Weergave uitspraak Nederlandse woordenBewerken
Dag Lo Ximiendo,
Voor de standaardweergave van Nederlandse woorden heeft onder meer als doel de lezer die meer lemma's raadpleegt een consistente weergave te bieden. Daarvoor gebruiken we enkele afspraken. De aanpassing die je op vervuiling aanbracht past niet in die afspraken, daarom heb ik er in plaats van een vervanging een aanvulling van gemaakt. Ik hoop dat dat recht doet aan je bedoelingen. --MarcoSwart (overleg) 1 jan 2019 01:32 (CET)
Dag Lo Ximiendo,
Het is fijn dat je de informatie over Cambodjaanse woorden wil verbeteren. Maar WikiWoordenboek moet Nederlandstalige lezers en gebruikers goed bedienen. Ik heb de wijzigingen waardoor er Engelstalige teksten op pagina's in de hoofdnaamruimte werden toegevoegd om deze reden teruggedraaid. Het is om dezelfde reden ook geen goed idee om sjablonen en modules van andere wiktionary's onvertaald hierheen over te brengen, nog afgezien van het probleem dat er zo doublures kunnen ontstaan die in de toekomst lastig te beheren zijn. Zou je die modules en sjablonen eerst zo kunnen aanpassen dat ze beter aansluiten bij de rest van WikiWoordenboek? --MarcoSwart (overleg) 9 jan 2020 15:02 (CET)
- I got the desired changes down. --Lo Ximiendo (overleg) 9 jan 2020 15:55 (CET)
- Thanks for making some adaptations. When checking them I ran into some deeper problems. The layout of a page in Dutch wiktionary is in some way different from English wiktionary. We use separate headings to present pronunciation and written forms and as we have one etymology header in a language section we often use the more subtle differences in writing to disambiguate and refer to the different word forms described below it. In its present form, the module only supports a table format that is not suited for our layout. Now I have had the time for a deeper look, I would suggest adding some functions to the module to request just a particular form. This separation of logic and presentation might be useful in other cases too. If we can take some time (weeks), I would be willing and able to contribute to such a solution myself.
- 1. Does this idea look workable to you?
- 2. To check if I understand correctly, is the following interpretation of the information in the table right? It would enable me to write one or more project pages that the templates can link to.
- line 1: the standard orthography
- line 2: a transliteration of the standard orthography
- line 3: analyzes the orthography as a string of phonemes
- line 4: a transliteration of these phonemes
- line 5: is a transcription of the standard orthography
- line 6: is a rendering of the pronunciation in IPA.
- 3. Is the standard orthography always identical to the page title?
- 4. What is the use case for the analysis as a string of phonemes? Do people use it to understand the written form and write the word correctly? Or is it used by people learning Khmer to get the correct pronunciation?
- 5. Am I correct that the transcription has English as the target language? If we are using our own transcription standards, would it be OK to make some adjustmenst for Dutch as a target language?
- I am sorry that I have to bother your with all these questions, but I really would like to get this working well.--MarcoSwart (overleg) 10 jan 2020 11:40 (CET)
- Apparently you had not read my questions before you started to use the template in our main namespace again. Dutch wiktionary has several contributors who are not active on a daily basis, so as a general rule I wait at least a week before I assume that no reaction implies no objection. I hope you understand I had to undo your additions for the moment. In particular replacing valid transcriptions in Dutch by transcriptions to English seems unjustified, but more in general: let's first fix the template/module before using it on a wide scale. --MarcoSwart (overleg) 10 jan 2020 12:09 (CET)
- Concerning the interpretation, line 5 is Wiktionary's in-house Romanization based on phonemes. User Wyang devised the Romanization scheme, but has left this online venture, likely out of stressing frustration. I'm not sure if he (or she) expected that I could export the Romanization scheme to different versions of Wiktionary (like Turkish, Italian, Japanese and Romanian; besides, it has been exported to the Thai Wiktionary, albeit with at least one omission, and the Chinese Wiktionary).
- My understanding of the template km-IPA is, that the standard orthography, including alternative forms of words, is used for page titles, while the phonemes are meant to show readers the proper IPA pronunciation. (Take the entry for the word en:ចក្រ at the English Wiktionary, for instance; it has two different pronunciations for the same word in standard orthography.) --Lo Ximiendo (overleg) 10 jan 2020 12:14 (CET)
- Thanks for your answer. So a better explanation would be:
- line 1: the canonical orthography
- line 2: a simple (non-standard) transliteration of the canonical orthography
- line 3: shows pronunciation(s) as a string of Khmer phonemes
- line 4: shows pronunciation(s) as a string of transliterated Khmer phonemes
- line 5: is a transcription of the pronunciation(s) in English
- line 6: is a rendering of the pronunciation(s) in IPA.
- This is the point where I'd like to do some researching myself, to find out whether there are reliable sources we should take into account when presenting transliterations/transcriptions to Dutch. I will also do some thinking about my suggestion for an addition to the module. I'm a litte time-pressed at the moment, but my expectation is that I will be able to give you an update on Monday. --MarcoSwart (overleg) 10 jan 2020 15:14 (CET)
- I can wait. --Lo Ximiendo (overleg) 10 jan 2020 16:12 (CET)
- I forgot this: there's a template at the English Wiktionary, that is similar to km-IPA, and it's th-pron. --Lo Ximiendo (overleg) 10 jan 2020 16:45 (CET)
- The sources are few, and not easy to obtain. The accessible sources are aimed at tourists. They (not surprisingly) prefer a transcription that is more adjusted to Dutch speakers. I'm afraid I need to dig deeper to get a clear picture and I will have to resort to books and libraries, which means I will need several weeks before I know more.
- The module appears to carry a lot of overhead that at first sight seems useful for integration in en.wiktionary, but not really necessary for the conversions themselves. I will now look at the Thai template and try to figure out if there is a way to simplify things. Let me get back to you in about 4 weeks. --MarcoSwart (overleg) 13 jan 2020 21:05 (CET)