Spring til indhold

Atuisup oqalliffia:Gerthn

Sidens indhold er ikke tilgængeligt på andre sprog.
Imm. nutaaq
Seneste indlæg: for 11 ukioq siden af i emnet Tulorutsitut

Please notic, I'm not here often, thx for your patience. Maaniippallaartuunngilanga, allaffigigussinga qaqugu qaqugu akissanerpunga ...

Hi Qaqqalik,

How wonderful to see a native speaker here! I have copied a few words here over to my home base nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf, (see), but I am always worried about doing it wrong, because I know nothing about your language. I created a main language template template:-nl- with a kal. name for my language,but even that may be wrong. Could you check that for me?

I also think you should get admin rights, so that you can clean up any messes yourself. I'm sure the few fellow sympathizers here would agree. Jcwf 16. Mar 2010, 01:27 (UTC)Svar

Hi Jcwf! Thx for notice me. I checked and seem nothing wrong but only this one: tunngavilagulu sanaartorneq is very much wrong! I understand it's a number 60!? If so it's not a number 60 in greenlandic word neither nothing to do with numbers (the word says like: "basic building"). About numbers we usually use danish words (from 13 - up). Greeting --Qaqqalik 16. Mar 2010, 16:47 (UTC)Svar
Thank you very much Qaqqalik! I removed the "60" and corrected the template Jcwf 17. Mar 2010, 02:30 (UTC)Svar



Hi Qaqqalik, I see you marked for deletion the Klingon entries in kl.wiktionary.org. I ask you the same question that I asked Jcwf: Do you think as well this and related ones should be deleted as well? If not, why not? What is the difference? Regards. --AB-out kl-ing on 30. Mar 2010, 10:13 (UTC)Svar

Hi AB-out kl-ing on! My view is that Klingon dictionary should not be here (it's a tv-fiction language and there's a lot of those tv-fiction languages in my opinion) therefore not relevant to make dictionary out of it. This wiki is a dictionary, in other wikis we can read articles about klingon language in which it's instructive. So there's a different. I hope your understanding --Qaqqalik 30. Mar 2010, 18:07 (UTC)Svar
PS: See also en:Category:Klingon language

Thanks for your response, Qaqqalik.
I can understand your and others' point of view on the topic but only partially.
Granted, if a language is not only constructed but besides created by and for the entertainment industry, we should be very wary. Nonetheless, the fact that Klingon has proper linguistic contents (maybe a bit limited in the semantic side but wide enough actually) and structure (quite human, though :D), that it is recognized by a significant number of individuals all over the world, that it is used both at written and spoken levels (not only in the TV shows and books) means in my mind that out there there are people (other than the show producers and publishers) interested in it and this makes it valid to my mind. The fact that Klingon exists in the robust way it does makes it a linguistic phenomenon by itself and consequently worth being considered for compiling info about it in a place like Wiktionary.
One of your arguments is that "Wiktionary is a dictionary". Interestingly, that is exactly my argument as well but seemingly my idea of what a dictionary is seems to be a bit broader than the ones’ in the vote page I reached through the link you provided where some (few) users (in en.wiktionary.org... has the same been voted in other projects?) who in certain moment (2007, not certainly now) voted to ban (forever?) Klingon entries as main entries (but they are collected in appendixes).
Language is a very rich phenomenon with boundaries extending quite beyond the perceived-as-conventional limits. The list of unusual but lexicographical relevant items out of the “natural languages” track can be significantly long and different projects can have different approaches to them. One example: en.wiktionary.org relegates Proto-Indo-European roots (reconstructed words) to appendixes while es.wiktionary.org allows them as main entries with an informative template attached. I personally think the latter is more convenient (for direct searches and links and for proper categorisation) and the former more cumbersome (the entries are collected together in one only page where the lexical info is necessarily partial, with links to article pages inside the Appendix domain [which hides them both from the AllPages pages and direct searches unless one specifies where to look for them] and which potentially can grow into a extremely huge page). The fact that things are done in a way in one project does not mean that the others have necessarily to mimic its procedures. Every community should decide their approaches to topics like this (and the approach should be permited to change and evolve with not much fuss if the community feels it should be different from previous established procedures).
You and Jcwf advocate the deletion of Klingon entries. Have any of you considered the possibility of collecting them into an appendix? I mean, not in the way it apparently happened in en.wiktionary.org where, seemingly, they just deleted all the pages with their history and all and then started the appendix. But doing it in the proper way, of course, may be tedious and hard work, as all sysops well know. Anyway it’s good when one can execute decisions but dodge the uncomfortable logical consequences thanks to “weak”, little or no protest around, isn’t it? And besides, if the topic gets too troubling or bothersome, a quite straightforward solution to the whole business can always be just deleting the appendix as well ;) .
Anyway, my basic contention is this: Wikipedia overtly informs about Klingon because it is an encyclopaedia. Wikiquote has Klingon quotes (both in vernacular and Klingon). Wikinews can and do provide news about Klingon language if any takes place.... On the same grounds, I fail to see why we should ban or conceal lexicographical information about Klingon in Wiktionary.
Klingon language is as ficticious a language in Wikipedia, Wikiquote or Wikinews as it is in Wiktionary. Wikimedia projects aim to provide information as accurate as possible, by doing so they are not making Klingon less fictitious. wikipedia:en:Klingon language is as instructive (informative, I would rather say) in an encyclopaedia as wa' and others are in a dictionary.
Don’t get me wrong, personally I would like to see priority for natural endangered languages, for example, rather than fictional ones in Wiktionary but this project is done by voluntaries who choose the contents of their own contributions which, as long as they are valid (and Klingon is valid in my opinion as well as, seemingly, in Max sonnelid’s), should be welcome. Max sonnelid created entries in many languages other than Klingon, by the way.
I am not often around here. If you want to reply in this page I would appreciate if you left a message in my discussion page warning me about it as well. Thanks. Regards. --AB-out kl-ing on 9. Apr 2010, 18:35 (UTC)Svar

nl:illoqarfiit pingaarnersaat


I hope I did this right. I cannot see if something is singular or plural... I'd appreciate a check. Jcwf 31. Maaji 2010, 23:42 (UTC)Svar

I looked by, seems nothing wrong. "Illoqarfiit" is plural and "pingaarnersaat" is singular. "Capital of cities" we understand that. --Qaqqalik 5. Jun 2010, 16:33 (UTC)Svar



Hi, Qaqqalik.

I created the article Finlândia, but I don't have a clue of how Portuguese is in Kalaalisut. Would you mind to correct my edit? Thanks and cheers, Malafaya 13. Jun 2010, 00:08 (UTC)Svar

Done. Using template -pt- will automatic 'category:portuguese language' places there. --Qaqqalik 13. Jun 2010, 22:43 (UTC)Svar



We have a discussion on this word in the English Wiktionary, here: [1]. Would you like to comment? -- 26. Okt 2012, 04:29 (UTC)Svar