User talk:Orexan

Lemma and non-lemma forms of Turkish suffixes
I noticed you have reverted the changes I have made. I must say seeing your editing history I admire your great effort to contribute in Turkish. However, I also must say it was established that, if they exist among suffix forms, only forms include /i/ and /e/ should be regarded as lemma forms for Turkish language in Wiktionary, therefore other forms should be regarded as non-lemma forms and shown such as :

Suffix
tr

-ik

so that those suffixes will be end up in Category:Turkish suffix forms and a part of Category:Turkish non-lemma forms, not of Category:Turkish lemmas as should be. Sedataltundal (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

'However, I also must say it was established that, if they exist among suffix forms, only forms include /i/ and /e/ should be regarded as lemma forms for Turkish language in Wiktionary"

I'm not aware of this establishment, but it makes no sense. "ı" variants are alphabetically primary, not just in modern Turkish and in Ottoman Turkish. In Middle/Old/Proto Turkic "-ık" exists as "-ıg" or "-uk", not "-ik". In the suffix forms category I see all kinds of variants so it seems to be a free for all. I'll add the suffix form info so it falls into the category, I'll keep -ık as base form. Orexan (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

... yaşındayım
Could you add the IPA transcription of this (with all and stress) when you can? Rodrigo5260 (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. Orexan (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

turkish
it was to make -ca lemmas removed from classifying in -siz category. do it yourself then if you didn’t like Itidal (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Itidal Why would you possibly want to do that? All those lemmas have "-sız" and "-ca" both, why would it not be classified under both categories? What a ridiculous thing to say. When did suffixes in Turkish become mutually exclusive? Suffix categories undeniably have overlap since a word can take multiple suffixes, where does this arbitrary notion that they should only be categorized under the category of the last suffix come from? Are you actively trying to sabotage the website? Orexan (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah i do Itidal (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Turkish Liaison
Hi! I just realized that you've been removing some of the liaison from Turkish IPA transcriptions, as well as from the hyphenations. I just wanted to ask you to stop removing them. If I'm missing something or this is a misunderstanding, I'm down to engaging in a constructive dialogue! Kakaeater (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * is the general practice for IPA notations of Turkish words. Most editors don't know what any IPA symbol does, and seeing how your edits are a complete mess, such as hyphenating as "be‧ra‧be‧rol‧mak", or putting a "*" before the conjugation template so it looks all wonky, or writing random labels in front of senses like "idiomatic" (what on earth is idiomatic about "to be together", it's the literal sense of the phrase), I assumed you also had no clue about what you were doing and were putting random symbols, so I simplified them as per the chart and cleaned up your edits. You wanna notate pronunciations microscopically accurate, go ahead and notate. But your pages need a decent clean-up, and you need to familiarize yourself with page layouts across the site, especially the Turkish section. Separate words aren't hyphenated like that, you use it in between words and in between syllables, you don't cut and merge syllables of two words; remove the "*" on the conjugation line; remove this "idiomatic" label, neither of those senses are nowhere near idioms; and for the most part avoid adding entries that aren't listed on the updated version of R:tr:TDK dictionary, unless it's a very commonly used and well-known word/phrase. If it is listed on R:tr:TDK, make sure to include this under Further reading, I know from 1st hand experience that official dictionaries help a lot to learners. Orexan (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response! But remember that this is about you and the Turkish liaison IPA edits. If you had this much criticism about me you could've just had a dialogue with me as some have and as I did with you. Also thank you for the sources you gave me I'll try to use them to fix my previous blunders! As to the IPA I believe we have a disagreement. First of all, IPA is there to show how it's pronounced so I don't know what you are trying to say by "microscopically accurate" /.../ is to express the phonemic pronunciation while [...] is the phonetic pronunciation(or simply [...] is there to be more accurate than /.../) it's just writing how it's pronounced, not to forget that I try to add the alternative pronunciations. Second of all beraber olmak is absolutely read as beraberolmak. It's a feature called liaison (uluma in Turkish) which exists in a lot of languages where between two words if the first word ends in a consonant and the second with a vowel, they merge to make a syllable. You specify you are a native speaker of Turkish so I want you to pronounce "beraber olmak" as you read these lines. Do you say /beɾɑːˈbæɾ ʔoɫˈmɑk/ or simply /beɾɑːˈbæɾ‿oɫmɑk/? I'm sure you said the latter. And to break this down into syllables it will be be-ra-be-rol-mak. Literally no one says be-ra-ber-ol-mak it is against the rules of Turkish phonology, and since we are trying to reflect the pronunciation we hyphenate this as be-ra-be-rol-mak. Again, thank you for your insight and I truly hope this helps! Kakaeater (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "IPA is there to show how it's pronounced"
 * There are 100 million+ speakers of this language, I guarantee you you can find a thousand different ways to pronounce any given word. But it's not sustainable to display all these variations when you have so much digital space and time. You're trying to notate a word's pronunciation "microscopically accurate" or "lazer sharp" or "with surgical precision", whichever one you choose, but that's simply not how real life works. A person might pronounce it differently at different points in their life, let alone millions of people from all around the country. And seeing how this website is a "dictionary", used by learners of languages mostly, notating pronunciations with this level of accuracy is redundant at best, detrimental to the learning process at worst. This website isn't a phonology lab, no one comes here to learn how to absolutely perfectly pronounce a word.
 * isn't about how a word is pronounced, it's about how it's spelled. You don't hypenate "beraber olmak" as
 * berabe-
 * rolmak
 * in written text. No phonology rule is gonna tell you to do that. You separate it between words or between syllables. Orexan (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * First of all, let's get this clear; [...] is there to show how it is actually and accurately pronounced and /.../ is just the sounds the letters are assumed to make. If that bothers you then just ignore [...] altogether it isn't that hard.
 * Second of all, "There are 100 million+ speakers of this language" ignoring that what a language is is extremely unclear like how Azerbaijani and Turkish are mutually intelligible, there's something called "standardized language". It's when we use the most used variety of a language to ease the definition of what the X language is. So I'm sorry but to discard the pronunciation of the standardized language which is universally just called "Turkish" is just wrong. "I guarantee you you can find thousand different ways to pronounce any given word" I know that's why the very concept of standardized language exists. " ...it's not sustainable to display all these variations ..." do you want me to write a single pronunciation or all, I also acknowledge there's not a unity in Turkish pronunciation that's why I add the standard pronunciation and a widespread variation if there's any. Also I actually don't know what you wanna see in the [...] cause I believe you are just against the concept of square brackets altogether. Read about square brackets on the IPA Wikipedia page, see how it says "narrow or broad". That's because not every language is pronounced the exact same way. Like how /e/ in Spanish isn't same as /e/ in Turkish so in phonological pronunciation it is [e̞] while in Spanish it's still [e]. Falsely transcribing the former to simplify it is inherently more harmful and confusing. And I think you believe the goal of IPA is to ease learners. No language is gonna bend itself and its pronunciation to fit the comprehension of the learners I'm afraid. A sane person wouldn't falsify the standard pronunciation for the sake of learners because it's the pronunciation of the people who already speak it we are trying to transcribe. And It's actually way more confusing for learners to claim two different pronunciations are the same. So that is not called "microscopic accuracy" it's the very function of the square brackets.
 * Lastly, let's talk about the hyphenation. "Hypenation isn't about how a word is pronounced" yeah that's why we put it under the pronunciation segment. See how the hyphen has a lot of usages and the usage we are using is the syllabification. If you visit the page which says that the concept is also called hyphenation, in the very own definition the page gives it says  "... also known as hyphenation, is the separation of a word into syllables, whether spoken, written or signed". Correct me if I'm wrong but when we use hyphenation right under the subtitle pronunciation we are trying to syllabificate it as how it is pronounced, not as how the orthography suggests. " No phonology rule is gonna tell you to do that" if we are talking about pronunciation it definitely will.
 * Kakaeater (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)