adding needham

[LinguList]

Pull request checklist

• add new concept list
• add new metadata
• add new Concepticon concept sets
  • checked whether the new concept(s) can be applied to existing lists with
    concepticon notlinked --gloss "NEW_GLOSS"
• add new Concepticon concept relations
• refine existing Concepticon concept set mappings
• refine Concepticon glosses
• refine Concepticon concept relations
• refine Concepticon concept definitions
• retire data

Additional information

@patkaiist, please check my PR here, where I add Needham in a version compatible with Lexibank, solving your problem. We must review the mappings now, but that is what I meant.

[patkaiist]

@LinguList Thank you, I have gone through this in more detail now. I want to clarify the process slightly. Let me know if this is correct:

1. First, the concept mapping represents the actual data which Needham collected, not his intended concepts. This is because the data itself goes into Lexibank and we only have the one concept list for Concepticon.
2. Then, if we add my modern data, as well as the two "dialects" Needham recorded, that still links to the same LEXIBANK_GLOSS values, thus tying it all together.

In this case the only thing I need to do is add a couple more glosses. Petticoat is actually simply SKIRT, Woman's “chudder“ is BLANKET, et cetera.

If the numbered points above are correct, then I will do that, and afterward we can finalise the PR.

[LinguList]

@patkaiist, so if I understand properly you'd say that Needham writes down he asked for "petticoat" but he received the word for "skirt" and you deduce this from the modern fieldwork?

[LinguList]

If this is the case, let us handle it in the following way:

• change the column header ENGLISH to GLOSS please (this indicates, we tinkered a little bit with the literal content
• please add the effective meaning in [] brackets after the respective gloss, thus Petticoat [skirt]
• add anote in the field NOTES in conceptlist.tsv that indicates this procedure (i.e.: we observed that the elicitation gloss diverges from the elicited word form, we correct for this by putting the elicited concept in square brackets)

[LinguList]

I think in this way, we are true to the source, true to the interpretation, and open for including this in Lexibank with the more recent data.

[LinguList]

@patkaiist, where are we on this? Didn't you want to finalize something here, or is it okay now and we can merge?

[patkaiist]

I think it may be fine to merge. I wanted to check on the tones in the orthography profile but I looked earlier today and everything is accounted for.

[LinguList]

Okay, then if you could please resolve conflicts, and merge yourself? I'd then check next week the lexibank integration, so this is good for your publication!

[LinguList]

Just resovled the conflicts on my side.