Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 September 9

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 9

A Hangul pronunciation question: pronouncing the clusters ㄹㅅ, ㄹㅎ and ㄹㅌ in batchim position?

The file to the right, inserted at article Hangul, seems to claim (bottom, section "The Final") that the clusters ㄹㅅ, ㄹㅎ and ㄹㅌ are, in batchim position, prounounced ㄹ. For example that the syllables 읉, 읋 and 읈 must, in isolation, be pronounced like 을. But as far as I know that is not correct. What I know is that those clusters must be prounounced ㄷ. So, for example, that the syllables just given must be pronounced as 읃. So who is wrong? The author of that file or me? Can someone knowledgeable help with this? Thanks. Contact Basemetal here 04:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The file matches my understanding and what I find in various references. There could be variations in different dialects; see some of the examples here [1]. Where does your information come from? If it's from family members it might not be 100% standard Korean. --Amble (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You're very certainly right. No, it's not from family members but from "informal informants" (mostly Korean-Japanese). But it's most certainly not my "informal informants" who should be blamed for this but my imperfect memory, the fact it was so long ago and my sorry lack of practice, which has brought to zero whatever little Korean I might once have known. There's two other things in the file I don't agree with. Could you check your references again if they happen to be handy: as far as I can remember the double consonant ㅉ is never found in batchim position, yet the file says it is. What do you know? Also for the clusters ㄹㅂ and ㄹㅍ the file gives (again, in batchim position and in isolation) the pronunciation ㄹ for the first and ㅂ for the second whereas what I can remember is it is ㅂ for both. Again, what do you say? Contact Basemetal here 20:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't even type ㅉ in final position, it gets automatically converted to 아ㅉ. I don't think it's possible. As for ㄹㅂ and ㄹㅍ, 여덟 is yeodeol, not yeodeop, but the Google books link above says that yeodeop does exist in some dialects. I wouldn't be surprised if Korean-Japanese speakers of Korean pronounced some things differently from the modern South Korean standard. --Amble (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again. Contact Basemetal here 21:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

PS: I think I've found the source of the file's author's mistake regarding ㅉ: he'd probably meant to write ㅊ. If you check his list of allowed batchim he's only got 13 simple consonants instead of the 14 that should be there, with the ㅊ missing. Instead he inserted ㅉ. I bet that's what happened. Contact Basemetal here 21:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that would make sense! Can you update the file? --Amble (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You're exactly right: the SVG version was a conversion of File:Hangeul_New_Version.jpg, which has ㅊ instead of ㅉ in that position. --Amble (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it, but someone should check my work since I know no Korean. The SVG version could use some additional work on the typography, especially in the starred box where the spacing is badly broken. -- BenRG (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure how to fix the typography; it looks worse in the bitmapped preview than it does in the SVG. I guess the SVG must have some quirk in how it's aligning the text that causes problems for the rendering used for the thumbnail and preview? --Amble (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hungarian translation check?

It appears that Ferenc Kiss (wrestler) has died - at least according to an anonymous post, [2] and to a source [3] cited in the Hungarian Wikipedia article [4]. Google translate seems to confirm it, but I'd be happier if someone familiar with the language could check it if possible, and maybe see if there are other sources. And maybe look at expanding our article using the sources from Hungarian WP if they get the chance? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems correct. I've cited the original MTI news report, which is what every other news website repeats anyway. – b_jonas 10:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Pertinent question

The following is admittedly a bit naive as languages differ so much, but I'm giving it a go anyway. In the Finnish language there is a word (asiallinen) that can approximately mean the following: matter-of-fact, relevant, pertinent, "to the point", "based on the facts" – not improper, irrelevant or groundless in any way. I'm trying to find an English word that would best convey something similar when applied to edits, comments and contributions people make on the Internet. Would pertinent do the job? I'll give you an example: people who edit Wikipedia articles can make roughly two kind of contributions: pertinent and counterproductive. Is the word pertinent too formal? --Pxos (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think pertinent is fine, but if you want a more familiar word, appropriate might fit. In the context of Wikipedia constructive might do as well. --ColinFine (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree pertinent is fine. Some other choices: apropos, apt, on point. Perhaps fitting or felcitous. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate, suitable, apposite, and germane are other possibilities. Apposite seems closest in sense to what you want, but it may seem too "formal" to you. Deor (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

...and too obscure. StuRat (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Apposite is actually probably the best single word for the purpose, but it's also a little on the, let's say, "less well-known" side. I'd probably go with appropriate, suitable or on point. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'd probably go with SemanticMantis's apt if I wanted a more familiar word. Deor (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you want to say that the edit is related to the topic or helpful ? (It's possible to be related but not helpful, like, if the topic is diamonds: "I think diamonds are pretty".) StuRat (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

This is the problem with languages. The Finnish word means "connected to the topic at hand", and "proper and decent" at the same time. For example, if I asked a friend whether I should borrow a lawn-mower from a neighbour that he knows better, a "proper, or apt" answer could be: "No, he's a recluse and will probably close the door on you". It's not very polite but it explains the reason as a matter-of-fact. An "improper, or not-apt" answer could be: "No, he's gay and we don't take stuff from deviant people". The second answer is a valid reason as well – as far as my imaginary friend is concerned, but it's not a "suitable" answer. Perhaps the gap between two different languages cannot be crossed by trying to make a bridge with just one word. --Pxos (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

ESL editors with garbled English

Thread retitled from "I a small wiki mod. How should I deal with ESL editors who can't write coherent English?".

Summary: How should mods diplomatically deal with editors whose English is so poor that their good faith edits aren't constructive.

Edit: I am still interested in your opinions! I will be checking back on this thread until it gets archived.

I moderate a small English-language wiki that gets maybe 20-150 edits a day. The website is one of the few wikis on its particular topic in any language, and the only one thriving in English. It's pretty common to get editors who are ESL. Most ESLers contribute at a level appropriate for their English skill; however, we have some editors who can't write intelligible prose yet contribute long paragraphs. To give you an idea, imagine sentences like "When Mike show ask Sarah told Mike to examine the puzzle he consider the puzzle irreverent to the mystery where John note that the puzzle somehow usually with to a buried treasure" that run on for whole paragraphs. The problem is serious, not just a few tense mistakes or poor word choices that detract from the experience but not the comprehension.

I have two feelings about this. It's good because they are filling in gaps, but it's bad because it simply isn't usable by English speakers who are the wiki's audience. I tried regularly correcting some of these sections, but to be honest I'm afraid I was just encouraging the incomprehensible editors to write more. (I can't say for sure because it's normal for people to edit in bursts.) It's also incredibly time consuming and demotivating.

The admin and the mod team have modded most of the regular editors who are sociable and levelheaded, so there aren't more mods to be had in the short term. None of the mods (or regular editors) likes fixing extremely bad English. I have monitored the progression of several of these bad-English sections over several years hoping they would eventually be fixed, but for every one that was overwritten or fixed, 5+ remain uncorrected or were outright deleted by passing IPs. I suspect that it is simply too much work for a casual editor to deal with. I'm worried that blocks of incomprehensible English might actually be worse than a stub with blank sections when it comes to attracting passerby edits.

At this point, I use whatever legitimate excuse I can to delete or comment out what can't be easily salvaged, without informing the user why their section was removed. It gets the job done quickly. I don't want to keep doing that. It's not transparent or kind to these ESL editors; they deserve that much for making long good faith edits.

I suspect this isn't a problem isolated to the wiki I mod. What has worked for you all? Should the group strategy be to let the incomprehensible English stand as is, or should mods delete it as it appears? How do you diplomatically get the point across that maybe a user should focus on other areas that are more suited to their English skill level? 45.37.108.163 (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Without discouraging any other answers here, I would encourage you to repeat this question at simple:Wikipedia:Simple talk. Simple English Wikipedia, which is a distinct project from this one (English Wikipedia), is specifically designed to encourage writing of English that is easier for people to understand, whether because they are schoolchildren or because they are ESL. There may be some additional and different advice available from there. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! 45.37.108.163 (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I am revising the heading of this section from I a small wiki mod. How should I deal with ESL editors who can't write coherent English? to ESL editors with garbled English, in harmony with WP:TPOC: Section headings. Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

These articles might be helpful.

• How to Overcome an ESL Barrier—Houston Chronicle
• Challenges of Effective Communication in an ESL Workplace—Houston Chronicle

—Wavelength (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid these articles weren't helpful to my specific situation, but thanks for spending the time to dig them up. I did learn something from them in the end! 45.37.108.163 (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to start drama but it's rude to change the headers of someone's question without discussion. It says as much on the WP:TPOC page. To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. I phrased it as a short summary because it got the core of the problem across clearly and briefly, so I am not happy with the current vague title. 45.37.108.163 (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Since the question was about garbled English, and the question itself was in garbled English, changing it to something readable makes sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It's possible there might be a misunderstanding here. Could you clarify why you believe the question itself was in garbled English? 45.37.108.163 (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The part that said "I a small wiki mod" is not good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Please explain to us foreigners what ESL stands for. English at S--t Level? --Pxos (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

English as a Second Language - Rojomoke (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The best idea I can think of - right now, is: to add - above the flawed section - a special template, stating something like: "This section is written in [very] bad grammar. If you are confident enough in your fluency of English, please feel free to improve the section".

If you don't know how to create the template, you can ask others to do this - here.

Hope this helps. HOOTmag (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Does Template:Copy edit section or Template:Copy edit not serve your purposes? --Jayron32 13:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course, your suggestion can't be ruled out, but please notice that the template you've suggested can be used for every purpose - and not only for the OP's purpose. HOOTmag (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

If text needs to be flagged as having bad grammar, does it matter why it has bad grammar? It needs fixing. --Jayron32 20:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

OP here, I can whip up a specific template no problem. Thanks for your suggestions! 45.37.108.163 (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Our essay at WP:Competence is required may provide some perspective. If you aren't doing it already, you need to engage the editors directly because the first step is making it clear that there is a problem. It's very common for people learning a new language to know just enough to get themselves into trouble - they legitimately may not know that their English is incomprehensible. Perhaps there are other functions that they could be directed to? In contrast to some of the suggestions above, templating the section is not what I would suggest; revert the edit and alert the editor. Keeping a mass of garbled text serves no purpose. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

OP here, this is a pretty good summary of what I think is going on and what I have started doing. For one of the editors in question, the situation came to a sudden head just after I posted this. The user seemed to think I was taking issue with the facts he was posting, not his language skills. I pretty much had to explain that his English was no good, which was why I was reverting. 45.37.108.163 (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This may sound harsh, but I would recommend deleting content that is incomprehensible. It is a detriment to your wiki. Even if there is good faith, its effect is no better than vandalism. When editors hit the edit button, I would present them with a message along these lines: "We welcome contributions that are relevant and written in clear English. We regret that we must delete contributions that are not clear." Sure, people's feelings will be hurt when their efforts to write English are deleted, but it is unfair to others to leave gibberish in place, and you don't want to encourage such people to keep contributing. Marco polo (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion! There seems to be some consensus forming. 45.37.108.163 (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Ideally, any wiki (including any of the Wikimedia wikis) would have, as a requirement for registration and contribution, a minimum score in a dialectally neutral proficiency test in the language of the wiki. For your wiki, you might choose to administer such a test on the wiki or via e-mail.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, that sounds like more work than the original problem and also not very welcoming. A lot of our content comes from drive by IPs with good intentions, and most of our current regular users started as repeat drive-by IPs. I don't want to discourage them by making them take a test first. Thanks for your suggestion though! 45.37.108.163 (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we please avoid the use of "drive-by", particularly in reference to editors with good intentions? It's come to refer to trolls and vandals and others with negative intentions, by analogy with "drive-by shooters". If you mean unregistered users, it's better to call them that, or "anons". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and while I'm guessing we won't stop its use with respect to trolls and vandals and such—and after a fashion such might even deserve it—let's not use it for regular, everyday IP/unregistered users who contribute constructively (or try to). StevenJ81 (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I am sufficiently detached from the mediawiki community that our jargon appears to have drifted apart. I'll try to remember to call them anons in the future while here. 45.37.108.163 (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Is "IPs" on the approved list, Jack? Just want to avoid offending someone's sensibilities. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not any sort of oracle about which words are approved. I just have a view about "drive-by" in this context (a personal view, but one that I know others share). Fwiw, I have no issue with "IPs". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)