Andrew Dunbar wrote:
--- 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.
Rubbish! Spanish "ser" and "estar" both **translate to** English "be". That doesn't mean that English "be" has two definitions. Italian "topo" doesn't **mean** "mouse" or "rat" - those are foreign words. Italian "topo" means a group of rodents of a particular type of appearance, just as Italian "sorcio" does. Just as Japanese "nezumi" does.
I seriously cannot believe that you believe these languages must have 1:1 mappings. I especially can't believe that you want to force languages into trying to fit this expectation. You speak more than one language - think about this!
If this distinction was not made initially, the split will have to be performed afterwards.
Please read about translation!
Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail)
Polyglot _______________________________________________ Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
===== http://linguaphile.sf.net/cgi-bin/translator.pl http://www.abisource.com
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
Athough it is nice to talk about mice and rats, muizenissen is a Dutch word that comes to mind, it has nothing to do with the subject: "Opening up the Wiktionary content".
The issue is are we going to open up our wiktionary content. Is it important to have our content open so that it can be shared in our other wiktionaries and in other resources outside wikimedia. This means that we will be able to describe our content in something like XML. The issue is strategic, structure not content like "topo". Whatever will be the outcome of the "topo"question, the method of describing what comes out of it is at issue not the messagecontent itself.
Thanks, Gerard