Wiktionary talk:About Polabian
Add topicAlphabet
[edit]We should establish the alphabet. I propose to use this alphabet:
A Ă Å Ą B B́ C Ć Č D Ď Ʒ Ʒ́ E Ė Ĕ F G Ǵ H I I̯ J K Ḱ L Ľ M Ḿ N Ń O Ö Ǫ P Ṕ R Ŕ S Ś Š T Ť U Ü U̯ V V́ Z Ź Ž
However, there is a problem with voiceless uvular fricative. Now we use X. IMO we should use chi letter Χ - chi letter is usually used in as letter for this consonant and its already used for Slovincian lemmas. However on pl.wikt someone noted that Χ is Greek letter that has a Latin equivalent Ꭓ and this one should be used instead to keep whole alphabet latin. It is not bad idea, but there are two problems:
1. Searching the internet for words with this Latin letter yields no results.
- This can be resolved by creating hard redirects from words with greek chi (it is going to happen on pl.wikt if latin chi is chosen)
2. Same thing needs to be done to Slovincian
- However there are only 6 words using letter χ, not a big problem but then look problem 1
BTW here is table of transcriptions I found:
| Polański, Sehnert | Spławiński | Trubetzkoy | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reduced vowel (low) | ă | ə | ă |
| Reduced vowel (mid) | ĕ | ĕ | ə̆ |
| Voiceless uvular fricative | x, later χ (Greek) | χ (Greek) | x |
I want to get your feedback before changes are made and before I start adding to the dictionary on a larger scale. Pinging @Ivan Štambuk, @Phillipm0703, @Gnosandes, @Thadh and maybe @ZomBear. Sławobóg (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Sławobóg Oh, of course, I'm sorry, but your sentence contains already outdated data, as well as letters. I don't see the point in, for example, entering a letter for dz and the like. Diphthongs are also written in the IPA. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it is outdated. Two major dictionaries use this alphabet: Słownik etymologiczny języka Drzewian połabskich and Polabian-English Dictionary + many other publications. I found only one paper using dz instead of ď. We should stick to the sources (plus we already use that alphabet). They only differ between the
xandΧnotation and we should discuss that. Sławobóg (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)- @Sławobóg Not really. I use dz instead of the obsolete Ʒ, but not ď, as a continuation of the Proto-Slavic dz, cf. *kъ̏nędzъ > ťėnądz. I (and not only me) do not support the letter ė. I do not consider this a basis, therefore I do not use some letters from these dictionaries. Yes, and the English-Polabian dictionary is also secondary for me in terms of accentology. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- And Frederik Kortlandt used dz for ʒ (nüdze for nüʒe). Googling ťėnąʒ gives 14 non-Wiktionary results, googling ťėnądz gives 2 (or even 1 - YT possibly used WT) non-Wiktionary results. Letter ė is used in modern papers, so is ʒ or ai̯/ai: 2021, 2021, 2020, 2019. So the claim that these letters are outdated is not really true. We should stick to the sources, not your own ideas, and main sources for us are these two dictionaries I mentioned before (WT:ATTEST). The compromise solution will be to create pages with alternative forms, which I have already started to do (brącai̯kə). Sławobóg (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Sławobóg However, Kortlandt thought correctly. Everything is much easier. The authors of modern sources simply copied the spelling of forms from the authors of older sources. Statistics are not needed here. I've always been interested in suggesting new etymologies and such, but you're just copying other people's ideas, half of which are outdated. The main source is generally the original, not dictionaries, by the way. As far as I know, it is not necessary to follow the sources here. So the trade-off would be to write these forms in alternate forms rather than create 110 million pages. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Stepping in. It seems like a bad idea to use this orthography, since exceedingly few people actually use/know it, and we should stick to what's actually there. Statistics ARE needed here. Vininn126 (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Sławobóg However, Kortlandt thought correctly. Everything is much easier. The authors of modern sources simply copied the spelling of forms from the authors of older sources. Statistics are not needed here. I've always been interested in suggesting new etymologies and such, but you're just copying other people's ideas, half of which are outdated. The main source is generally the original, not dictionaries, by the way. As far as I know, it is not necessary to follow the sources here. So the trade-off would be to write these forms in alternate forms rather than create 110 million pages. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- And Frederik Kortlandt used dz for ʒ (nüdze for nüʒe). Googling ťėnąʒ gives 14 non-Wiktionary results, googling ťėnądz gives 2 (or even 1 - YT possibly used WT) non-Wiktionary results. Letter ė is used in modern papers, so is ʒ or ai̯/ai: 2021, 2021, 2020, 2019. So the claim that these letters are outdated is not really true. We should stick to the sources, not your own ideas, and main sources for us are these two dictionaries I mentioned before (WT:ATTEST). The compromise solution will be to create pages with alternative forms, which I have already started to do (brącai̯kə). Sławobóg (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Sławobóg Not really. I use dz instead of the obsolete Ʒ, but not ď, as a continuation of the Proto-Slavic dz, cf. *kъ̏nędzъ > ťėnądz. I (and not only me) do not support the letter ė. I do not consider this a basis, therefore I do not use some letters from these dictionaries. Yes, and the English-Polabian dictionary is also secondary for me in terms of accentology. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it is outdated. Two major dictionaries use this alphabet: Słownik etymologiczny języka Drzewian połabskich and Polabian-English Dictionary + many other publications. I found only one paper using dz instead of ď. We should stick to the sources (plus we already use that alphabet). They only differ between the
So, can you explain your recent changes in ai̯bezăt, @Gnosandes? You didn't provide any arguments to keep that transcription. Sławobóg (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Sławobóg: Based on the fact that you have taken the spelling of the Polabian-English dictionary as a basis for no reason, declaring everything else an alternative, however, give all the dictionaries here. Is that enough? Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)