User talk:Bendono/Archives/2008

Just a quick note that references should be a level three header, not two. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Noted, thanks. Bendono 12:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here on Wiktionary we always prefer to original script over a transliteration. While certain east Asian languages transliterations get entries, a unique situation, for an etymology we always prefer a native script. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

And you have the original script in the appropriate places. Your revert makes the etymology less readable while adding nothing of value. Will you point out that policy? I strongly disagree with the "always prefer" part and may need to reconsider my continued participation in this project. Bendono 10:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, there is Wiktionary:About Japanese, but I'm not seeing it specifically in there. However, the strong preference for native scripts is a policy, even if it isn't written down (as many of our policies aren't). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 10:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Preference for native scripts, which I generally agree with, is not the issue at hand. It is the blind insertion of it everywhere and anywhere. The reverted section was about linguistic etymology, specifically vowel ablaut. Seeing it written as 四 adds absolutely nothing to that description. Need any more details just click on the link. Bendono 11:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

But it is interesting to see the etymological connection between 八 and 四. Rod (A. Smith) 17:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Then you misunderstood the etymology, as I feared. There is no relationship between 四 and 八, two graphemes. The relationship is between /yo/ and /ya/. Bendono 23:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

He may not have misunderstood, actually. His point may have been that the inclusion of the original scripts subtracts nothing, and makes it a bit more authentic, and is not in any way confusing for someone used to our format (though I admittedly can't say for sure). This issue is not a new one, and I'm afraid will probably not go away anytime soon. We have already lost one good etymologist over this (among other things), and I hope we do not lose another. Part of our reasoning for preferring native scripts is simple authenticity. Another is the difficulty in specifying a lossless transliteration for every language (an impossible task, actually). You may answer that having actual entries at native spellings is all well and good, but your format still links to those native spellings, while presenting only the useful information to the viewer. First of all, our standard format (the use of {{term}}) retains the transliteration. Secondly, a big part of the issue is consistency. We present all sorts of information, in addition to etymologies, and some information is more dependent upon original scripts than others. Also, specifically for etymologies, the pronunciation of a word can change through time, even if its spelling does not (note, for example, the three different pronunciations given at Ἁδριανουπολίτης (Hadrianoupolítēs)). The first makes sense with the transliteration, but the third really doesn't. The native spelling applies equally to all. Finally, the etymologies of many words involve words from multiple languages (and while these are admittedly noted), keeping the original scripts helps distinguish them. In any case, this is a firm policy which has been discussed a great deal over the history of Wiktionary, and I hope you can find a way to work with it, as you've been doing some good stuff, and I'd really like to see more Japanese etymologies. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply