As an anonymous user, you can only add new data. If you would like to also modify existing data, please create an account and indicate your languages on your user page.

Expression talk:I

From OmegaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The French translation of the Definition seems rather far from the first Definition.--Sannab 10:07, 26 July 2006 (CEST)

The definition in language "pol" (Polish) is out of sync.

  • Updated Swedish.--Sannab 20:21, 9 August 2006 (CEST)
  • Updated French Kipcool 17:49, 16 August 2006 (CEST)
  • Updated and added to German --Ortografix 19:21, 1 December 2006 (CET)

"I" refers only when the speaker/writer is the subject of the action. "myself", "me" and all variants aren't synonyms. "меня", "мне", "moi", "me" aren't translations either. — Vildricianus 13:15, 27 July 2006 (CEST)

Of course are these variants synonyms (despite having usually other meanings as well) - how else would you deal with the German sentence: "Ja, habe mich geirrt" (Yes, I made a mistake) - how else would you deal with colloquial English "me being lazy" etc. ?

No, the "mich" in the German sentence "Ja, habe mich geirrt" is not a synonym of "I". "sich irren" is a reflexive verb. The complete sentence is "Ja, ich habe mich geirrt". --Ortografix 23:47, 3 November 2006 (CET)

"pronoun" and "1st person singular nominative" should be included in the definitions. --Ortografix 19:21, 1 December 2006 (CET)

Duplicated DMs[edit]

Icon tools.png
This article (I) needs attention because:
Duplicated DMs --Purodha Blissenbach 15:30, 27 July 2006 (CEST) - changed to one DM to delete Kipcool 17:47, 16 August 2006 (CEST)
It has been added to this category for attention. Thank you for your patience.


Invalid DM[edit]

According to our current Definition of DM, these are not DMs. They are examples of use in a foggy way trying to avoid talking about grammar.

Trying instead to refer to meaning alone, I am unable to come to a useful wording.

I learned that an Innuit language has no word for "I" and also no other notion. Thus, it is indistinguishable, whether "I did it" or "it happened" in the language, and both fragments would have to be transated the same. Now, they do have a way to connect action to actor: "Peter did it" or "Icebear did it" afaik. So in a praktical way of explaining usage, there is a way to explain the meaning interactively: "If Peter did it, and Peter is speaking, then Peter says: 'I did it'. If Frank did it, and Frank is speaking, then Frank says: 'I did it'." Iterate sentences like these, and check for signs of understanding like "Aaah" :-) If you have a language that has placeholders like "a person" you're better off and replace samples like "Frank" or "Peter" by "a Person", but that is not solving the problem that we explain usage instead of meaning here.

Now think of a way of wording a DM that could be translated to Inniut, so as to transport the concept of "I" to them (possibly only to make clear that it does not directly translate)

If we choose to not put the concept itself into words in a DM, but rather describe how a word is used, and possibly some of its grammatical properties, I do not object. But then we clearly need to distinguish these from the pure conceptual DMs so as not to create confusion. Think of a species from outer space joining WiktionaryZ, that have not yet many words or DMs to communicate with us anyways, and they're just starting to get a grasp of the concept of DM. They'll gain a lot from the visibility of the fact, that there are distinct classes of DMs.

I assume talking about the use of a word is sometimes impossible to avoid. The main drawback of DMs doing that is that they explicitly or implicitly mention the word or expression they are describing. Like this: "A speaker uses the word 'I' if he or she refers to herself or himself, he or she must use the word 'you' if she or he is referring to the person or persons he or she is directly addressing, else she or he has to use either of 'they', 'he', 'she' or 'it', depending on the grammatical gender and number of the person, object, or subject, persons, objects, or subjects, he or she is referring to." I think that's pretty comprehensive. Note that we talk about talking, about specific words being said while talking (that's why they're enclosed in single quotes) which a DM should not do, since how a word is used is not considered part of a DM in the first place since notabene all this may differ between different languages. Skipping more philosophical aspects :-) it should be obvious that a translator of a DM should know wether he is translating a pure concept, or explanations of the use of a word or expression. Thus I pledge for marking them accordingly. -- Purodha Blissenbach 12:10, 29 August 2006 (CEST)

I don't see how lexicon and grammar or lexicon and usage possibly can kept apart. Words belong to parts of speech, the meaning of a word cannot be explained without this. The systems of parts of speech of different languages need not coincide, and then there need not be any exact correspondences. Defined meanings can be exactly translated only when the grammatical systems are close enough.
I think every definition should clearly indicate the part and speech. And also, it should clearly indicate whether it gives something like a long synonym or it gives a description how it is used. For example the definition of this DM tries to give a long synonym but clearly "I" is not the speaker or the writer. Andres 20:56, 14 November 2006 (CET)
Because the speaker or writer referring to himself or herself alone is not I but whoever. Andres 20:58, 14 November 2006 (CET)