tupi1239: Tupi-Guarani about glottolog

[xrotwang]

A bit more context: Glottolog 1.0 contained not only one classification, but in addition all the classification proposals from the MultiTree project. Thus, Glottolog 1.0 contained a lot more languoids - hence Glottocodes - then subsequent versions. So, for a "common" prefix like tupi it is likely that Glottocodes in the numeric range < 1250 have only been in Glottolog 1.0 - in one of the MultiTree classifications.

[xrotwang]

See https://content.iospress.com/articles/semantic-web/sw212843

If a language-level languoid was completely erroneous, it is moved to the Bookkeeping category.

[xrotwang]

Glottolog doesn't recycle Glottocodes and a new Glottocode "prefix" (the first 4 characters of a Glottocode) starts out with a numeric part of "1234". So tupi1239 did exist at some point. This can also be checked using a URL:

robert@lingn35:~$ curl -I https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/tupi1239
HTTP/1.1 410 Gone

HTTP 410 means it was there at some point, as opposed to HTTP 404.

But tupi1239 wasn't part of any "recent" (i.e. >=2.0) Glottolog versions, because then we could tell which version it last appeared in:

$ curl -I https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/aban1244
HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
...
Location: https://glottolog.org/files/glottolog-4.3/aban1244.html

So my guess would be that it was a typo in the dataset.

[d97hah]

You could go through the archived versions, downloadable here https://glottolog.org/meta/downloads Pada Rab, 8 Mei 2024 pukul 02.32 SamPassmore ***@***.***> menulis:

…

Hi, I have been using Glottocodes to index languages in my database of kinship terminology, Kinbank. In it we included a reconstructed kinship terminology for Tupi-Guarani, which we had listed with the code tupi1239. tupi1239 doesn't seem to be in the current version of glottolog, but there is a code tupi1276, which would seem to represent the same proto-language How would I figure out if the code tupi1239 used to exist but does no longer, or it was a typo in our dataset? Thanks in advance, Sam — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1074>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA2QHSFFFGCUDPX7TKTO32DZBFXBRAVCNFSM6AAAAABHL6YNTKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGI4DINBUGYZDSNQ> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[HedvigS]

Glottolog doesn't recycle Glottocodes and a new Glottocode "prefix" (the first 4 characters of a Glottocode) starts out with a numeric part of "1234". So tupi1239 did exist at some point. This can also be checked using a URL:

robert@lingn35:~$ curl -I https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/tupi1239
HTTP/1.1 410 Gone

HTTP 410 means it was there at some point, as opposed to HTTP 404.

Thanks for this Robert, this is very helpful.

tupi1239 isn't in bookkeeping. What is the rule for what goes into bookkeeping? When the trees were all reduced to one, which may be the reason for tupi1239 not being active, was it the rule that none of those old glottocodes went into bookkeeping?

[xrotwang]

The changes from Glottolog 1.0 to Glottolog 2.0 are truly backwards incompatible, i.e. Glottolog 2.0 has a very different data model to Glottolog 1.0 and not much continuity between these versions should be expected. From a practical perspective, Glottolog 1.0 should be treated as an implementation detail, much like the fact that Glottocodes like tupi1000 do not exist.

[SamPassmore]

Thanks for the detail Robert. I will make the change in Kinbank!