Delirium wrote:
While this certainly seems useful, I'm not sure it
can't be
incorporated within Wiktionary itself instead of starting a new
project. Some paper dictionaries include some idiomatic phrases in
them already, so this isn't completely unusual. So I'd say just go
ahead and add them to Wiktionary, though perhaps some sort of
meta-markup on Wiktionary would be useful to categorize these sorts of
things (perhaps the same sort of meta-markup being discussed for
Wikipedia categories?).
-Mark
Well, Mark, I actually have a problem with markup in Wiktionary, hope
this doesn't get personal. :)
I think Wiktionary is not a well-though project, I guess some guy (gal)
said "let's do this" at some point, and it was done. But it's waaaay too
English-centric, Wiktionary tends to become a good English-to-anything
dictionary if successful in the long run, but it's a shame that it's
nothing-to-English in return, due to lack of formalized markup. I
personally never followed (nor even found) any discussion on the topic,
but since there are a lot of intelligent, knowledgeable people involved
in all of Wikimedia's projects, I expect I'm not raising a new issue here.
What I'm trying to say is that Wiktionary will probably have to go
through some major (hopefully automated) markup changes in the mid-ling
run in order to support arbitrary language-to-language dictionary
searches, whereas "Wixpression" or whatever it would be called, if
accepted as a new project at all, is not suitable for such treatment
because expressions are generally not translatable 1:1, as words tend to
be. Also, while "red" in English is simply translated to "rouge" in
French, "bring it on" in English needs to be explained /in English/
first, and only then, optionally, in French. Therefore I think these
should be two separate projects.
--Gutza