Wiktionary talk:About Indonesian

Guidelines for lemma
Thanks for creating this guideline on how to create entries for Indonesian. I've added more information to it recently.
 * 1) Would you mind checking About Indonesian to see if there are any issues/concerns?
 * 2) I've removed the section on Jawi script as an alternative form because the Jawi script is generally used for Malay, and not Indonesian.
 * 3) I have some concerns over the consideration of affixed forms, e.g.  as a non-lemma. I think that affixed words (kata berimbuhan) are valid lemmas as well. For comparison, the following forms in English (which have irregular patterns of word formation, i.e. not all adjectives can have such forms) are considered as English lemmas:
 * On the other hand, the following words (which have regular patterns of word formation, i.e. almost every verb/adjective can have such forms) are considered as non-lemmas:
 * Likewise, for Indonesian, I think that these words which have regular patterns of word formation can be considered as non-lemmas:
 * On the other hand, affixed forms of words (kata berimbuhan) such as and  which do not have predictable pattern of word formation (the affixed word can sometimes have new meanings) should be considered as lemmas. What do you think? KevinUp (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the following words (which have regular patterns of word formation, i.e. almost every verb/adjective can have such forms) are considered as non-lemmas:
 * Likewise, for Indonesian, I think that these words which have regular patterns of word formation can be considered as non-lemmas:
 * On the other hand, affixed forms of words (kata berimbuhan) such as and  which do not have predictable pattern of word formation (the affixed word can sometimes have new meanings) should be considered as lemmas. What do you think? KevinUp (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the following words (which have regular patterns of word formation, i.e. almost every verb/adjective can have such forms) are considered as non-lemmas:
 * Likewise, for Indonesian, I think that these words which have regular patterns of word formation can be considered as non-lemmas:
 * On the other hand, affixed forms of words (kata berimbuhan) such as and  which do not have predictable pattern of word formation (the affixed word can sometimes have new meanings) should be considered as lemmas. What do you think? KevinUp (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Likewise, for Indonesian, I think that these words which have regular patterns of word formation can be considered as non-lemmas:
 * On the other hand, affixed forms of words (kata berimbuhan) such as and  which do not have predictable pattern of word formation (the affixed word can sometimes have new meanings) should be considered as lemmas. What do you think? KevinUp (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Likewise, for Indonesian, I think that these words which have regular patterns of word formation can be considered as non-lemmas:
 * On the other hand, affixed forms of words (kata berimbuhan) such as and  which do not have predictable pattern of word formation (the affixed word can sometimes have new meanings) should be considered as lemmas. What do you think? KevinUp (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, affixed forms of words (kata berimbuhan) such as and  which do not have predictable pattern of word formation (the affixed word can sometimes have new meanings) should be considered as lemmas. What do you think? KevinUp (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, affixed forms of words (kata berimbuhan) such as and  which do not have predictable pattern of word formation (the affixed word can sometimes have new meanings) should be considered as lemmas. What do you think? KevinUp (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, affixed forms of words (kata berimbuhan) such as and  which do not have predictable pattern of word formation (the affixed word can sometimes have new meanings) should be considered as lemmas. What do you think? KevinUp (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, affixed forms of words (kata berimbuhan) such as and  which do not have predictable pattern of word formation (the affixed word can sometimes have new meanings) should be considered as lemmas. What do you think? KevinUp (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, affixed forms of words (kata berimbuhan) such as and  which do not have predictable pattern of word formation (the affixed word can sometimes have new meanings) should be considered as lemmas. What do you think? KevinUp (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, affixed forms of words (kata berimbuhan) such as and  which do not have predictable pattern of word formation (the affixed word can sometimes have new meanings) should be considered as lemmas. What do you think? KevinUp (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, affixed forms of words (kata berimbuhan) such as and  which do not have predictable pattern of word formation (the affixed word can sometimes have new meanings) should be considered as lemmas. What do you think? KevinUp (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, affixed forms of words (kata berimbuhan) such as and  which do not have predictable pattern of word formation (the affixed word can sometimes have new meanings) should be considered as lemmas. What do you think? KevinUp (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, affixed forms of words (kata berimbuhan) such as and  which do not have predictable pattern of word formation (the affixed word can sometimes have new meanings) should be considered as lemmas. What do you think? KevinUp (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, affixed forms of words (kata berimbuhan) such as and  which do not have predictable pattern of word formation (the affixed word can sometimes have new meanings) should be considered as lemmas. What do you think? KevinUp (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding more information to it, while I had some issue with my schedule. I will answer based on my personal consideration, as far as I remember, when I wrote it.
 * While the criterion of About Indonesian is straight forward ("[...] are not considered lemmas in Indonesian unless they are attested in spoken or written forms of Indonesian"), it has problem with the condition of Indonesian speaker as most of Indonesian speakers (if not all of them, as Malay is considered different with Indonesian) are, in fact, L2 speakers. This condition create code-switching or language alternation situation, diglossia and heteroglossia. Thus, it is not an easy task to define the limit between Indonesian and those regional languages (including Malay).
 * This section was written based on principle "While Indonesian is written in Latin script officially, it is possible to write it in other scripts (transliteration)". Although it is uncommon, the real-life example is Balinese script-ed Indonesian on government building front-plate.
 * This section was written based on general rule about lemma which is "In morphology and lexicography, a lemma (plural lemmas or lemmata) is the canonical form, dictionary form, or citation form of a set of words (headword)" and inspirational Japanese consideration "Wiktionary may be used by students who are not proficient". In those terms, in order to avoid non-proficient users misunderstanding, the lemma definition shall be created on base of real-time Indonesian dictionary behave and thought. Thus, the lemma entry in Indonesian is the kata dasar (“lexical stem”) in Latin script using the latest spelling (2015 Ejaan Bahasa Indonesia). Everything else, including the affixed terms, are non-lemma. This rule can be confirmed in the dictionary as »  and  » . In relation with previous point, most affixed terms are regular and can be predicted with  which based on . However, there are some irregular affixed terms with same affix but different affixed terms, such as  and  through . As I don't understand the code of those template, I will not edit those template as it is used in Malay. Perhaps, it can be modified to include three class of derived terms, ie the regular affixed terms (which have derivation rule and can be predicted), irregular affixed terms (which same as regular affixed terms, but the affixed term must be entered) and compound terms. On the current situation, I don't recommend the usage of.
 * Thanks. Xbypass (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying.
 * I've reworded About Indonesian so that priority is given for the creation of entries in these regional languages. Yes, I'm aware of the situation of diglossia or heteroglossia in the daily life of Indonesian speakers. For Wiktionary, the criteria used is if the word can be found in three independent examples of permanently recorded media (e.g. newspapers, video, audio) of works in Indonesian, then the word can be considered a borrowing. For example, if there exists an audio recording that can be understood by Indonesian speakers from other regions, but has one or two words that cannot be understood, then these words can be considered as borrowings, as long as two other independent usages of these words in different sources can also be found.
 * This is interesting. Theoretically, this is possible for any language, e.g. using Hangeul to transliterate Indonesian words in a "Learn Indonesian for Koreans" book or video, so it is not ideal to include such usages on Wiktionary.
 * If the canonical form or dictionary form is taken as a lemma, then words listed in KBBI such as, would be considered as lemmas while words that exist in Indonesian but are not listed such as , , ,  would be considered as non-lemmas.
 * Note that the current English definition for on Wiktionary is:
 * "The canonical form of an inflected word; i.e., the form usually found as the headword in a dictionary, such as the nominative singular of a noun, the bare infinitive of a verb, etc."
 * However, I think the headword criterion is not suitable to decide what qualifies as an Indonesian lemma because:
 * Indonesian dictionaries have a different method of arranging words compared to English, i.e. lexical stem first, followed by an exhaustive list of affixed forms whereas English words are arranged A to Z regardless of whether it is an affixed word or not.
 * Unlike European languages, an Indonesian verb does not have a bare infinitive ("to be") form which also happens to be an unaffixed stem. Simple verbs such as can be formed out of nouns such as.
 * In Indonesian, not all affixes can be applied to the same lexical stem. Affixed words such as kemakanan simply do not exist and would appear ungrammatical when encountered. In contrast, other languages such as Japanese or Korean have a fixed set of affixes that can be applied to any lexical stem.
 * Affixed terms often have figurative senses that need to be learned individually. For example, compare:
 * a.
 * b.
 * Regarding »  and  », the arrows used in the online version of KBBI is used to create a hyperlink that links towards the lexical stem. It does not indicate that the affixed word is a non-lemma. On the other hand, words with nonstandard spelling such as   and   use a different type of arrow to redirect to its standard forms and have no definitions. Such entries are the non-lemmas in KBBI as they contain no definitions.
 * 4. Regarding, I would like to point out that it is the affix (morphemes such as , ) that has regular meaning, and not the affixed terms which may contain figurative senses. Yes, the code is not able to handle irregular affixed terms, which is why I would include these irregular spellings after the numbered forms. The template is not easy to use but you can list out the regular spellings and I will attempt to convert them to the numbered forms when I see them. KevinUp (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My explanation above is rather lengthy, but my main point is that all words listed in KBBI are legit lemmas, whereas those not included in KBBI such as the following:
 * affixed terms containing, , , ,
 * passive forms containing
 * nonstandard forms, regional spellings, etc.
 * are to be considered as non-lemmas. I hope you will consider my proposal regarding non-lemmas and consider affixed terms such as, as lemmas, otherwise a lot of cleanup has to be done. KevinUp (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * affixed terms containing, , , ,
 * passive forms containing
 * nonstandard forms, regional spellings, etc.
 * are to be considered as non-lemmas. I hope you will consider my proposal regarding non-lemmas and consider affixed terms such as, as lemmas, otherwise a lot of cleanup has to be done. KevinUp (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

RFD discussion: April 2019–February 2020
No useful content. The one example given does not correspond with reality. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is a bit of useful content, and the one example can easily be fixed, as I am about to do. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * RFDO-kept. Heavily improved in the mean time, it seems. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)