Hi,
well see, it is quite simple: there is space for both ways.
If a term has approx. 160-180 recurrences in internet and let's say approx. the half of it is useless or repetitive you have 80-90 remaining - let's say only 50 unique uses remaining and this only in a language that is hardly used on the net. This means that sooner or later someone might find such a text and search for a specific word in order to understand the text, right?
If you have a term that is used often by only two or three writers in poems, but these poems are likely to be read by other people and these other people could search for that term to understand what it means it should be there. If possible even here with a link to where you can find it or maybe with a quotation or a note (or more of them).
These terms are used for reference to understand a text and not to write according to a certain spelling. As long as you have not exact writing attributed to it, it is an nds term used in several texts and it is there to explain this.
When you want to standardise everyday writing you go the way of a unified language - this means you ask people to make a compromise to their "local language" and if they want they will do this. These standardised writings have rules, these rules can be explained and taught. So: these words must be categorised correctly in order to show that they are part of that standard. They will be used by those who support this kind of spelling and by those who teach it and by those who have a text in front of them and just search for the word to understand it.
But all of them exist - you cannot deny that a writer of a poem, a journalist or whoever uses another way of writing. There is no legal definition of what is wrong or right. So all have to be there. It is as simple as that.
Consider that for researching a term myself I need approx 20 to 30 minutes - then I can say: the term is widely used and these are the examples. If possible I also add the spelling category or the regional category, but I add it.
Talking about "abschreim" - I am not sure if this word is part of nds, but it could be - the thing is that I can find it written from people in the region of Fürth, but also near by Coburg or deeper in Bavaria it is used. So not being sure I sent a mail to a mailing list that among others is about low saxon and asked there (the list is moderated and the listowner on holiday, so it will need some time to receive an answer). In the meanwhile on the Italian witkionary I attributed it to Bavarian, region Fürth since this is 100% sure. The notes are on the discussion page. The thing is that Nürnberg/Fürth even having a more Franconian kind of language is attributed to Bavarian (see Ethnologue). Coburg instead not - it is categorised differently and it is clearly stated that it is part of Franconian (Mainfränkisch). Now there are some Franconian roots in the nds region as well (at least this is stated by an encyclopaedia - only in some very restricted areas) and there the word "abschreim" could be used, but of course up to now I don't have a real answer on that.
As long as you have a standardised language like Italian (I am not using German here, because it is not really standardised anymore thanks to two federal states) you don't have a problem: the correct ortography is "law". But this is not the case for Low Saxon, Bavarian, Neapolitan, Sicilian, Friulian and whatever.
Now I am asking: may we impose to people not to be able to read or write their language? May we impose them to learn any kind of "correct spelling" we decide for? Has Wiktionary the right to do this or does it have the right to describe what is there, what exisits and to try to categorise it in a way to have, in the end, some kind of very detailed language map. Some kind of ressource that will maintain these words for future generations for reference. I don't feel myself to be in a position to be able to impose to someone that his/her language, only because it is spoken and written by a minority, is not valid. Whatever is published is available for public and I hope it will be available for public for ever. If it remains available for public sooner or later someone will read this, maybe will need to understand, maybe will want understand from where a word comes from and if wiktionary can than be the place to tell this person "hei, this is a word that comes from Hintertupfingen - only 1500 people talked like this and only 500 were able to write like this" - the goal of preserving all wisdom and all words in all languages was met.
The goal of wiktionary is all words in all languages ... I for myself will not exclude one word if it exists in a publication. The only time I deleted two words I did not find any reference on the web were Italian dialectal words with very doubtful meaning (it was also a period with quite a lot of vandalism). I asked others, colleagues that come from that regions and no-one could confirm me these words, not even a similar one with a very different meaning and not even from other regions.
I repeat there is a place for both systems within the same wiktionary - all is about categorising, examples and notes and of course: taking some time.
Ciao, Sabine
Wytukaze wrote:
Hello all,
What with the recent heated debate about nds: while I've been on a (less-than-brilliant) trip to Ghana, I thought I'd talk ramblingly at you fine members of the list for a while.
.......
___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it