dictionary comprehensiveness

[CallumBeaney]

If for now we assume Michigan's MED isn't going to provide access any time soon, we currently suffer from an issue of comprehensiveness (and of the usefulness of entry info). Reading Gawain as a difficult example, many words are missing from our resource. Its usefulness is fundamentally limited for as long as this problem is present.

Here are other reputable & comprehensive dictionaries:

• We could parse this PDF easily enough(?)
• A Middle English dictionary, containing words used by English writers from the twelfth to the fifteenth century by Stratmann, Francis Henry, d. 1884; Bradley, Henry, 1845-1923
• https://github.com/GITenberg/A-Concise-Dictionary-of-Middle-EnglishFrom-A.D.-1150-to-1580_10625/tree/master
• https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/011541557 (if we do old English; there are more datasets for OE afaict)

Now for that top one, if the OCR/HOCR available can't do it, I am willing to try my hand at manually plugging entries of it into a JSON (copyright permitting). It's only 700 pages long with around 40 definitions per page so it'd maybe take me 30 or 40 years if I put a movie or two on in the background no biggie

unfortunately the OCR is total ass

[CallumBeaney]

RE: that first PDF, I think this is the best next step

A Concise Dictionary of Middle English, 1888 as HTML

The same, but in a way we want it

+A-doun+, _adv._ down, S, S2, C2, C3, G; +adun+, S; +adune+, S.--AS. _of
dúne_, off the hill. (+A-+ 3.)

[CallumBeaney]

@alexobviously RE: 2nd dictionary see the 2nd comment of mine