| Wiktionary:Beer parlour Dec 4th 2012, 23:11 Why English has to be special with regards to SoP-ness: | ← Older revision | Revision as of 23:11, 4 December 2012 | | Line 3,765: | Line 3,765: | | | :'''Oppose'''. We should not have entries for [[if only you had not been able to make him take it all out from under me again for them#English]] just because Ubykh has a single word for that. (What's more, no-one will think to look for [[if only you had not been able to make him take it all out from under me again for them#English]].) As an alternative, I would suggest allowing foreign-language entries to host translations tables, like the German Wiktionary does. The English translations/glosses on the sense-lines of those entries would let users find the entries via the search function. That way, if more than one language has a term for something English lacks a term for, the foreign-language terms can be linked without creating unidiomatic entries in any language. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 22:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | | :'''Oppose'''. We should not have entries for [[if only you had not been able to make him take it all out from under me again for them#English]] just because Ubykh has a single word for that. (What's more, no-one will think to look for [[if only you had not been able to make him take it all out from under me again for them#English]].) As an alternative, I would suggest allowing foreign-language entries to host translations tables, like the German Wiktionary does. The English translations/glosses on the sense-lines of those entries would let users find the entries via the search function. That way, if more than one language has a term for something English lacks a term for, the foreign-language terms can be linked without creating unidiomatic entries in any language. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 22:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | | | :: That's a straw man argument (since you are opposing something that isn't even a proposal, nor does it capture the spirit of what I said) and a slippery slope fallacy. I am only arguing that we should be ''at least'' as useful as existing dictionaries with regard to the translations we offer. Do you disagree with that? My point necessarily means having nonidiomatic English entries for the sake of their translations, but the translations themselves must be idiomatic and CFI-compliant. Or as an alternative, it would involve putting translations in an entry when they don't actually translate the entry, such as putting the translation table for [[coal mine]] on [[coal]] and on [[mine]]. But that would bring problems like those on [[color]]/[[colour]]. Putting translations on non-English entries would obviously have the same effect, except even worse! {{User:CodeCat/signature}} 22:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | | :: That's a straw man argument (since you are opposing something that isn't even a proposal, nor does it capture the spirit of what I said) and a slippery slope fallacy. I am only arguing that we should be ''at least'' as useful as existing dictionaries with regard to the translations we offer. Do you disagree with that? My point necessarily means having nonidiomatic English entries for the sake of their translations, but the translations themselves must be idiomatic and CFI-compliant. Or as an alternative, it would involve putting translations in an entry when they don't actually translate the entry, such as putting the translation table for [[coal mine]] on [[coal]] and on [[mine]]. But that would bring problems like those on [[color]]/[[colour]]. Putting translations on non-English entries would obviously have the same effect, except even worse! {{User:CodeCat/signature}} 22:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | | | + | ::: The Ubykh word which means "if only you had not been able to make him take it all out from under me again for them" meets CFI, because it is a single word. You may think that certain single words should not meet CFI, but that does not seem to be the prevailing opinion yet. Would you exclude [[if only you had not been able to make him take it all out from under me again for them#English]] in spite of the fact that it could host CFI-compliant translations? Some languages have specific, basic, uninflected lexemes for X-year-old animals of particular species, would you allow [[two-year old deer#English]]? Do you think anyone would look it up? Would you draw an arbitrary line somewhere and decide which SOP phrases with idiomatic translations to include and which to bar? Your own argument is fallacious, because as Equinox says, anyone looking for translations of "brick office wall" or whatever phrase you wish to use as an example should be able to type that phrase into the "search" bar and find the entries; thus, we are already as useful as other dictionaries in that regard, or we should improve our searchability. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 23:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | | | | | | | | : Maybe I misunderstood your post, but don't we do this already in [[:Category:English non-idiomatic translation targets]]? — ''[[User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|Ungoliant]] <sup>([[User Talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|Falai]])</sup>'' 23:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | | : Maybe I misunderstood your post, but don't we do this already in [[:Category:English non-idiomatic translation targets]]? — ''[[User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|Ungoliant]] <sup>([[User Talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|Falai]])</sup>'' 23:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |  |
