menu
Tatoeba
language
Register Log in
language English
menu
Tatoeba

chevron_right Register

chevron_right Log in

Browse

chevron_right Show random sentence

chevron_right Browse by language

chevron_right Browse by list

chevron_right Browse by tag

chevron_right Browse audio

Community

chevron_right Wall

chevron_right List of all members

chevron_right Languages of members

chevron_right Native speakers

search
clear
swap_horiz
search
lipao {{ icon }} keyboard_arrow_right

Profile

keyboard_arrow_right

Sentences

keyboard_arrow_right

Vocabulary

keyboard_arrow_right

Reviews

keyboard_arrow_right

Lists

keyboard_arrow_right

Favorites

keyboard_arrow_right

Comments

keyboard_arrow_right

Comments on lipao's sentences

keyboard_arrow_right

Wall messages

keyboard_arrow_right

Logs

keyboard_arrow_right

Audio

keyboard_arrow_right

Transcriptions

translate

Translate lipao's sentences

lipao's messages on the Wall (total 15)

lipao lipao September 6, 2015, edited September 6, 2015 September 6, 2015 at 6:43:55 AM UTC, edited September 6, 2015 at 6:45:12 AM UTC link Permalink

Although, to question 1 again, there were sentences that seemed to me that they are quite likely to be understood, but I still marked them as "not OK", because they contained something I thought of as of a "real sin against the grammar", even (or, maybe, the more) if it was something small and easy to overlook. (For those who know Esperanto, this is an example: https://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/1221501.)

lipao lipao September 6, 2015, edited September 6, 2015 September 6, 2015 at 6:13:13 AM UTC, edited September 6, 2015 at 6:20:01 AM UTC link Permalink

To answer Tommy's questions:

1. Grammatically incorrect sentences that are, however, still very likely to be understood, or, on the contrary, sentences that may be completely correct, but just sound too odd.
2. Yes. This is the case of sentences that are correct, a little bit odd – yet still not odd enough for me to mark them as "unsure".
3. As I say for question 2 – I skip them.
4. I too think that the term "collection" probably isn't the best word we could have chosen. (If nobody comes with a better idea, why don't we just simply say "ratings"?)

Also, for the thing Raizin mentioned: I do not only check if the sentence is correct in itself, but also if it is a good translation (of other sentences in the languages I know). An example may be this Esperanto sentence (https://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/1130491), which is grammatically correct, but (as its author and defender claims) only in certain context – and in the context of its translations here it is incorrect.

lipao lipao August 29, 2015 August 29, 2015 at 5:24:00 PM UTC link Permalink

If you're going to implement this… please make it optional. Also, I don't really think you should have the option to translate a sentence without seeing its existing translations; otherwise you'll create duplicates very often.

lipao lipao August 12, 2015 August 12, 2015 at 5:16:59 PM UTC link Permalink

+1

To be honest, I'm not a big fan of this feature either.

lipao lipao August 11, 2015, edited August 11, 2015 August 11, 2015 at 9:34:05 AM UTC, edited August 11, 2015 at 9:36:00 AM UTC link Permalink

So here's one minor issue with the ratings, if it wasn't mentioned yet: after a sentence has been deleted because it was a duplicate, shouldn't be the ratings carried automatically over the twin sentence?
(See https://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/2968619.)

lipao lipao August 4, 2015 August 4, 2015 at 7:00:41 AM UTC link Permalink

Sorry. I'll remember that.

lipao lipao August 3, 2015, edited August 3, 2015 August 3, 2015 at 4:33:26 PM UTC, edited August 3, 2015 at 4:38:58 PM UTC link Permalink

Sacredceltic, ĝis kiom mi komprenas la francan, mi konsentas (kaj kunsentas) kun vi; ankaŭ mi multe malŝatas la anglan lingvon (ne la lingvon mem, sed ĝian malignan kaj malbeligan influon sur aliaj lingvoj). (Kvankam tute same mi malŝatintus ankaŭ la francan, se mi vivus antaŭ ducent jaroj, kaj tute same mi malŝatos iun ajn nacian lingvon, kiu entrudos sin en la pozicion de deviga internacia komunikilo.)

Tamen mi vidas nenion malbonan en la proponitaĵo. Tatoeba estas, laŭ mi, korpuso celanta trafi la (nuntempan) staton de ĉiu lingvo, kaj se en la nuntempa stato de tiu aŭ tiu lingvo abundas esprimoj rekte prenitaj el la angla aŭ grave influitaj de ĝi, tiam vi ja povas lamenti, sed tio estas fakto. Tatoeba, cetere, estas en multaj direktoj konformigita al eksterlingvaj lernantoj — kaj kial *mensogi* al iu lernanto, ke tiu aŭ tiu esprimo ne uziĝas en la lingvo, kaj trudi al li purismaĵojn, se tiu esprimo, eĉ se malbela pruntaĵo el fremda lingvo, normale uziĝas de la plimulto de la parolantoj?

Kiel vi skribis: se oni volas bonan (do laŭ vi, sufiĉe "puran") lingvan stilon (ĉu en minoritata lingvo, ĉu eĉ ekzemple en la angla mem), oni iras en la bibliotekon kaj studas bonajn verkistojn de la koncerna lingvo; tian bonan stilon oni certe ne kaptos en iu lingva kurso nek sur la strato; tie oni kaptos la stilon de la amaso. Kaj la amaso bedaŭrinde ne konsistas el bonaj verkistoj.

Sed ĉu vi tion ŝatas aŭ ne, Tatoeba pli similas lingvan kurson aŭ eĉ la straton mem, ol bibliotekon de bonaj verkistoj.

Kaj fine, vi skribas, ke ĉi tio estas nigra tago por la franca interreto… mi mem ne havas iajn grandajn iluziojn pri la influeco de Tatoeba. Eĉ se ĉi tie la angla venkegus, la plimulton da homojn tie ekstere tio probable tute ne interesos.

Tatoeba estas ilo por montri al interesitoj, kiel oni ĝenerale uzas certan lingvon praktike, kaj ĝi cedas al la ĝenerala uzo.

August 3, 2015, edited August 3, 2015 August 3, 2015 at 3:15:27 PM UTC, edited August 3, 2015 at 8:05:11 PM UTC link Permalink
warning

The content of this message goes against our rules and was therefore hidden. It is displayed only to admins and to the author of the message.

lipao lipao June 26, 2015 June 26, 2015 at 12:53:37 PM UTC link Permalink

OK. I think there’s nothing I could say more about this theme. Maybe someday in the future there will be something done with the Latin corpus here, but the main thing is that the corpus works now and it works well (although, as I’ve said, I wouldn’t really mind if non-standard orthographies weren’t used here), so why to do some changes…

Anyway, thank you for sharing your opinion, Impersonator.

lipao lipao June 25, 2015, edited June 25, 2015 June 25, 2015 at 5:14:04 AM UTC, edited June 25, 2015 at 5:16:15 AM UTC link Permalink

Well, I’ve explained this badly. I didn’t mean the system would ADD the macrons, because such a script would be very hard, if not impossible to write. I meant that the human contributor would write the sentence with the diacritics, which would then run through the transliteration:

a → a
ā → a
j → i

and so on.
The simplified version would be displayed, while the original (with the diacritics) would be kept for those who would want to see it.

Of course, you could still add sentences without diacritics, which would probably be the thing most contributors would continue to do, but I think it would be nice to have this possibility to indicate vowel lenghts and stuff in a non-violent way.

As for diaeresis… oh, I wasn’t aware of the fact that aĕ oĕ sequences are impossible; then, of course, diaeresis makes no sence, if one has macrons.

And the unification problem — I believe we really should have some unity in the corpus as I find this random stumbling over non-standard-orthography sentences not really funny but annoying. Not because it would be any harder to read them, but because it just looks odd in comparsion with all the other Latin-script sentences.
But this is just my opinion.

lipao lipao June 24, 2015, edited June 24, 2015 June 24, 2015 at 4:19:27 PM UTC, edited June 24, 2015 at 4:23:43 PM UTC link Permalink

So as a discussion about transliterating has started, I would like to bring up another thing: diacritics for Latin. (I mean Latin the Language itself.)

Now I’m pretty sure this must have been discussed here on Tatoeba already, but it’s quite annoying to search back the discussion, so let me re-open this again and you can eventually tell me why this is not a good idea.

I know Latin is almost always (in all serious texts) written with no diacritics, and this is good — and I don’t want Tatoeba to go against the flow. (And I also know that many Latin speakers and learners nowadays are used not to really care about vowel lengths and stuff, but I am one of those who actually try to have it all correct.) But it is quite annoying for a learner to have to search for every single word and every word form in the dictionary to check the vowel lengths — and after all, isn’t Tatoeba directed just towards language-learners? So I think there should be a possibility to display a sentence with the diacritics — in the way the latin transcriptions for some languages that use non-latin scripts are displayed.

And it could really work just like the transliteration systems we have already (but this one being much much simpler): You’d just input the sentence with the diacritics, then it would be transliterated (simplified) to a version without special characters and that version would be displayed normally — however, if you had activated this option in your profile, the “source code” would be displayed below too.

So it could look like this:
http://i.imgur.com/OJXYD3n.png

There of course would be the question of which diacritics to use, because we don’t want it to look like Vietnamese (no offence) — I would vote just for macrons and J’s (that is not really a diacritic, but a useful thing as well), as shows the picture, and diaeresis (oë) wherever needed — but we could discuss this later.

Then, such a transliteration tool for Latin could also serve as a basis for things like this: https://tatoeba.org/epo/wall/sh...message_22163, although that would be just icing on the cake.

(BTW, note that right now there are all the different ways of writing Latin present in the corpus. Most of the sentences are “normal” (no diacritics, but lower/upper case distinction and punctuation), but you can also find macronised sentences and some sentences that imitate the ancient “monumental” writing.)

lipao lipao June 19, 2015, edited June 19, 2015 June 19, 2015 at 12:49:37 PM UTC, edited June 19, 2015 at 1:00:16 PM UTC link Permalink

Ich wollte nur sagen, dass die Schwierigkeit der Schreibung nicht ganz nutzlos ist — denn eines Schreibung kann ein bisschen zeigen, was für eine Person der Schreiber ist. Wenn ich, zum Beispiel, in meiner Muttersprache Tschechisch jemanden sehe, der die Kommas nicht richtig schreibt (wir haben ganz strikte Regeln für diese Sache, man könnte sogar „sinnlos“ strikte sagen), denke ich: „Na ja, dieser passte in der Schule nicht auf — und zwar vielleicht nicht nur in Tschechischstunden, sondern wahrscheinlich auch in anderen Fächern — oder ist er vielleicht zu faul oder im Gegenteil zu überhastig (existiert dieses Wort?) oder endlich so sprachlieblos, dass er nicht an die Regeln halten kann…“

Ich hätte kein Problem mit der Rechtschreibreform von euch; die Regeln über dem Buchstabe ß, „kennen lernen“ statt „kennenlernen“, „wie viel“ statt „wieviel“ — was gefällt dir nicht (wenn wir die Tradition überlassen)? Machen diese Veränderungen die Ortographie nicht nur mehr konsistent und logisch?

Wenn die Leute vom Duden vorschlügen, dass man soll immer „f“ für „v“ schreiben, dann das würde eine Sache für Zweifeln. Sie sind aber meistens Personen, die dem Problem gut verstehen.

Aber es ist alles nur eine Sache des Geschmacks — und der natürlichen Abneigung oder Zuneigung für Autoritäten.

lipao lipao June 17, 2015, edited June 17, 2015 June 17, 2015 at 7:54:40 PM UTC, edited June 17, 2015 at 8:05:12 PM UTC link Permalink

Mensch, ich stimme mit dir zu, aber nicht zur Gänze. Ich glaube, dass gute Rechtschreibung (sowie gute Typographie) wie die Etikette ist: sie ist nicht lebenswichtig und man könnte sie sogar „überflussig“ nennen, aber meine Meinung nach, es ist ja bedeutungsvoll. Alle diese Regeln und kleine Details vielleicht scheinen, als ob sie jemand gehirnfrei Person eingeführt hätte, und es ist jedenfalls wahr, dass wir nicht so strikte Regeln brauchen und dass wir auch ohne sie uns verständen. Aber sieh die (Recht)Schreibung nicht nur wie ein Kommunikationsmittel, sondern auch wie einen von den vielen Wegen (mit der erwähnten Etikette, zum Beispiel), die die menschliche Gesellschaft entwickelt hat, um „kultivierte Personen“ und die Anderen absondern.

Nu wenn du nicht unter der offiziellen Rechtschreibung schreibst, kann man schon sagen: „Ha, dieser hat nicht perfekt schreiben gelernt, ich nehme an, dass auch seine Sprechen, Benehmen, politische Meinungen, Musikgeschmack und Golfkönnen schlechten sind, wenn er eine Sache so primitiv wie die neuste Rechtschreibungsregeln nicht meistert!“

Ich verstehe deine Erregheit über der entbehrlich Striktheit der Rechtschreibung; aber wenn wir Leute diesen Stümper-(und Aufständischer-)-Detektor nicht hätten, erfänden wir einen anderen.

Ich sage nicht, dass es gut ist — aber es ist doch die Wahrheit.

lipao lipao May 18, 2015 May 18, 2015 at 7:04:44 PM UTC link Permalink

OK, thank you.

lipao lipao May 18, 2015, edited May 18, 2015 May 18, 2015 at 1:23:31 PM UTC, edited May 18, 2015 at 1:25:33 PM UTC link Permalink

Hello, I'll ask a silly question that must have been asked a thousand times before, but still: Is there any way to search for a part of some words, I mean, for an affix, or even for a single letter inside a word? Would it be possible somehow to teach the search query how to work with asterisks? (I'm computer illiterate, you know.)