Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Tunisian/Csisc Discussion with E3

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

About the Tunisian Arabic Wikipedia Project[edit]

I am for the use of Tunisian Arabic in some Wikimedia Projects. I do not care if it would be an incubator or a Wikipedia. I believe that if one project would make a clear success. We would have some supports in next projects. That is why I welcome shadowly your help and your support in the work about Wikimedia Projects in Tunisian Arabic and I hope this partnership would be fructuous and let us make more achievements than our homologues in Egypt, Morocco, Algeria and Bahrain. So, thank you and I will wait for you to help me in the work. Now, I am translating the Wikimedia System in Tunisian Arabic using TranslateWiki. The work is simple, we will take the Standard Arabic Translation and submit it except for Edit, Read and some other functionalities when it is written in Tunisian Arabic using Latin Letters. For the messages without Arabic Translation, I will look for that by myself. This is important because no project in Tunisian Arabic can be accepted without translating the Wikis. Yours.--Csisc (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Csisc,
Nice to hear from you. I am still very interested in the project and still willing to volunteer. Currently, there is a rather growing number of interested contributors and even an organisational support. If you want, we could split the tasks and work on advancing the project efficiently. One minor remark, you might also be interested in checking the Maltese translations, some of them are closer than the Arabic terminologies and are already available.
We could equally coordinate this through e-mail or on other platforms with various contributors. Let me know what you think.
Regards
E3 (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Għallougha Ettounsiya...[edit]

Għaslàma, qrit leħdith mtagħek mgħa Csisc w ħabbit netħaddeth mgħak għattarjma l Ettounsi w elktiba etc..
Bahi, awwel chay Ana men "jmàgħet STUNdard" w Ana elli ktebt eddiksyonàr w melli ħattʾou elqawanìn mtagħ lektiba. W tawwa dkhalt bech nabda ntarjem àmma lqit mochkeltìn

  1. Csisc għmal ghaltʾa kbira waqtelli għmal kopyé kollé m Elgħarbi
  2. Ma famma ħad bech ygħàwenni

Naħna nagħmlou fi Wiki b Ettounsi w mouch b Elgħarbi, magħnaha koll chay làzem maktoub b kelmàt Tounsiya w hadha elli bdit fih, kelmàt kima Staff raddit'ha Dbàyriya (f Eddziri kàtbìn Dabbàra) w watchlist tarjemt'ha lista mtagħ elgħassa, magħnaha nestagħmlou kelmàt ki hakka bech ntarjmou bihom w mouch kopyé kollé. W tawwa rasselti nafsakh f elkhedma mtagħou w ngħàwed ntarjem fiha.

Bech nekhdem elkhedma hadhi, yelzemni għbàd mgħaya, Enti w Csisc! (w chway għbàd okhrìn nàn nnajjemna)

Bahi, tawwa lektiba w kifàch, għla għaks esSTUNdard elli tagħrfou, Ana, qtraħ għliya Linguist chway tabdilàt lesSTUNdard, elli hiya nlemm <è> w <a> fi ħarf wàħed, w koll wàħed yantʾaq kima fi lahjtou or kima f elqàgħda ejjénéràl. Elfounder mtagħ LTH qàl la, khatʾer yħeb kima Elmàltʾi, għarraghm ennou leqtiràħ magħqoul w fi blàsʾtou, w Ana elli ktebt eddiksyonàr w elli netkallem mgħa għbàd men barcha lahjàt nagħref qaddàch bech tgħàwenna ħkàyet <a> waħda. Elħasʾilou, Ana nekhdem b elmétod hadhi elli sammit'ha STUNdard 3.0, għal Wikipedia w nra elli aħsen chay kollna nekhdmou biha, khàtʾer ħad ma bech yabqa ħàyer kifàch bech yekteb hakka w ghirou. Ħattàl nagħmlou Poll w nwarrih nkhallih ythabbet kifàch STUNdard 3.0 elli qtraħha Linguist khir.

Errésumé, chnoua ràyek nkontakti Csisc w narjgħou nkammlou ntarjmou MediaWiki w mbagħd Wikipedia?

--GeekEmad (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello / Ɛasslema GeekEmad,
Since this is the English wikipedia, I will be replying in English. Do feel free to use any of the languages on my talk page.
It is great to see your involvement and interest. I was slightly confused at first since you mentioned you were a STUNdardist although you were using a different transcription method. There are a few points that still need to be cleared up, if possible.
I do not think Csisc made "a big mistake". He was one of the pioneers and every single contribution counts, including yours indeed.
Which dictionary have you published? There are at least three that I know of.
Although the usage of the "għ" could be an enhancement, the usage of "à" to denote both vowels, is, from a linguistic point of view, very confusing. You mentioned that "a linguist has suggested this"? Would you mind elaborating on that? It seems to me that, even when accounting for the occurrence of some emphatic consonants and the related vowel shift on certain onsets, the <è> and <a> should remain transcribed through two different letters. To me, your merger does not seem to be a "valid suggestion" as you said, yet much more confusing than the STUNdard method. Having both characters does not harm anyway and would provide further clarification for the language learners. I strongly suggest that you would evaluate this point, which I believe to be very important. If you wish to continue with the "merging", you might at least want to use <è> instead of <à>, since it occurs more commonly, at least in the dialects I know of.
Using borrowed words, e.g. staff, is not a problem. It occurs in all languages and will continue to occur. To me "staff" sounds more identifiable and understandable than "dbèyriya". On the other hand, "ellista mtagħ elgħassa" sounds fine, albeit slightly artificial.
Regarding, "Ħattàl nagħmlou Poll w nwarrih nkhallih ythabbet kifàch STUNdard 3.0 elli qtraħha Linguist khir", I am not sure I understood your point. Do you mean "nwarriw" or are you actually referring to "making a poll to show someone that your method suggested by an unnamed Linguist is better"? If the latter is the case, I strongly suggest that you would, instead of "making a poll to settle a difference", to attempt to get in touch with whomever you wish to convince and discuss with them point by point, accepting that you may not be entirely correct. In my opinion, I do not find your merger linguistically efficient, if I may put it that way.
Finally, I would be very willing to contribute further on Tunisian-language-related wikipedia, despite limited time, however I only know the STUNdard method and not yours, and to me it seems that it would be more effective if you were to join the rest of those who are already and would be using it, particularly since it has the institutional support from the LTH, and since it has already been in use on the Wiki. I would personally be willing to use the <għ> instead of <ɛ>, however not the vowel structure you suggested. I am certain you are aware that currently, communities interested in this project are rather small, and further fragmentation would not help, therefore, joining efforts and building efficiently upon what is already existing is much more effective than starting over.
Regards,
E3 (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, happy that you replied to my "comment"
  • you mentioned you were a STUNdardist although you were using a different transcription method. There are a few points that still need to be cleared up, if possible. It's not a different one, it's just the last version with removing <è>.
  • and every single contribution counts of course, but just the method he wanted to use (copy paste from Arabic) is not the right choice.
  • Which dictionary have you published? This one
  • Although the usage of the "għ" could be an enhancement it an official update, not just mine :)
  • from a linguistic point of view, very confusing Actually, from a linguistic point of view, it's the best choice, Why? Because [ɑ] [æ] [ɛ] are just allophones of /a/, we find that in Berber (officially) and KtbDarija method (for Moroccan) so the pronunciation of the vowels has a rule, if it's in an empathic environment the /a/ = [ɑ], if it's not it can be [æ] or [ɛ], and this one has a rule also, if it's in a stressed vowel, /a/ = [ɛ], if it's not then it's [æ]. In different dialects of Tunisian this rule can have exeptions, like those who pronounce it all [ɛ] or those who pronounce all /a/ as [ɑ]. That happens a lot. So saying if this word is with [ɑ] or [æ] or [ɛ] is none of our business, we, translators, writers; instead it's speaker's job. What I'm saying, like I said before, happens also in Berber, they have one /a/ and it can be pronounced [ɑ] or [æ] or [ɛ]. You might say to me "What about Maltese?", it's a different situation and it doesn't even have emphatic consonants due to Europeanism.
When I was writing the dictionary, I had two problems (with using è), first is, will normal Tunisians be able to write in this method? I don't think (due to the difference between how normal people write words on FB and how we are writing them), Second problem, and the most important is, when the original dictionary author uses [ɛ] and I pronounce it with [ɑ]! Then I realised that we're not standardizing the Dialect! we're simply making a simple writing method, IT'S COMPLETELY STUPID TO USE TUNISIAN PHONETICS FOR THAT! Why? because it's very complex and very different, it's just like giving a special letter for every sound of <a> in English, you can't do that! So what? WE MUST USE TUNISIAN PHONOLOGY INSTEAD! And that's what I did by combining allophones of /a/ in one letter. You see? it's from 100% linguistic point!
  • Using borrowed words, e.g. staff, is not a problem. That depends on the word, if we can use a near word, we don't need to borrow anything, if we can't, we simply borrow, like the word Browser?! we can only borrow the word Navigateur.
BTW, the letter <e> is used for Berber Schwa, it's something like very short /i/ with a little sound of [ɛ]. You find it every where like in <kteb> or <kercha>.
  • to attempt to get in touch with whomever you wish to convince and discuss with them point by point LTH is just.. League of Tunisian Humanists, it has no relation with Linguistics and that's a problem. So for example when I was discussing the Berber Schwa which is in every Maghrebi dialect, they didn't understand it and thought that it's just a [ɛ] and said that we don't need it. If any Linguist hear that, he will be sure that the final result of our hard work is 0. But, what I meant is doing a Poll to know what normal users choose to use. STUNdard 3.0 or STUNdard.
  • despite limited time Do you have any idea to help us get more volunteers?
Writing a long paragraph to reply to every point you talked about on Wikipedia, is the worst nightmare :D

--GeekEmad (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello GeekEmad
In order to briefly reply to your points:
It is rather surprising, the least to say, that you consider /a/, /æ/, and /ɛ/ to be allophones of /a/. I do not believe that this is the case, and I am not quite sure about your point on how it is "found" in Tamazight. Furthermore, the rule you suggested is not always valid, as the vowels can be found in a number of opposite cases. As you have said it yourself, it has exceptions that occur often. Therefore, you might not want to represent two sounds with the same symbol, unless you want to confuse your readers.
Maltese did not lose the pronounciation of emphatic consonants due to "Europeanism". I wonder where this information is retrieved from.
I have yet again to disagree with your point regarding "it's just like giving a special letter for every sound of <a> in English, you can't do that!". As a matter of fact, you can. And if this was the case, learning English would have been much easier. If you are trying to use a system to transcribe the language, use the most faithful, comprehensive, and simple system you can have your hands on. Your dismissal of "è" seems rather baseless, despite the explanation that you have stated, which again to me seems underwhelming and is absolutely not in any way a faithful transcription method. It is also not from a "100% linguistic point", for multiple reasons, the least of them is that nothing can be "100% linguistic point", and perhaps the most obvious from them is that, you simply cannot dismiss a vowel because you believe that they are allophones. I would advise you again to review this point very carefully. Remember that from a "linguistic" point of view, Tunisian is still considered as a Semitic dialect, and many linguists who have not worked closely with North African languages, will disregard any non-Arabic features and still examine it from an Egyptian or Syrian angle, and view it as merely a dialect of Arabic, which is only one tiny side of the whole story, and would just throw in an easy "use an Arabic writing system instead". Therefore, self-claimed "100% linguistic points" may not always be the most suitable.
As far as I have witnessed and read, the LTH has worked with comptent linguists and activists. You not being in touch with them is a different issue. I wonder with whom you have been in touch since in your first post you mentioned "a founder who disagreed with you", and then you said "they", let alone you mentioing "an unnamed linguist" who helped. Are you confident that you have been in contact with them, or at least persons who worked closely on similar projects and not an assistant or anyone else? The way you said it in your previous message conveyed that you wanted to "show someone that they are wrong" through a poll, which I am afraid is not the way academia works.
I will once again reiterate my opinion: Having both characters, à and è, does not harm anyway and would provide further clarification for the language learners. I strongly suggest that you would evaluate this point, which I believe to be very important. If you wish to continue with the "merging", you might at least want to use <è> instead of <à>, since it occurs more commonly, at least in the dialects I know of. I would personally be willing to use the <għ> instead of <ɛ>, however not the vowel structure you suggested. It is merely confusing to say the least, GeekEmad.
Regarding contacting further interested people, I would suggest that once you discuss the points with fellow activists on the project, or if you decide to use the STUNdard method, to contact the work group of the LTH or other organizations involved. Once again, in my contributions I use the STUNdard method, and do not find the modifications you suggested effective, therefore I will not be using it and will not recommend its usage to users I would contact about the Tunisian wiki.
Thank you for your reply and your committment. It is certainly highly appreciated.
Regards,
E3 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Tabbèkh or Tabbàkh? both are correct. Just like every other words you find at least two pronunciation of it. Again the Poll I'm talking about is to know what users prefer, which method, and when that happens, nobody can talk about using another method. I'm still contacting some people to do this Poll on their FB pages. Again, our two methods are correct, the first uses phonetics (not all of them) and the second uses phonology. KtbDarija and Algerian method follow phonology of their languages, why? because everyone speak in a different manner.
Let's forget about that for a moment, after talking with some other people, I found something we must do first, who is using those methods?! Nobody! so we need to share it and use to share information before using it on Wikipedia. So maybe the project of Wikipedia can wait a little more. What I'm going to do is translating articles from English websites, "funny articles", also, movies. Those two are popular in Tunisia, and everyone is interested in them.
Later, after I don't know how many month, we can start translating Wikipedia, with an army of translators, and the most important, We have reason for using this Latin method (they were asking me if there is anyone or any website or any books which is using this method!)
Ygħaychek --GeekEmad (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello GeekEmad,
I have heard "tabbèkh", "tebbèkh", "tebbàkh", but honestly never "tabbàkh", which to my ear sounds "very Arabic". Pronunciation may vary significantly and this is exactly why any transcription method should allow for all, and not suppress other possibilities. I have forwarded your suggestion to a contact of mine who equally worked on the subject, and the same opinion is yet again echoed, particularly regarding the choice of "à" over "è". Again, even if you were to go with this, "è" seems more suitable as it occurs more often. Just take a basic set of words, e.g. "bnèt", "wlèd", "rjèl", "blèd", "ɛbèd", "qtates", "klèb", and you may see for yourself that it is far more common, particularly with nouns in plural. I have never encountered "bnàt" for instance and the usage of "à" seems far more restricted, and that is why I can agree that the choice of the character itself is further confusing to learners and readers.
The steps you suggested do sound in place. I would say that maintaining the Wikipedia project meanwhile is not of any harm and I will try to regularly check it.
You are welcome. / Men ghìr mziya w bon travail.
Regards,
E3 (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello Everyone,
I have been informed about this discussion by GeekEmad and some others and as I was not available these moments, I chose to answer you after the end of my examination period. In fact, I was surprised by this latest topic and I appreciate the debate. But, let me clarify some facts about Tunisian Wikipedia Project.
The topic was first launched in early 2012 when I decided to support seriously the query of a Tunisian Wikipedia. The purpose of that initiative was the popularisation of science in the one hand and the adaptability of Latin Letters to Computer Requirements whatever the internet browser and the Computer System were. However, the idea have faced many critics although the idea in itself was good enough to get administrators' admission to begin this Wikipedia in Incubator. After that, I discovered that such action is not as easy as it seems because I do not have a great team with me to deal with that. So, I had to translate the Templates and the queries like Edit, Upload... in Tunisian Arabic. Moreover, I have to convince the administrators' that such wikipedia can have a very important audience.
So, when discussing such subject, it is important to take into consideration these facts.
I faced many critics and that is why I had to satisfy all ranges of the Tunisian People even the ones who objects to the so-called Europeanism. That is why the use of Latin Letters was limited to Read, Edit, View History and Main Page... I mean that this use was limited to important items that are important for letting Tunisian People that do not meet to Computer Requirements for Arabic Language edit in Tunisian Wikipedia. As the revolution was recent at that moment, I do not have the courage to go through total use of Latin Letters. When sTUNdard individuals called me in the first time, it was in the late 2013. But, I think that such action should be based on a complete study of the popular audience and on the methods for the popularisation of the rules of Tunisian Writing in Latin as seen by sTUNdard. That is why I am working now to make a Submission to Wikimedia 2015 or 2016 about the popularisation of Knowledge through dialectal Wikipedias in which I examine sTUNdard Initative and my own working experience using Critical Thinking. I think that GeekEmad has the same opinion as me when he said that "Ma famma ħad bech ygħàwenni". So, we require a further discussion about the organisation of the work if we would like to resume it. That is why I apply to E3, GeekEmad... to contribute to a Discussion in this Discussion page about Tunisian Wikipedia in 29-30 January 2015 in which we discuss the rules of Tunisian Arabic to be used in this Wikipedia, the structure of the Wikipedia... If all the facts went well, I will have the pleasure to start the work and even correct the translations picked from Arabic Version if we meet in that.
Finally, I have to thank you for this interest in my Wikipedia work.
Yours Sincerely,
--Csisc (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Online Discussion on Tunisian Arabic Wikipedia would be held at 12:30 GMT+1 in 29 January 2015.--Csisc (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Csisc,
I will check and contribute accordingly.
Thank you.
E3 (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello E3,
I was very happy with your comments. However, I must tell you that I was not against the use of Amazigh as a main reference in doing STUNdard Writing. I can even say that this kind of reference was needed to do the first STUNdard enunciation. But, although that, STUNdard failed to guess a solution for the combination of vowels that is more than common in Arabic Dialects. I had failed also to get a solution to differenciate between Dh of Nadhif and Dħ of Dħahaba. I think that a new version of STUNdard entitled 4.0 that is not limited to Amazigh Reference and that can profit from the experiences of other languages in Latin Adaptation.
So, I advise you to see the new paper that I created here in order to comment it and give me more advice about how to develop more efficiently the STUNdard 4.0 before we can work on a Wikimedia Project using the STUNdard Typing.
Yours Sincerely, --Csisc (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.229.251.66 (talk)

The Online Discussion on Tunisian Arabic Wikipedia[edit]

Definition of Tunisian Arabic[edit]

Background[edit]

1. Tunisian Arabic, English Wikipedia

2. Tunisian Arabic, French Wikipedia

3. Mejrissi, Jihed, On the standardization of Tunisian

4. Discussion of Tunisian Wikipedia on Wikimedia Incubator and Commons

Issue[edit]

Proposed problem: Tunisian Arabic is viewed by many people as a dialect of a general Arabic Language. So, it is important to discuss the importance of Tunisian Arabic first. The work of Jihed Mejrissi from the League of Tunisian Scientists is written for this purpose… This work seems to be the literature upon which GeekEmad has made his ideas about Tunisian Wikipedia and Dialect… Although some ideas seem to be important, the structure and some faults which of proof of the research paper made the issue less convincing. That is why it is required to build a new paper about the need of a standardization of Tunisian Language. This new initiative work should be done between LTH Team, Wikimedia Tunisia, Incubator Administrators, sTUNdard Team and the few initial contributors to the project. This time, the work should not be a philosophy paper because writing such paper in a good way requires both a broaden knowledge of the written issue and a research experience. Both facts do not exist in the case of Jihed Mejrissi. That is why his papers failed to have one citation. I think that such paper should be built using linguistic, statistical, economic and sociological knowledge and should be based on experiences and not on simple reasoning. That is why I thought about writing a good submission to Wikimania about this fact. A good paper with a book explaining sTUNdard and how Tunisians can use their dialectal language to write articles that are scientifically correct, involving references, well structured and very precise.

Reply: Having checked the work, the claimed faults need to be highlighted and contact with relevant organizations need to be established. I also actually found citations on the paper and therefore I am not sure about the reason where you say that it does not have citations. If you are referring to citations by author authors, I think it may be because of the low general interest in the topic, but I would still say that both papers (if we are talking about the same ones, I have added links for clarification), show a rather broad knowledge of the topic, also considering other relevant publications. I would suggest amending your statement to be about the paper and not the persons to make sure the discussion remains about the topic and not about personal opinions. On the other hand, User:Csisc, the organization is called "League of Tunisian Humanists" and not scientists, as you wrote, and "STUNdard" in written with a capital "S".

Typing Matters and Issues[edit]

Background[edit]

1. STUNdard

2. Mejrissi, Jihed, On the standardization of Tunisian Language: http://works.bepress.com/mejrissi/7/

3. Mejrissi, Jihed, Tunisian Words of Amazigh Origin: http://works.bepress.com/mejrissi/6/

4. Mobile Phone Message Typing

Issue[edit]

Proposed Problem: It is evident that Tunisian Arabic uses Common Arabic Letters. However, this is not always easy. Computer Requirements for such actions of reading information as well as writing data are very tough. The solution that had been discovered by many young and grown up Tunisians when sending SMS is using Latin Alphabet. The first problem that was faced by them is the typing issues of some sounds not available in Latin Letters. They used 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, ss’ and 9 as a solution. When Tunisian Wikipedia Project was launched, sTUNdard did not exist at that particular moment. So, we used SMS typing. But, in 2013, sTUNdard has been created and I think that the substitute of 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 are hard to write by a medium user of Computer or Internet Device. So, the solution for this problem is to propose to Incubator Administrator to add ɛ and ħ into the automatic typing section below the edition form Furthermore, għ can cause harmful ambiguity between users as it can mean ɛ and g7 at the same time. So, it is important to return to avoid this għ for ɛ typing. Moreover, I think personally that simplifying vowels may lead to several ambiguities. In fact, in common ILO problems, coaches advise their trainees to consider very well vowels because they can affect the terminology and the structure of the sentence. So, Tunisian Arabic does not constitute an exception. For example, The i in Malika may change the meaning of the word from queen /i/ to a common name of girls if stressed /i:/. The same thing happen to the letter a. As for the case of dh, it is important to make a difference in typing between d’dhad, dhah and dhel, ttah and ta2… Furthermore, when sTUNdard solves all these problems, a user’s book should be written to explain how to use this method of typing.

Reply: First, it is not "evident" that Tunisian should use any common or uncommon alphabet, be it Arabic or Tifinagh. As far as I understand, STUNdard differentiates beteen long and short by using an acute apostrophy, or "`". For example Melek is the spelling of the masculine name and Melèk is that of the female name. GeekEmad also suggested using "Melek" and "Meleek", which I find equally feasible.

Further Discussion[edit]

File:Wikipedia Discussion 2015 1.png
Slide of the Discussion

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Csisc (talkcontribs) 13:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

General Guidelines[edit]

  • All the initial papers for discussion are in User Page
  • The Meeting starts at 12:30 GMT+1.
  • When the participant is online, he should write his full name or User Name on Participants' List
  • When 3 or more participants are present, the Discussion starts and all participants should be very sure they would not leave during the conversation process
  • While discussing, you must refresh this Discussion Page every 30 Seconds
  • The conversation is open even for Individuals not having Wikimedia Accounts

Participants' List[edit]

  • Houcemeddine Turki (Csisc)
  • E3

Conversation Process[edit]

  • 12:30 - Discussion began. First, I would like to thank E3 and GeekEmad for applying to me to give my opinion about Tunisian Arabic, STUNdard, Tunisian WikiCulture and Tunisian Wikipedia. Since sTUNdard has been created, I had some critics about it as it was based on Amazigh Linguistics and on Ktbdarija only. That is why I invited to this online discussion to discuss the fact.

But, let me first introduce the logo of Tunisian Wikipedia.

File:Logo Wikipedia Tounsi.png
Logo for the Tunisian Wikipedia

I ask for your opinions about it.--Csisc (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  • 12:52 - I am a bit surprised about the fact that no one participates and answers to the query. If there is no one to answer by 30 minutes, I will say what I have to say and close the discussion and wait for participants tomorrow at the same time. --Csisc (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • 3 February 2015 12:00

Signing into the discussion. The logo looks good. We could attach the articles and use proper capitalization so it is written as "Elmawsougħa Elħorra". I do not see a problem because the STUNdard method takes into account the Amazigh linguistic elements in Tunisian, as a matter of fact it may be an advantage. E3 (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree on changing the spelling to "Elmawsougħa Elħorra". A new version of the Wikipedia logo will appear soon.--Csisc (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.229.251.66 (talk)

Final Overview[edit]

  • As the discussion was closed with only one participant, I will explain the purpose of this discussion so that it can be discussed by interested people. So, as I have said, sTUNdard 3.0 seeks of many weaknesses. So, I propose a new version here.

Furthermore, I think that sTUNdard Writing with these modifications is developed enough to have a logo. I propose this one.

File:STUNdard logo.png
Logo of sTUNdard 4.0

All other facts could be explained only through discussion. So, I invite you to participate in a later discussion soon. You can apply for a date for doing this discussion here.

Yours Sincerely, --Csisc (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Agree on the Logo. I believe that the proper spelling of STUNdard uses a capital "S" in the beginning.

E3 (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I am very happy that the STUNdard logo pleased you. So, I will adopt it for the writing of STUNdard Books and Guides as LTH had agreed the fact that I will contribute to STUNdard. --Csisc (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about Dialectal Wikipedias[edit]

I invite you to participate in an online Skype Discussion about the subject of Tunisian Wikipedia. If you want this, suscribe here.--Csisc (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Csisc,
I will be trying checking the page you mentioned, but I doubt that I can guarantee any contribution to other Wikipedia projects aside from the North African ones. Furthermore, it would be better to start the discussion here on Wikipedia instead of Skype. Feel free to post the matters in question.
E3 (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I will contact you when you have time. Give me a date in which we can discuss this.--Csisc (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Csisc,
Feel free to get in touch any time here. At the moment, I try to check Wikipedia regularly.
Thank you.
E3 (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I will do that Sunday Morning--Csisc (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
As I clearly said, we are discussing now some facts about Tunisian and Tunisian Wikimedia Projects.
First, let me tell you that I and User:GeekEmad had worked on the amelioration of the output of STUNdard and we have consulted some excellent linguists in order to solve problems. You can see this promoted output here. We have to introduce you this method because we are going to use it later.
Furthermore, we have seen that beginning the Tunisian Wikipedia would not be very useful. So, we began Tunisian Wiktionary in Incubator this week.
Yours Sincerely,
--Csisc (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Csisc,
Thank you for your message. I highly appreciate it.
The document is inaccessible to me, but I can see the edits and the standardisation method as you used here: [1].
The method is certainly innovative and seems rather more "Maltese" than the original STUNdard. There are points that may be in my opinion valid, e.g. using "il" instead of "el", and others that seem rather overly complicated and for an end-user, e.g. substituting digraphs, phonetic values of "x" and "c", making up words to avoid using loanwords, ... etc.
I am afraid that you might end up finding yourself with a method that only you would be using, especially seeing that the simpler and, in my opinion more intuitive, STUNdard [2], still lags behind in adoption.
I am very interested in contributing to the Wiktionary and I believe that it is a step in the right direction, however all the work that would be done might end up being discarded because the method would be too difficult for end-users. I would urge you to reconsider some aspects such as the ones I mentioned earlier, and I will try meanwhile to add words that could possibly work in any method. Again, consider the easiness aspect thoroughly and I will be looking forward to a productive contribution.
E3 (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The new method is done with the collaboration with STUNdard. So, we will get a unique output by the end of discussions. The adjustments done on the work are based on the adoptions of the multiple opinions of leading linguists we have consulted. So, it would be more intuitive and accurate. Its adoption is now a question of time. Now, we are working of a booklet about pronunciation and varieties of Tunisian and you will see how this method can be pronounced by all Tunisians in their own varieties.
As for writing the dictionary, you have bêb as a sample entry. You should only use the same structure to write pages about all words used in Karmous. That is all and do not be afraid of all other facts. I will verify the spelling later. So, try to do your best and enter as much words from Karmous as you can.
Yours Sincerely,
--Csisc (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Csisc,
Good to know that there is an ongoing discussion. Make sure to keep the importance of an easy method in mind. It might equally be a good idea to just resort to Maltese or a simplified Maltese transcription method.
As per the dictionary, I will most likely be entering long vowels as ` and not ^. If the community decides otherwise, then edits could definitely be made, however in the meantime I will try to use a "neutral" spelling.
Thank you.
E3 (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The most important fact is to try to enter words. I will contact you when the Full standardization booklet would be ready. --Csisc (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)