Basic and complex analytical files

The 10 analytical files fall into two categories:

a) 7 basic analytical categories. These are categories which stand on their own. They form the repertoire on which the language is built. Lexeme Relation and Rhetorical Devices are basic categories which are not combined with other categories, but are directly applied to source texts in their respective attribution files (as Lexeme Relations and Rhetorical Devices describe structural features of the language which stand above the level of an individual 'word' and also cannot be reduced to the level of individual 'words'). The other 5 basic categories (Phonology, Characters, Synonym Groups, Syntactic Categories, Semantic Categories) are never directly applied to source texts (as these 5 categories describe only aspects of the structural feature 'word'), but all eventually combine to form the complex category Lexeme Entry (i. e. 'word'), which is then applied to source texts in the Lexeme Entry Attributions file

b) 3 complex analytical categories (Lexeme Representation, Lexeme, Lexeme Entry). These combine two or more of the basic analytical categories, or a complex category with one or two basic categories. All three are part of the analysis of the linguistic feature commonly called 'word'.

TLS does not pretend to completeness or perfection. Receiving continually new input, the project must always remain work in progress, a growing collection of research notes. Certain inconsistencies will always remain unavoidable in a database constructed over such a long period of time. TLS will have achieved its aims if it stimulates free and enjoyable discussion, and if its information is specific enough to allow and indeed encourage specific reasoned disagreement and constructive discussion. Above all, it is hoped, users will take the trouble to correct some of the many blunders and inconsistencies that are unavoidable in a project of this size and ambition. All such contributions will be most gratefully acknowledged in TLS. In certain ways, TLS is fairly technical in terms of linguistic analysis and rhetorical terminology. This has turned out unavaoidable and it is hoped that in the long run the usefulness of these linguistic technicalities will become apparent to the patient user of TLS, even where they must always remain idiosyncratic and often even problematic.