Talk:くれー

How is this? @Poketalker. MiguelX413 (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * it's preferrable to put the on the article page and create a ticket on Requests for deletion/Non-English. Reverting to 's revision alongside with the  for your ease. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 02:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * thx! Sorry if I'm bothering you!

RFD discussion: September 2019–March 2020
Posting for.

His initial comment was, “Unnecessary, no conventions for topicalized form pages, but maybe useful for clarity when searching for a topicalized Okinawan term.” ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 02:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I don’t understand the rationale. What is the argument for this entry being “unnecessary”? --Lambiam 10:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The rationale seems lost between edits and what the entry actually is. The lemma is at and  is a topical form. I'm not familiar with the Okinawan grammar but it seems equivalent to the Japanese  (for which we don't need an entry), which is  +  or an abbreviated/colloquial form  (which we need to keep). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * If the topical form is formed regular, then we might delete it but if it's a shortening, then we might keep it. I don't know if is regular. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Words are topicalized depending on the vowel they end with or can have the particle 〜や (-ya) added.
 * あ→あー
 * い→えー
 * う→おー
 * え→えー
 * お→おー
 * ん→のー
 * Examples:
 * いらな→いらなー、
 * →くれー、
 * まーす→まーそー、
 * いん→いのー
 * くれー is a regular topicalization of くり.
 * 我ん's topicalization is irregular, it's 我んねー.
 * MiguelX413 (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * (, please use the Show preview button to check how your content will render, before clicking Publish changes. Your addition above was an almost illegible mess all on one line before I cleaned it up.)
 * I don't think the regularity of the formation is relevant. We have an entry for perfectly regular English formations like  because users of the language treat that as a single lexical unit -- i.e. as a "word" -- and because we (Wiktionary) seek to document "all words in all languages".
 * By further analogy, if we keep 🇨🇬 as a contraction / fusion of +, then we keep 🇨🇬 as a contraction / fusion of  +.
 * ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reformatting, still learning how to use wiktionary. 🇨🇬 isn't necessarily a contraction, it's more like declension. This would mean entries for topicalized forms of all Okinawan vocabulary. We can have pages for all forms of all lemmas too, that is also possible. But we would have to make orthographic decisions then for topicalized mixed-script vocabulary's representation. Also, is added to words in literary contexts and words that end in long vowels too. so くりや would be a literary くれー. 猫 (まやー) would be 猫や (まやーや). MiguelX413 (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries about the formatting then, we all start somewhere. :)
 * The existence of 🇨🇬 in the literary register actually seems to bolster the case that 🇨🇬 is a contraction or fusion of + .  This is quite similar to other contractive or fusional processes in other languages worldwide, including the 🇨🇬 example above, or 🇨🇬 +  contracting / fusing into .  This also bolsters the case that we should have an entry for 🇨🇬: even though this is a regular process (for the most part), we clearly cannot extract the original  or  without changing sounds around -- these two have fused into a single word.
 * Regarding word forms, we do actually want to include these as well. We don't have very good coverage for inflected forms, but that's largely a matter of just not bothering to build out such entries, and in fact our policy is to have entries for inflected forms, so long as they clearly indicate the lemma (main) form of the word and point the user back to that for the main entry.
 * That said, while 🇨🇬 is clearly a fused single word (whatever we call it -- inflection, declension, contraction, etc.) and deserving of an entry, 🇨🇬 is also clearly two words, as just +, and thus we should not have an entry for 🇨🇬.  Same as for English, for example, where we have entries for , , and the combined , but not for  as a single entry for two separate words.
 * (Side note, apologies if this is something you're already aware of: we do create and maintain multi-word entries, if those multi-word combinations produce meanings that are non-obvious from the constituent terms. For instance,   just refers to any house that is brown, whereas  is not just a house that is white.)
 * Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the information! We should establish a template for topic form pages for Okinawan I think. I established Wiktionary talk:About Okinawan. MiguelX413 (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe superfluous, but here is an argument for including topic forms that is independent of the “every word” rule. From what I read, the lemma form cannot be unambiguously reconstructed from its contracted topic form. For example, はこー could be the topicalization of a word はこ but also of a word はく. Leaving out topic forms as unnecessary makes the use of Wiktionary more difficult for users who don’t know Okinawan. If you know Okinawan well enough to know that is not an Okinawan word but  is, you probably don’t need Wiktionary in the first place.  --Lambiam 19:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems a lot of other languages also include non-lemma forms too, we just need to have a format and template for topic forms of Okinawan words too now. The main issue is that くれー is currently in Category:Okinawan lemmas. MiguelX413 (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not any more. Now it just needs something in the definition line to say what kind of a form it is and of what lemma. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I'll use that same thing to clean up a lot of non-lemmas in Category:Okinawan lemmas too! I'd like to develop templates for these sort of things, or at least basic ones for words but I don't really know how to get started.

The template apocopic form of and other members of Category:Form-of templates may serve as a source of inspiration. --Lambiam 10:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Resolved. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)