Wiktionary talk:About Tundra Nenets

Transcription

Linguistic sources mostly use digraphs for the palatalized consonants: py by ty dy cy sy my ny ly ry wy. This seems to be a leftover from the typewriter era with few other explicit points in its favor, especially since distinguishing /lj rj/ from /lʲ rʲ/ then requires other tricks like transcribing the former as "lÿ rÿ".

Admittedly, Unicode does not have single-codepoint versions of b-acute, t-acute and d-acute, but at least for the last two we can use t-caron and d-caron, which come close enough in most fonts.

One possible counterargument is that a sequence such as ся can be one-to-one transliterated to sya, while getting to śa requires some symbol algebra. --Tropylium (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Length/diphthong marking

There seem to be about four different options on what do here.

1. Do not use diacritics in entries, and only indicate details about pronunciation in the ===Pronunciation== section.
2. Do not use diacritics in entries, but use scientific Latin transcription.
3. Do not use diacritics in page names, but use diacritics within the page (as is done for Latin).
4. Soft-redirect "detailed" spellings to the "simplified" spellings using {{alternative form of}}. (Or perhaps the opposite?)

Before nailing anything down though I would like to at least verify if the э̇ and ӣ conventions are attestable in use at all — or if they're only used in scholarly sources. --Tropylium (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Verb lemmatisation

How should we do this? As of now, these are given in the singular imperative (like in e.g. Pyrerka's dictionary). Should this be made policy? And what about glossing? Should we use the standard "{{lb|yrk|transitive}} to foo" or the reduced "{{lb|yrk|intransitive}} foo"? Thadh (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)