Wiktionary talk:Swadesh template

Would it be possible/allowed to already put pairs in every table column?

Polyglot
 * I see no problem with that. Go ahead.  If I had thought about it, I probably would have put them in.  Eclecticology 22:44 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)

A find-and-replace would probably take care of it quickly.

I have a question...I was told that Ogden's Basic English is copyrighted but can be used if he is credited. Is there a problem at Wiktionary if we post a template for his words (amongst other things like his categories, others' (public) categorizations of basic words, a correlation of these additional words to the Swadesth list, and possibly also allowing word frequency counts, etc.) I think this would provide an excellent template for additional languages (the Swadesh ones already started could easily be imported into it, since I currently have all of the above (with the exception of frequency ordering) in database form). - Brettz9 22:53 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)

Also, do we have permission to use the Rosetta Project Swadesh lists? It seems we need permission even for nonprofit use (according to their website). I'm still awaiting a reply from them. - Brettz9 22:59 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)


 * I would seriously question whether either of the basic lists of English words are even copyrightable. The Rosetta Project uses the Swadesh list; it did not originate it.  If we were to broadly import their lists from other languages, they could have an argument.  Similarly, Ogden's list was published in 1930.  Was the copyright renewed in about 1958?  Both lists appear to have been widely used, so the doctrine of laches may also apply.  What is the standing of the person claiming the copyrights in relation to the lists?

The gentleman at |BasicEnglish] said Ogden had copyrighted it, but maybe the copyright has since expired...I don't know. - Brettz9 19:43 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)


 * Copyright aside, by all means go ahead and set up an Ogden list article. To the extent applicable, the material from the Swadesh list can and should also be used on the Ogden list.  I would still favour, however, that the Swadesh material retain its own identity in a separate list. Eclecticology 00:57 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree.

As far as the Ogden list, I am waiting on collecting some additional information (as well as trying to verify what is in or can enter the public domain. A useful option I am hoping to include is categorizations.  For example, if a person wanted to see the Basic English (or Swadesh, etc.) words which dealt with Household items, they could do so.

Again on the database issue, though I know very little about it, I have seen that Filemaker Pro is able to host interactive databases which can also be customizably sorted. Might the powers-that-be here at Wiktionary consider obtaining a copy (if they did not want to go through the trouble of programming their own code)? It would seem this kind of tabular data would be best served by this kind of option. - Brettz9 19:43 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)
 * I don't know Filemaker Pro and I'm no techie, but the word "Pro" suggests proprietary software rather than something in open source. Sometimes the copyright difficulties around software are more difficult than those about a book published in 1930.


 * Can Wiktionary only USE open source software as well as make its content open? - Brettz9 19:02 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)
 * Every software publisher has it's own set of rules and enforcemnt policies. Questions have been raised about the jpg format for pictures in this regard. Eclecticology
 * I believe that for some of our techies "programming their own code" is half of the fun. Eclecticology 22:13 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)


 * I can believe that....but then again, commercial programs can not only save time but work as a stop-gap measure until there is a real need to customize... - Brettz9 19:02 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

Several versions of the Swadesh list have disambiguators in them, and I've undertaken to incorporate some of them here because I know several of these are ambiguous enough that some of the lists are using the wrong words here, such as "lie" in Swadesh lists for further Romance languages (but I don't want to change them because it might leave some translations truly wrong, and not just misequated with other languages' terms)

Anyway, some better explanations of the disambiguations, in case they're not clear:


 * bark (of tree, not of dog)
 * blow (of wind, presumably not from the mouth)
 * burn (intransitive: i.e., house burned down, not transitive: John burned it)
 * child (a young person, not a gender-free term for son/daughter)
 * cold (weather, not sickness)
 * day (daytime, not the 24-hour period; the opposite of night)
 * dry (adjective, not verb)
 * dull (knife, not mind)
 * earth (soil, not world)
 * fall (drop, not autumn)
 * fat (noun, not adjective)
 * feather ("regular" large feathers, not down feathers specifically)
 * hold (in hand, not metaphorically)
 * hunt (transitive, not noun or intransitive)
 * know (facts, not people—in Romance terms, saber not conocer)
 * left (side or hand, not left behind)
 * lie (down, or on one's side, not tell lies)
 * man (a male, not person generally)
 * meat (flesh, not food generally)
 * right (correct, not side: this was listed as "correct" here but is producing too-haut translations)
 * right (side or hand, not correct, nor privilege)
 * rotten (no clue really what this disambiguates against)
 * scratch (verb, not noun; as an itch, not as in combat etc.)
 * sea (general sense of "ocean", not necessarily specifically "sea")
 * sharp (knife, not mind)
 * skin (of a person, not e.g. leather)
 * smell (to smell something, not smell like something)
 * stab (sometimes given as "stick", but not "stick, wooden")
 * stick (of wood, not "stab" or "prick")
 * tooth ("regular" front teeth, not molars specifically)
 * turn (verb, change direction, not noun)
 * warm (adjective, not verb)
 * wind (breeze, not verb "spin, crank")
 * with (accompanying "he went with John", not instrumental "he hit him with a hammer")

—Muke Tever 03:57, 25 May 2004 (UTC)