Jump to content

Wikipedia collogue:Spellin Fettle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Frae Wikipedia, the free beuk o knawledge

Standart Format for Spellin Speirins[eedit soorce]

A hink we should follow a standart formattin for each, so that oor discussion and resolutions are transparent tae aw. If yer no sure on ony pairts, jist leave it blank. Ithers cuid add it in later. Soothrhins (tauk) 19:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[Replie]

=='The wird or phrase bein speired'?==
'''Whar it is bein uised:''' e.g. in general, only in airticles, in the main wiki codebase
'''Whit is the meanin the wird(s) ar tryin tae say:'''
'''Whit for:''' Yer thochts on why it is no richt

===Proposal: 'alternative wird(s) tae uise'===
'''Evidence:''' Reference, DSL, Scots Corpus etc
'''Collogue:''' Place fir discussions o ithers

I think "Whit is the meanin the wird(s) is tryin tae say:", wi a "singular" verb insteid o a plural ane, wad be better. (see Verb concord in Wir Ain Leed - Verbs & Expository Scots - Grammar) weeSven (tauk) 18:59, 19 Mairch 2021 (UTC)[Replie]

(en) Translation requests?[eedit soorce]

(en) I'm wondering if this might be an appropriate place to ask for translations of currently untranslated English (rather than mistranslated/botched translations of English, as is the main focus at the moment). See my request at Collogue:Scots Pairlament election, 2016#Infobox could do with translating, but for instance there is a fair amount of untranslated text across the various Templates (searching around the list of them I found {{Abot}}, for instance).

If we want to keep the Spellin Fettle exclusively for standardising spelling, I think there should be a page (or category?) to request translations. James Hyett (tauk) 19:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[Replie]

I agree wi James. Translating is a different job in itsell tae settlin on individual spellin tae be uised. Soothrhins (tauk) 19:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[Replie]

(in Inglis) Crossposting this request here for ease of navigation: I've ported a template from enwiki that could be useful for circumstances like this, but ironically it needs translating before it can be used. Wikipedia:Mercat Cross#(in Inglis) Request Translation for draft of Translation Needed Template (ironically). James Hyett (tauk) 14:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[Replie]

(in Inglis) Hi all, as we are discussing the usage of certain words, I'll mention I often run AWB for regular changes. We have an officialish regex expression that makes these changes, so when we get specific changes that are signed off, let me know and I'll add them to the list. As much as grammatical errors are a high priority, changing some of the more outlandish and common changes is a good easy job. Hope this helps. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[Replie]

Encyclopedia or Encylopaedia?[eedit soorce]

(in Inglis)Might sound like a weird one, but can we confirm the site name? Most things seem to be set up with Wikipedia (which surely is a proper noun), but also Wikipaedia is shown elsewhere, such as the logo and main page. I had a search on the two online sources discussed, but no info on if Scots uses an ae in this way. Any ideas? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[Replie]

(in Inglis) Relatedly, Uiser:Jimmy~scowiki has just changed the main page's "Wikipaedia/Wikipedia"s to Wikipedie/Wikipaedie. I've reverted those parts of their edits (as well as one leet->list) until greater consensus is reached, and especially because, as you point out, Wikipedia is a proper noun, and I'm not aware of any reason to spell it with an æ. James Hyett (tauk) 20:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[Replie]
Haha! Sorry but ye hae tae see the funny side that the very name cuid be wrang! Hink this is wan we will need academic input on. Soothrhins (tauk) 20:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[Replie]
Possibly. I hadn't realised it until now! We do have a precident for the name being whatever is right in that language (see meta:List of Wikipedias, but unless we are super certain, we should retain the proper name... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[Replie]

Other inner-workings[eedit soorce]

(in Inglis) - might be difficult to move the project further without confirming what the inner-workings of the current titles we are using are, and what they should be. We are already looking at "leet", but can we consider:

I'll add to the above as I see them. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[Replie]

Alphabetisin[eedit soorce]

(en) As I was setting up the initial queries, I've done them alphabetically. Am a missing a trick for anything automatic for that? Or a way of listing the contents alphabetically rather than numbered? Not essential but might improve ux. Soothrhins (tauk) 21:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[Replie]

Cræft[eedit soorce]

@Soothrhins: Should this be mak or stert? –MJLTauk 02:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[Replie]

@MJL: (en) Not something I'm comfortable making a call on alone. People on the FB group were leaning towards stert/stairt but as there are multiple spellings will need to get some references onto the main page. Soothrhins (tauk) 07:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[Replie]

Word frequency list[eedit soorce]

A word frequency list of the Scots Wikipedia from 2020-08-01 has been obtained here, you might find it useful for identifying words that look suspiciously like they are unique to the North Carolina Scots dialect.

Various people on github have developed scripts to scrape websites, the first person I contacted knocked this out in few seconds. The script has eliminated single letter words but this shouldn't be too much of an issue and words with less than 3 occurrences.

I'd thought that perhaps in a year's time a comparison could be made to an updated word frequency list to see what words have been used more often or depreciated, and then perhaps use the Scots wikipedia as another corpus and lexis of the Scots language.--Illandancient (tauk) 08:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[Replie]

(en) This is great! 2A02:C7F:8ECF:9900:F12F:2113:4F1:91E4 (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[Replie]
Amazing!!! –MJLTauk 18:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[Replie]

Place names[eedit soorce]

(en) I see that the Scots Language Centre has a map of Scotland with place names in Scots (here), so I thought I would just bring this to your attention as a potential resource. (Apologies, I'm not a Scots speaker myself, so I don't know whether it accurately reflects real usage!) --2A00:23C5:3C00:1301:B084:3528:6D17:42B4 (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[Replie]

(en) This is already listed under Soorces for verification, but thanks! James Hyett (tauk) 23:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[Replie]
(en) Whoops, missed that - sorry! --2A00:23C5:3C00:1301:B084:3528:6D17:42B4 (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[Replie]

'Scots Online' Dictionary as resource[eedit soorce]

(en) I should maybe share why I didn't add 'Scots Online' Dictionary as a resource initially:

  1. The first is referencing. I have had a preoccupation with this process on referencing. Part of the issue we saw had happened before was people querying the use (or spelling) of a word and the response was akin to 'no we do it like this here', with no reasoning for it. The Scots Online is a fantastic resource of information. But (as far as I can see) it doesn't explain who is running the site, and their... not qualifications per se, but provenance. So my concern was that if it was included as a reference then what's to stop someone setting up a fake-Scots site but saying it wasn't and that being used as a reference.
  2. The other is peer review. Which is what I meant by writing "haes academic inpit", so sources that are not just coming from people qualified to do so, but in an environment where it could be subject to peer review if called into question. Soothrhins (tauk) 09:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[Replie]
  • @Jsmith scot: If it is tae be in the academic inpit list is thar a page on Scots Online that is settin oot whar its come fae that a hae missed? Or can ye link tae som o their academic wirk here? Or, we come up wi a new form o wirds tae pit it unner. Soothrhins (tauk) 09:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[Replie]
@Soothrhins: [en] The site's origins are described here. I do think it needs a "health warning". The content seems fine but the English-Scots dictionary search is specifically set up to return a single spelling. If you translate "city", for example, it will give you "ceety", "ceeties" and "ceetizen", without equivocation ("city" is not in the site's Scots-English dictionary, but why would it be?). Here it says "The traditional Scots spelling conventions used here can, on the whole, be read and pronounced in any Scots dialect. Therefore the Online Scots Dictionary usually only returns one spelling for each word based on the criterion described below." I take this to mean that it will return the spelling that best conforms to the rules (I can't judge the validity of the rules, but they do not appear to be naive). The other risk can be seen here [sco]"Gin ye'v lowpit wi the [oreeginal] airtin, uise the back button on yer stravaiger's menu baur for tae gang back tae the 'hoose-style' orthography." [en] This suggests that Scots texts are made available with a standardised spelling like this. Whether that's a good thing is a matter of opinion, but it's easy to get confused into thinking that a particular spelling was used where, in fact, it was not. (To be clear, the site nowhere claims the counterfactual.)--GrounderUK (tauk) 08:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[Replie]
That dictionary appears to be a Broad Scots dictionary reflecting the speech of elderly people a hundred or so years ago. On the website behind it, it states: "This website concentrates wholly on the Traditional Scots end of that speech continuum. The site includes some archaic and obsolete vocabulary which has been replaced by Standard English equivalents. Such vocabulary is still used in literary Scots." [1]
As for "city" as "ceety". In the Dictionary of the Scots Language you can find: "§ 45. Romance [i] — advice, fine, cry, sybo (an onion). When the Romance word came into Scots after this change was completed the ee [i] remains as in item, licence, oblige, liberal." [2] Also 1. as [i]: (1) in the stressed vowel of Romance words as civil, city, image, item, licence, minute, oblige, position, etc. (see Weekly Mag. (18 July 1771) 69 and P.L.D. § 45 and p. xliii), and in the ending -ise, as criticeese, idoleeze, etc., now obsol." [3] Which is no surprise after a hundred years or so of dialect levelling.
The same obsolescence perhaps equally applies to the likes of "eneuch", "richt", and "nicht", etc. that now seem to be universally "enuff", "rite", and "nite", etc.
Similarly with /ɪ/ in the likes of bind, "find", and "wind" v., etc. which are now often diphthongised /əi/ as in Standard English, with or without the final 'd'. The latter pronounced "byne", "fine", and "wyne" etc.
That leaves the question of how to deal with "archaic and obsolete vocabulary" that nobody habitually uses, such as "leed" (language), and "maugre", etc?
Nogger (tauk) 10:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[Replie]
@Nogger: [en] That's both useful and interesting, thanks. To pick up on your last point, there was an interesting discussion on de:wiki (and I confess I was shocked by how readable Google's translation into English was, on the whole). If a contributor knows what dialect they're writing in, it would be nice to see that tagged. My ow~n English is too much of a mongrel feR that to be wo~Rth whi~le; let's jus' call it "epenthetically diphthongised rhotic" (to coin a phrase), or "BBC Rural", in the vernacular (my mother hybridised East Anglian with Dorset while my father hybridised West Midlands with Bristolian, but they both spoke "properly")--GrounderUK (tauk) 16:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[Replie]

Ither muckle hings tae chack/chynge[eedit soorce]

Makin a list here o ither muckle/needin admin type hings that need a chack an possible chygne:

(in Inglis) In trawling the recent chynges, I've just noticed for the first time a spelling with yoch ȝ added in a revision. Might it be worth chatting about the wiki's use of yoch, and establishing a policy? I appreciate that we can have multiple spelling systems happening at once, since the language isn't standardized, but I think this letter is a special case. James Hyett (tauk) 02:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[Replie]

Proposed Options:
  • Laitin inly - No Yoch, æsc, etc.
  • Aye Yoch - Include the Yoch as an option
  • Nae Yoch - Bar the Yoch
  • NOTA - Keep the status quo.
Cheers, –MJLTauk 07:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[Replie]
I vote for Laitin inly with exceptions for proper names and quotations. For example "Menzies" is usually "Menzies" except where there's a direct citation or reference to "Minȝies". You don't see yoch ȝ out in published Scots writing very often.--Illandancient (tauk) 08:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[Replie]
(in Inglis) Depending on what í would be categorised as, I vote for either Aye Yoch or NOTA, because although the yoch isn't very common in modern Scots, some words do use it. The latest version of the Concise Scots dictionary has the letter listed between Y and Z, and a Scots leaflet for the National Library of Scotland last year used it for the word "Mulȝeons". -Cobra! (tauk) 19:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[Replie]
(in Inglis) Thanks for that link Cobra 3000! I'd probably tend towards the aye yoch or nota of those proposed options above given that evidence. I reckon æsc is a bit of a different case, and may be covered by whatever comes from the discussion at Wikipedia:Spellin Fettle#Encyclopædia? an Wikipædia? James Hyett (tauk) 19:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[Replie]
I vote Latin ainly, Modern Scots (post-1700) had replaced yoch with zed in almost every case (tulzie, MacKenzie, Culzean, Finzean). Mulȝeon isn't commonly used either in written Scots now. Scots speakers *know* how to pronounce the odd words with zeds instead of yochs. Allowing yochs and aesc etc lets folk who have their own pet orthography free rein, when most Scots speakers won't know the characters. Entohist (tauk) 19:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[Replie]
(en) A wee bit of context: at present, the places on the wiki that use ȝ (setting aside articles that are explicitly talking about the letter, or that are specifically citing some old text that uses it) are as follows: the article on Rosalind Hicks that Cobra 3000 edited above, a policy page on romanizing Ukrainian ("Thank ȝe!"), and the articles in Category:Leid stubs, which get it from transclusion of Template:Stub/Leid, which gets it from transclusion of Template:Asbox/Yoch ("Ȝes, ȝe can gie Wikipædia a haund bi eikin til it"). All this to say that yoch is not currently very widespread; the most visible place it is found is in Template:Asbox/Yoch, and I do have a sneaking suspicion that it is mainly used for the Weird factor, given that the user that made that template lists themself as sco-2 on their user page. James Hyett (tauk) 21:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[Replie]
Laitin ainly. The yoch is obviously archaic, used only for the weird factor. en.wiki says on the subject, "[..] by the Modern Scots period y had replaced yogh." with a citation `Kniezsa, V (1997), Jones, C (ed.), The Edinburgh history of the Scots language, Edinburgh University Press, p. 38.`, though I can't personally confirm that citation at the moment. I was originally going to vote "Nae Yoch" tos upport usage of æ (though I personally don't agree with it), but I'm also struggling to find any evidence of common modern usage there. Hopefully someone can supply evidence either way on that one. Obviously this vote doesn't include IPA, which uses non-latin characters. my_hat_stinks (tauk) 13:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[Replie]

Cross-posting about an RfC over at Wikipedia collogue:Namin conventions[eedit soorce]

I figure I should cross-post this here, since I considered just posting it here but figured it would be good to get some activity on the red-linked Wikipedia:Namin conventions. At the collogue linked above, I've asked a question about the policy for referring to post touns, railwey stations, and electoral districts. James Hyett (tauk) 17:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[Replie]

Wha an whilk as relative pronoons[eedit soorce]

A git the impression that some fowk is o the opinion that the relative pronoons 'wha' an 'whilk' disnae belang Modren Scots. A disagree acause thay clearly exist an arnae in ony ither leid. Thay mibbes arnae aften uised i colloquial speik, but that is acause the register isnae the same: the register fur a encyclopedia is mair formal nor colloquial. Sae faur as A am concerned, 'wha' an 'whilk' is adaptit fur a Scots encyclopedia. Munci (tauk) 11:30, 28 Januar 2022 (UTC)[Replie]