Gerard Meijssen wrote:
You are wrong. To me English is English I am
colo(ur) blind to what
makes English English or American.
OK...
You forget that there other types of English as
well and
This is patently false. If you actually read my proposal, you would
see that both the proposal and the examples given account for more
varieties than just en-us and en-gb. The reason I focus on en-us and
en-gb is because that is where the greatest differences are. Most of
the other written dialects of English are substantially the same as
either en-us or en-gb, with minor variation in usage.
as I mentioned earlier when I am expected to do
the work YOU want
people to do, you can count me, and with me many non-native (whatever
English) speakers out, to contribute to EN:wiktionary. I have posted
these reasons before.
I don't think there was anything about my proposal that indicated that
editors will be expected to know all the regional differences and be
required to put variant words in curly brackets. The beauty of the
wiki system, you see, is that when someone comes along who DOES know
the word is a regionalism, they can add the brackets, thus increasing
the article's accessibility.
Besides, there are plenty of people who get bothered when they read
things written in a foreign dialect. Why not allow them to read
Wikipedia the way the want to?
- David
I have rememebered wrong for which I am sorry, the curly brackets do
hide the difficult stuff. This makes a world of difference.
However, which word are you to use for the template "colour" or
"color"
? The point is when you decide you want to edit an existing article you
have to search for the place where you want to edit. This is because of
the difference in layout. When the words also change because of these
templates, it will be that much harder to find the right location. So I
had it wrong, the curly brackets hide the complications I thought there
were but, there are still arguments against your scheme.
Thanks,
GerardM