[[Template:lad-noun]]

Thanks for letting me, right now, I was going through the languages such as Serbo-Croatian, Azeri, Karakalpak and their templates to understand and also through parser functions...but it all looks very complicated. Anyway, I didn't know that these letters (such as l=Latin etc.) are predetermined, I thought we determined them each time, when writing the template.

About the Ladino language, (see what I wrote here), there are no standardised spelling, however there are spelling norms. I'll give an example:

The word for a "young woman" is muchacha. It's pronounced the same in almost all the dialects, but the spelling is:

• muchacha (Multidialectal and Aki Yerushalayim spelling)
• מוגֿאגֿה (Square Hebrew spelling)
• mutchatcha (French spelling; tch = ch)
• muçaça (Turkish spelling; ç = ch)

The word for soap:

• xavón (Mult; x = sh)
• שאבֿון (Hebr)
• shavon (Aki)
• chavon (Fren; ch = sh)
• şavon (Turk; ş = sh)

These are the most common and citable spellings, however there also those who use other spelling conventions. About the dialectal variations mutchatche is an alternative form (e.g. dialect of Prishtine) of mutchatcha. And muçaçe is an alternative form of muçaça. However mutchatche and muçaçe are different spelling variants of each other and are pronounced the same. Do you think that these five forms (same pronunciation, different spelling rules or scripts) could be displayed under the word-class (e.g. Noun) in a raw? And the dialectal forms under the Alternative forms? What do you say? May be you could help me out.

Thanks, Friendly

Those single-letter arguments to headword templates are not standardised, but script codes are (i.e. the usually four-letter codes which are passed to template parameters named |sc= or similar). They exist so that different fonts can be applied to different writing systems with CSS.

This is the sort of information we are supposed to be able to find at WT:About Ladino. If we had it. You know what to do now…

I think this should be handled through something between our approaches to English and Serbo-Croatian/Hindi-Urdu: within each writing system, pick one spelling for each individual word (based on, say, the popularity of each variation) to be the main lemma, which has full definitions. For the rest, write stub definitions using {{alternative spelling of}}. But I have no strong opinions, and I am not quite convinced that this would be the best.

One thing we should take into consideration is how all these forms should be linked to one another. Would be good to know how Ladino inflects words. Right now we seem to have no inflection templates for Ladino (and the headwords only link to forms in alternative writing systems), but I do not know whether this is because Ladino words do not inflect, or just nobody got around to make these. (We seem to have a {{lad-verb-form}}, though.)

And the "word-class (e.g. Noun)" is called a part of speech. Except when it is not.