Talk:karas

Archived feedback: November 2015–January 2016

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Feedback (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

karas

Hello there! I've been wondering for some time if there might possibly be the implementation or a feature which will arrange the grammatical cases in declension tables so that they are viewable in the standard British ordering? It is always rather difficult for someone who has learnt the traditional nom.>(voc.>)acc.>gen.>dat.>abl.(>loc.) ordering to use the provided tables with accuracy.

Is Lithuanian really so widely taught in the UK that there is a standard British ordering of its cases? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe OP is meaning cases in general, not case order pertaining to Lithuanian Leasnam (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is a standard order for cases in general, is there? I learned one order for Latin, a different order for Greek, and a different one for Sanskrit. And even just for Latin, I know that people who went to other schools learned a different order from me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I was referring to case systems in languages in general. The example I gave was of what, as far as I'm aware, has been the standard order of declension for British students of Latin since the mid-1800s: nom.>(voc.>)acc.>gen.>dat.>abl.(>loc.)

It is interesting to hear from Aɴɢʀ that some schools in Britain teach a different order. That's not something I was aware of! Admittedly, I did not and do not use the traditional declension paradigm, as given above, for my own Latin studies; although I was undoubtedly instructed to use this ordering. Perhaps a teacher might occasionally use his or her own customised declension? Perhaps, also, these cases are due to the use of textbooks printed abroad which are not compatible with our traditional system?

Reading this Wikipedia paragraph a moment ago provided a valuable insight into this puzzle! [1]

Apologies for drifting slightly off course from the original point.

I think we here have two considerations:

1. Can there be agreement on a standardised British declension order for most languages? (Perhaps not, although we can play the 'common usage' card?) (Also: bearing in mind that traditional ordering might differ between languages or perhaps agreeing that the traditional Latin ordering be a base for all?)

2. Would it be possible to implement such a feature as to allow rejigging of given declension tables in the Wiktionary?

Furthermore, it would appear that grammatical declension can be rather a personal topic. Would it be viable to create a function which will allow one (presumably when logged in) to adjust the order for each language to suit one's accustomed learning pattern and needs? Is there agreement that this could be quite a useful feature?

--Vikingr470 (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I wasn't talking about Britain since I grew up in America. The order I learned for Latin is none of the ones mentioned in the Wikipedia article, but NOM-VOC-GEN-DAT-ACC-ABL. I don't think it's helpful to assign one order for all languages, because different cases will pattern together in different languages. In Sanskrit, genitive and ablative are usually put together because they are identical in many declension classes; in Latin, they're never identical (I think) and so there's no need to put them together. If there is a traditional case order found in Lithuanian grammar books, that's the order we should follow here, rather than imposing one country's tradition for Latin on a different language (and on a website that's used in countries all over the world) – especially since Latin doesn't even have an instrumental case, which Lithuanian does. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that different languages use different templates designed for the needs of the different languages by a multitude of different people, and there are subtle (sometimes not-so-subtle) differences in how things are arranged and internally represented. This would make things very difficult for any automated process to work with. Standardizing things so they're the same across languages would be a great deal of work for minimal practical benefit. Then there are a great many languages like Finnish, Turkish and Georgian, where only some of the cases are in the familiar Indo-European paradigm. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Aɴɢʀ, I'm rather confused about your posts so far. I think you've missed the point I was hoping to convey.

As Leasnam suggested, I was talking about cases in general, not in Lithuanian. In fact, it was by complete accident that this post is connected to a Lithuanian word that I was looking up the other day. I didn't know how to provide general feedback to Wiktionary.

I don't understand why you brought up that there is no standardisation in America, as it was made clear that I was aiming to find out if it would be possible for Wiktionary to accommodate the British traditional case orderings. I also made it quite clear in my last post that I doubt ordering the cases in the same way in all languages is an option. I'm not quite sure about your point regarding Latin's lack of instrumental case, as Lithuanian doesn't have the ablative case and that was in my example given.

Overall, I'm very confused after your input. I'd be very much obliged if you could direct me to a page on which I can discuss universal Wiktionary improvement and I'll make the suggestion there to those concerned. --Vikingr470 (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It would appear that Chuck Entz posted just before I did my last. Thank you for your response. Your point "there are subtle (sometimes not-so-subtle) differences in how things are arranged and internally represented" makes sense - perhaps this is the end of the road for this suggestion? Unfortunately, I think your next sentences were influenced by Aɴɢʀ's separate, unrelated responses to my question(s). Would you be able to confirm whether the ability to rearrange lines in a declension table could be implemented?

Thank you all for your time. --Vikingr470 (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No, my next sentences followed from the previous points: many of the declension tables probably could be rearranged by JavaScript after the html has been generated, but there are enough cases like Template:de-decl-adj-table or Template:gu-decl-adj where an automated process would probably scramble things, and the only way to prevent that would be to force declension tables to follow a format that the process could work with- and that would be a lot of work to implement. There are enough examples like Template:ku-decl, everything in Category:Finnish declension-table templates, and the templates in use here, which are full of cases you never learned in school that it becomes hard to justify imposing standards across many languages in order to make the languages with the Indo-European-type case systems easier for some people to see. For further reference, feel free to browse through Category:Declension-table templates by language (which is probably far from complete).

That said, if you know Javascript, you can create a User:Vikingr47/common.js file that will be executed by your browser when you're logged in and viewing Wiktionary, and you can try out different methods for yourself. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. That makes a lot of sense! I shall probably have a go with the Javascript idea. Much appreciated. --Vikingr470 (talk) 7:51 am, Today (UTC−8)

FYI, the Finnish declension tables reflect the standard order of the cases in Finnish grammar books. I would guess the situation is the same with other languages. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)