Talk:abime

Hi Eclecticology, You call it redundant. I call it an example. One can see from it whether it needs to be capitalized. Something one cannot deduce from the title of the article. (I am not holding my breath until the software will be rewritten to put the titles capitalized or not like we need it). In the case of adjectives, I also put the comparative and superlative. In other languages it is a way to indicate the gender and in the case of nouns the plurals and diminutives. Tell me if you really want me to stop adding them to the articles I revise, then I'll stop adding them to English nouns. I think they do have their value with adjectives and verbs.Polyglot 19:21, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I caused alarm, but sometimes an initial overreaction makes sure that the issue is discused. :-)


 * I agree that it may be a long while before the titles can distinguish between capitalized and uncapitalized forms, and that we need often to find work arounds. I really don't think that there is a need to repead the word where you put it when the only purpose is to  establish that it is written without a capital.  I think that we can safely assume that a word is not capitalized unless there is a contrary reason.  In the place where you put it there is an argument (a very weak one) for saying that it should be capitalized because it begins a section.  This can easily be overidden by our own consistent editorial policies.  (In some of the other places where you decapitalized, it was indeed correcting an error that I should have caught when I transferred the material from the Webster-bot entries.)
 * In the matter of adjectives, the comparative and superlative with "more" or "most" is almost always correct as a default construction. Even when properly suffixed forms exist the two word version is still correct even if it sounds weird to the native speaker.  My preference would be to show comparatives and superlatives only when the one word suffixed forms exist.


 * For nouns, plurals should be shown when they do not follow a regular "-s" or "-es" pattern. Distinct feminines such as executrix for executor should also be shown.


 * Verbs will most often show grammatical variations, but even there I tend to not bother when they are perfectly regular.


 * I'm still not completely settled on what the format details should be for these grammatical points. I have experimented with different things, and may not have been very consistent on this. Eclecticology 20:07, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * What I'm trying to do is to get as much consistency as possible. I think our perspectives are different though. What I am trying to accomplish, is to be able to parse the wiktionary entries with a program, whereas you are making a dictionary for a human reader. I think that's where the difference in approach comes from. For the last 2,5 years I have been trying to come up with a way to create a dictionary in a relational database. I think I have a good structure now, but I don't have any content, or at least not much yet. I had hoped to be able to use the entries from wiktionary, which is also my motivation to be rather active around here. I would like us to come up with a (final) standard template for the entries in the Wiktionary, so we can make them all comply and thus make it more easy to parse them with a machine. Thanks for listeningPolyglot 21:31, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Your assessment of our different perspectives on this seems correct. Reconciling these approaches may not be very easy.  My own understanding of relational databases is admitedly very limited and shaky; the effect of that is probably that I can't be of much help to you.  I even wonder whether a "final standard" is possible, and if it is it may be a long while before we get there.  It may have come up before, but I do tend to view language as something that is infinitely nuanced where translations are rarely based on 1:1 correspondences.  Anyway, I hope that common ground exists in at least some of the areas.  I would prefer working co-operatively with you if the material permits it.  Eclecticology 06:53, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Hi Eclecticology, don't worry about your understanding of relational databases being limited. It's just another way of storing data. I also realize that languages are hard to 'capture' into databases. What I'm trying to do though, is to have the entries in Wiktionary as machine parseable as possible. I can program something to make suppositions about the data, like if the example is not there, it's probably not capitalized, but I would prefer to have such an example there to really establish it as a fact.
 * I am sure there is enough common ground for all of us to keep contributing to the wiktionary. Another difference between us two is that you're focusing on creating an English (describing) dictionary and that I am more interested in making a translating dictionary. This is probably because English isn't my native language and to me it is just as important, or no more important than the other languages I learned.
 * Others must be wondering why such an obscure word as abime is getting so much discussion. :-) The additional difference is also valid, and both are important.
 * The question now is: do I keep on adding these kinds of examples? If they are going to be removed afterwards, I will stop doing it. Do I only add them in the case of adjectives that one word forms?
 * When to make supposition can be tricky, as can be the default format in computer presentations. Sometimes an understanding of these suppositions requires that we must state things that are perfectly obvious to anybody.  "All words begin with a lower case letter unless there is a reason to start it with a capital letter," would be such a supposition.  We probably need a separate page of "Wiktionary assumptions about English grammar".  For the non-native speaker these can provide a template that he can use most of the time.  If a person knows 100 adjectives and can follow a regular pattern for creating comparatives and superlatives it could be said that he really knows 300 adjectives.  He can be forgiven if the pattern produces the occasional invalid word like "gooder".  We should, of course, show anything irregular, including the absence of a form.  Logically, a word like "unique" does not have a comparative or superlative.


 * I already encountered other adjectives that don't have comparative or superlative. Do we indicate this explicitly?
 * Certainly, because it deviates from the suppositions.
 * Another question (I have for a while already) is: do we want to include hyphenation? It is linguistic data that belongs in a dictionary, if you ask me. But there is something peculiar with it. One can separate words in syllables at more places than would be acceptible for automatic systems to hyphenate in texts. Also (in Dutch) it can happen that words like cafeetje have to be hyphenated like this: café-tje. Another example: it is not acceptible to have this in a French text: con-cevoir. (con isn't a nice word in French). I think it's interesting information for a dictionary, but I don't think it has gotten consideration yet over here in the wiktionary.
 * For this we need to distinguish between hyphenation and syllabification. We need to ask the question, "How is it written in the middle of a line?"  If there is no hyphen there then we don't need to show one; if we do then we are encouraging people to write hyphens where they don't belong.  Syllabification tells us where to put hyphens in words that are too long to put at the end of a line.  This is vital information, but it seems to me that it should be linked to the section about a word's pronunciation.
 * I'm sure we can find a way to work together to turn Wiktionary into the best dictionary of the planet...Polyglot 10:09, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed! In my approach to the English portion, I try to add a little to many of the Webster entries so that they aren't just another copy of what other dictionaries have done. Eclecticology 21:59, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I just try to add as many languages as I can :-) Let's keep up the good work! I will put information about hyphenation and syllabification near to the info about the pronunciation. If and when I have it. (I don't really know or understand the rules for hyphenation in English. I only know they are different from other languages)Polyglot 22:19, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * I guess an article about syllabification would be just one more job for somebody. I've thought that the new Wikibooks should probably include "A Wikimedia Guide to Grammar and Style".  The very good material that we already have on learning Polish should probably also be moved there some day. Eclecticology 23:11, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)