Talk:qilachxizax

RFC discussion: September 2007–December 2010
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you feel qualified to start About Aleut and set about gathering input from Aleut-speaking editors and formalizing policies as to what POS headers would be appropriate? (I don't think we have a language considerations page for any agglutinative language yet, so you'd be treading new territory. For one thing, these languages will definitely test how serious we are about including "all words in all languages". From what I understand, an entire English sentence can often be cast as a single, grammatical word in Aleut; will we therefore require that Aleut sentences be attested wholesale in order to merit inclusion?) Until we have a header for such things, listing these entries here seems pointless. —Ruakh TALK 19:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I know a little about Aleut, but more about Yup’ik, which is a related language. I think these languages may be too exotic for Wiktionary at the present time. Yes, Aleut is polysynthetic, which means that suffixes can be piled on apparently without limit to build very complex words that mean an entire sentence or more in English. Still, there are some simple words, such as Aleut kartuufilax̂ (potato), kurix̂ (cigarette), suupax̂ (soup), paltux̂ (coat), braatax̂ (brother) (note the similarity with Russian картофель, курить, суп, пальто, and брат); or native Aleut ulax̂ (house]], angalix̂ (day). Aleut nouns are declined for three numbers, and the verb morphology is complex: asx̂alakax̂txidix (those two did not kill someone); ayugikux̂txichin (they went out in their boat); dux̂taasaĝilakatxichi (you don’t have a guest). Unfortunately, these languages require the use of some unusual grammatical terms such as postbases, relational case, aequalis, vialis, terminalis, and so on, and I am not able to make it palatable to a reader who knows little about grammar and cares less. I can’t even figure out how to do relatively easy languages such as Russian and Arabic, or even how to format the letters or syllables of scripts such as Cyrillic and Burmese. Right now I limit myself to easily described words such as nouns, basic adjectives and adverbs. Words that call for difficult or odd headers like "expression" or "impersonal verb" will have to wait for another time (and this includes Ojibwe, Aleut and Yup’ik and any other polysynthetic languages). —Stephen 16:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's disappointing, but I understand where you're coming from. The less a language is like English, grammar-wise, the harder it is to integrate into a system that we originally designed with English in mind. —Ruakh TALK 16:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, Cherokee often does this as well, which is one of the reasons that I have been very reluctant to add words, because there are words for such things as become an entire sentence in English. --Neskaya talk 18:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Very cute POV ranting, but the problem isn't the system; it is the desired end result. The target audience here is English readers, with familiarity of English.  It is hard because it is very hard, not because of systemic restrictions (as you assert.)  Fitting unexpected structures into a comprehensible scheme is very difficult.  It seems obvious to me, that you are currently pushing in some ways, to undermine the little coherency and consistency we do have.
 * How many "sentence words" does Aleut actually use? Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words?  If so, then our consideration for Aleut words cannot be "space delimited" as that would not apply.  If it is instead, a small (or finite) collection of terms, they of course should have individual entries.  Do you know which it is, or are you ranting for the sake of ranting?
 * --Connel MacKenzie 17:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Very cute personal attack, but my comment was brief, calm, and sincere; not a "rant" at all. It did reflect my own POV, obviously, but that's inevitable; obviously your comments reflect your POV. I am by no means criticizing the system, besides to state the obvious: it was originally designed with English in mind. Some things are easy to extend; the languages that I speak all fit nicely into this system, as do many others (granted, one editor has objected to Hebrew having a "Root" POS section with a "Forms" subsection, but that's not a consequence of the system itself). However, with polysynthetic languages it's more difficult, because they don't all have "words" in exactly the same way we do, and it's hard to figure out how to incorporate them into our system in a coherent, consistent way (which is something that both you and I prize).
 * Believe it or not, it actually seems like you and I mostly agree about this. (Our main disagreement seems to be that whereas you think it's more important to fit other languages into the mold of English so that English-speakers will feel like they understand whether or not they actually do, I think it's more important to try to extend the mold in coherent, consistent ways so that our entries are accurate while still being maximally useful.)
 * Regarding your specific questions:
 * Re: "How many 'sentence words' does Aleut actually use?": From what I understand, an unlimited number. That's the way the language is normally structured, with everything kind of being rolled into the verb. (Caveat lector: I don't actually speak Aleut, and my understanding may be wrong.)
 * Re: "Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words?": I didn't assert that. Please look up the word "often".
 * Re: "Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words? If so, then our consideration for Aleut words cannot be 'space delimited' as that would not apply. If it is instead, a small (or finite) collection of terms, they of course should have individual entries.": Aleut does have things that can be considered "words", but I don't think the boundaries are always well-defined. From what I understand, there are a lot (or perhaps arbitrarily many?) of what are called "portmanteau affixes" that blend different kinds of tense/mood/aspect and agreement information into single forms, that then interact with adjacent affixes in different ways &hellip; but I really don't know how it works, exactly: hence my suggestion that people who do speak the language start a About Aleut and set about figuring out how to fit Aleut into our system -slash- extend our system in a coherent, consistent way so that we can cover Aleut.
 * Re: "Do you know which it is, or are you ranting for the sake of ranting?": Neither.
 * —Ruakh TALK 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry if I incorrectly attributed malice to your tone; other posts of yours at the time were directed at me and rather scathing. In that light, it is hard to see your comments as having been neutral.  Yet, I still did not make a personal attack; I'm sorry you feel that way.  But, perhaps we can move past all this, anyhow?


 * You seem to have missed the crux: the system isn't designed with English in mind causing these restrictions. We've had foreign language entries from very early on here on en.wiktionary.org.  The system is designed to cater to English readers.  Aleut having trouble fitting into a coherent mold is understandably difficult, but I don't think that implies (as you seem to imply) that the structure as designed can't accommodate Aleut.  The en.wiktionary.org entries for Aleut terms may not end up taking the same approach as other English-to-Aleut and Aleut-to-English dictionaries.  But then, en.wiktionary.org doesn't take the same approach for defining English words (and especially word forms) as other English dictionaries.


 * It doesn't mean that we can't have Aleut entries. It does mean we need to think about how we incorporate knowledge about Aleut words into Wiktionary.  I would not be at all surprised to learn that we can't use any other Aleut-to-English dictionary's format.  Unlike you, I don't think that is any great travesty.  If anything, it will reduce (if not effectively eliminate) the possibility of copyright violations creeping in.


 * --Connel MacKenzie 03:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: "But, perhaps we can move past all this, anyhow?": I'd like that, yes. :-)


 * I completely agree with your last paragraph, except that part that implies I think that's a travesty. :-)  I'm not saying that we need to do things the way other Aleut dictionaries do; I'm just saying that we need the Aleut-speakers here to figure out a way to do it that presents Aleut accurately and jibes with our system here. It's my opinion that this will require bending the system a wee bit, but we'll never know until they try. ;-)


 * Re: "You seem to have missed the crux: the system isn't designed with English in mind causing these restrictions. We've had foreign language entries from very early on here on en.wiktionary.org.": I suppose so. It looks to me like most discussions here still take place with mostly English in mind, and we simply transfer these results into other languages, having specialized discussions when necessary. Heck, the "narrow community" clauses in CFI seem to exclude entire languages that are only spoken in narrow communities (not that such an interpretation would find any support).


 * —Ruakh TALK 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up. — Beobach 21:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion: September 2007
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you feel qualified to start About Aleut and set about gathering input from Aleut-speaking editors and formalizing policies as to what POS headers would be appropriate? (I don't think we have a language considerations page for any agglutinative language yet, so you'd be treading new territory. For one thing, these languages will definitely test how serious we are about including "all words in all languages". From what I understand, an entire English sentence can often be cast as a single, grammatical word in Aleut; will we therefore require that Aleut sentences be attested wholesale in order to merit inclusion?) Until we have a header for such things, listing these entries here seems pointless. —Ruakh TALK 19:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I know a little about Aleut, but more about Yup’ik, which is a related language. I think these languages may be too exotic for Wiktionary at the present time. Yes, Aleut is polysynthetic, which means that suffixes can be piled on apparently without limit to build very complex words that mean an entire sentence or more in English. Still, there are some simple words, such as Aleut kartuufilax̂ (potato), kurix̂ (cigarette), suupax̂ (soup), paltux̂ (coat), braatax̂ (brother) (note the similarity with Russian картофель, курить, суп, пальто, and брат); or native Aleut ulax̂ (house]], angalix̂ (day). Aleut nouns are declined for three numbers, and the verb morphology is complex: asx̂alakax̂txidix (those two did not kill someone); ayugikux̂txichin (they went out in their boat); dux̂taasaĝilakatxichi (you don’t have a guest). Unfortunately, these languages require the use of some unusual grammatical terms such as postbases, relational case, aequalis, vialis, terminalis, and so on, and I am not able to make it palatable to a reader who knows little about grammar and cares less. I can’t even figure out how to do relatively easy languages such as Russian and Arabic, or even how to format the letters or syllables of scripts such as Cyrillic and Burmese. Right now I limit myself to easily described words such as nouns, basic adjectives and adverbs. Words that call for difficult or odd headers like "expression" or "impersonal verb" will have to wait for another time (and this includes Ojibwe, Aleut and Yup’ik and any other polysynthetic languages). —Stephen 16:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's disappointing, but I understand where you're coming from. The less a language is like English, grammar-wise, the harder it is to integrate into a system that we originally designed with English in mind. —Ruakh TALK 16:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, Cherokee often does this as well, which is one of the reasons that I have been very reluctant to add words, because there are words for such things as become an entire sentence in English. --Neskaya talk 18:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Very cute POV ranting, but the problem isn't the system; it is the desired end result. The target audience here is English readers, with familiarity of English.  It is hard because it is very hard, not because of systemic restrictions (as you assert.)  Fitting unexpected structures into a comprehensible scheme is very difficult.  It seems obvious to me, that you are currently pushing in some ways, to undermine the little coherency and consistency we do have.
 * How many "sentence words" does Aleut actually use? Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words?  If so, then our consideration for Aleut words cannot be "space delimited" as that would not apply.  If it is instead, a small (or finite) collection of terms, they of course should have individual entries.  Do you know which it is, or are you ranting for the sake of ranting?
 * --Connel MacKenzie 17:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Very cute personal attack, but my comment was brief, calm, and sincere; not a "rant" at all. It did reflect my own POV, obviously, but that's inevitable; obviously your comments reflect your POV. I am by no means criticizing the system, besides to state the obvious: it was originally designed with English in mind. Some things are easy to extend; the languages that I speak all fit nicely into this system, as do many others (granted, one editor has objected to Hebrew having a "Root" POS section with a "Forms" subsection, but that's not a consequence of the system itself). However, with polysynthetic languages it's more difficult, because they don't all have "words" in exactly the same way we do, and it's hard to figure out how to incorporate them into our system in a coherent, consistent way (which is something that both you and I prize).
 * Believe it or not, it actually seems like you and I mostly agree about this. (Our main disagreement seems to be that whereas you think it's more important to fit other languages into the mold of English so that English-speakers will feel like they understand whether or not they actually do, I think it's more important to try to extend the mold in coherent, consistent ways so that our entries are accurate while still being maximally useful.)
 * Regarding your specific questions:
 * Re: "How many 'sentence words' does Aleut actually use?": From what I understand, an unlimited number. That's the way the language is normally structured, with everything kind of being rolled into the verb. (Caveat lector: I don't actually speak Aleut, and my understanding may be wrong.)
 * Re: "Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words?": I didn't assert that. Please look up the word "often".
 * Re: "Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words? If so, then our consideration for Aleut words cannot be 'space delimited' as that would not apply. If it is instead, a small (or finite) collection of terms, they of course should have individual entries.": Aleut does have things that can be considered "words", but I don't think the boundaries are always well-defined. From what I understand, there are a lot (or perhaps arbitrarily many?) of what are called "portmanteau affixes" that blend different kinds of tense/mood/aspect and agreement information into single forms, that then interact with adjacent affixes in different ways &hellip; but I really don't know how it works, exactly: hence my suggestion that people who do speak the language start a About Aleut and set about figuring out how to fit Aleut into our system -slash- extend our system in a coherent, consistent way so that we can cover Aleut.
 * Re: "Do you know which it is, or are you ranting for the sake of ranting?": Neither.
 * —Ruakh TALK 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry if I incorrectly attributed malice to your tone; other posts of yours at the time were directed at me and rather scathing. In that light, it is hard to see your comments as having been neutral.  Yet, I still did not make a personal attack; I'm sorry you feel that way.  But, perhaps we can move past all this, anyhow?


 * You seem to have missed the crux: the system isn't designed with English in mind causing these restrictions. We've had foreign language entries from very early on here on en.wiktionary.org.  The system is designed to cater to English readers.  Aleut having trouble fitting into a coherent mold is understandably difficult, but I don't think that implies (as you seem to imply) that the structure as designed can't accommodate Aleut.  The en.wiktionary.org entries for Aleut terms may not end up taking the same approach as other English-to-Aleut and Aleut-to-English dictionaries.  But then, en.wiktionary.org doesn't take the same approach for defining English words (and especially word forms) as other English dictionaries.


 * It doesn't mean that we can't have Aleut entries. It does mean we need to think about how we incorporate knowledge about Aleut words into Wiktionary.  I would not be at all surprised to learn that we can't use any other Aleut-to-English dictionary's format.  Unlike you, I don't think that is any great travesty.  If anything, it will reduce (if not effectively eliminate) the possibility of copyright violations creeping in.


 * --Connel MacKenzie 03:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: "But, perhaps we can move past all this, anyhow?": I'd like that, yes. :-)


 * I completely agree with your last paragraph, except that part that implies I think that's a travesty. :-)  I'm not saying that we need to do things the way other Aleut dictionaries do; I'm just saying that we need the Aleut-speakers here to figure out a way to do it that presents Aleut accurately and jibes with our system here. It's my opinion that this will require bending the system a wee bit, but we'll never know until they try. ;-)


 * Re: "You seem to have missed the crux: the system isn't designed with English in mind causing these restrictions. We've had foreign language entries from very early on here on en.wiktionary.org.": I suppose so. It looks to me like most discussions here still take place with mostly English in mind, and we simply transfer these results into other languages, having specialized discussions when necessary. Heck, the "narrow community" clauses in CFI seem to exclude entire languages that are only spoken in narrow communities (not that such an interpretation would find any support).


 * —Ruakh TALK 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)