Talk:Sibawayh

2007-10-26T22:34:51Z

Dkleinecke: New page: I picked up the Wikipedia article and edited out all the religious material. ~~~~

I picked up the Wikipedia article and edited out all the religious material. [[User:Dkleinecke|Dkleinecke]] 00:34, 27 October 2007 (CEST)

Sibawayh

2007-10-26T22:33:54Z

Dkleinecke: New page: Sibawayh was a linguist of Persian origin writing in Arabic who wrote the first great grammar of Arabic. He worked mostly in Bagdad, but died in Shiraz around the year 180/796. His full n...

Sibawayh was a linguist of Persian origin writing in Arabic who wrote the first great grammar of Arabic. He worked mostly in Bagdad, but died in Shiraz around the year 180/796.

His full name was 'Amr ibn 'Uthman ibn Qanbar. Sibawayh is a nickname.

Sibawayh was a non-Arab writing on Arabic grammar and he explained Arabic grammar from a non-Arab perspective. He was probably not a native speaker of Arabic.

Talk:Portal:List of portals

2007-10-26T22:21:39Z

Dkleinecke: New page: At the very least Glottopedia needs a portal for "Historical Linguistics" and I would advocate one for "Linguistic Classification" as well. At this point I don't feel close enough to the p...

At the very least Glottopedia needs a portal for "Historical Linguistics" and I would advocate one for "Linguistic Classification" as well. At this point I don't feel close enough to the project to actually edit in these changes. [[User:Dkleinecke|Dkleinecke]] 00:21, 27 October 2007 (CEST)

Talk:Portal:Corpus linguistics

2007-10-26T22:18:15Z

Dkleinecke: New page: I have put up a brief explanation of what corpus linguistics is. I haven't made any attempt to format it ~~~~

I have put up a brief explanation of what corpus linguistics is. I haven't made any attempt to format it [[User:Dkleinecke|Dkleinecke]] 00:18, 27 October 2007 (CEST)

Talk:Portal:Phonetics and phonology

2007-10-26T22:06:45Z

Dkleinecke: New page: This is really funny. Not only is there no article about phonemes, it isn't even listed as potential. Or do you think phonemes are no part of phonology? ~~~~

This is really funny. Not only is there no article about phonemes, it isn't even listed as potential.

Or do you think phonemes are no part of phonology?

[[User:Dkleinecke|Dkleinecke]] 00:06, 27 October 2007 (CEST)

Glottopedia:Forum/Archive 01

2007-10-26T21:59:52Z

Dkleinecke: Language Description

<div style="border:1px solid #8888AA;background-color:#F0FFF0;padding:7px;text-align:center">
<big>'''Welcome to the Glottopedia Forum'''</big><br/><br/>
This is the place where you can ask questions about Glottopedia itself, and also about linguistic topics in general.<br/>
'''Click [http://urts120.uni-trier.de/glottopedia/index.php?title=Glottopedia:Forum&action=edit&section=new here] to add a new question. (Forum in German:[[Glottopedia:Diskussionsforum]])

[[Category:En]]
[[Category:Glottopedia]]'''
</div>

__TOC__
----
==Unicode==
Why is Glottopedia in ISO-8859-1 and not in Unicode? Wikipedia is in Unicode (UTF-8). --[[User:David Marjanović|David Marjanović]] 01:56, 28 June 2007 (CEST)
: I am sure this will be fixed very soon. Glottopedia should be in UTF-8. --[[User:Sven Siegmund|Sven Siegmund]] 23:19, 6 July 2007 (CEST)
:: Now I'm not sure whether this UTF-8 encoding will be fixed soon. Whom shall we as kto do it? Who in Trier is responsible? --[[User:Sven Siegmund|Sven Siegmund]] 23:18, 10 July 2007 (CEST)

==Edit URL==
Why is the URL of articles in Glottopedia hidden (when I enter via www.glottopedia.org)? It is really practical that one can edit the URL and get directly to some articles, categories, or templates. When I enter Glottopedia via http://urts120.uni-trier.de/glottopedia/index.php I can manipulate the URL as described. But this should be possible via www.glottopedia.org aswell. --[[User:Sven Siegmund|Sven Siegmund]] 23:19, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

:There is a detailed description for at least three <span style="background-color:yellow;">solutions how to do this in the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Short_URL MediaWiki manual]</span>. It should work even if you don't have a root access to the host server. So please somebody try one of the possibilities to keep the URL short '''and''' editable. --[[User:Sven Siegmund|Sven Siegmund]] 13:05, 14 July 2007 (CEST)

==External Links Keep Glottopedia URL!==
When you click on an external link in Glottopedia, the URL in the adress field of your browser remains <nowiki>http://www.glottopedia.org/</nowiki> this should not be. Try this external link to Google: http://www.google.com/ --18:14, 10 July 2007 (CEST)

==Category names==
What do LIRE and HYPO stand for? These are names of [[Special:Categories|categories]] which I can't guess. --[[User:Sven Siegmund|Sven Siegmund]] 20:43, 10 July 2007 (CEST)
:LIRE is no longer used. "HYPO" stands for [[Glottopedia:Dictionary_articles/Hypotheses_and_approaches|hypothesis and approach articles]], although we need to think more about whether we need it and how exactly we apply it. It should be considered preliminary at this point. --[[User:Haspelmath|Haspelmath]] 14:05, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

== Rename LING to RESEARCH? ==

I'd rename the ''LING'' article type to ''RESEARCH''. What do you think? --[[User:Sven Siegmund|Sven Siegmund]] 23:11, 10 July 2007 (CEST)
:My original proposal was to name these articles "linguistics articles", to which Sven objected that in a way all articles are about linguistics. "Linguistic research articles" is probably better, although not all of them are about research in the narrow sense (basically they are about linguists' activities). Anyway, I like the abbreviation "LING" for "Linguistic research" much better than "LIRE". "RESEARCH" I find too long. But ultimately it's a matter of taste, and if someone else is strongly against "linguistic reaearch/LING", I'll be happy to go along with an alternative proposal.--[[User:Haspelmath|Haspelmath]] 14:09, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

::Well, I thought if LINGUIST is not too long a category label, maybe RESEARCH would also be ok. For LING it is not immediately transparent what category it is. Anybody who wants to know what it is has to read it somewhere (where?). One thinks intuitively about "linguist", linguistics in general, but not of current research. I think this RESEARCH (or LING) category we could use for articles about current or recent projects: WALS, Autotyp, Negtyp, ... --[[User:Sven Siegmund|Sven Siegmund]] 21:59, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

== About Glottopedia ==

Currently we have the page two times: [[Glottopedia:About]] and [[Glottopedia:About_Glottopedia]]. One of them should be deleted --[[User:Sven Siegmund|Sven Siegmund]] 23:16, 10 July 2007 (CEST)

==Link Forum==
Please admins, sysops, link this forum in the navigation bar on the left. --[[User:Sven Siegmund|Sven Siegmund]] 22:19, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

==Set the system time==
The system time of the wiki-server seems to be 2 hours more than the German time. Please fix it. Everytime I sign some post, I wonder if it is really that late (-: --[[User:Sven Siegmund|Sven Siegmund]] 22:19, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

==Multilingual categories?==
I'd like to keep categories language-specific. It will get very messy if you see German, English and Russian articles about morphology in that category. We have the language splits almost everywhere, even for this forum, and all administrative pages, Guidelines, Community portal, portals ... so why to lump articles of different languages in one Category? We can handle it like the article names, there can be a category "Syntax", "Syntax (de)", ... --[[User:Sven Siegmund|Sven Siegmund]] 22:24, 12 July 2007 (CEST)
:Using only Glottopedia's default language (English) in categories was a decision we took early on (see [[Glottopedia:Categorization]], second sentence). The idea was that unlike Wikipedia, which has different wikis for each language, Glottopedia has just a single wiki and is thus much more integrated. This is because many users will be multilingual, and will be happy to use articles in multiple languages more or less simulteanously. Of course, it would be necessary to have a search mechanism that allows queries such as "find all morphology articles in German" -- such a mechanism is not standard in Mediawiki and would have to be created as an add-on. I'm not saying that I'm strongly opposed to having the categories in multiple languages as well -- this might also be a good way of organizing Glottopedia, perhaps a better one. In that case, we wouldn't even need the category type "article language", because all categories would be language-specific. I'd like to hear more contributions to this important discussion.--[[User:Haspelmath|Haspelmath]] 09:48, 13 July 2007 (CEST)
::I am perfectly confident with mulitlingual categories as long as one can easily filter them or combine them (Category:Syntax AND Category:De). The question is, how easily this can be implemented and used. If we plan to implement this, we should do it before the categories get too crowded. I see your point, since 99 % of Glottopedia users read German and English, there is no need for strict language separation. Let's give multilingual categories a try. At this time we don't have so many articles, so it is quite easy. '''But we need to update the automatic ABC-zation''' in overwiew of articles in the Category: Look at [[:Category:Syntax]] how the cyrillic characters mess up the layout (third column is longer!) and the "Č" in [[:Category:BIOG]] comes after "Z" rather than after "C". We must fix this somehow --[[User:Sven Siegmund|Sven Siegmund]] 20:45, 13 July 2007 (CEST)

== Consistent orthography ==

I saw Rk's recent renaming of some articles. We should decide how to write the names of the articles. There is sometimes "Quantitative Linguistics" sometimes "quantitative linguistics". I'm not familiar with the English orthography, but I think in the heading all words except for "of" and "the" are written with an initial uppercase letter. The question is how do we do in in Glottopedia. We should decide for one default for english and other orthographical variants should redirect to the default article. --[[User:Sven Siegmund|Sven Siegmund]] 10:58, 14 July 2007 (CEST)

:I propose using "Sentence case" for article titles in English. - [[User:Francis Tyers|Francis Tyers]] 09:37, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
::I agree. Wikipedians are used to that format, and it looks more elegant than "Title Case". —[[User:Antony Green|Tonio]] ([[User talk:Antony Green|tɔk tə mi]]) 23:50, 21 October 2007 (CEST)
:::Yes, of course. I added a comment about this under [[Glottopedia:Dictionary articles/Technical terms#Spelling]]. And I moved "Quantitative Linguistics to "Quantitative linguistics" (assuming that it is a sub-field, not a theoretical approach).--[[User:Haspelmath|Haspelmath]] 08:23, 22 October 2007 (CEST)

== License: CC vs. GFDL ==

is there any reason why the licence is CC-BY-SA and not GFDL or CC-BY-SA +GFDL? Is it to be deliberately incompatible with Wikipedia? - [[User:Francis Tyers|Francis Tyers]] 09:14, 8 October 2007 (CEST)

:No, we thought that CC-BY-SA is compatible with Wikipedia, but that it has advantages over GFDL because the latter was really designed for software, not for encyclopedic content. --[[User:Haspelmath|Haspelmath]] 09:25, 8 October 2007 (CEST)

::The GPL is designed for software, the GFDL designed for documentation, to be honest, the GFDL isn't great, but it is what Wikipedia uses, so if we want to be able to share information with them we should at least dual licence. I've put a notice on my page, but ideally all of the content should be dual-licenced. MediaWiki probably allows this to be done. The CC-BY-SA is iirc not compatible with the GFDL (or so a brief Google search suggests). - [[User:Francis Tyers|Francis Tyers]] 09:33, 8 October 2007 (CEST)

:No, Glottopedia does not want to be incompatible with Wikipedia. The CC-BY-SA license was chosen, because it is freer than GFDL. I don't know whether you have ever tried to publish something that contains GFDL material. This is only possible, if you include the GFDL license. In all other aspects CC-BY-SA and GFDL are compatible, i.e. you can always reuse CC-BY-SA material under GFDL, but not the other way round. Double licensing is possible, of course. So, if there are good arguments for it, such a solution can be taken into consideration. --[[User:Martin Haase|maha]] 00:49, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

::Well, freer is a subjective judgement, the CC-BY-SA has less restrictions than the GFPL that is certain. So CC-BY-SA content can be used under the GPL? I wasn't aware of this. Do you have any links? - [[User:Francis Tyers|Francis Tyers]] 09:28, 11 October 2007 (CEST)
:::Certainly CC-BY-SA images are allowed at Wikipedia. However, it does seem that the text license is incompatible, so we can't just cut-n-paste whole Wikipedia articles here, even with correct attribution. [[User:Antony Green|Antony Green]] 00:26, 21 October 2007 (CEST)

==Examples==

While '<nowiki><pre></pre></nowiki>' tags can be used to create fixed space examples, e.g.

<pre>
This is an example
This be+p3.sg.pres a example
`This is an example'
</pre>

It would be nice to have a plugin which rendered them nicely, like <code>gb4e</code> in LaTeX. Any thoughts or does anyone know of such an example for MediaWiki, I know there is a LaTeX maths renderer, e.g. <math>\sum i+1</math> - [[User:Francis Tyers|Francis Tyers]] 09:58, 10 October 2007 (CEST)

== Language Description ==

The Glottopedia is, so far as I can tell, intensively specialized toward linguistic theory. Has the community behind the Glottopedia decided against descriptive material for specific languages? The status of language classification is closely related and also seems to be omitted. I do find, in the few articles about specific languages that I have looked at, at least a mention of classification. But no way that I can discover to handle cases where classification is disputed.

For example, I recently found myself posting to the Google Group sci.lang the opinion that I rejected the concept of Afro-Asiatic and that I felt it was no more plausible than Nostratic. I may have been misguided but if some outsider read my post where would they find the issue discussed in Glottopedia?

Incidentally the speller checker for this form should be fixed to accept Glottopedia as a correctly spelled word.

David Kleinecke. And lets see if four tildes also works [[User:Dkleinecke|Dkleinecke]] 23:59, 26 October 2007 (CEST)

Glottopedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Sibawayh

Sibawayh

Talk:Portal:List of portals

Talk:Portal:Corpus linguistics

Talk:Portal:Phonetics and phonology

Glottopedia:Forum/Archive 01