Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-10/Romanization of Gothic
Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-10/Romanization of Gothic. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-10/Romanization of Gothic, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-10/Romanization of Gothic in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-10/Romanization of Gothic you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-10/Romanization of Gothic will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-10/Romanization of Gothic, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Romanization of Gothic
- Voting on: Romanizations of Gothic words will be allowed entries. The traditional system of Romanization (outlined here) will be used.
- For example: qino, a Romanization of the Gothic word π΅πΉπ½π, will be allowed.
- Rationale: This ancient, dead language was written in a script that is no longer used or widely understood. Texts which were written in this language are now more commonly quoted and reproduced in Romanized form. Modern readers will most likely want to look up words in their Romanized form; these readers will not necessarily know or be able to input the words' original-script forms. Romanizations will help Wiktionary-users find the original-script entries.
- Technical note: If this vote passes, Romanizations of Gothic words will be allowed entries, even if Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-09/Romanization of languages in ancient scripts 2 fails.
- Second technical note: the system that vote proposes to use to Romanize Gothic is the same system this vote proposes to use.
- Vote starts: 00:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Vote ends: 23.59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Vote created: - -sche (discuss) 01:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Discussion:
Support
Support βCodeCat 23:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)- Support However, I wonder what the format of the entries are going to be. Could we have an example? Could the entry also explicitly say that it is the romanisation only? Will the original spelling be provided, if known? A link to a working font is good to have. --Anatoli 01:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support Prosfilaes 13:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support βRuakhTALK 13:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support MaEr 19:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support - -sche (discuss) 19:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose. I actually don't mind supporting the "Voting on" statement above β or at worst abstaining. But the use to which passage of this vote will be put will be to include mentions as much as uses or more, as is evident from CodeCat's statement below (of 10:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC), "The issue is whether transliteration for the purposes of study consists an attestation. Some say only the original manuscripts count, others say the modern transliterations count as well.") and from the "Rationale" statement above ("Texts which were written in this language are now more commonly quoted and reproduced in Romanized form.").ββmsh210β (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think you're misunderstanding. This is not a vote to allow transliterations to be quoted and used to verify Gothic words. This is a vote to allow Gothic words to be Romanized. When this vote passes, we'll take Gothic words and Romanize them. If three transliterations of Gothic texts can be found which for mysterious reasons transliterate a particular Gothic word like π΅πΉπ½π as uinex even though they otherwise transliterate π΅ as q, πΉ as i, π½ as n, and π as o, we'll have an entry for qino, not for uinex, because the we're using (a) traditional system(s) to Romanize Gothic, and we're not using transliterations to attest "spellings". (If numerous scholarly transliterations uniformly render all πs as exs, on the other hand, we might discuss on WT:About Gothic whether to admit π=ex to our system of possible Romanizations.) That "Texts which were written in this language are now more commonly quoted and reproduced in Romanized form" is argument in favour of providing Romanizations of Gothic words so that users of Wiktionary, who are familiar with Romanizations of Gothic words, can look up the words. The argument over "whether transliteration for the purposes of study attestation" shut off an unrelated avenue of allowing entries like qino. This vote takes an avenue (namely: allow Gothic words, even ones which have never before been transliterated or Romanized, to be Romanized by a system) unrelated to that would-be avenue (allow Latin-script entries to point to Gothic entries, or to contain content, whenever particular spellings could be found in three works). It should also be noted that this vote does not propose hosting the content in the Latin-script entries, only creating Romanizations to help users find the Gothic-script entries. - -sche (discuss) 01:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- If all that is the case, then I was indeed misunderstanding. I've now de-
#ed my vote, above, so it doesn't count, and I abstain.ββmsh210β (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- If all that is the case, then I was indeed misunderstanding. I've now de-
- I think you're misunderstanding. This is not a vote to allow transliterations to be quoted and used to verify Gothic words. This is a vote to allow Gothic words to be Romanized. When this vote passes, we'll take Gothic words and Romanize them. If three transliterations of Gothic texts can be found which for mysterious reasons transliterate a particular Gothic word like π΅πΉπ½π as uinex even though they otherwise transliterate π΅ as q, πΉ as i, π½ as n, and π as o, we'll have an entry for qino, not for uinex, because the we're using (a) traditional system(s) to Romanize Gothic, and we're not using transliterations to attest "spellings". (If numerous scholarly transliterations uniformly render all πs as exs, on the other hand, we might discuss on WT:About Gothic whether to admit π=ex to our system of possible Romanizations.) That "Texts which were written in this language are now more commonly quoted and reproduced in Romanized form" is argument in favour of providing Romanizations of Gothic words so that users of Wiktionary, who are familiar with Romanizations of Gothic words, can look up the words. The argument over "whether transliteration for the purposes of study attestation" shut off an unrelated avenue of allowing entries like qino. This vote takes an avenue (namely: allow Gothic words, even ones which have never before been transliterated or Romanized, to be Romanized by a system) unrelated to that would-be avenue (allow Latin-script entries to point to Gothic entries, or to contain content, whenever particular spellings could be found in three works). It should also be noted that this vote does not propose hosting the content in the Latin-script entries, only creating Romanizations to help users find the Gothic-script entries. - -sche (discuss) 01:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Abstain
Abstain, one because I don't edit Gothic, and two because as I understand it, Gothic can be attested in the Latin script, so such entries would meet WT:CFI anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Gothic can be attested in the Latin script, but some have argued it shouldn't be accepted in that form. Hence the vote. - -sche (discuss) 01:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why does this vote decide on a romanization if the language is already written in that script? If a word can be attested that does not follow the romanization scheme, would it not be allowed? That sounds very prescriptive to me. DAVilla 07:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- The issue is whether transliteration for the purposes of study consists an attestation. Some say only the original manuscripts count, others say the modern transliterations count as well. βCodeCat 10:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps that's the question we should be resolving. I for one think that any printed source should be good for attestation, and that the original manuscripts don't even count except for their reproduction in print, in permanently archived sources.--Prosfilaes 19:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree with your last point: we want durably archived sources (per CFI), and many manuscripts are very durably archived, in climate-controlled glass cases in museums.
- The exact wording CFI uses on this is a little confused. If there's but one copy, it's not really durably archived; one fire, one vandal, or one plane crash could destroy it, and the museum could easily pull it and hide it away.--Prosfilaes 20:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree with your last point: we want durably archived sources (per CFI), and many manuscripts are very durably archived, in climate-controlled glass cases in museums.
- (Indented to be a response to CodeCat (10:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)).) By "transliteration for the purposes of study" do you mean that some anglophone scholar of Gothic transliterates a Gothic work into English in order that others, who can't read Gothic otherwise, can study it? That's a mention, not a use β he's saying not "I went to war" but (at least implicitly) "Here's a text: 'I went to war'" β so we wouldn't include it anyway.ββmsh210β (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Every edition of Gothic text that's been published is in Latin script. If you buy a printed copy of the Gospel of Mark in Gothic, it will in the Latin script.--Prosfilaes 20:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Because someone transliterated a Gothic-script Gothic Mark, or because someone translated a Greek Mark into Latin-script Gothic? The former is a mention. The latter is a use. At least I think so.ββmsh210β (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is an example of the format that Gothic texts are published in. Each Gothic letter is transliterated one-to-one to Latin, but the words are left unchanged. βCodeCat 20:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Then how do you know they're using Latin script as opposed to a Latin-looking font for Gothic script? (It would have been nice if all this was clear before the vote started, incidentally.)ββmsh210β (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's really a matter of computer encoding more than anything. The Gothic alphabet certainly doesn't resemble the Latin alphabet in detail as it was based on Greek (and the first three letters are A, B, G...). The letter ΗΆ was even invented specifically to transliterate one Gothic letter that had no Latin equivalent. βCodeCat 21:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Right, encoding. - -sche (discuss) 21:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's Latin Script because it uses the format and conventions of the Latin script. For one thing, it uses small and capital letters where Gothic is unicameral. I don't see the distinction you're making. When an entire text is printed in a script convenient to its target audience, whether that be Gothic or Turkish in Latin, it's use, not mention. It's just like transcribing from the "script" of audio.--Prosfilaes 00:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Then how do you know they're using Latin script as opposed to a Latin-looking font for Gothic script? (It would have been nice if all this was clear before the vote started, incidentally.)ββmsh210β (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is an example of the format that Gothic texts are published in. Each Gothic letter is transliterated one-to-one to Latin, but the words are left unchanged. βCodeCat 20:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Because someone transliterated a Gothic-script Gothic Mark, or because someone translated a Greek Mark into Latin-script Gothic? The former is a mention. The latter is a use. At least I think so.ββmsh210β (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Every edition of Gothic text that's been published is in Latin script. If you buy a printed copy of the Gospel of Mark in Gothic, it will in the Latin script.--Prosfilaes 20:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the suggestion by Prosfilaes. We're resolving the wrong question. But without researching the subject further, I won't oppose. DAVilla 03:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps that's the question we should be resolving. I for one think that any printed source should be good for attestation, and that the original manuscripts don't even count except for their reproduction in print, in permanently archived sources.--Prosfilaes 19:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- The issue is whether transliteration for the purposes of study consists an attestation. Some say only the original manuscripts count, others say the modern transliterations count as well. βCodeCat 10:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Anyway, @Davilla and Mglovesfun, read this discussion, especially Prince Kassad's comment "I will not support this without a VOTE." Hence this vote. - -sche (discuss) 19:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Abstain Dan Polansky 08:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC), only because I do not want to look more closely into the issue; looks okay; inclined to support. --Dan Polansky 08:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Decision
- Passes 6-1-2. βCodeCat 15:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)