Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2011-08/Romanization of languages in ancient scripts

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


I find "ancient language was written in a script that is now no longer used or widely understood" to be too vague; define 'ancient', 'no longer used' and '[no longer] widely understood' and it should be ok. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is vague, and suggest listing the affected languages. (I imagine we can make an exhaustive list. If that is not desirable, we should still list some languages as examples.) - -sche (discuss) 22:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Gothic, Hittite, Hurrian (and Akkadian, Eblaite, Sumerian, and Urartian), Luwian, Egyptian, Old Persian, Lydian, Lycian, Mycenaean Greek(?), Minoan, Ammonite, Edomite, Moabite, Punic, Phoenician, Median, Sentinelese. (Languages written in Mayan script?) - -sche (discuss) 22:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
How can Sentinelese be an example? Barely anything at all is known about it, let alone writing... And it's also a living language. β€”CodeCat 22:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake, I've struck it. I just went through the categories trying to find all of the languages written in unused scripts. - -sche (discuss) 23:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Nevertheless, in my opinion it's easier to vote on a language or on a list of languages than on the wording of some rule. Therefore I agree with User:-sche. --MaEr 17:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not a list of scripts? Wouldn't that work? -- Liliana β€’ 17:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Right. Script would be more correct than language. --MaEr 16:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I would be OK with this vote starting as-written (as it stands now, a good rule formulated in such a way that it can encompass newly-discovered languages/scripts, like Median, in a way an enumeration of languages or scripts would not). I would also be OK with someone adding language to it specifying which languages or scripts would be affected. (For example, something along the lines of "To wit, the following languages will be affected: Akkadian, Ammonite, Carian, Eblaite, Edomite, Egyptian, Gothic, Hittite, Hurian, Luwian, Lydian, Moabite, Old Persian, Phoenician, Punic, Sumerian, Urartian." or "Languages written in the following scripts (and not in other, still-used scripts) will be affected: Anatolian hieroglyphs, Carian, cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphs, Gothic, Lydian, Maya glyphs, Old Persian cuneiform, Phoenician, Urartian cuneiform.") Shall we start the vote as scheduled? Does anyone feel strongly enough that languages/scripts should be specified to add a sentence(s) specifying them to the vote before starting it? - -sche (discuss) 04:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm going to support the proposal as it is written now. If you think that the current wording is precise enough, we could give it a chance, with or without any embedded list. --MaEr 08:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Let's start the vote as written; if the proposal fails because users would rather vote on a list of languages or scripts than a rule, we can create another vote. (VidΔ“te how many votes have been held on attestation in extinct languages.) - -sche (discuss) 17:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

List of languages[edit]

Here is a list (possibly incomplete or faulty, please make additions and corrections as necessary) of affected languages, followed by examples of words in the original script, and possible romanisations. I would like to make clear that different romanisations may be preferred; I am indifferent to the romanisation used. - -sche (discuss) 19:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  1. Akkadian (written in cuneiform: 𒆍𒃲 ... abullu?)
  2. Ammonite (written in the Phoenician script: 𐀁𐀍, bn)
  3. Carian (written in Carian script: 𐊲𐊼, uk)
  4. Eblaite (written in cuneiform: π’‹›π’ˆΎπ’Œˆ ... either si-na-tum or sinatum)
  5. Edomite (written in a Canaanite or Phoenician script: 𐀀𐀁, 'b)
  6. Egyptian (written in Egyptian hieroglyphs: π“ˆ—π“€, mw)
  7. Gothic (written in the Gothic script: 𐌰𐌱𐌰, aba; πŒ΅πŒΉπŒ½π‰, qino)
  8. Hittite (written in cuneiform: π’€€π’€Έπ’…†π’„Ώπ’€€π’‹», assiyatar)
  9. Hurrian (written in a cuneiform script: π’ŠΊπ’‚Šπ’ˆΎ ... Ε‘ena?)
  10. Luwian (written in cuneiform and in Anatolian hieroglyphs: π’ˆΎπ’€€π’‰‘π’Œ¦, nanun)
  11. Lydian (written in the Lydian script: 𐀠𐀠𐀭𐀠, aara)
  12. Moabite (written in the Phoenician script: 𐀁𐀍, bn)
  13. Old Persian (written in Old Persian cuneiform: 𐎠𐎿, asa)
  14. Phoenician (written in the Phoenician script: 𐀁𐀉𐀍, byn)
  15. Punic (written in the Phoenician script: 𐀁𐀉𐀍, byn)
  16. Sumerian (written in cuneiform: π’‰Ž ... ni?)
  17. Urartian (written in Urartian cuneiform and in Anatolian hieroglyphs: we have no entries yet)

Here is a list of languages which might be affected, or which might be (already / better) written in Greek:

  1. Lycian (written in the Lycian script β€” an extension of Greek: an entry is πŠπŠ€πŠ…πŠ€)
  2. Mycenaean Greek (written in Linear B β€” a predecessor of Greek: an entry is 𐀆𐀆𐀕𐀙)

I included these languages in my initial list, but have not included them above:

  1. Ch'olti' (written in Maya[n] script, also known as Maya[n] glyphs and Maya[n] hieroglyphs), because we have only Category:Ch'orti' language, and as far as I can tell, we have no Maya[n] script entries)
  2. Median (also known as Medean and Medic), because it is not preserved, and its script is unknown (in spite of which, we have one Median entry, in the Greek script, σπάκα)
  3. Minoan, because it is written in Linear A, an undeciphered script (in spite of which, we have one entry, in the Latin script: kuro)

- -sche (discuss) 19:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

List of scripts[edit]

This list is possibly incomplete:

  1. Anatolian hieroglyphs
  2. Carian
  3. cuneiform
  4. Egyptian hieroglyphs
  5. Gothic
  6. Lydian
  7. Maya glyphs
  8. Old Persian cuneiform
  9. Phoenician
  10. Urartian cuneiform

Possibly also:

  1. Lycian
  2. Linear B
  3. Linear A (when deciphered!)

What will the Romanized entry be?[edit]

We should work out what (to propose in the vote that) the Romanization-entries will be: the main hosts of content (the places where the words are defined, with the original-script entries being turned into soft redirects of sorts), co-hosts of content (this strikes me as a terrible idea bound to result in entries becoming out-of-sync, but a counter-argument is that this seems to be how we handle romaji), or soft-redirects of sorts to the original-script entries. I prefer the third idea (Romanized entries as soft redirects), but would also support the first idea (Romanized entries as the main entries). I feel the vote should specifically propose one or the other, rather than simply saying Romanized entries will be allowed. - -sche (discuss) 22:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Using the romanized entries as the main entry would be more work because currently what we have is at the native script entry. We would have to move them then. β€”CodeCat 22:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
It doe say " […] then romanizations of its words will be allowed entries." It doesn't say what those romanizations should be. I do feel a bit uneasy about that, it seems to me at least possible to exploit that, but I can't imagine anyone actually doing it. Also, a sensible administrator will shoot any 'jokey romanizations' on sight. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Standardized romanization?[edit]

Languages such as Old Norse are often represented in a standardised spelling that are closer to modern languages, usually by replacing certain letters or combinations with others. But this was not the spelling of the original manuscript. For example Old Norse manuscripts used i instead of j and used c instead of k. This is not in the scope of the vote, but since replacing letters is a small form of transliteration, maybe it should be, for the same reasons? β€”CodeCat 22:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the normalisation of Old Norse is a separate matter. For one thing, the change from c to k is not a change in alphabet. - -sche (discuss) 23:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe not, but in both cases we're deviating from the representation found in the original writing. β€”CodeCat 23:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
See also Talk:aprΓ©s, Old French, Anglo-Norman and I think too Middle French don't use diacritics apart from diareses (rare) and cedillas (rare) but seemingly ALL online versions as well as text book versions use diacritics, chiefly the acute accent for past tenses and and occasion where the final e ought to be /e/ for rhyming purposes. Wikimedia Commons does provide some original manuscripts in these languages, though my eye sight not to mention reading skills aren't really up to it. Having said all of this, I do agree that it's a separate issue; the title of the vote is romanization […] not modernization […] --Mglovesfun (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Why only Latin/Roman[edit]

Are all scholarly texts written in Roman script? Are there no Russian or Chinese linguists? The lack of mention in the vote almost makes me want to oppose. DAVilla 22:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the English Wiktionary is aimed at people who speak English. Since English only uses the Latin script, it is assumed that all readers can use the Latin script; it is not assumed that they can use any other script. Let's put it this way, I wouldn't be complaining about the lack of Latin script entries for translitered Sumerian on the Russian and Arabic Wiktionaries. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)