Leo Broukhis, Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:43:14 -0800: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Leif Halvard Silli > <xn--mlform-...@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: > >> In «Tolkovïj slovar’ sovremennogo russkogo jazïka» from 2005 >> («Dictionary over contempary Russian language»), has located words on Ё >> in its a separate category, consisting of exactly one word: Ёмкость. > > This is either a mistake or a misunderstanding. [ snip ]
Not at all. THe dictionary I referred to is a dictionary on paper which only contains new words or words with changed meaning etc. Thus, a dictionary of "hot words for the time being". That particular dictionary only found room for one such word on ё-. :-) >> That, and the dictionary Leo pointed to, tell me that there is a >> difference between categorization and collation. > > You're right. A primary difference is categorizing (e.g. when many > people have to check in to an event, the waiting lines may be > categorized by several primarily distinct letters of the last name), a > secondary difference isn't. Also, speaking of dictionary vs phone book > collation, I'd like to know how Ельцин vs Ёлкин would be sorted but I > don't know how to find out. During Soviet times, the "White Pages" > weren't accessible to the public. I think that this is definitely one thing that can be affected by electronic media. But I just checked how Thunderbird sorts words and Ё- and Е- and it treats them as one and the same, even when the the Ё is the first letter of the word. Which to me makes sense in such an uncategorized medium as a list of e-mail since the user wants him- or herself to verify that he/she has seen all the message. However, I agree that in a dictionary etc, then it could probably make sense to have separate categories for Ё and Е. Question is whether categorization is a subject for collation algorithm. -- leif halvard silli
