Ray Saintonge wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
I think we can put the blame on our use of language code lists which are biased towards political rather than linguistic divisions.
An important observation. In Wiktionary I keep having to beat back the argument that a wide assortment of conlangs are acceptable because they have been granted a code.
Ec
Hoi, Well actually, you are beating back the arrival of conlangs in the English wiktionary. It is most definetly not universally accepted that conlangs should not exist in a Wiktionary. When conlangs do not exist exept for their occurance in a Wiktionary, that is another matter.
When the spelling of words is different according to where they are used, the words are definitly needed in both forms and they need to be in a Wiktionary. Papiamento for instance has two distinct ways of spelling. It would be stupid NOT to have both official spellings in a Wiktionary. So when a language code marks a different way of pronouncing or a different way of spelling, it has its place in Wiktionary. In Wikipedia you can say things like "both can speak and read their versions of a language" in a Wiktionary you represent the existing spelling of words and you are not involved in judging if a spelling is political correct or not.
In Ultimate Wiktionary, we want to have it a user preference that will allow you to select what languages you want to add. The languages that will be allowed to start with will be the ones that have a language code. Within a language there will be room for distinct spellings. There will also be room for old spellings; this is particularly relevant for the Dutch language as it will have new spelling rules that will be published on October 15 and will be the official spelling from August 1 2006 onwards.
Thanks, GerardM
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
There will also be room for old spellings; this is particularly relevant for the Dutch language as it will have new spelling rules that will be published on October 15 and will be the official spelling from August 1 2006 onwards.
Again!!!! Dutch spelling seems to be in need of a reform about every 5 years. Maybe I should switch my native language to something more consistent. Hmm, Spanish and Turkish seem to be nice candidates :-)
Polyglot
cookfire wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
There will also be room for old spellings; this is particularly relevant for the Dutch language as it will have new spelling rules that will be published on October 15 and will be the official spelling from August 1 2006 onwards.
Again!!!! Dutch spelling seems to be in need of a reform about every 5 years. Maybe I should switch my native language to something more consistent. Hmm, Spanish and Turkish seem to be nice candidates :-)
Polyglot
Hoi, The last spelling change was 10 years ago .. I hope to get the list of the coming changes and the list of changes from 10 years ago and use these in the Wiktionary .. Thanks, GerardM
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
cookfire wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
There will also be room for old spellings; this is particularly relevant for the Dutch language as it will have new spelling rules that will be published on October 15 and will be the official spelling from August 1 2006 onwards.
Again!!!! Dutch spelling seems to be in need of a reform about every 5 years. Maybe I should switch my native language to something more consistent. Hmm, Spanish and Turkish seem to be nice candidates :-)
Polyglot
Hoi, The last spelling change was 10 years ago .. I hope to get the list of the coming changes and the list of changes from 10 years ago and use these in the Wiktionary .. Thanks, GerardM
Hi Gerard,
If I didn't 'digest' the last 'new spelling', then you can be very sure that most other people didn't either. It seems like the last reform was just a few years ago. The years are certainly flying by. Anyway, I think if you want to indicate what spelling a word is in, marking them by the years they are introduced would make a lot of sense. So spelling1995, spelling2005 or something of the kind.
Polyglot
Actually, Spanish and Turkish have both undergone reforms. The most recent with Spanish only involved changing the alphabet and hence the sorting. Further back, Spanish once used the cedilla - in fact the English named for the cedilla comes from Spanish even though that language no longer uses it.
Turkish underwent massive change when Ataturk came to power. Not merely the spelling but also the script was changed from Arabic to Latin and a large portion of the vocabulary borrowed from Arabic was replaced with new words from various sources.
Coincidentally, Turkish now uses a cedilla not only with "c" but also with "s". (-:
Hippietrail
On 6/27/05, cookfire cookfire@softhome.net wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
There will also be room for old spellings; this is particularly relevant for the Dutch language as it will have new spelling rules that will be published on October 15 and will be the official spelling from August 1 2006 onwards.
Again!!!! Dutch spelling seems to be in need of a reform about every 5 years. Maybe I should switch my native language to something more consistent. Hmm, Spanish and Turkish seem to be nice candidates :-)
Polyglot _______________________________________________ Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
Andrew Dunbar wrote:
Actually, Spanish and Turkish have both undergone reforms. The most recent with Spanish only involved changing the alphabet and hence the sorting. Further back, Spanish once used the cedilla - in fact the English named for the cedilla comes from Spanish even though that language no longer uses it.
Turkish underwent massive change when Ataturk came to power. Not merely the spelling but also the script was changed from Arabic to Latin and a large portion of the vocabulary borrowed from Arabic was replaced with new words from various sources.
Coincidentally, Turkish now uses a cedilla not only with "c" but also with "s". (-:
At least that's more than 50 years ago and it resulted in a phonetic spelling. I'm sure the Turkish school children are grateful for that. It must have caused major disruption at one point, but it showed great foresight. It probably causes a lot greater literacy among the people.
Of course I should have stated I was going to change my 'native' language to Esperanto...
See you,
Polyglot
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
I think we can put the blame on our use of language code lists which are biased towards political rather than linguistic divisions.
An important observation. In Wiktionary I keep having to beat back the argument that a wide assortment of conlangs are acceptable because they have been granted a code.
Ec
Hoi, Well actually, you are beating back the arrival of conlangs in the English wiktionary. It is most definetly not universally accepted that conlangs should not exist in a Wiktionary. When conlangs do not exist exept for their occurance in a Wiktionary, that is another matter.
The only other place for some of them is in some small group's web site.
When the spelling of words is different according to where they are used, the words are definitly needed in both forms and they need to be in a Wiktionary. Papiamento for instance has two distinct ways of spelling. It would be stupid NOT to have both official spellings in a Wiktionary. So when a language code marks a different way of pronouncing or a different way of spelling, it has its place in Wiktionary. In Wikipedia you can say things like "both can speak and read their versions of a language" in a Wiktionary you represent the existing spelling of words and you are not involved in judging if a spelling is political correct or not.
I have never considered Papiamento to be a conlang.
In Ultimate Wiktionary, we want to have it a user preference that will allow you to select what languages you want to add. The languages that will be allowed to start with will be the ones that have a language code. Within a language there will be room for distinct spellings. There will also be room for old spellings; this is particularly relevant for the Dutch language as it will have new spelling rules that will be published on October 15 and will be the official spelling from August 1 2006 onwards.
In English there is no such thing as an "official" spelling.
Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
In Ultimate Wiktionary, we want to have it a user preference that will allow you to select what languages you want to add. The languages that will be allowed to start with will be the ones that have a language code. Within a language there will be room for distinct spellings. There will also be room for old spellings; this is particularly relevant for the Dutch language as it will have new spelling rules that will be published on October 15 and will be the official spelling from August 1 2006 onwards.
How will the distinct spellings be handled? Not the same way [[color]] and [[colour]] are on en: I hope?
I would recommend the more technical word "orthography" over "spelling". I've done a very small number of articles on the English Wiktionary covering the most recent German spelling reform and I'm pretty sure I've used (''pre-1998'') and (''post-1998'') though I know this leaves a year uncovered in between because I wasn't sure of the dates. I've also done one or two for the old Russian orthograpy, I think 1908 was the year of change but I can't be sure. I've seen people using "pre-revolutionary" and "post-revolutionary" spelling, but I'd want to be 100% positive that there were no other reforms before or after the revolution to use such narrow terms.
The case of English "color" vs "colour" is a special case because it's not due to unilateral reform. It's due to a division in the language. Outside the US, all dictionaries list the so-called "British" spelling first. In the US, all dictionaries use the US spelling first. Thus there are two traditions. Very very few dictionaries are aimed at both the "British" and US markets simultaneously. The ones I have seen are aimed at Europeans or Asians learning English, seem to be all produced outside the US, and give the British spelling first. The same goes for pronunciations.
So with English there exists tension between the spellings, in the other languages there is an accepted progression from one spelling to the next. Over the next few years we may see a parallel due to the 1998 German reform not being embraced on all sides. It Switzerland the new spelling is in and everybody uses it. In Germany a lot of people don't want it anymore. But unlike English, German has a language authority, Duden, who makes the major dictionary.
Hippietrail.
On 6/28/05, Muke Tever muke@frath.net wrote:
Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
In Ultimate Wiktionary, we want to have it a user preference that will allow you to select what languages you want to add. The languages that will be allowed to start with will be the ones that have a language code. Within a language there will be room for distinct spellings. There will also be room for old spellings; this is particularly relevant for the Dutch language as it will have new spelling rules that will be published on October 15 and will be the official spelling from August 1 2006 onwards.
How will the distinct spellings be handled? Not the same way [[color]] and [[colour]] are on en: I hope?
-- website: http://frath.net/ LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/ deviantArt: http://kohath.deviantart.com/
FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki: http://wiki.frath.net/ _______________________________________________ Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
Andrew Dunbar wrote:
I would recommend the more technical word "orthography" over "spelling". I've done a very small number of articles on the English Wiktionary covering the most recent German spelling reform and I'm pretty sure I've used (''pre-1998'') and (''post-1998'') though I know this leaves a year uncovered in between because I wasn't sure of the dates. I've also done one or two for the old Russian orthograpy, I think 1908 was the year of change but I can't be sure. I've seen people using "pre-revolutionary" and "post-revolutionary" spelling, but I'd want to be 100% positive that there were no other reforms before or after the revolution to use such narrow terms.
The most important reform was introduced in 1917 by the Karensky government. See [[w:Reforms of Russian orthography]]
Ec
wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org