Sense polysemy by dictionary
Mean sense units per entry for the 11 CDSL dictionaries that carry structural sense marking. The remaining 33 dictionaries have no machine-readable sense boundary — this page does not invent a proxy (H817 dead end).
Dictionaries
Mean sense/entry
Entries (sum)
Families
:::note
Trust block. Source: data/sense_polysemy_per_dict.tsv
(loader: observatory/site/src/data/sense_polysemy_per_dict.csv.py, read-only).
Upstream: csl-atlas data/lexico/r2_h1.json (per-row source column).
n =
Sense units per entry (chronological)
Sorted by publication year — the editorial history of how densely senses were split.
How to read: Bar height = mean sense units per entry. Example 1:
mw72(1872) sits high: denser sense subdivision than many later titles. Example 2: Indigenous monolingual works near 1.0 mean nearly one sense unit per entry under this metric.
Year × density (family colour)
How to read: x = year, y = sense units per entry, colour = family. Example 1: Points climbing over the 19th century would be rising sense density. Example 2: Same-family pairs (mw72/mw, ap90/ap) show within-lineage drift.
Entry counts
Absolute entry volume behind the density ratio — a small dense dictionary is not the same editorial object as a large sparse one.
Family aggregate means
Unweighted mean of sense_units_per_entry across dictionaries in each family (each
title counts once — not entry-weighted).
Dict × year scatter of entry volume
Fifth mark: log-scale entry count against year, size optional via radius from sense density.
Conclusion: Among the 11 sense-marked dictionaries, density is not a simple year trend: Benfey/Apte/mw72 sit high; several large Petersburg and indigenous titles sit near 1.0–1.2. Any org-wide “polysemy” claim must stay inside this n=11 set — the other 33 are not missing data, they are out of scope until sense markup exists.
Full table
Download source TSV:
sense_polysemy_per_dict.tsv
· report:
reports/sense_polysemy_per_dict.md
· sibling census: L1 Lexicon.