ancient-scripts-datasets / docs /ADVERSARIAL_AUDIT_xlc.md
Alvin
Add complete dataset: all sources, metadata, scripts, docs, and phylo enrichment
26786e3

Adversarial Audit: Lycian (xlc)

Source Verification

  • Claimed source: wiktionary
  • Entry count: 99
  • Entry count plausible: NO (expected 100-500; 99 is 1 below minimum -- borderline)

Format Verification

  • Header correct: YES
  • All rows have 6 fields: YES
  • Duplicate entries: 0

Content Verification (5 random samples)

# Word IPA SCA Gloss IPA Valid? SCA Valid?
1 aha axa AKA to_sit YES (h->x is valid Lycian) YES
2 cbatru cbatru KBATRU daughter WARN (Word==IPA, no conversion for cb-) YES
3 kumaza kumatsa KUMATSA a_priest YES (z->ts is valid) YES
4 mahan maxan MAKAN a_god YES (h->x valid) YES
5 qaja kwaja KAYA a_temple YES (q->kw valid labiovelar) YES

Hallucination Check

  • Round entry count: NO (99)
  • Generic glosses: 0
  • Empty fields: 0
  • Word==IPA entries: 72/99 (72.7%)
  • Duplicate concepts: 11 (e.g., "daughter" x2, "to_give" x2, "this" x2, "three" x2, "a_priest" x3)

Verdict: WARN

Notes

  • 72.7% Word==IPA ratio is high but expected for a sparsely attested Anatolian language where many words lack established IPA beyond the orthographic form. Lycian used an alphabetic script close to Greek, so orthography approximates phonology.
  • Count of 99 is just barely below the expected minimum of 100. This is borderline acceptable -- not a red flag.
  • 11 duplicate concepts exist but these are genuine synonyms/doublets in Lycian (e.g., cbatru/kbatra for "daughter", tri/trei for "three"). This is linguistically plausible.
  • IPA conversions that DO differ from Word are linguistically sound: h->x (fricative), z->ts (affricate), q->kw (labiovelar). These match known Lycian phonology (Melchert 2004).
  • All glosses are specific and domain-appropriate for an ancient Anatolian language (kinship terms, religious vocabulary, numerals).