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