Just copy and paste the sentence you want link as a new translation (pay attention to flags). The duplicate-merging script will link them together.

This method is an alternative, indirect way of linking for normal contributors. It's a lot easier for advanced contributors. They can link sentences with a single click.

I tried downloading some lists containing more than 1,000 sentences and it worked fine. The only drawback is that exported lists are monolingual.

That 100-sentence limitation was a problem. Thanks for working on it.

This is a good idea. Thanks for sharing.

Crimean Tatar (a Turkic language listed as severely endangered by UNESCO), Zaza (an Iranian language listed as vulnerable) and Tahaggart Tamahaq (a Berber language listed as vulnerable) are missing on your page.

I've seen multiple times new members saying hi on the wall and never showing up again. It's really an interesting phenomenon. Perhaps providing some guidance after registration (i.e. a multilingual and interactive welcome page with useful links about the languages they set on their profiles or redirecting them to a tutorial video page) may increase contributions.

> The [2] and [3] are references to the links at the bottom of my message. It wasn't meant to say that page limit would be 2 pages and 3 pages.

Sorry, I missed that.

>In general we would put 1000 results as a limit. We could consider increasing it to 10,000 results, depending on feedback.

I think that would be sufficient for comments and logs, too.

> Same question for the "Comments" page[2] and the "Logs of {user}" page[3].

Comparing to the other limitation (1000 or 10000 latest sentences), 2 or 3 pages seem low to me.

A while ago, I noticed an advanced contributor unlinking sentences of other users without leaving comments. I needed to check that user's logs several pages to look for suspicious unlinkings. Unless there's a better way to view unlinking activities, I suggest not to limit the logs page.

Sure, it would work, too. It's just that when an unowned sentence is adopted and edited by a native speaker, they may not find it necessary to leave a comment about the correction or improvement they made (and they're right about that). However, if the creator of the sentence wants to be involved and informed, they may prefer not to unown the sentence. Personally, I wouldn't encourage non-native speakers to unown their Turkish sentences as long as they're cooperative with suggestions, but I respect other policies preferred by CMs of other languages. If I want to add an Italian sentence, I'll keep your preference in mind. :-)

I guess you're collecting sentences with such comments in a list. Otherwise it would be difficult to check them. I would rather prefer non-native speakers to create their Turkish sentences and then leave comments saying @NNC. It's possible to filter comments by languages so it would be easier for native speakers to notice and respond. Leaving comments for Turkish translations on non-Turkish sentences may go unnoticed as they move to back pages of the comment feed (which happens pretty fast).

Of course, as long as we mention some users on comments for translation requests, they likely get notifications and respond. However, mentioning specific users might reduce the chance of other users' noticing and participation. I thought you were referring to a more general concept addressing the whole community, like the @NNC tag.

I'm not against this btw. It would work just fine. But a broader concept as I mentioned on the previous message (keywords/tags to be used on translation request comments + a search function on comments) could be more effective in the long-term.

> When you say that you think English would create a bottleneck, do you mean that you think that explicit demands for people to translate into English would overwhelm the number of native speakers in English?

Yes, that was my point.

This method may work well with some languages and between friends, but I think English is a special case and this would likely create a bottleneck as it's the 'language Y' for most users.

Another and bigger problem is the difficulty of finding such comments, especially after some time passes. People would leave comments under sentences in different languages. One request would be under, say, a Turkish sentence, and another would be under a Hungarian sentence. One request would be for an English translation while the other would be for German. Categorizing and finding them would be difficult as they begin to pile up.

If there was a search function within comments, it would be easier to find them using some keywords or tags.

> One trouble I'm having when I search for audio files for Arabic nothing comes up.

Because there isn't any Arabic audio yet as Thanuir mentioned. OsoHombre, a native Arabic-speaking member, once said he would eventually add audio to his Arabic sentences. He hasn't been active recently (he told me he was busy and didn't have time for voluntary translations), but he may return and add Arabic audio in the future.

You can try to translate these Arabic sentences into English.

https://tatoeba.org/eng/sentenc...io=&sort=words

Welcome to Tatoeba.

> OsoHombre has used a lot of Arab names in his sentences

Actually, the way OsoHombre builds up his corpus isn't much different from CK's. He has his own standard names, too.

Sami <-> Tom
Layla <-> Mary
Fadil <-> John
Salima <-> Alice
Cairo <-> Boston

I think users adding original sentences in large numbers tend to adopt this wildcard policy one way or another. It has its advantages. The question is, if this policy is useful for users individually, will extending it to all original sentences in a language bring more good than harm, or vice versa?

Btw, there's a phone-number search site generating thousands of spam pages by using the patterns of Tom sentences here with different names for SEO purposes. It's interesting to see how many derivations can be done just from a single pattern.

https://www.google.com/search?q...w=1277&bih=538

A forum section with subforums for different communities/languages where users can discuss matters and ask questions would be nice.

Thank you very much, porfiriy. You've summed it up nicely.

Yes. Removing sentences from lists resets their numbers on 'All public lists' page. But they're still shown correctly on the lists' own pages.

Edit: It's fixed now.

https://github.com/Tatoeba/tato...ment-465279590

Yes, they're all correct, gillux. Even if there were some very old people using Ottoman Turkish as the primary language today, they, too, would use the Latin script to be understood.

I'm not asking Ottoman Turkish sentences to be converted to Latin anyway. If one wants to add sentences in the Arabic script, it's perfectly fine. I simply want users to be allowed using the Latin script, too. The Arabic script is consonantal. That makes it rather difficult to read and use unknown words and expressions comparing to the Latin script. Perhaps that's why almost all Ottoman Turkish sentences here are transliterations of modern Turkish.

>I had a look at the English Wikipedia article about the Ottoman Turkish language, and I am a bit confused because it says that this language switched to the Latin script as it evolved into modern Turkish. Can you elaborate about the contemporary use of Arabic vs. Latin to write Ottoman Turkish?

Thanks for your reply, gillux. Have you seen the GitHub issue? I tried to explain this there. Also, there are some other languages being affected from this issue.

https://github.com/Tatoeba/tato...ment-463754887

The Turkish language reform consists of a script reform and replacing of loanwords. They are different things. Allowing Ottoman Turkish sentences in the Latin script will increase contributions in the old language and its readability. Currently, almost all 'Ottoman Turkish' sentences on Tatoeba are simply transliterations of modern Turkish into the Arabic script. They're not wrong, but they don't truly reflect the old language. If one looked here to compare Ottoman Turkish and modern Turkish, they would assume that the only difference is the alphabet.


>One way to quickly solve the display problem is to set the direction of Ottoman Turkish to "auto".

This sounds good to me. If doing it would display sentences in both Arabic and Latin scripts correctly and wouldn't cause any unintended consequences, why not?


> I strongly discourage you from doing this because then these sentences are excluded from the Ottoman Turkish corpus, they won't show up in searches and statistics

I created only one pair set as 'unknown' for demonstration. I'm adding romanized Ottoman Turkish sentences to Turkish corpus for now. I will change them back to Ottoman Turkish once a solution is found.

That's a different issue, but I agree. It would be useful. When studying a language that can be written in multiple scripts, one may need to view sentences written only in a particular script like Chinese sentences written in traditional Chinese or Berber sentences written in the Tifinagh script. Currently, it's not possible to separate/filter sentences in such a way.

#7771502

I've noticed that the 'other language' flag is direction-neutral. It allows both left-to-right and right-to-left scripts. So I think it should be possible to implement this to other languages that can be written in multiple scripts.