Wiktionary talk:English Phonemic Representation

"Many readers?"

This page says that this phonemic representation is "designed to be similar to the systems of the American Heritage Dictionary, Webster's Dictionary, and others, and therefore to be more readily accessible to many readers than the IPA". I beg to differ. Most non-English speaking people, and probably most people living out of USA, are not acquainted with the conventions used by some American dictionaries, while they might well be familiar with IPA. Goochelaar 22:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally!

It only took 3 years, but it seems that the PTB finally woke up to the fact that forcing everyone to learn the IPA was counterproductive. Otherwise, why not make the entire Wikipedia in Esperanza? Every once in a while, common sense wins out. 24.24.244.132 19:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, this is a wiki. There are no "PTB"; we had a community discussion and vote. And yes, sometimes common sense wins out. :-)   By the way, Wikipedia ≠ Wiktionary. —Ruakh_TALK 19:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

this is just the American Heritage convention

The lede claims enPR is unique to Wiktionary and only "similar" to AHD. However, I can't find a single difference. Since this is an American system, and AFAIK most Brits use the IPA, why not just name it as such? Kwamikagami 18:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Because this is the name we voted for. --EncycloPetey 18:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but why claim it's unique to Wiktionary? Kwamikagami 18:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it developed based on looking at a variety of dictionaries, and realizing that no one system was consistently used. Our use is therefore similar to, but not guided by, the similar systems in other dictionaries. --EncycloPetey 18:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We make not mirror the actual transcription of any one word, but the system is identical, isn't it? Kwamikagami 18:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. --EncycloPetey 19:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This is frustrating. Why make me ask four times? How is it not identical? Kwamikagami 19:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's frustrating because you're being difficult. You never asked before how it was not identical, so to claim that you've asked that question four times shows that you did not pay attention to what you were asking. I have never done a point-by-point analysis of the two systems, nor do I feel inclined to do so for you, especially since I almost never use this system. --EncycloPetey 19:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. On wiki-en we've renamed it "AHD", since there is no apparent difference.

I suppose if we were having dinner, and I asked you if you could pass the salt, you'd simply say "Yes", because I hadn't actually asked you to pass the salt? You might want to look up "Gricean". Conversation normally involves both participants cooperating, not on giving the absolute minimum response unless pumped for more. Kwamikagami 21:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In EncycloPetey's defense, you started out by claiming (in the section header) and presuming (in your question) that there was no difference, so a better analogy would be if you were having dinner, and you asked him, "Why aren't you willing to pass me the salt?", and then took any response besides "But I am willing to pass you the salt" as confirmation that he wasn't. Perhaps he should have replied "But there are differences"; but your question was a bit rude, so it's not surprising that his response was a bit curt.

But anyway … I haven't combed through the whole list, but there do seem to be some differences. For one thing, if I'm reading right, it seems that we distinguish merry/marry/Mary, but that AHD does not. (Am I right?)

—Ruakh_TALK 22:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to be rude. Reading over it, I still don't see it as such. Anyway, yes, the AHD does distinguish Mary marry merry. They have /âr/, /ăr/, /ĕr/. Kwamikagami 08:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

When I converse with another person, I answer the questions that are asked of me. I do not assume a hidden agenda on the part of the other person, nor do I assume that the other person is confused and try to second guess what the other person really wanted to ask. If you ask a question, I can answer that question; I will not answer all the questions you didn't ask, because there are millions of those, and it's not worth my time to guess which ones you wanted the answers to.

When you say "we've" renamed it, you mean that you took it upon yourself to move it despite this conversation and (presumably) in spite as well. --EncycloPetey 01:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is silly. EnPR was not designed to be "similar" to the AHD, it is the AHD, with minor changes such as the symbols for stress (which BTW have reverted to the AHD symbols in Wikipedia EnPR—if EncycloPetey can claim that both of those are "EnPR", then they are both AHD as well). To claim that this is a special Wiktionary system is plagiarism. Kwamikagami 21:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. You yoursefl have finally acknowledged there are differences, so you cannot say it is another system. They're different. What other systems have you compared to enPR? Please compare the system in the original OED, Webster's, and Random House. Also please keep in mind that the table is not necessarily complete; we may have symbols in use that aren't yet tabulated. --EncycloPetey 21:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The only diff here is the format of the stress marks, which is as minor as the differences between the print and online versions put out by AHD itself. I have compared this with other systems, which you apparently have not, or you wouldn't make that request: You have plagiarized AHD. True, there's no copyright, but your refusal to acknowledge your almost total debt to the AHD is unprofessional. Kwamikagami 09:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to make ugly accusations then back them up. Show me the edit where I commited plagiarism. --EncycloPetey 09:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Should I spell it out yet again? We use the AHD transcription, yet when I attempt to credit the AHD, I get reverted. That's plagiarism by any normal use of the word. I've asked you to explain how the EnPR is not the AHD system, but you've refused to answer. You also seem to think the English Wikipedia EnPR system is the same as this one, and it doesn't even differ from the AHD in the minor stress-mark formatting as Wiktionary does, so I take it you do not consider that difference to be significant. Without that difference, EnPR is identical to AHD. Kwamikagami 10:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As I have pointed out before, you are being deliberately difficult and now also disingenuous. When I have tried to point out and add specific cases where the systems differ, you have eliminated those changes from the article on WP. You chose to ignore consensus and rename that article on your own initiative, falsely claiming that the deletions you made in order to accomplish the change were "non-controversial" despite the objections I raised both here and on Wikipedia. So, since you are exhibiting the behavior of an antagonistic troll, I see no point in feeding you. --EncycloPetey 16:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What is it with Wiktionary and an inability or unwillingness to communicate? And you call me a troll for your obstinacy? You have not once "tried to point out [...] specific cases where the systems differ", despite my requests. As for "adding" cases, I suppose that you might mean redefining <œ> on WP to sometimes being <ë>, despite the fact that <ë> does not occur in the EnPR here at Wiktionary. The only thing I can figure, since your claims are not supported by Wiktionary, is that you have an "authoritative" EnPR page somewhere in your personal account and we're all supposed to defer to you because of it, like a priest interceding with the Wiktionary god. I'm not going to bother fighting with you here, since the other editors don't seem to care, but this nonsense is not acceptable at Wikipedia. Kwamikagami 01:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem stems from your application of Wikipedian ideas to a project that isn't Wikipedia (such as your misconceptions about the nature of documents in the Wiktionary: namespace and your confusion between top-down prescription and bottom-up description), and your resort to ad hominem disparaging remarks. These are part of Wikipedia culture, but are not acceptable here. --EncycloPetey 01:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hypocrite.

I've notified Houghton Mifflin of your plagiarism. They may not care, of course, or may feel that there's no legal basis for challenging it, but they should at least know what's going on in case they'd like to make their wishes known. Kwamikagami 01:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

More name-calling, a threat, and still not a single bit of evidence that I've actually plagiarized anything here. Check the edit history again. I've never once plagiarized AHD's system, and that will be plain to anyone who cares to look. Please desist from your personal attacks. --EncycloPetey 01:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And another disconnect from reality. I called you a hypocrite because you said personal attacks are not acceptable here after engaging in personal attacks yourself. I never threatened anything, merely notified you that I'd notified AHD what's going on here, which I thought was the polite thing to do. And since we're at a dictionary, you might want to look up "plagiarize". The evidence is the key itself—what more could anyone ask for? But you're right: what's the point of attempting to communicate if we don't define English words compatibly? Kwamikagami 02:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You have furnished no "evidence" (facts or observations) of plagiarism on my part, merely made the same empty claim. --EncycloPetey 02:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Now who's "being deliberately difficult and [...] disingenuous"? This scheme has been lifted from the AHD. (Evidence: this scheme and the AHD, including their respective publication dates.) You (all) refuse to admit that, but claim instead some sort of creative input on the part of Wiktionary. (Evidence: this talk page, and reversion of my attempts at proper acknowledgement.) Copying someone else's work without proper attribution is defined as "plagiarism". (Evidence: [1] or any other decent dictionary (excepting, ironically, Wiktionary, prior to my correction just now.) I get it that you're being obstinate. What I don't get (besides why) is why other editors would support you. Kwamikagami 10:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You have furnished no "evidence" (facts or observations) of plagiarism on my part, merely made the same empty claim. --EncycloPetey 18:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall ever making the accusation that it was "on your part". You merely assumed authorship of the EnPR, and I took you at your word that you're responsible, and from that point on I assumed that it was on your part. If you had not intended to assume responsibility, or if I was careless in my reading and misunderstood you, my apologies. Since the EnPR is plagiarized, the author (whether or not it was you) is a plagiarizer, unless they initially gave proper credit that has been obscured by later editors such as yourself. I suppose that even if you are not the original plagiarizer, you are guilty through your association with Wiktionary and knowledge of the situation. Kwamikagami 00:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I quote from you above: "I have compared this with other systems, which you apparently have not, or you wouldn't make that request: You have plagiarized AHD." This is an explicit accusation from you that it was on my part. I never "assumed authorship" of the enPR; I merely replied to your initial series fo questions and thereby got drawn into this mess. I would have appreciated your apology, but you seem to have reversed that apology by concluding "you are guilty through your association". End. --EncycloPetey 00:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This conversation has lead to the discussion at WT:BP#enPR. Please move discussion there. Conrad.Irwin 00:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)