Hi Sabine, hi everyone,
But let's talk about minor languages. We have some
difficulties on the
nds wiktionary - people think that the only way to write correct is
following the Sass ortography. Some days ago I had a longer telephone
conversation with one of the directors of the Institut für
niederdeutsche Sprache (institute for nds) - he explained that there are
at least six different acknowledged ways of writing nds and if we go to
details 200 to 400 ways of writing (including also dictionaries from
around 1920 etc.) can be defined - so accepting only one way of writing
is a discrimination to my opinion. They all need to be accepted - the
important thing is that there is a distinction from one to the other.
How we could achieve this - in the actual wiktionary signing all non
classified words just with nds. Words that can be classified receive
nds-ABC, nds-DEF, nds-SASS, nds-xyz. So not only the single term is to
be classified, but also the definition (if possible) - if it is not
classified there's simply no reference to a certain class.
This is not a
correct representation of the discussion that we had.
1) we said want all Low Saxon entries to be classified as -nds-
2) we said that there should be a possibility to list dialect and spelling
variations within one entry. But for that we need a structure that does not
break your automatic im-/export to other wiktionarys. Using nds-sass as a
main entry will not do it. We want to have a list of frequent other
spellings below the nds heading. As far as I remember, this problem has been
mentioned in our talk page, but so far there has not been a proposal from
your side.
I would like to see something like
Article: xy
-nds-
* Meaning
* Meaning
Variations
* xya( Sass, Harte)
* xyb (Lindow)
* xyc (etc..)
3) we do in fact not want to treat all spelling variations on one level.
Minor variations should be clearly marked as such. Low Saxon is in a bad
state at the moment and people who want to learn Low Saxon need some kind of
guidance about which spelling is common and which is not. Wiktionary is not
a means to elevate little used spellings into something official.
4) the main problem is a discussion that we had about a list that you wanted
to import. This list is available for us for free, but it contains a lot of
doubtful entries. We had offered to go through this list and solve the major
problems. (This process is underway. Besides: it could go on faster, if you
just sent us the data again in a textformat that does not break special
characters, like zipped unicode.) We (the majority on
nds.wiktionary.org)
are only willing to accept words that conform to some standard. But the list
contains lots of entries that (at least to our understanding) do not conform
to any standard. They are a very private opinion of the author. (And then
this list was mirrored to about 4 other places in the web.) This (to our
understanding) does not turn these spellings errors into an accepted
spelling. Another thing is that the original author of this list is not
available (as you said). This means that we have no chance to discuss the
problematic issues with the author. But you now just want to treat this list
as a fact. As I said before to Gerard: the wiktionary is not a dump for all
the bad spelling that you can find on the web. We are indeed open to
different spellings, but for certain forms that we think to be wrong
according to all standards, we just want proof that this is indeed a valid
and used spelling. A reference in a Low Saxon dictionary (of whatever
spelling) would be helpful. Until then, these words will not be imported
into
nds.wiktionary.org, or at least they will not be imported until there
is a general consensus in
nds.wiktionary.org about how to deal with the
problem.
Kind regards,
Heiko Evermann
--
5 GB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS
http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++