Heiko Evermann wrote:
Hi Gerard,
slowly I am beginning to be fed up with this discussion. I ask you not to misrepresent my position any longer.
On the one word you told me by e-mail that was a hundred percent error turned out to be used 186 times on the internet (I have a screenshot of google if you don't believe it) and I found the writer who used it in her texts - she's a reporter for a newspaper in North Germany and has been writing articles in Pattdüütsch vor over 13 years for them now. I also contacted her to ask her how to categorise her writings.
Another mysterious supporting source.
You can ask for the name of this writer; it can be given.
Please list this word, please name this writer, so that we can discuss this one item in detail. I had listed several gravely misspelled words (according to all spellings that I know of), so please tell us which one of them you are referring here. Please name your sources. You could e.g. cite any dictionary whatsoever to prove your point. I have given details. I can show you several dictionaries that support my spelling. You so far have given 0. In words *ZERO*. That is not enough. Besides you have not even given any information about the origin of the list. We know which web site it is from, but from the misspellings in capitalization it is clear that it is derived from a text. I would really like to know which text that is. The problem is that you so far have not done anything to underly your claims with any credible source. Again: citing one website that is mirrored to some other places is circular reasoning, but no proof. Again: wiktionary is not a dump for all the misspellings in the world. You would not get through with that in any other wiktionary.
We have a letter by a university professor informing us that bitter fights are waged over what is "correct" spelling in nds. Anyway the fact that you have your sources in itself only proves that you can attribute the information that you provide to an orthography. "Werner Eichelberg sien dollet Wöörbook" is the source of Sabine's list; Werner indicated that the source were articles that were translated from deutschplatt. Your assertion that this must be incorrect is based on the availability of the resources that you have. There are some 200 valid orthographies and your assertion that some words *must *be wrong can be substantiated when you have considered them all. The sheer fact that this source has been indicated for several years as a good resource on the nds.wikipedia must count for something, (it is not just any old website :)
You again assert that they are misspellings. Given that Sabine is in the process of getting more resources for this discussion, it would be prudent to give it some time and not insist on instant resolution because this is not feasible.
So: anything is out of discussion here. I am not going let me impose things by anyone, I prefer research and adapt the contents we have to that..
Now the thing is that you wanted to impose things on us. Besides you created facts by importing this list into it.wiktionary.org. A list that is highly suspicious.
First of all I have done nothing here; I have not imported the list, but given your point of view that only what you know to be correct should be inserted I do agree that what Sabine did is in line with the Wiki tradition. She provides information that people can comment on. Again, I urge you to identify the words that you know to be correct for the orthography that they represent. This will ultimately give us a list of words that cannot be attributed to any orthography because they are wrong; they will then be indicated for what we will know at that time.
When Heiko is to ignore substantiated facts, he will make what he does in the Wiktionary world irrelevant. This would not be about ediwars. I do not expect that Heiko will get into an editwar as there is a perfect solution and that is using proper labelling. When Heiko indicates words to be according to the Sass orthography or whatever Heiko orthography knows, his work will be most relevant. There are plenty possible solutions here.
No Gerard, *you* have not delivered substantiated facts. Why haven't you done that all along. This discussion has been going on for several weeks now. And your only argument is that you found this spelling somewhere on the internet and therefore it is a valid spelling. You could of course try to import all this data with the tag "very private spelling of xy", but then I really have ask who should profit from that? Low Saxon is in a bad shape nowadays. And an nds.wiktionary.org needs to present data that reflect actual current usage of words and not private spellings. If there should be a place for very private spellings in wiktionary or UW, then certainly *after* inserting the real, current use as substantiated by dictionaries etc. of whatever spelling. What I have been doing is cleaning up (as can be seen in nds.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges). And I do think that this has helped to make the data a lot more relevant.
I am not party in this really because I am not gaining access to new resources. What I am doing is showing that what is being done is relevant and an acceptable way of going forward.
To make it relevant you have to state what orthography a word is http://nds.wiktionary.org/wiki/ankieken (a recently changed article) does not indicate an orthography and is from my point of view as relevant as any of the stuff Sabine uploaded. Low Saxon may be in a bad way, it is helped by working together and doing a good job in categorizing words to the orthographies that are in use. It is not helped by us endlessly exchanging mail. I will take you more seriously when you start indicating orthographies. You can trust Sabine that she is writing to all these resources and I expect that it will lead to wordlist that will indicate what orthography they belong to. This in turn will make what we both aim for more objective; a good resource for nds.
I did not once mention your name and what I had/still have is a general question - it does not happen the first time that people know how to improve things, but just complain about others not doing as the writer supposes - and talking about wikis: this is not the way to go and that's it. It is a very general question. If you need proofs for that: they are there in the histories.
The same accusations that Sabine put in her anonymous mail to this list were also found in her answer to my post to it.wiktionary.org, at least to my (albeit limited) understanding of Italian. And therefore this forum is indeed a place to discuss these things.
If someone contents something you should listen to them and go in a discussion. Not just boldly go on and add the stuff elsewhere!
Here you show that you do not apreciate what Wiktionary is about; every wiktionary is about all words in all languages. Therefore it is completely acceptable to add this content in the Italian Wiktionary.
Then please mark these entries as what they are: Low Saxon in an awful quality, full of errors and following an unsubstantiated very private spelling of one individual. Or prove otherwise, which so far (even after lots of mails and discussions) you have not done.
As mentioned before, this is the pot calling the kettle black. Start indicating orthographies and you prove the quality of your contributions.
Please do at least try, so that we (you and I) can discuss the real issue: the quality of your data. Again: this is not Sass-spelling vs. the world, but one very private, inconsistent, doubtful spelling against the rest of Low Saxon, and we will really clean this mess up in nds.wiktionary.org. At least unless you back up your position with real facts. Now this should not be too difficult, shouldn't it?
And perhaps we can then go back to work, because there really is a lot of work to do and the list could already have been cleaned up, if we didn't have this discussion and if you then import the corrected data for us, or if you give us acces to the import script. (Which by the way I have asked for several times so far. I also need it because I have quite a long list of words (apart from your list) derived from the Low Saxon translation of KDE that I would like to import.)
The software we are using is known to you; we use the pywikipedia bot software. No problems there. Generating the source for the bot is something that is often different depending on what we have for input. It is a typical handjob. If you have a list with Sass compliant words or a list with words in another orthography (preferably with at least one translation) I am quite happy to make you a source so that you can upload this. Are these KDE files .po files ??
Is there really no way for us to cooperate? Does anyone else here understand what I am talking about for all this time?
There are many ways in which we can cooperate but the bottom line is; to improve nds content you have to indicate the orthography because without it, the quality of the information is debatable. So again let us work together and agree that knowing the orthography is key to proving the worth of individual lemmas.
NB this whole exchange of e-mails is not really relevant to the Wikipedia-l so I will only answer from now on at the Wiktionary-l
Thanks, GerardM
Hi Gerard, ok, let us do this in private mail:
We have a letter by a university professor informing us that bitter fights are waged over what is "correct" spelling in nds. Anyway the fact that you have your sources in itself only proves that you can attribute the information that you provide to an orthography. "Werner Eichelberg sien dollet Wöörbook" is the source of Sabine's list; Werner indicated that the source were articles that were translated from deutschplatt.
So do you or does Sabine have the original articles that led to the list by Werner Eichelberg?
Your assertion that this must be incorrect is based on the availability of the resources that you have. There are some 200 valid orthographies and your assertion that some words *must *be wrong can be substantiated when you have considered them all. The sheer fact that this source has been indicated for several years as a good resource on the nds.wikipedia must count for something, (it is not just any old website :)
No this is not the way to do it. I have shown examples that were wrong. In all there have been three people in nds.wiktionary.org, all familiar with the language who state that this list is of low quality. We have given examples. In such a case it is then up to those who advocate *for* the list that this list conforms to some standard. We have given enough evidence. The main example is "abschreim". This is High German Slang. The evidence for this is 1) the word exists as such in High German 2) it uses the prefix "ab". Low Saxon uses "af-" here. I can document that for North Low Saxon in general (Sass), Schleswig-Holstein Westcoast (Neuber), Mecklenburg (Hermann-Winter). 3) it uses "-ei." (German) instead of "-i-" (Low Saxon) 4) a google search lists 249 instances, most of them written in south German slang. Search for "abschreim dat för" to filter out High German by also searching for two very common LS words (neuter article and a common preposition) and you get deutschplatt and a mirror of it.
So this shows that this entry has nothing to do with being one of 200 valid orthographies. And now it is really up to you to show which LS orthography this word conforms to.
You again assert that they are misspellings. Given that Sabine is in the process of getting more resources for this discussion, it would be prudent to give it some time and not insist on instant resolution because this is not feasible.
To me that sounds like you are evading a discussion.
First of all I have done nothing here; I have not imported the list, but given your point of view that only what you know to be correct should be inserted I do agree that what Sabine did is in line with the Wiki tradition. She provides information that people can comment on.
Do you really think that people in it.wiktionary.org will comment on that? If you want comments, you can get them in nds.wiktionary.org, where we are doing exactly that. And therefore I really cannot understand why she uploaded this data into it.wiktionary.org. This just means that when UW will be available, we will get all that data again. We can clean things up in nds.wiktionary.org, but all the problems will reappear then.
Again, I urge you to identify the words that you know to be correct for the orthography that they represent. This will ultimately give us a list of words that cannot be attributed to any orthography because they are wrong; they will then be indicated for what we will know at that time.
I think it is not neccessary to flag all words as nds-sass. The data that I have entered/corrected is generally correct. If that is not sufficient for you, I would still propose to have the main heading flagged with -nds- and to have subheadings indicating the spellings and areas where this is correct. To me it does not make so much sense to have all entries flagged as "Plattdüütsch (Sass, Noordneddersassisch)". Or is that really what you want to have? For me (and I think that the others from nds.wikipedia.org do think the same) it would be sufficient to list deviant forms as such and I would also like to place notes in the articles linking to other forms. But that seems to be impossible? My suggestion is to work through the list to clean up what can be easily cleaned up and then to have a look at what remains.
No Gerard, *you* have not delivered substantiated facts. Why haven't you done that all along. This discussion has been going on for several weeks now. And your only argument is that you found this spelling somewhere on the internet and therefore it is a valid spelling. You could of course try to import all this data with the tag "very private spelling of xy", but then I really have ask who should profit from that? Low Saxon is in a bad shape nowadays. And an nds.wiktionary.org needs to present data that reflect actual current usage of words and not private spellings. If there should be a place for very private spellings in wiktionary or UW, then certainly *after* inserting the real, current use as substantiated by dictionaries etc. of whatever spelling. What I have been doing is cleaning up (as can be seen in nds.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges). And I do think that this has helped to make the data a lot more relevant.
I am not party in this really because I am not gaining access to new resources. What I am doing is showing that what is being done is relevant and an acceptable way of going forward.
Sorry, I do not see that you have shown that the list is relevant.
To make it relevant you have to state what orthography a word is http://nds.wiktionary.org/wiki/ankieken (a recently changed article) does not indicate an orthography and is from my point of view as relevant as any of the stuff Sabine uploaded.
I moved it to the basic form. The word is common Low Saxon and does not require any further flagging.
As mentioned before, this is the pot calling the kettle black. Start indicating orthographies and you prove the quality of your contributions.
Words that are common Low Saxon do not need further flagging. Besides I have not seen such a thing in any other wiktionary.
The software we are using is known to you; we use the pywikipedia bot software. No problems there. Generating the source for the bot is something that is often different depending on what we have for input. It is a typical handjob. If you have a list with Sass compliant words or a list with words in another orthography (preferably with at least one translation) I am quite happy to make you a source so that you can upload this. Are these KDE files .po files ??
I have had a look at the bot and I have had a look at the import file that Sabine sent me by Email. (Which uses a different markup for start/end than in the word file.) I have tried to understand the way pywikipedia bot works for wiktionary, but I have not understand it. I would really be grateful for a short examle consisting of 1) a short import file with 2-5 entries 2) the command line to use. I would be able to work from there. The data is in http://sourceforge.net/projects/aspell-nds. It is a word list that we derived from the KDE po-files. We filtered out the Low Saxon parts (the po file maps English to Low Saxon), broke it into words, sorted it, counted it (with a short shell script) and used that to find inconsistencies in our KDE op Platt. We then transformed this list into an input file for the aspell spell checker. This list uses some words with a spelling deviant of Sass: latin based words are submitted to the double vowel for long vowels. I would correct that and add the German translation plus the grammar information (noun, verb etc). The list is about 1500 words, and I think that it should be relatively easy to create a list of several hundred words for importing quite quickly.
Is there really no way for us to cooperate? Does anyone else here understand what I am talking about for all this time?
There are many ways in which we can cooperate but the bottom line is; to improve nds content you have to indicate the orthography because without it, the quality of the information is debatable. So again let us work together and agree that knowing the orthography is key to proving the worth of individual lemmas.
Well, that would mean flagging all my entries as nds-sass? Is that what you want? That still leaves the question what to do with the current list. 1) I would like to edit it (preferably as text file, because that is so much faster) and then get it imported. That would have to be done by Sabine, as she wants to see the original author attributed, or would it be sufficient to indicate that in the checkin comment? (I really do need a short example to see how the robot works.) 2) Concerning the data of deutschplatt: I would really like to see that data *not* included unless the underlying spelling system can be confirmed in some way. I think it does not make much sense to import this data without any flagging, as there are grave doubts about lots of words (as I have been telling for quite a long way). I would not object inserting that data if 2.1) the spelling system and the content can be substantiated. From what I had started to work through, about half the entries cannot be substantiated, and that is far too much. 2.2) the entries get flagged accordingly. 3) I would really like to find a way that can reuse the nds entries. I would not like to see vain repetitions in "is" with a heading {{-nds-sass}}, a heading {{nds-harte}} etc all with a complete set of translations.
Would that be a proposal that you can live with?
One other thing: is there a way to invert entries to get the German=>LS entries prepared, so that they only need little rework or is it neccessary to do that by hand?
NB this whole exchange of e-mails is not really relevant to the Wikipedia-l so I will only answer from now on at the Wiktionary-l
I have not subscribed there so far. Hence the private mail.
Kind regards,
Heiko Evermann
Heiko Evermann wrote:
Hi Gerard, ok, let us do this in private mail:
We have a letter by a university professor informing us that bitter fights are waged over what is "correct" spelling in nds. Anyway the fact that you have your sources in itself only proves that you can attribute the information that you provide to an orthography. "Werner Eichelberg sien dollet Wöörbook" is the source of Sabine's list; Werner indicated that the source were articles that were translated from deutschplatt.
So do you or does Sabine have the original articles that led to the list by Werner Eichelberg?
No Werner has these origninal articles.
Your assertion that this must be incorrect is based on the availability of the resources that you have. There are some 200 valid orthographies and your assertion that some words *must *be wrong can be substantiated when you have considered them all. The sheer fact that this source has been indicated for several years as a good resource on the nds.wikipedia must count for something, (it is not just any old website :)
No this is not the way to do it. I have shown examples that were wrong. In all there have been three people in nds.wiktionary.org, all familiar with the language who state that this list is of low quality. We have given examples. In such a case it is then up to those who advocate *for* the list that this list conforms to some standard. We have given enough evidence. The main example is "abschreim". This is High German Slang. The evidence for this is
- the word exists as such in High German
- it uses the prefix "ab". Low Saxon uses "af-" here. I can document that for
North Low Saxon in general (Sass), Schleswig-Holstein Westcoast (Neuber), Mecklenburg (Hermann-Winter). 3) it uses "-ei." (German) instead of "-i-" (Low Saxon) 4) a google search lists 249 instances, most of them written in south German slang. Search for "abschreim dat för" to filter out High German by also searching for two very common LS words (neuter article and a common preposition) and you get deutschplatt and a mirror of it.
So this shows that this entry has nothing to do with being one of 200 valid orthographies. And now it is really up to you to show which LS orthography this word conforms to.
You are missing the point in that you want to make a rule from an example.
You again assert that they are misspellings. Given that Sabine is in the process of getting more resources for this discussion, it would be prudent to give it some time and not insist on instant resolution because this is not feasible.
To me that sounds like you are evading a discussion.
At this moment there is not much point to the discussion. It can wait until we have better resoures.
First of all I have done nothing here; I have not imported the list, but given your point of view that only what you know to be correct should be inserted I do agree that what Sabine did is in line with the Wiki tradition. She provides information that people can comment on.
Do you really think that people in it.wiktionary.org will comment on that? If you want comments, you can get them in nds.wiktionary.org, where we are doing exactly that. And therefore I really cannot understand why she uploaded this data into it.wiktionary.org. This just means that when UW will be available, we will get all that data again. We can clean things up in nds.wiktionary.org, but all the problems will reappear then.
We will get comments from the people that Sabine is contacting.
Again, I urge you to identify the words that you know to be correct for the orthography that they represent. This will ultimately give us a list of words that cannot be attributed to any orthography because they are wrong; they will then be indicated for what we will know at that time.
I think it is not neccessary to flag all words as nds-sass. The data that I have entered/corrected is generally correct. If that is not sufficient for you, I would still propose to have the main heading flagged with -nds- and to have subheadings indicating the spellings and areas where this is correct. To me it does not make so much sense to have all entries flagged as "Plattdüütsch (Sass, Noordneddersassisch)". Or is that really what you want to have? For me (and I think that the others from nds.wikipedia.org do think the same) it would be sufficient to list deviant forms as such and I would also like to place notes in the articles linking to other forms. But that seems to be impossible? My suggestion is to work through the list to clean up what can be easily cleaned up and then to have a look at what remains.
You are wrong. Without flagging words as nds-sass what you do is not relevant. There is no such thing as "generally correct" if it is correct it can be atributed to one or more orthographies. If this cannot be done, the quality is as debatable as the stuff you object to. By indicating that something is Sass, there is a black and white situation by saying that something is nds it can be correct for any of the 200 orthographies and at this moment in time I do not take your word for it being non-nds.
No Gerard, *you* have not delivered substantiated facts. Why haven't you done that all along. This discussion has been going on for several weeks now. And your only argument is that you found this spelling somewhere on the internet and therefore it is a valid spelling. You could of course try to import all this data with the tag "very private spelling of xy", but then I really have ask who should profit from that? Low Saxon is in a bad shape nowadays. And an nds.wiktionary.org needs to present data that reflect actual current usage of words and not private spellings. If there should be a place for very private spellings in wiktionary or UW, then certainly *after* inserting the real, current use as substantiated by dictionaries etc. of whatever spelling. What I have been doing is cleaning up (as can be seen in nds.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges). And I do think that this has helped to make the data a lot more relevant.
I am not party in this really because I am not gaining access to new resources. What I am doing is showing that what is being done is relevant and an acceptable way of going forward.
Sorry, I do not see that you have shown that the list is relevant.
I am talking about how Sabine is working towards a resolution. I am not talking about this list here.
To make it relevant you have to state what orthography a word is http://nds.wiktionary.org/wiki/ankieken (a recently changed article) does not indicate an orthography and is from my point of view as relevant as any of the stuff Sabine uploaded.
I moved it to the basic form. The word is common Low Saxon and does not require any further flagging.
I disagree if a word is to be correct we need to know for what orthographies it is correct. If this cannot be done or if you do not want to specify this, you devalue your work.
As mentioned before, this is the pot calling the kettle black. Start indicating orthographies and you prove the quality of your contributions.
Words that are common Low Saxon do not need further flagging. Besides I have not seen such a thing in any other wiktionary.
We do a similar thing with Chinese where we indicate if it is Traditional or Simplified Chinese. We do need flagging without it it is not clear that it is correct.
The software we are using is known to you; we use the pywikipedia bot software. No problems there. Generating the source for the bot is something that is often different depending on what we have for input. It is a typical handjob. If you have a list with Sass compliant words or a list with words in another orthography (preferably with at least one translation) I am quite happy to make you a source so that you can upload this. Are these KDE files .po files ??
I have had a look at the bot and I have had a look at the import file that Sabine sent me by Email. (Which uses a different markup for start/end than in the word file.) I have tried to understand the way pywikipedia bot works for wiktionary, but I have not understand it. I would really be grateful for a short examle consisting of
- a short import file with 2-5 entries
- the command line to use.
I would be able to work from there. The data is in http://sourceforge.net/projects/aspell-nds. It is a word list that we derived from the KDE po-files. We filtered out the Low Saxon parts (the po file maps English to Low Saxon), broke it into words, sorted it, counted it (with a short shell script) and used that to find inconsistencies in our KDE op Platt. We then transformed this list into an input file for the aspell spell checker. This list uses some words with a spelling deviant of Sass: latin based words are submitted to the double vowel for long vowels. I would correct that and add the German translation plus the grammar information (noun, verb etc). The list is about 1500 words, and I think that it should be relatively easy to create a list of several hundred words for importing quite quickly.
Send me your Sass list and I will send you back an import list with a command how you can upload it. This will include the Sass indications
Is there really no way for us to cooperate? Does anyone else here understand what I am talking about for all this time?
There are many ways in which we can cooperate but the bottom line is; to improve nds content you have to indicate the orthography because without it, the quality of the information is debatable. So again let us work together and agree that knowing the orthography is key to proving the worth of individual lemmas.
Well, that would mean flagging all my entries as nds-sass? Is that what you want? That still leaves the question what to do with the current list.
- I would like to edit it (preferably as text file, because that is so much
faster) and then get it imported. That would have to be done by Sabine, as she wants to see the original author attributed, or would it be sufficient to indicate that in the checkin comment? (I really do need a short example to see how the robot works.) 2) Concerning the data of deutschplatt: I would really like to see that data *not* included unless the underlying spelling system can be confirmed in some way. I think it does not make much sense to import this data without any flagging, as there are grave doubts about lots of words (as I have been telling for quite a long way). I would not object inserting that data if 2.1) the spelling system and the content can be substantiated. From what I had started to work through, about half the entries cannot be substantiated, and that is far too much. 2.2) the entries get flagged accordingly. 3) I would really like to find a way that can reuse the nds entries. I would not like to see vain repetitions in "is" with a heading {{-nds-sass}}, a heading {{nds-harte}} etc all with a complete set of translations.
*The sheer fact that you do not indicate an orthography makes what you do as valuable as the work that you criticize. Until you start indicating orthographies there is no way forward; it is essential in making plain what is correct and what is not.
*Without explicit repetitions, how would you indicate if something is correct in a certain orthography ?
*From my point of view, like with Chinese words that are only zh can be either orthography. It is only when we know that a word is simplified or traditionel that we can use it for things like error-checking. The same is true for nds; without an indication of an orthography it is nothing more than an indication that it is propably correct nds.
Would that be a proposal that you can live with?
One other thing: is there a way to invert entries to get the German=>LS entries prepared, so that they only need little rework or is it neccessary to do that by hand?
NB this whole exchange of e-mails is not really relevant to the Wikipedia-l so I will only answer from now on at the Wiktionary-l
I have not subscribed there so far. Hence the private mail.
Kind regards,
Heiko Evermann
It is high time for you to subscribe to the wiktionary mailing list because only then can you discuss things that have to do with lexicological information. The people on the Wikipedia list do not really apreciate what this is about.
Thanks, GerardM
Hi Gerard,
*Without explicit repetitions, how would you indicate if something is correct in a certain orthography ?
What I would like to have is something like this: Article: Oort {{-nds}} {{-noun-}} # Oort: description in LS of "a place" {{-nds-sass}} {{-nds-harte}} {{-nds-lindow-}} {{-nds-neuber}}
# Oort: description in LS of "a way" {{-nds-sass}}
where -nds-harte- has "Aart" instead of "Oort". And there needs to be some room to indicate that some orthoraphies have "Aart" for "Oort" in case of meaning 2.
I would not like to see main entries -nds-sass- etc, because they all translate to the same thing. It would not make sense to multiply the translation tables.
Besides: in a very high amount of cases these different versions are equal, and it does not make sense to multiply the content. We are writing a dictionary for Low Saxon and not one for Sass-Hamburg, Sass-Oostfreesland, Harte-Oostfreesland etc. And differences are only important where they exist and only in those cases need they be listed and in those cases they need comments as to why the differences exist.
If the UW cannot handle that, it would be nice to adapt it. I think that this is important. It is important to reuse data. If all data that someone has entered for -nds-sass- has to be reentered for -nds-harte- in those cases where both are equal (95% of the entries) then this is just an invitation for trouble, inconsistencies etc. Such redundancies of data must be caught by the design and not by the data.
Kind regards,
Heiko Evermann
Heiko Evermann wrote:
Hi Gerard,
*Without explicit repetitions, how would you indicate if something is correct in a certain orthography ?
What I would like to have is something like this: Article: Oort {{-nds}} {{-noun-}} # Oort: description in LS of "a place" {{-nds-sass}} {{-nds-harte}} {{-nds-lindow-}} {{-nds-neuber}}
The way it will be available in UW will be more like:
{{-nds}} {{-nds-xxxx-}} {{-noun-}} # Oort: description in the particular (xxxx) orthography for "Oort"
This is a requirement for the UW. You can decide not to give a definition but a definition when given should be in the specific orthography.
# Oort: description in LS of "a way" {{-nds-sass}}
where -nds-harte- has "Aart" instead of "Oort". And there needs to be some room to indicate that some orthoraphies have "Aart" for "Oort" in case of meaning 2.
Every word is known by its orthography/dialect/language so in UW every word will have its own entry for every language. Through the table SynTrans they can be linked to the same Meaning
I would not like to see main entries -nds-sass- etc, because they all translate to the same thing. It would not make sense to multiply the translation tables.
It does make sense. It is essential that we define things properly. The only thing you need to worry about is that what you do is correct. So if you only care about Sass, concentrate on Sass and leave the rest to other volunteers. You do not need to worry about the number of records that will end up in the table SynTrans. They are not multiplied. A word with a single meaning will only have one record in SynTrans.
Besides: in a very high amount of cases these different versions are equal, and it does not make sense to multiply the content. We are writing a dictionary for Low Saxon and not one for Sass-Hamburg, Sass-Oostfreesland, Harte-Oostfreesland etc. And differences are only important where they exist and only in those cases need they be listed and in those cases they need comments as to why the differences exist.
They are not equal because they are about different orthographies and we need to know them as such. Many details may be different depending on what orthography is used, things like the earliest recording of this word in this orthography.
If the UW cannot handle that, it would be nice to adapt it. I think that this is important. It is important to reuse data. If all data that someone has entered for -nds-sass- has to be reentered for -nds-harte- in those cases where both are equal (95% of the entries) then this is just an invitation for trouble, inconsistencies etc. Such redundancies of data must be caught by the design and not by the data.
The essence of a proper relational database is that you store relevant data only once. So there is no need for reusing data because you only have it once for the use that you want out of it. Ultimate Wiktionary has not been designed specifically for nds; it is designed to host all languages, dialects and orthographies. When you can produce a list with the words that differ between Sass and Harte, you can equally provide a list with the words they have in common. Technically it will be possible to create such lists from the UW content when these words have been properly inserted in the database. I really agree with you that redundancies must be caught by the design, but you have to apreciate what the design is ment to do.
Thanks, GerardM
wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org