Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:I don't speak. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:I don't speak, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:I don't speak in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:I don't speak you have here. The definition of the word Talk:I don't speak will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:I don't speak, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
I wrote this page as response to the discussion on deleting/keeping numerous "I don't speak X" -entries (see above). We have currently 350 languages in Wiktionary. It means that potentially 350 "I don't speak X" -entries might be written, each translated into 350 languages. This would potentially spawn 350 x 350 = 122,500 entries for the cross-translations of "I don't speak X" -es in every language. Following this route, the "unintuitive grammatical information" would have to be repeated 350 times for each language. Wouldn't it be more practical to write 350 "I don't speak X" -entries (one in each language) and explain the language-specific grammatical information in them, once per language? I think it would; therefore I give a strong keep. --Hekaheka10:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
As per Stephen G. Brown. The approach should be taken as in do you speak something? + the existing Appendix:I don't speak with a lookup. It's a good idea to link them all together. So I support a redirect or rename. Hopefully the existing translations with the grammar won't be lost. --Anatoli05:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Redirect only Should be a redirect only to an Appendix, not a main dictionary entry. Remember this is a dictionary, not a phrasebook or translation guide. Is there a Wikiphrasebook? Facts70711:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Wiktionary definitely includes a phrasebook. See Wiktionary:Phrasebook, and BTW: from the main page: "Wiktionary has grown beyond a standard dictionary and now includes a thesaurus, a rhyme guide, phrase books,..." --Yair rand17:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
deleted. This entry is useless for forming "I don't speak" sentences because vital grammatical information is missing. Therefore, I see no use in keeping it. -- Prince Kassad19:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Deletion debate
Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments11 people in discussion
The phrasebook entry I don't speak English should suffice to show the grammar in various languages. Some more major languages can be used, but not any and all. Thus, let us delete "I don't speak Azeri", "I don't speak Azerbaijani", and "I don't speak Catalan". --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Delete per nom. The names of languages are generally a fungible part of grammar, so (insert language here) can easily be extrapolated. bd2412T18:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Keep all. Changed my mind, delete all "I don't speak ...", keepI don't speak English. I feel sorry for I don't speak Russian, though where I put some efforts. I couldn't find a few equivalent phrases for English in some languages of the ex-USSR. I'm against moving phrasebook to an appendix but keeping it clean and limited may make it look more appealing. --Anatoli(обсудить/вклад)09:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm in favour of this idea, but wonder whether it would be better if it were I don't speak ... or I don't speak XYZ in order that it be clear that we want translations that indicate the one lacks fluency, not that one is a mute/has taken a vow of silence. It would also allow languages with strict word order to indicate where the language name is meant to go. Furius (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Almost any way of eliminating the proliferation of I don't speak X entries would be good. My most fondest wish would be that it be interwikied to WikiPhrasebook, along with its relatives, where it can find a good and permanent home in an environment that can be customized for the particular needs of phrasebook users and the distinct characteristics of the entries, without the overhead of a dictionary.
I really don't see that this is how someone would look up an expression. I suppose we can try to imagine (we won't test) how users whom this might possibly help would interact with our search box to find an entry with useful information. But I doubt that we are capable to doing a creditable job at such an imaginative task. We seem to need models from the print world to copy from or imitate. Without such models we descend to whimsical inclusion. Delete or interwiki. DCDuringTALK14:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply