Talk:mąʼii bighą́ąʼgi hadzíjiní
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Eirikr in topic RFV discussion: May–July 2020
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
- mąʼii bighą́ąʼgi hadzíjiní
- tó wónaanídę́ę́ʼ mąʼii
- I'd imagine that there would be some verifiable term for "jackal" in Navajo, used in translations of the Bible and the like, but maybe not this one...
- Nahatʼeʼiitsoh Bikéyahdę́ę́ʼ łééchąąʼí ałchiní
- Shádiʼááhdę́ę́ʼ hodíłchʼil mąʼii
- Náátsʼózídę́ę́ʼ mąʼiiłchííʼ
- Naakaii Łizhiní Bikéyahdę́ę́ʼ łééchąąʼí ałchiní
- Naakaii Łizhiní Bikéyahdę́ę́ʼ mąʼiiłchííʼ
- mąʼiitsoh bikʼos bineʼdę́ę́ʼ łizhinígíí
- tábąąh mąʼiiniiʼí
- mąʼiiłgaii - yes, Arctic foxes can be found in North America but you get what I mean.
Logic as in the discussion for the Navajo for "side-striped jackal". --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Is there anyone reading this with any expertise in Navajo? If not, we have no Navajo-editing community, and no one qualified to identify sources acceptable for attestation, as described at Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Number_of_citations:
...the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention,...
- As I noted in that earlier thread, I am concerned that none of the parties active in these threads are familiar with the language.
- I see belatedly an addition on that thread from Metaknowledge about CFI. For LDLs, where the only modern online corpus of significant size may in fact be that language's Wikipedia, and where the editors of that Wikipedia appear to be native speakers, our opposition to any attestation using Wikipedia sites seems obstructive. I also note that Young and Morgan's work is now decades old, and the cultural context has changed a good deal since then. I do not think we can view their work as the definitive authority on the state of modern Navajo. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Eirikr: You haven't made a clear proposal, but as best I can tell, you think we should use Wikipedia as a source for Wiktionary. That is not allowed by current policy, and I doubt a vote to change that policy would pass. Wikipedia has a mandate to cover all noteworthy concepts, but not all languages have a word for all those concepts. As a result, even large Wikipedias like pt.wiki routinely create new words to document these concepts. However, we are trying to document language as it is actually used, not how Wikipedians wish it were used, even if they are native speakers (a claim for which I cannot find evidence, by the way). Sometimes descriptivism means admitting that some languages don't have attested words for animals that live far away, just like how European languages may not have a word for a small town in Chile — even though their Wikipedias have entries for that town! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- People writing in a language are how it is actually used, even if that writing is on Wikipedia. Descriptivism has nothing to do with excluding a certain large body of text from consideration. With any language without a severely bounded corpus, we can't say that the language doesn't have an attested word for something, and Navaho certainly does not impress as a language that we have a good sample of the language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- I don't propose that Wikipedia be allowable as an attestation source for all languages. Many languages, like English, have huge corpora with sizable chunks thereof accessible online. Wikipedia for these languages is just another of a very many possible sources for attestation.
- However, I think we must be cognizant that Wikipedia may be the only significant online corpus for some languages. In those specific cases, I think we should consider allowing Wikipedia as an attestation source. As I was trying to argue, and as Prosfilaes better stated, text on Wikipedia is an example of language being used. For some LDLs, that is exactly what we have trouble finding anywhere else.
- (I like Chuck's proposal over in the Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2020/May#Evidence_for_Less-Documented_Languages thread, but I believe that is an additional / separate approach, orthogonal to this thread.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm still looking for an actual proposal. As far as I can tell, your current idea is that anyone, including non-native speakers, can edit nv.wiki, and if they then edit en.wikt to add the word they just created at nv.wiki, that is perfectly kosher. Quite frankly, that seems like asking for trouble. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Just adding words because their existence is 'obvious' is also kosher. Now, how long would a nonsense word survive in that Wikipedia? Once it's gone, the nonsense word is immediately vulnerable to RfV. If nonsense is being removed fairly rapidly from that Wikipedia, then one can apply stability requirements to the existence of the word in articles. Thinking out the guidelines or rules will be tricky - one would hope that common sense would solve the issues, but perhaps that is too optimistic. Useful nonce words will be harder to eliminate - perhaps a requirement for three 'independent' articles would help.
- Other people's nonce words are probably valid for translations, if one is answering the question, "How does one say <x> in Navajo." Is not a comprehensible answer valid if no-one has a better word?
- There may well be wikipedias which have so little editing that they are untrustworthy. --RichardW57 (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think that terms found on Wikipedias should be permitted as translations, but not usable to cite terms (so no entries based entirely on Wikipedia) except in exceptional cases. It might also be good to have some sort of templatized notice that could tell users that a given translation comes from a non-professional source and/or that it is not citable in published text. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Non-professionality could be difficult to substantiate. It appears that some people are paid to edit wikipedias. Incidentally, some bible translations could well be as unreliable as a wikipedia. I've read that the *old* Northern Thai translation of the New Testament was full of words and idioms clearly taken from Siamese in the hope that they would get the message across. I think what we're looking for is something like 'attestation insecure'. The
{{LDL}}template already fulfils this rôle for entries. - Are translations allowed to use words that can't be linked to Wiktionary lemmas? I assumed that red links in translations merely meant that no-one had got round to entering the lemmas. Would a word's needing grammatical information make it an exceptional case? --RichardW57 (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Non-professionality could be difficult to substantiate. It appears that some people are paid to edit wikipedias. Incidentally, some bible translations could well be as unreliable as a wikipedia. I've read that the *old* Northern Thai translation of the New Testament was full of words and idioms clearly taken from Siamese in the hope that they would get the message across. I think what we're looking for is something like 'attestation insecure'. The
- I think that terms found on Wikipedias should be permitted as translations, but not usable to cite terms (so no entries based entirely on Wikipedia) except in exceptional cases. It might also be good to have some sort of templatized notice that could tell users that a given translation comes from a non-professional source and/or that it is not citable in published text. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm still looking for an actual proposal. As far as I can tell, your current idea is that anyone, including non-native speakers, can edit nv.wiki, and if they then edit en.wikt to add the word they just created at nv.wiki, that is perfectly kosher. Quite frankly, that seems like asking for trouble. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Eirikr: You haven't made a clear proposal, but as best I can tell, you think we should use Wikipedia as a source for Wiktionary. That is not allowed by current policy, and I doubt a vote to change that policy would pass. Wikipedia has a mandate to cover all noteworthy concepts, but not all languages have a word for all those concepts. As a result, even large Wikipedias like pt.wiki routinely create new words to document these concepts. However, we are trying to document language as it is actually used, not how Wikipedians wish it were used, even if they are native speakers (a claim for which I cannot find evidence, by the way). Sometimes descriptivism means admitting that some languages don't have attested words for animals that live far away, just like how European languages may not have a word for a small town in Chile — even though their Wikipedias have entries for that town! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note that the above terms (the ones I looked at, anyway) were created by Stephen G. Brown, a well-respected user who was involved with translating Navajo. So they may well be the standard terms used in translation. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Andrew Sheedy: See the last discussion... Stephen had a history of creating Navajo entries that did not meet CFI, and stopped editing Navajo after being frustrated that such entries were in contravention of policy. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- As I understood it, Stephen was more frustrated by the inflexible nature of CFI when it comes to LDLs. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Andrew Sheedy: See the last discussion... Stephen had a history of creating Navajo entries that did not meet CFI, and stopped editing Navajo after being frustrated that such entries were in contravention of policy. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- For Navajo, a single mention in an appropriate source is enough for attestation, a rather lenient standard. Current CFI rejects using Wikipedia for attestation. Given current CFI, this RFV seems indicated for fail. The good news for those interested in Wikipedia-only Navajo terms is that they can still be found in Wikipedia. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure how that's "good news" for English readers -- the Navajo Wikipedia is written in Navajo, and is broadly inaccessible for anyone illiterate in that language. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- All RFV-deleted. Even Eirikr seems to ultimately admit that Wikipedia-only coinages made by people not known to be native speakers do not meet our standards. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- I generally have high respect for you, Meta, but please don't put words in my mouth. I acknowledged earlier in this thread that the CFI policy as currently written does not allow any Wikipedia citations for purposes of attestation. I stated before, and still believe, that this is overly restrictive for LDLs. A couple ideas grew out of this thread as possible ways to revise CFI, but neither have come to fruition as of yet. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)