This post has been deleted.

Mul klo riik

Foduiiz

How many more opinions do we need to put this idea forward? I know! Get a strawpoll on the front page!

Or a poll system? Eh Paarthurnax? On a more serious note, I do beleive adding more parts of speech would save many people time, and confusion. You wouldn't beleive how much I struggle to learn these words. If it were a grammar thing, I would have gotten it at first glance. I am pro this change, how long would it take to reformat this?

It would take some work. Something that simplifies it is that, essentially all invented verbs would be strong verbs by default, and then we'll delete their related noun. Same with adjectives.

One question that remains is how the search page will be reformatted. I suppose while searching Dovahzul, the options could be the above, and then it could switch to "verb," "adjective," etc. while searching English.

Have a check/uncheck option to include strong/weak verbs?  Have the English searcher accept the options for either strong or weak verbs/adj as it's simplified equivilent seems a better idea.

This thread has been inactive for a while. Are we still going through with it? I'd hate to see such a great idea die. :(

Aaliizah

This thread has been inactive for a while. Are we still going through with it? I'd hate to see such a great idea die. :(

Thanks for bringing this back up! I'd love to go with the idea, but it'll take a lot of work to implement. I'd want to change how the dictionary is set up. Right now, word definitions are a line of text. For example:

laan (verb) Want, Request, Question, Ask

I'd want to change this to something like:

laan (strong verb)

1. (verb) to want, ask, or request
2. (noun) want, request, question

This would take a lot of work to set up. I'll have time to figure that out in the near future.

Sounds good! Is there anything we can do to help you or do we just have to wait while you go it alone?

Most of it I'll need to do alone, but maybe I can find a way for you all to help out. I'll need to think on it some more!

Okay. Let us know if there's anything we can do!

Okay, I think I've finally figured out the logistics of how to make this happen. Before I was thinking of it in terms of a separate table, but I don't think it needs to be that complicated. There'll be a separate text field for the definition list, separated by a forward slash, let's say. So for a word like aak "guide," it might look like:

v. to guide/n. guide; guidance

And then this'll be parsed and displayed like so:

v. to guide
n. guide; guidance

Another example with kinzon "sharp":

adj. sharp/adv. sharply/v. to sharpen/n. sharpness

And then this would become:

adj. sharp
adv. sharply
v. to sharpen
n. sharpness

The good news is this won't take much technical work to set up. Either way, it'll still require a lot of manual work. Someone will need to go through the dictionary and fill out these definitions for each word. If you'd like to help out Aaziilah, I'd be more than happy to have the extra hands.

Oh, absolutely! I would love to help with that. I'm so excited that this is finally being executed! 

Would we be doing this with all four canon levels or just a select few? And how exactly would I change the information in the entry? Would you have to give me access to the entries? Or would I just go through each entry and then send you the information rather than changing it myself? And how should we split up the work? Krosis, unslaad laansemindok. Onikaan saraan ko drem, nuz zu'u ni onik. ;)

I'd promote you to Moderator for this task. I was thinking we'd start with just canon words first, and we could divide it by letter. So I could start from A, you could start at Z, and we could meet in the middle. I'll be able to provide more specific instructions when we get there.

Oh, and for words (I'm starting with canon for now in my own document) that already have translations for a specific part of speech, should I include that part of speech in the definition of the more vague word or just leave it out? For example, I'm at aak and I'm wondering whether I should include the noun "service" in the definition or leave it to ahmik.

Oh, wow! Lot zin. Thank you! I'm assuming this would just be temporary, yes?

And that sounds great! I'll get working on the Zs in my document and work my way up until I have the access.

For a word like aam, that'll be considered a "weak verb" since there's an explicit word for the noun "service."

In your document, feel free to expand definitions as you think fit, but for the first pass of entries, we'll just write what's currently in the definition. For example, right now kinzon is only listed to mean "sharp," so I'll leave that one be. After the first pass, then we can go back and consider words to delete and definitions to move around.

Okay. So, to summarize and clarify, this is what I understand:

1. I will change each entry's part of speech to correlate with our new system--strong verbs, weak adjectives, etc.
2. I will not add any definitions to any entries, which we will do later.

For example, this is what might come up in the search bar:

Od

     (strong verb) Snow

     Canon

And this is what might come up in the actual entry:

This is where I'm kind of unclear. How exactly will I parse out the definitions? I understand that I'm not adding any definitions. So would that mean that I would only list the noun definition even though being a strong verb would, by definition, make it both a noun and a verb? This is how I think I should do this:

n. snow

v. to snow

Is any of this right? What did I get wrong? Is there more to it? I want to make sure I completely understand what I'm doing.