> From: Doug Ewell [mailto:dewell at adelphia.net] > > I think the third is very misleading, and would not wish to see it. > > The language is the old variety of Church Slavonic, not the old-church > > variety of Slavonic. This is precisely why inversion cannot be done > > mechanically. > > Strange, then, that 639-3 lists "S, O C" but not "C S, O". I don't see why that's particularly strange. True, "C S, O" reflects a better parse of "Old Church Slavonic". But I don't think the purpose of an inverted name is, at all, to convey something like whether it is the "Old Church" variety of "Slavonic" or the "Old" variety of "Church Slavonic". Rather, I think the purpose is to facility searching under a root name. Now, one might contend that both "Church Slavonic" and "Slavonic" could be considered root names, but in the former "Slavonic" actually is the unmodified root -- making "Slavonic" the root in both cases. The inverted name only exists to facilitate one way of searching, and especially in hard-coded lists where no free-text search is available. It's not the only way to search; there are various other ways a user might want to search for a variety. In that light, listing "S, O C" is useful for a certain purpose, and the omission of "C S, O" isn't particularly hindering that purpose. Peter Constable
_______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.