Category talk:Dialectal

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RFM discussion: May 2011[edit]

AS-rondo-icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.


And the same for its language-specific subcategories as well. I don't really see why we have two different categories for what is essentially the same thing. —CodeCat 13:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Support, yes, ideally categorize by region, but if in doubt putting in Category:Regional English (that is, and not in a subcategory) is better than in Category:Dialectal, which according to Wiktionary:Votes/2011-04/Lexical categories should not be used. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Support. --Daniel 17:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose The problem is that many of the words categorized by the labels {{dialect}} and {{dialectal}} in Wiktionary, and in other dictionaries, are not regionalisms, but belong to, or are considered typical of, a sociolect, ethnolect, genderlect, idiolect, technolect, slang, etc, or simply as non-standard. By dropping the label, we lose compatibility with other dictionaries. By assuming these are regionalisms, we would be misclassifying the entries. The only solution is to carefully re-catogerize each entry, but this might be impossible, because the dialect(al) label is often used on terms whose usage is too complex or ill-defined to categorize cleanly. Michael Z. 2011-05-24 22:13 z
That's really an argument in favour of its deletion though. It's just not specific enough and also confusing. In any case, regardless of whether we merge it, it will need to be moved, because its proper name is 'English dialectal terms'. —CodeCat 22:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that your argument doesn't actually give any reason to oppose this move. It gives a reason to categorize the entries more accurately - I mean who would oppose accurate categorization anyway - but no reason why your argument would lead to anyone opposing this move. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I think what he means is that by merging them completely, Regional English will contain some terms that are not regional. So what we really need to do is to move the regional entries, split the rest into other categories, and delete Dialectal itself. —CodeCat 22:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not against renaming the category. But as I wrote, I'm against recategorization of terms ignoring the range of meanings of dialect(al). If the lexicographers of the OED and other professional dictionaries have needed it for over a century, how are we to say it is unnecessary and to be eliminated this week? Michael Z. 2011-05-25 03:27 z
If {{dialectal}} is so ambiguous, perhaps it should be replaced by {{context needed}}. --Daniel 18:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
That would be like replacing all instances of {{slang}} with {{context needed}}Michael Z. 2012-01-27 22:02 z

Merriam–Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11 ed., 2003 [2004], p 18a): “The label dial for “dialect” indicates that the pattern of use of a word or sense is too complex for summary labeling: it usually includes several regional varieties of American English or of American and British English: [. . .] The label dial Brit indicates currency in several dialects of the Commonwealth; dial Eng indicates currency in one or more provincial dialects of England: [. . .]”[1]

World Book Dictionary (2003, p 117): “Dialect means that the word is spoken in a certain district of a country or by a certain group of people.”[2]

Yes, we should expand on dialectal when we can. No, we shouldn't summarily remove this information from our dictionary, or disregard it when we find it in other sources. Michael Z. 2012-01-28 00:00 z