New concepts: GUAVA and BREEZE about concepticon-data

[LinguList]

I am not against adding the two concepts.

[FredericBlum]

@AnnikaTjuka If you also agree, I would create the PR for this

[AnnikaTjuka]

I'm a bit hesitant about BREEZE because there are several glosses like wind_breeze or WIND (BREEZE). So the distinction might not be so clear and at some point, we would need a WIND OR BREEZE concept. @LinguList Would it make sense to introduce WIND OR BREEZE directly and map all ambiguous glosses (e.g. wind_breeze) as well as the individual breeze glosses to it?

[LinguList]

Yes, I see the point. We would need a detailed check of all currently mapped wind glosses. But those cases with BREEZE in brackets are not necessarily cases where it is wind or breeze, but rather it explains: wind is the wind like in breeze not like in "break wind" or whatever.

[FredericBlum]

While in one case it says indeed "as in breeze", the other three cases do not specify. It says "WIND (BREEZE)" or "wind_breeze".

[LinguList]

The typical procedure is to use brackets in the meaning "as in", so I would rather say: they refere to WIND than to BREEZE.

[FredericBlum]

Perfect. Then all "Wind (Breeze)" cases stay mapped to WIND, and only those cases that only have "breeze" will be added to BREEZE (four occurrences). If you agree to this, I would add a PR that adds the concepts from #1290 and this issue here.

[AnnikaTjuka]

Sounds good to me.