User talk:84.236.127.70

Thank you for your work on ! It will be featured tomorrow as the foreign word of the day. Adam78 (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! However, please don't take this wrong, but I had to revert some of your changes to the quotes. Wiktionary:Quotations says we should try and reproduce the original spelling as best we can, and I also think quoted text should never be changed. We wouldn't rewrite Jókai I suppose, just to keep it modern. But your definition for nerd is way more accurate than the one I copied from the English entry, so thanks for that. --84.236.127.70 19:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not the custom; you're misunderstanding this rule. Only those spelling variations are retained that are either deliberate differences or reflect the unique, individual choices of the given writer, e.g. Babits wrote önkénytelenül in this way, because this was his choice. If you look up any current Petőfi or Arany volume (except for facsimile editions), you won't find cz in them, even though cz existed until about 1920. However, it was not the deliberate, individual choice of these poets to apply this spelling, and therefore we don't preserve that writing habit, either.

Here is an illustration of this principle in an amusing and really witty article.

Don't worry, you're not the only one who misunderstands this rule, but it's better be aware of what it actually implies. Thank you for your understanding. :) Adam78 (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, then. I'd still rather keep the other changes though, the ones which are unrelated to spelling, if you don't mind.
 * And what is to be done with archaic forms, that weren't just spelt differently, but pronounced differently, too? In particular, "Mit mond a józan ész a sajtórúl?" Should this be kept or corrected? Thanks. --84.236.127.70 23:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, if it constitutes a difference from the standard of the time when it was created, then it's the writer's own way, so we should respect and retain it. On the other hand, if it was just one possible way of writing down this sound which didn't make much difference at the time of its creation, then we should change it to today's standard. I think it's the former case: it sounds more likely and more reasonable and also, this is how it's published today, with respect to the principle I mentioned above, so I think we should retain it. After all, orthography is just orthography, it shouldn't affect the way people pronounce something; it only serves to reflect speech in some way or another. Adam78 (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)