammatical resources, with the oldest source dated 1860 (although Woodbury says that this work was completed in the seventeenth century). The older sources provide insight into what Woodbury calls Old Onondaga, or Onondaga before several sound changes took place. Following an introduction highlighting dialects, the organization of the dictionary, and discussion of the orthography, the Onondaga dictionary begins with a basic grammar of nouns and verbs. This is a clearly written discussion that presents many of the intricacies of Onondaga. It is followed by Onondaga-English and then English-Onondaga entries. The dictionary ends with extensive appendices that are, essentially, a topical dictionary within the larger dictionary. Topics include nature, people, household, and community, each with a number of subcategories. Onondaga, like other Iroquoian languages and like many languages of the Americas, poses many challenges to the dictionary maker. This is because the root, or the part of the word that contributes the major meaning, is generally not found at the beginning of the word. As an example, consider the root -ohae- 'wash something, bathe someone.' This root occurs preceded by a prefix and followed by a suffix, as in g-óhae-k 'I wash,' ag-oháe-k 'she washes (it),' ha-oháe-h 'he has washed it.' Another root, -tshahnit- 'be industrious, be driven,' is similar: go-tsháhnit 'she is industrious, she is driven,' age-tsháhnit 'I am industrious,' ho-tsháhnit 'he is ambitious, he is industrious.' Another form of this verb includes an incorporated noun, written -gaæ- 'story, bill, price': o-gaæ-tsháhnit 'it is an unusually high price.' In the Onondaga dictionary and some other [End Page 332] Iroquoian dictionaries, words are listed as what are called 'bases,' or units of meaning. As Woodbury says, 'By this we mean that the unit's meaning or its shape cannot be determined exclusively from a knowledge of the form or the meaning of its elements.' This choice probably accords with intuitions of speakers about what a word is. It is not feasible to list every word of a language like Onondaga, as the number of words would be incredibly large. What is required to use a print dictionary of this type of language is knowledge about the structure of the word so that the base can be accessed. On-line dictionaries may well be able to overcome this limitation at some point; meanwhile, compilers of dictionaries of morphologically complex languages have much to learn from the thought that went into organizing this dictionary. I end this review with a brief discussion of another highlight of the dictionary. There are copious notes on lexical items, notes which are of value both linguistically and culturally. Some are linguistic - the choice of variant of a word is determined by what aspect is present or by particular phonological conditioning. Others are sociological - alternate forms are used by different speakers. Yet others are historical - changes in the language since the early recordings. Finally, the dictionary is rich with cultural notes - a base refers to a ritual of a particular type. I have not done justice to the outstanding quality of this dictionary in this brief review. It and the other recent...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1890.110

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlySame topicLexicography and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207