Imran Ghory wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2004, Timwi wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks this is unbelievably
I agree totally (but then again I thought that (the english) wiktionary
should only define english words in English), but there's not much that
can be done about it, becuase words in differnet langauges aren't
reflective. That is just because A in language 1 means B in language 2, it
doesn't mean B in language 2 means A in language 1. So it's not possible
to have a single list that's shared by many languages.
Firstly, I think you're thinking on the wrong lines. If A is a possible
translation for B, then B is always also a possible translation for A.
(Two words are possible translations of each other if their meanings
have a non-zero intersection; this property *is* reflexive.) Of course
that doesn't mean that B is *always* translated as A, but at least it
means that the graph represented by words and their translations is
Secondly, that's only one part of the redundancy. Even if the graph were
directed, it would still mean that every Wiktionary would build that
same graph, when building it once would really be sufficient.