Talk:למדה

RFV discussion: June 2015–January 2016
I don't think this exists with the meaning "goad". Maybe they meant ? --WikiTiki89 19:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't know this word anyway &mdash; even in English I only knew the verb, not the noun (until now) &mdash; but I'm inclined to agree with WikiTiki89. It's not in Even-Shoshan, and the entry's content is not such as to inspire confidence in its creator. —Ruakh TALK 03:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I'm betting the entry's creator either misunderstood an explanation of where the letter-name 'lambda' came from, or extrapolated wildly (and wrongly) from a partial explanation. —Ruakh TALK 20:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I guess this is RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

למדה
Your "hack" still compounds the font increase. Even though it is consistent internally, it is still larger than our normal Hebrew-script text. Anyway, I think you're just being too technical about it. The language of the Talmud makes heavy use of code-switching between Hebrew and Aramaic to the point that it becomes impossible to accurately judge for every word whether it was "in Hebrew" or "in Aramaic". I don't think we need to be worried about making sure that each individual word is correctly tagged. It would suffice to call the whole quote Hebrew. --WikiTiki89 22:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's larger than normal, yeah, but it doesn't look bad now. If we're going to (incorrectly) call it one language, it should be the quoting language not the quoted language, right? That'd be Aramaic. (Like we would say the sentence "My favorite word is internacionālistēm." is English.) Oh, and have a ping, since it's been a little while since you posted here. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 18:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But this isn't a simple instance of Hebrew quoted within Aramaic, this is more like Hebrew quoting Hebrew and then switching to Aramaic after the quote and quoting a few more Hebrew words. It's typical code-switching, and code-switching is not straightforward to pick apart. The only words in this whole quote that are for certain Aramaic are  and . More importantly, what do we gain from being "correct" about this? --WikiTiki89 18:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The overall context is Aramaic. The Hebrew is all quotations in that context. (That's true of most instances of code-switching within the Babylonian Talmud in my experience.) What we gain from using both language codes is (allegedly) that screen readers can read it right, and SEO. I don't know of any gain from using one language code or the other if we're going to use only one. And have another ping. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 18:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because most of the non-quoted text in the Babylonian Gemara is Aramaic, doesn't mean that all of it is. Who according to you is quoting the introductory words "ר׳ אליעזר אומר"? And no screen-reader is ever going to be able to read Talmudic Aramaic (at least not without a lot more metadata to help it out). And I don't see how this could possibly help with SEO. But even if there were a better reason for the language tags, our current language tag system would be insufficient to indicate the linguistic reality of this text. --WikiTiki89 18:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The flowing text of the Talmud quotes passages from the Mishnah. Same as when a modern, English non-fiction book uses a foreign-language chapter epigraph: it's quoted foreign text in a larger English text. Who's quoting it? The author of the book. And have yet another ping. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 18:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that the Talmud doesn't have an "author". It's a collection of notes and quotations from various rabbis. So the second half of this passage is no less a "quotation by the author" than the first half. I don't think the outermost frame can be said to be in any language. What do you think of this compromise: ? It solves all the technical and logical issues I had with it, save for the fact that it cannot be replaced with . --WikiTiki89 19:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Great; thanks. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 19:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)