Forums

Follow the conventions

Two questions:

(a) Dutch vs. Flemish. e.g. http://www.memrise.com/item/1098572/het-witlof-the-chicory/ - It looks like witloof is Flemish and witlof is Dutch. witloof was the original word there which I've replaced with witlof for the moment, adding witloof as a Dutch alternative. (both the dictionaries I consulted only had witlof, it's just Wikipedia here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicory - and the original word hinting at this Flemish alternate spelling. At the moment alternate spellings (versus completely different words) isn't something that the conventions really address. Suggestions as to how to deal with such cases?

(b) "Basic" versus "Advanced" definitions of a word. Should these be kept as one word, or should the basic version be listed as a parent of the advanced version of the word (in which case they wouldn't share things like mems), or should they be two independent words. Again, not something that I see addressed in the conventions...

Hi Dave (?),

(a) Dutch vs. Flemish. I don't think these two should be mixed in a single entry for multiple reasons: one word can have different meanings; the Flemish version will be accepted as correct to someone learning Dutch; if a Flemish course is created, then Dutch words shouldn't be the 'main' term.

Witlof/Witloof is a perfect example. As you say, 'witlof' is the Dutch word for chicory and 'witloof' is the Flemish version. However, in Flemish this is used to refer to the endive: something different! If I'm learning 'pure' Dutch, I don't want to get a question correct by spelling it 'witloof'. If I'm learning Flemish, I don't want to learn 'witlof' as chicory when I should be learning 'witloof' as endive.

Conclusion: remove the Flemish entirely. If you like, create a brand new entry for 'witloof' and put 'Belg.' in the special properties section. (Although, I would prefer to ask Ben to create a new section -- Flemish -- and add it there so everything is strictly correct.)

(b) This is a tough one. See this photo I made: http://imgur.com/a/NuTtp -- I've cleaned some things up here:

• Removed the part of speech from the English part of the word (there's a dedicated place for this, below).
• Removed the leading underscore from the Dutch alternative (version without definite article).
• Left the 'primary' definition of wetenschap as the only English word in the main section.
• Added all alternative definitions in the English alternatives section (that's exactly what they are: English alternatives).
• Added the leading underscore only to the English alternatives with a definite article.

Now, here's the "Basic" vs. "Advanced" issue. There are two separate words here, in my opinion (and the opinion of the native speakers I've consulted, as well as my handy Van Dale):

• Science (the main use of this word)
• Knowledge

'Learning' and 'scholarship' (the nouns) are, in my opinion, "advanced" versions of 'knowledge' (the noun). Definitely not alternatives for 'science'. This is what I think should be done as next steps for 'de wetenschap':

• Remove 'knowledge', 'learning' and 'scholarship' as English alternatives.
• Create a new word pair: 'de wetenschap' as 'knowledge'.
• Add 'learning' and 'scholarship' as English alternatives to this newly-create word pair.

Do you agree? I think "advanced" words should be set as English alternatives for the "basic" version of the word. This is so that a learner who wants to learn more about a word can easily do so (by selecting 'see more' when learning).

I think the main entry for 'English' should be limited to one definition and one only to aid learning.

Here's a discussion that touches on some of the points in this post: http://www.memrise.com/thread/889036/

Conclusion: Add "advanced" versions of words as English alternatives.

If there are no disagreements, maybe I'll suggest an update to the conventions page and ask Ben to update it.

Umm... what happened to the conventions? (That link is reporting "The page you are trying to get to doesn't exist."). Did someone somehow delete them?

On (a), I'm still a bit confused about this big distinction. In the Dutch wikipedia, searching for witlof or witloof both direct to the same page. If I search for endive on the English wikipedia, I find that "Endive belongs to the chicory genus". In supermarkets here I'll find both either listed as either "endive" or "Belgian endive". I might also find radicchio yet another member of the chicory family, but I've generally found none labelled "chicory". I wonder if the ambiguity is best left in place? (I'm still a bit confused about your answer, but it might be a North America vs. UK English thing - e.g. you're extremely unlikely to find an "aubergine" or a "courgette" in a North American supermarket, whereas if I'm correct those are the primary terms for what I'd dub an eggplant or a zucchini).

Re: (b) By basic versus advanced I was primarily intending their most common usage versus in the more advanced sense, other contexts in which you might find the word used.

Your suggestion of having two versions of "de wetenschap" seems to me as though it's unlikely to word. Without knowing given a prompt for "de wetenschap", wouldn't you expect to get the "correct" answer wrong about 50% of the time even if you know each of the definitions?