User talk:Dwer

Thank you!

Thank you for creating more than thousands of Egyptian lexemes with your bot and for making your TLA freely accessible and reusable! That's awesome! Could you share with us your future plans for Wikidata collaboration, so that we can all better plan our work on Egyptian lexemes, and avoid creating duplicate entries, for example? More specifically, is your bot still adding new Egyptian lexemes? Or is the package that your bot added yesterday and today and that you want to share with Wikidata now complete? Your bot has added basic information about Egyptian lexemes. Do you want to add more information in the next steps? If not, I want to add some forms because your bot did not create any forms. Once again: Thank you for your work! Esther82090 (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear Esther82090,

Indeed there are >10.000 more entries to come. I did try to prevent any duplicates with your entries already in the first batch, and we are currently doing a match of our entries by hand to make sure not to produce duplicates in the upcoming batches.

In a second round we'll add information on gender and more fine-grained POS, but we do not plan to upload forms ourselves - no danger of interference.

All the best. I'll kepp you updated. Dwer (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: Approx. 2.000 more basic entries to come withing the upcoming days. Afterwards we need to think about titles and toponyms (later other proper names). Dwer (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I have now also announced the project on the Project Chat page: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Adding_(Ancient)_Egyptian_lexemes_from_Thesaurus_Linguae_Aegyptiae. If you know of any other place to anounce this, let me know. Dwer (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Transliteration

Transliteration is really an unfortunate topic in Egyptology. I see that you have introduced LUT as an entity and that you are also proceeding according to this scheme. The acceptance of LUT is not very high; renowned Egyptologists have made fun of it on social media... Schenkel's system is used even more. That's why I also created an entity for it. Since all systems are now used, I have put all systems equally in the label, which looks totally stupid. Example: Rꜥw/𓂋𓂝𓇳 (L1381683). What do you think if I only list the variants if there are differences? So only one Rꜥw, but jsṯ/ꞽśč/ꞽsṯ. Anyone who is not so familiar with the system can then immediately see how an entry is transliterated in the respective system. And all Egyptologists can also see their own system directly in the entry, which increases acceptance depending on such small details. Esther82090 (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This is my attitute to it. Of course LUT has not yet much acceptence. It was only suggested very recently. As agreed on by collegues form many important digital projects (https://www.iae-egyptology.org/the-leiden-unified-transliteration) during the meeting, it is desirable to facilitate data exchange and notably data matching by adhering to a common system especially for digital data. It is decidedly not meant as a statement about phonological insights/believes. The TLA is going for LUT soon.

As to the question of adding multiple transliteration systems as labels, I would prefer the following:

- Add label in LUT (egy-x-Q131362896) to facilitate digital matching, as decribed above.

- Add label in other systems -- I indeed believe Schenkel (egy-x-Q131380898) would be nice-to-have so that etymologists are less confused -- but only if different from LUT.

- Not to use lang tag "egy" without specification.

That what I think would be helpful. Dwer (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Note that I could go about adding Schenkel transliteration to all relevant entries automatically. I wonder, however, whether variants of transliteration and/or hieroglyphic spellings should appear somewhere else but in the row of main lemma 'names', probably in some kind of statement instead?! Compare a/𒀉 (L724329), in which case it is attachted so senses, while we need it on the lexeme level. Dwer (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer to add the Schenkel transliteration. It would be really helpful if you could find the lexemes directly, no matter which transliteration you prefer. However, this only works if the different transliterations are entered directly in the 'lemma names'. Otherwise, for example, https://situx.github.io/paleordia/language/?q=Q50868&qLabel=Egyptian will not find anything. And if you can automatically add the Schenkel transliteration, could you also do this with the normal? Then it wouldn't matter whether you write jsṯ/ꞽśč/ꞽsṯ. This would be an ideal tool for Egyptologists, however they transliterate. Esther82090 (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)