Muke Tever schreef:
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 11:20:19 +0200, cookfire cookfire@softhome.net wrote:
If topo in Italian means both mouse and rat. Then it should be a word with two definitions. One will translate into mouse, the other will translate into rat.
Just because a word refers to multiple objects doesn't mean it has multiple definitions.
To give an exaggerated example, it is like saying that the English word "bird" has over 9000 definitions because there are over 9000 kinds of birds and "bird" refers to them all.
Less extremely, the word "dolphin" in everyday English[1] refers indiscriminately to dolphins that live in the ocean, dolphins that live in rivers, and (for some people) porpoises; however, there are languages that distinguish them: in Latin for example they are "delphinus", "platanista", and "thursio" respectively[2], and I wouldn't be surprised if other languages did similarly.
English has lots of words like these, that get defined nonspecifically as "a member of taxonomic group X or Y".
*Muke!
[1] Excepting in technical language, or language trying to be specific. In such cases even languages that don't ordinarily differentiate rat/mouse can find ways to be specific. [2] It's a really obscure example, I know, but it's the only one I'm familiar with offhand, from writing about dolphins in Latin. Pliny, who describes the animals, does not give them as kinds of dolphins, though he does say the _thursio_ "delphinorum similitudinem habent" (has the dolphins' likeness), and the _platanista_ is "rostro delphini et cauda" ([possessed] of a dolphin's muzzle and tail).
I follow you on the dolphin example. I don't follow you on the bird example. Bird is a word with a certain meaning, indeed it is a more general term, for which a lot of more specific words exist. This doesn't give a problem when translating.
As for the dolphins, you are right. That is a problem. One has to choose between adding comments with the translations, or whether one wants to distinguish between them on the "Meanings"/definitions level. I suppose it would depend on how many languages do make this distinction. If a lot of languages do, it may make sense to add more definitions.
Anyway, you are right, it is very important to be able to add comments to translations and it is not because word X in language A is a translation of word Y in language B, that this will also be the case for language Z.
The current situation is different though. If somebody defines the translation of a term between two languages in one Wiktionary, the other Wiktionaries are not updated. It is not because they are Wiktionaries in another language that the translation of these terms would be different. Even worse, it is very well possible for one Wiktionary to declare that the translation of A = B, while another language Wiktionary says that A = C. There is no consistency and no reasonable way to keep the Wiktionaries synchronized. This is the waste of resources that Gerard and Sabine are worried about.
You know how I have always been active to avoid duplication in the English Wiktionary and I always felt it was very unfortunate that duplication was going to happen on such a large scale because of the many Wiktionaries that were created. If it can't be helped, so be it. But what if we can come up with a way to not have this duplication? Where everybody can work with the Wiktionary in his/her own language, but where the results are pooled together.
When somebody claims that a translation between two languages is such, then everybody can check this out. When somebody writes down a nice definition or etymology, others can translate it. It is even possible to keep track of these translations and mark them 'fuzzy' when the original changes (but that doesn't have priority)
If people fill out a profile with languages they understand, they can get those definitions/etymologies in those languages they indicated. If anonymous users come by, they can see in which languages translations are already provided, making use of symbols, in case it is not available in their own language. They can then decide to translate it, if they want to make a contribution.
If we want to implement this, we are looking at a major software rewrite though and it is true that there are not a lot of developers to implement it. (Which is why I haven't spoken too much about this before). Before we start looking for developers, we should find out whether there is a willingness to host this on the WikiMedia servers. If the willingness is there it all has to be refined and analyzed. Then it can be implemented. This is not something that will be ready in a few months. After the system is set up, a migration can take place. Conflicts will have to be resolved where they occur. In the end we will have a better dictionary though, given that it is designed properly in the early stages. It will be possible to export it or selected parts of it, according to the needs of who is doing the extracting. And what comes out of it will be extremely structured and usable for other projects.
Polyglot