Jim Breen wrote:

[Gerard Meijssen ([Wiktionary-l] English orthographies) writes:]

...

...

1. English, American English and other orthographies are treated as

seperate entities.

I think this will be a disaster.

Can you explain why "jewellery" and "jewelry" cannot be alternatives within the one entry?

In the database design, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Wiktionary_data_design , an Expression is a number of characters that make up a valid occurrence in a language. Therefore every spelling IS a different Expression. The answer to your question is therefore; as they are spelled in a different way, they are on the level of an expression different entries that should be connected through the table SynTrans.

...

...

This means that all words need to exist for each orthography/dialect. On the plus side it means that descriptions like etymology and meaning will be in this one orthography as well. This is also the most easy method to provide information for a spell checker.

In what way is this easier "to provide information for a spell checker" than having spelling variants with an entry?

In a spelling checker people who use that spelling checker want to know that their spelling is the English, American, Australian, whatever spelling. When a variety is acceptable within the same orthography, spelling variants can be included. Again, the current concept of an "entry" has to be abandoned because that does not provide any of the advantages that a relational aproach offers.

...

...

2. We treat these variants as belonging to a specific "spelling

authority".

I wonder what a "spelling authority" would be for English.

A spelling authority is in essence nothing more that a record in a table. In real life, the Oxfort or Websters dictionary can be considered a spelling authority.

...

...

..... It does however provide us with the possibility to be more precise in what makes English different from American, Australian etc.

It's news to me that "English [is] different from American, Australian,.." The versions of English used in the UK, USA, Australia, Canada, South Africa, etc. do vary, although not to a significant extent. The spellings also differ for a very small percentage of words, and meanings differ slightly too, although this happens *within* the UK, USA, Australia, etc. too.

Only a small part of the regional variation in English can be reflected in a dictionary. Much of it is grammar, and choice of words.

The English used in Britain, the United States, Australia etc is significantly different. This can be found in the difference in vocabulary and the difference in orthography. Typically when considering spelling, the way the English, American, Australian spell differently makes it a different orthography. This is reflected in there being English, American etc dead wood dictionaries. In a project like UW where we collect all words of all languages, it makes sense to reflect this.

You are correct where you say that grammar and the choise of words reflect the difference as well. In a dictionary we only consider lexicological use.

Thanks, GerardM