Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:16, 11 December 2024

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books: Reference works This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook This article is supported by the Reference works task force. Arab world Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Linguistics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dictionary features in relation to article text

The transliterations will help you with ya vs. alif maqsura, but they won't help you with word-initial hamza (since glottal stops are not transcribed at the beginnings of words), nor with having to re-compose verb forms on the fly based solely on the consonantal root and the stem number. AnonMoos 19:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Whats stem number though?. Collective number? Do you have the latest edition? - max rspct 19:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It's the fourth edition of 1994, but none of the other editions I've seen are different in these respects. As for verb stems, look at link Arabic grammar#Stem formation for an explanation. Then look at root sin-lam-mim on page 495 of the dicationary (at least in my edition), and note the bold numeral IV. This numeral "IV" indicates a verb form with imperfect yuslimu and perfect 'aslama. A lot of other dictionaries would at least list the form 'aslama, but Wehr doesn't list any form at all, so you have to construct yuslimu and 'aslama purely from the consonantal root and your memorized knowledge of Stem IV derivation patterns. AnonMoos 02:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

He gives the actual form whenever there are any difficulties, and for the less common derived forms, so how exactly does this represent a difficulty? Palmiro | Talk 14:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It represents a difficulty if you're of that cast of mind which finds it relatively easy to learn to associate yuslimu with aslama, but rather hard to synthesize yuslimu from scratch, given just the consonants S-L-M and the number "IV". I suspect that there are a large number of people in this boat -- I have a more analytic mind than many, and academic linguistic training, yet I would have to look in my grammar books to figure out what the forms would be if faced with a V, VII, or VIII stem verb listing in Wehr. Furthermore, if you look down the columns of the dictionary, you'll find that rather few derived-stem finite verb forms are in fact given. AnonMoos 15:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the {{fact}} template was very necessary or useful, considering that this article basically consists of comments by actual habitual users of the dictionary, not publisher's blurbs. Look at the Amazon reviews, if you want. AnonMoos 19:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added some inline citations, and removed some not very relevant contents. However, the second-to-last paragraph is still original research. Hope someone will clean that up. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 06:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What you call "original research" is practical concerns expressed by some ordinary habitual users of the dictionary... AnonMoos 09:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

They are practical concerns, no doubt about it. But Misplaced Pages is just not the place to express these concerns. I mean I would give them a "helpful" vote if they were posted on Amazon as a review :); but I'm afraid they can't get by here, which is not meant for posting personal book reviews. Regards.--K.C. Tang 01:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

However, they have a great deal of relevance to the dictionary's suitability for the purpose for which it was originally intended. It's absurd to say that we can't include anything which wasn't mentioned in a 1962 review of the first edition (which very few people nowadays are even using). AnonMoos 02:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's ok if we just state the facts (e.g. that hamza is not indicated), instead of giving weasel words like "Some features which could be considered drawbacks...". We're not here to judge what the drawbacks are. We do that on Amazon, not here. It's just that different sites serve different purposes. Of course what I said may sound absurd to many. Regards.--K.C. Tang 08:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I bet that the great majority of students in classes on Classical or literary Arabic whose teachers require correctly-written hamzas consider it a drwaback... AnonMoos 07:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Germanification of the article

AnonMoos, moving this content-related discussion here from my talk page:

I'm sure you're well-intended, but changing the focus of the article from the Arabic-English dictionary to the Arabic-German dictionary is a drastic change. Please discuss on the article talk page...

I'm not sure what you propose needs discussing. Perhaps you could elaborate on your reasons for this edit and why you see it as an improvement to delete over 5000 bytes of well-sourced information. How do you understand the article's scope? Should the derivative English translation of the original work exist as a standalone article? Please help me understand your point of view. ahy+a+n+ (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Before you came along, the article was mainly about an Arabic-ENGLISH dictionary, while now it's mainly about an Arabic-GERMAN dictionary. Notice a little difference there? It now doesn't fit under "A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic" at all, but is more suitable for the article title "Arabisches Woerterbuch fuer die Schriftsprache der Gegenwart". Maybe you could add some of that well-sourced text in a different way which doesn't disruptively change the topic of the article... AnonMoos (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The topic of this article is the dictionary by Hans Wehr, which was originally published in 1952 (in German) and only published in English in 1961 with Cowan. Are you suggesting a split into two standalone articles, one for the original and one for the English translation? إيان (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, it is highly improper to edit another person's contributions to a talk page without their permission, as you did here and here. See Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. إيان (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• C-Class Book articles
• Reference works task force articles
• WikiProject Books articles
• C-Class Arab world articles
• Low-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• C-Class Linguistics articles
• Low-importance Linguistics articles
• WikiProject Linguistics articles