Niaj datumoj estas publikigitaj sub pluraj permesiloj de Krea Komunaĵo.Pliaj informoj
Se vi ŝatas nian retejon, bonvolu konsideri donacon.
Muro (6 966 fadenoj)
Konsiloj
Antaŭ ol starigi demandon, bonvolu legi la oftajn demandojn.
Ni strebas konservi sanan etoson en civilizitaj diskutoj. Bv. legi niajn regulojn kontraŭ malbona konduto.
Thadh
antaŭ 2 tagoj
Iye_Tete
antaŭ 3 tagoj
Thanuir
antaŭ 3 tagoj
jlake
antaŭ 3 tagoj
maaster
antaŭ 4 tagoj
sharptoothed
antaŭ 5 tagoj
Thanuir
antaŭ 5 tagoj
maaster
antaŭ 7 tagoj
CK
antaŭ 8 tagoj
Pfirsichbaeumchen
antaŭ 8 tagoj
✹✹ Stats & Graphs ✹✹
Tatoeba Stats, Graphs & Charts have been updated:
https://tatoeba.j-langtools.com/allstats/
Thank you, as always. :)
My pleasure. :-)
:)
Is the number of sentences of '"Favourites" limited?
If that's the case, why?
It's not limited as far as I remember. What made you think it was?
I marked about 15-20 further sentences as Favorites which I can't see in that "folder".
That's not the first time that happened.
(I thought the number of Favorites depended on the number of all sentences.)
Best wishes for you two.
Did you check the favorites list immediately after you added the new sentences, or did you wait some time? I know that there are some operations that take time to process.
My advice is to write down the number of favorites before you add any more. Then, the next time you add some, put them into a list as well. If the final number doesn't match the original number plus the ones you added, let us know these numbers, as well as the list you added them to.
I added some Turkish and some Russian sentences before I wrote the pinwall massage. I can see them not yet. After the massage I added some new ones which could be seen immediately after.
Favorites seem to be listed in Sentence ID order.
This means it may not be as easy to see your newest additions to your favorites list as it is with our standard lists. Our standard lists, by default, show the most recent additions at the top.
Seeing the number of sentences you have in your favorites list, it seems like you are using the list for another purpose and not just to list your favorites.
Standard lists have the following advantages.
* They can be exported.
* They can be sorted in various ways.
* You can list them along with translations.
* People can easily add translations without needing to load each sentence's page individually.
* They can be searched using the advanced search.
I also came up with the idea to make a list for my favorite ones.
I haven't thought yet if that had more advantages or more disadvantages.
** Wishing you all Happy Holidays! **
As we approach the end of the year, I’d like to wish you all a wonderful holiday season :)
I want to take this occasion to sincerely thank everyone who helped keep Tatoeba alive and running during my long absence. Even though I was not completely disconnected from the project this whole time, I certainly had to keep my involvement as minimal as possible for the past 12 months or so, due to becoming a mom[1].
I will return in 2024 and I hope it will be a more exciting year for Tatoeba, with many long-awaited changes finally coming true.
Take care, everyone, and see you around soon!
---
[1] https://tatoeba.org/en/wall/show_message/38883
Welcome back, Trang! I wish you and your baby all the best in 2024!
Welcome back, Trang! I missed you.
I'm sure Tatoeba in 2024 will be a more exciting and peaceful place, with you. :)
I can't wait for 2024! Wishing you have wonderful holiday season!
🍎 Creating Advanced Search Templates
In the past 3 weeks, the number of Esperanto sentences with audio has more than doubled.
For those who like translating from Esperanto into your native languages, you might enjoy focusing on translating some of these sentences.
◼ This is one way to do that.
► Esperanto with Audio not yet in German
https://tatoeba.org/en/sentence...o=deu&from=epo
Instead of inputting a search query, just click the "Search" button to get a random seletion.
(Currently 5,310 occurrences)
If German isn't your native language, change the language for "Translations" from "German" to your own native language.
Then click the "Create Search Template" link at the bottom and bookmark that page instead.
Note that you can create similar templates to find sentences with audio by just changing the "Sentences" language and the "Translations" languge.
◼ Here are some other example templates
► English with Audio not yet in Esperanto
https://tatoeba.org/en/sentence...o=epo&from=eng
(Currently 663,490 occurrences)
► Spanish with Audio not yet in Portuguese
https://tatoeba.org/en/sentence...o=por&from=spa
(Currently 94,472 occurrences)
► French with Audio not yet in Russian
https://tatoeba.org/en/sentence...o=rus&from=fra
(Currently 3,318 occurrences)
You can further fine-tune a template by changing the sort order and other things before bookmarking a template.
La enhavo de tiu mesaĝo kontraŭas niajn regulojn kaj pro tio estas kaŝita. Ĝi aperas nur al administrantoj kaj la aŭtoro de la mesaĝo.
La enhavo de tiu mesaĝo kontraŭas niajn regulojn kaj pro tio estas kaŝita. Ĝi aperas nur al administrantoj kaj la aŭtoro de la mesaĝo.
La enhavo de tiu mesaĝo kontraŭas niajn regulojn kaj pro tio estas kaŝita. Ĝi aperas nur al administrantoj kaj la aŭtoro de la mesaĝo.
Monthly updates adopt a weekly schedule ✨
Every Saturday morning, all my lists are now automatically updated from the cloud 🤖
- Tatominer https://tatominer.netlify.app
- Spread by Tatoebans ✨ https://tatoeba.org/en/sentences_lists/show/170280
- Pruned English ✂️ https://tatoeba.org/en/sentences_lists/show/171182
- Rated as 'not OK' 🔴 https://tatoeba.org/en/sentences_lists/show/170380
- Rated as 'unsure' 🟠 https://tatoeba.org/en/sentences_lists/show/170383
- JMdict - Japanese 🇯🇵 https://tatoeba.org/en/sentences_lists/show/171073
- JMdict - English 🇬🇧 https://tatoeba.org/en/sentences_lists/show/171072
- Tatolead https://tatolead.netlify.app
More information about these tools at my profile page: https://tatoeba.org/en/user/profile/lbdx
> Spread by Tatoebans
I often wondered about this list. As far as I understand, it contains sentences that have often been translated, no? But almost every day I see sentences with typos or grammatical errors in it (and of course I send a comment to the authors). But this means that a lot of contributors just translate without seeing the errors, right? Or seeing them but not caring about the errors? Of course, that's not your fault, lbdx!
> a lot of contributors just translate without seeing the errors
It's tricky to spot errors in a language you don't fully master. That's why it's so important to visit the sentence page before translating it and check whether any problems have been reported. It is also essential to assess the reliability of the authors you are translating.
To determine whether a wording is commonly used, I recommend taking a look at the number of exact matches in Google Books.
Many thanks to the corpus maintainers who volunteer their time to correct all these errors.
I've been doing some thinking about why politics and Tatoeba mix so badly. I took a look at the site's Terms of Use (which I encourage you also to do, as you might find them more interesting than you would think), and a few phrases jumped out at me:
- "Our decisions are independent of any political, national, religious, cultural or ideological current..."
- "We judge neither the logic nor the veracity of statements..."
- "... our will is not to censor, but to preserve the tranquility of the project..."
- "To maintain harmony within our community, we invite you to show moderation..."
- "In particular, we prohibit, but not exhaustively, the purposes of propaganda (political, religious, ideological, denial, etc.), pornography, defamation (individual or community), etc. ..."
They resonated with me because they captured the spirit that drew me to Tatoeba as much as the promise of finding a mind-blowing variety of sentences and translations in all the languages I was learning. I discovered soon enough that people at Tatoeba did not always get along perfectly, and both their sentences and their comments could reflect divisiveness. Nonetheless, the voices of calm seemed to win out more often than not. This was especially welcome to me because in an earlier phase of life, I had read political blogs obsessively, and then burned out. Even though the blogs tended to attract people from the same part of the political spectrum, who generally agreed with each other, and turned the majority of their anger against political opponents outside the blog itself, there was something exhausting about the whole atmosphere. Tatoeba appealed to me because it was a neutral zone: a place where I could get satisfaction from immersing myself in other languages, in writing sentences and translations that could help me and others at the same time. It was about language, not about battle, and I found that refreshing.
My earlier experience with that other world makes me highly attuned to the way that I feel when a sentence throws me "out of the zone". Pornographic-style sentences, or ones that glorify violence, can do it, but political sentences, including but not limited to those about groups and ideologies, have a disruptive power all their own. They instantly evoke allies and foes pitted against each other in the outer world, and challenge you not only to choose a side, but to throw yourself into an arms race. The fact that Tatoeba is built around individual sentences, not around essays where an idea can be developed and context or the various sides of a question can be addressed, makes the sloganeering even more obnoxious. And also ineffective: in a political blog, you're engaging with a self-selected group of people who are sufficiently interested in politics and current events that you might actually learn something from them. Writing political sound bites in a fundamentally apolitical environment like Tatoeba, especially on a large scale, amounts to propaganda: throwing out assertions in the hope that they will lodge in someone's mind and stick there, preferably in the subconscious. It's not whether these assertions are true, partially true, or completely false that determines whether they're propaganda: it's the way in which they're used, and more particularly the goal they're meant to serve.
It is not our job as admins to decide Tatoeba's positions on individual political questions relating to the outside world, and this is for a simple reason: Tatoeba doesn't take such positions. It *is* our job to maintain harmony on the site so that people can search for and contribute sentences in peace. Sometimes we find that a contributor has written a batch of provocative sentences, usually political, that threaten this atmosphere. One of the tools at our disposal, other than deleting sentences outright, is to mark the sentences "unapproved" so that they do not appear in default searches or downloads. When we resort to this, which we try to do as little as possible, we may or may not explain why, and if we do explain, we may not do so immediately, or as comments on the sentences themselves. It simply takes us time to formulate our thoughts, and even more time to have a group discussion among ourselves. Furthermore, we sometimes find ourselves in a position where we've already explained to a contributor why a certain kind of sentence is objectionable, and we don't see how repeating ourselves would be productive.
Sometimes we mark sentences unapproved even though we actually agree (in part or in full) with the sentiments they express. We need to do this because (1) we have to be equitable in the way we treat sentences that violate the site's terms of use, regardless of where on the spectrum they fall, and (2) we don't want to start an arms race in which the sentences posted in response are more objectionable than the original. Sometimes we encounter a person who calls us out for "censorship" because we unapprove or delete sentences they agree with, and sometimes we run into someone who castigates us for not taking action against a sentence they disagree with -- and sometimes these people are one and the same.
If you think that a sentence, or group of sentences, should be unapproved, or conversely, was unfairly marked as unapproved, your best bet is to send a private message to TatoebaAdmins. This will give us the ability to discuss and decide on the best way to approach the problem. The more public, and the more confrontational, you make your request or complaint, the greater the risk that the situation will escalate in a way that is not what you wanted.
I know that this has been a long post, and a personal one. Thanks for your patience.
Thanks, AlanF, for your long and thoughtful post! Much appreciated!
> Sometimes we encounter a person who calls us out for "censorship" because we unapprove or delete sentences they agree with, and sometimes we run into someone who castigates us for not taking action against a sentence they disagree with -- and sometimes these people are one and the same.
To be clear, this is an attempt to explain why they censored sentences critical of the world's most powerful person (Elon Musk) for making openly antisemitic statements, and he is attempting to draw an equivalency between criticizing the world's most powerful person for antisemitism and *being* openly racist, antisemitic, etc..
This reveals more about Tatoeba's right-wing political ideology than probably intended, with all the bloviating about "politics" not mixing with Tatoeba. To believe that hate speech, which incites real-world violence, should receive the same treatment as criticism of hate speech, which does not, requires a right-wing and thoroughly American framing of "censorship." Tatoeba has made political choices in the last week, and it was politics that led to the censorship, as well as politics that informs the admins' response; their way of thinking about this matter is thoroughly right-wing.
What made these sentences so damaging to the project, as compared to ones that praise Elon Musk? Don't those also get lodged in people's heads and come to be accepted as true, whether they are or not? Why aren't pro-Musk sentences being unapproved? Whether you like it or not, by censoring only sentences critical of Musk, you DID take a side, and it was his. No one was pressuring you to take a position; you did so voluntarily, and you don't want to be criticized for it.
Labeling criticism of Elon Musk as "propaganda" is also deeply troubling, illiberal, and right-wing, an abuse of a term generally used for state actors selling wars and surveillance, not disabled queer Jews writing about a person who openly attacks everything about them to an audience of billions.
Finally, if you don't want Tatoeba to be a battlefield, stop making aggressive and draconian moves (unapproving criticism of Elon Musk) without consulting the community. All you've heard are unkind words; shekitten was the recipient of unkind actions. It isn't kind to anonymously unapprove someone's sentences without explanation. It isn't kind to reply to a request for an explanation only days later, with a reference to two extremely vague rules that explain nothing about why the posts were removed (until today, she thought it was for defamation rather than "propaganda"). It isn't kind to misrepresent her position after banning her. Next time you unapprove a sentence, it isn't hard to leave a comment saying why. If you don't know why you're unapproving a sentence yet, you shouldn't do it.
Everyone sees what everyone thinks to see.
Don't care, even about the first post what started this thread.
It's a corpus for sentences, and you all want to make it to work for everyone.
It won't and never.
But it's needed to be curated, because it's a friqin corpus.
Deal with it with your own ways according to your posts or just leave it.
But I would say one thing:
It won't be better curating alongside ideologies.
What ideology is expressed via the statement, "Elon Musk's Twitter paid $3,000 in 2023 to a Holocaust denier who posts pro-Hitler memes"? Other than the ideology of reporting truthfully on things that happened?
What about "The White House condemned Elon Musk's antisemitism"?
These were far from "propaganda"; they were facts. Labeling facts as propaganda is, as I said, deeply troubling.
And it's silly for you to say you don't care when you went to the trouble of replying.
It's an answer for both of your comments, but I wont post it twice.
It's a corpus needed to be curated. - it is for you
It's a corpus for sentences, and you all want to make it to work for everyone.
It won't and never. - this is for both of you
It won't be better curating alongside ideologies. - mainly for Alan, but for you, too
I see you are obsessed with famous people, either way.
It's 2023 and Tatoeba needs to be cancelled, too, excellent.
> We need to do this because (1) we have to be equitable in the way we treat sentences that violate the site's terms of use, regardless of where on the spectrum they fall,
Not that I expect you to respond to any comment that isn't praise of you, but you weren't equitable here. Amastan was warned for years before his sentences about Ferhat Mehenni were unapproved, by administrators and contributors.
And let's be honest - no "terms of use" were violated here. You removed the sentences based on vibes (as you put it, the sentences "threw you out of the zone"), and were empowered to do so by the terms of use which said you didn't need to explain yourself and your rule could effectively be as arbitrary as you wanted it to be (your initial explanation of the removal in a PM to shekitten cited rule 9).
> Furthermore, we sometimes find ourselves in a position where we've already explained to a contributor why a certain kind of sentence is objectionable, and we don't see how repeating ourselves would be productive.
This never happened in the specific case you were addressing, so I don't know why you put it there. You've still never given an explanation for removing them that didn't also apply to every political sentence that is still up.
> your best bet is to send a private message to TatoebaAdmins
And what happens when TatoebaAdmins ignores the private message?
shekitten was also severely damaging to the project. One can see who are the people who run the stakes so high that eventually they will do their best to ruin others' works.
@Them Why would you want to add sentences like that to the corpus in the first place? I just don't understand the need. Tatoeba is not a political project, but a purely linguistic one. What would the added value be of such a sentence, which may be disproven, say, 10 years from now, anyway? There are millions of different sentences you could add to illustrate the same grammatical pattern, idiom, verb etc. You lose absolutely nothing with these rules.
> There are millions of different sentences you could add to illustrate the same grammatical pattern, idiom, verb etc. You lose absolutely nothing with these rules.
Did you know we have thousands of sentences with the pattern "Tom is a X"? Tom is a teacher, Tom is a banker, Tom is a chef. Why have all those, when you could illustrate the same grammatical pattern, idiom, verb etc. with a single sentence?
The answer is that Tatoeba is a language learning tool, and people want to know how to say specific things: teacher, banker, chef, etc.. Naturally, people learning languages will want to know how to say good and bad things about communism, capitalism, etc.. It's just part of any complete, useful corpus.
> we have thousands of sentences with the pattern "Tom is a X"? Tom is a teacher, Tom is a banker, Tom is a chef. Why have all those, when you could illustrate the same grammatical pattern, idiom, verb etc. with a single sentence?
Indeed, and this is why adding more sentences that follow the same pattern as many others is strongly discouraged.
> Tatoeba is a language learning tool, and people want to know how to say specific things
That's true, but it doesn't mean we have to accept any minimum-effort cookie-cutter or maximum-effort ultra-divisive sentence merely because it can be argued to be useful to someone who wants to learn one of the words in the sentence.
There are many possible sentences that have the same teaching value but vary in other aspects, so we can judge them according to multiple criteria simultaneously.
> Indeed, and this is why adding more sentences that follow the same pattern as many others is strongly discouraged.
Interesting, then, that one of the main generators of such sentences is a Tatoeba administrator.
I find this position hipocritical.
The problem with neutrality is that it there is no true 'neutrality'. Neutrality is some middle ground between two extremes. But by defining what these extremes are, you are defining what your 'neutrality' is. So, 'neutrality' without specifying the extremes between which it's neutral means nothing. Tatoeba is not neutral, never have been, and can't be.
Same is with 'political'. There is no clear divide between what is 'political' and what is not. As the second-wave feminism taught us, personal is political. Choosing gender in the translated sentence is political. The way Tatoeba chooses which languages to add is political. Even the process of translation is political, itself: translatability is a political idea like any other. (And don't get started with the flags.) Tatoeba is inherently political, you're just preventing *certain* kinds of politics.
The problem with 'harmony' is that the people that left the project are obviously not the part of that harmony. That's only a harmony with people whose worldview is similar to yours. For people like me, there is no harmony on Tatoeba.
No, this is simply not true. You are mistaking essence for approach or interpretation. Not everything "is" politics. Everything *can be analyzed* from a political standpoint. How you interpret or analyze something tells more about you than the sentence.
It is very dangerous when some people can get their projections acknowledged as objective truth that is "just there". Somehow this reminds me of psychology and missing the point that feelings aren't caused by events - they are caused by the interpretations of the events.
It is okay that there are places where personal is political, or choosing gender in a sentence is political. This is not that place. The rest of that paragraph was more than controversial: there is no entity "Tatoeba" that "chooses which languages to add", it's all proposed by volunteers and even having an ISO-639 equivalent is more of a suggestion than a hard rule. I don't know what sense it makes to say "translatability is a political idea", I think you confused it with philosophy, and anyway: if you think the mere existence of Tatoeba is politics, you have two choices - you can accept the implied politics or move on...
In before you say that the very idea of NOT interpreting everything in a political way, is a political normative in itself: okay, then THIS is the political view of Tatoeba. Honestly, there are a lot of places to go. Please respect this view and go somewhere else if you cannot associate with it. This is a very precious view for me and apparently quite a few other people.
> go somewhere else
Don't worry, I already have. I've lost any hope for Tatoeba and I no longer add anything myself (only sometimes proofread Belarusian sentences if I see new ones added; none have been added recently, so probably I'm not the only one who has lost hope).
Then I really don't know why you had to make a point about it, let alone with the hot takes that inflate the whole discourse...
Slow down, Bandi. He can't keep up with the deletion of his accounts.
> it's all proposed by volunteers and even having an ISO-639 equivalent is more of a suggestion than a hard rule
I’m handling language additions, and the guidelines I follow involve requiring an ISO code along with verifying information about the language, with exceptions made only by admins. This rule doesn’t affect already-added languages, but yes to new ones.
Yes, I know and with this in mind, I think the situation really is that it's more of a recommendation than a hard rule.
> It is very dangerous when some people can get their projections acknowledged as objective truth that is "just there".
I agree! How do you reconcile this with your belief that apoliticality is possible? Isn't apoliticality just when people treat their ideologies as objective truth that is beyond criticism?
E.g., is the sentence "Tom and Mary are married" political? It's hard to argue objectively that it isn't, because it describes them participating in a government institution defined by certain laws. But what "apolitical" person views it that way? They view their ideology as the default.
No, it absolutely isn't.
That was simple. :)
Thank you for proving my point, that "apolitical" people are just pretending their ideology is objective truth.
I didn't know proving points was as simple as saying something that makes no sense and waiting for somebody to say it.
I gave my exact rationale. You have yet to provide any. You just say that something is true and feel no need to justify it. That's exactly what I was saying supposedly "apolitical" people do. You believe your ideology is objective truth that is "just there", and needs no justification.
And political ppl always find a way to talk about politics.
Why is this thread still active, while mine always gets deleted in an instant?
I mean sorry but the claim just made no sense. In fact, it's more intuitive to say that "political" people always think that whatever they are saying is the absolute truth; they have an agenda, after all. Politics and having (over?)confidence in one's judgement are completely orthogonal things. One can claim that techno is the best music genre, or that cheetahs have 5 legs, or that the cosine of 0 is 1. One statement will be confirmably wrong, another one will be confirmably right and another one will be an overambitious value judgement that would require a more elaborate framework to even evaluate. None of these statements have anything to do with any politics for all I'm concerned. Somebody else can claim with equal confidence that these statements are political, or make a heavily politicized claim about abortion, wealth distribution, racism, climate activism and so on.
I'd say this is quite a lot of effort for explaining someone that two concepts are really just orthogonal. Most of the time I wouldn't want to spend this amount of time on something completely random.
Päätös siitä, minkälaiset lauseet ovat poliittisia, on toki poliittinen. Keskustelun raamittaminen on valtaa ja joidenkin lauseiden julistaminen poliittisiksi tai ei-poliittiseksi on tapa raamittaa keskustelu.
Toisaalta on myös hyvin paljon lauseita, jotka lähes kaikki tulkitsevat kohtalaisen ei-poliittisiksi. (Vain kohtalaisen, koska lauseiden kirjoittaminen esimerkiksi uhatulla vähemmistökielellä on nähtävissä jo itsessään poliittiseksi teoksi, mutta tavalla, joka hyväksyttäneen laajasti täällä.) Tai ehkä paremminkin: on lauseita, joiden sisällön lähes kaikki tulkitsevat ei-poliittiseksi.
Joitakin vaihtoehtoja:
1. Tiukka rajoitus sen suhteen, että kaikki vähänkin poliittisilta kuulostavat lauseet potkitaan pois.
2a. Tietyn henkilön poliittisiksi mieltämät lauseet kielletään.
2b. Kerätään lista aiheista, joiden lauseet aiheuttavat yhteisössä eripuraa, ja ne aiheet kielletään.
3. Kaikki on sallittu, kunhan ei selkeästi rikota (Ranskan) lakia tai nimetä ei-julkisia yksityishenkilöitä jne.
Kaikissa näissä, poislukien 3, lienee se ongelma, että vain harva seuraa keskustelua täällä ja siten joku voi hyvin aikein kääntää tai lisätä lauseita tietokantaan, samalla kyseistä normia rikkoen.
Joka tapauksessa yhteisöjen kanssa pätee aina sama laki: jos kaikki sisältö sallitaan, osa osallistujista, ja yleensä se haavoittuvaisin ja hiljaisin osa, ajetaan pois. Jos taas sisältöä rajataan, pitää vetää raja johonkin, ja aina joku jää sen väärälle puolelle. Mutta tästä ei pääse mihinkään - jos rajaa ei vedetä selkeästi, niin sitten se muodostuu kun ihmiset valitsevat olla osallistumatta.
Marriage's existence is purely ideological. There is nothing in human biology saying we have to have marriages or that married people should get special privileges; this is purely a creation of human societies, via political processes. The fact that marriage is largely universal in the modern world doesn't change the fact that it is a political ideology; it is part of the default ideology that most people have. No one lacks an ideology, anymore than anyone lacks a culture. If I said I had no culture, you would laugh at me. People that think they have no ideology have just never closely examined their beliefs and their bases.
You might say, "Oh, but marriage isn't controversial." That's true for most people, but when you draw a line between "controversial" and "uncontroversial" ideologies, you are making the clear ideological stance that you support the status quo and oppose any change to it. And if you do this, it's better to be straightforward about it rather than pretending you "don't have politics."
I should clarify, though, that it makes sense not to have extremely edgy/provocative sentences, toxic ones, or an excessive amount of sentences skewed to one side.
So you completely backed off from your absurd claim. Well, that's something.
One last try: a marriage **exists or doesn't exist** in the first place. That's the factual part. Law does exist, societies do exist. These are objective, factual statements. To say that marriage is an inherently social thing probably makes sense. To say that it signals some sort of politics completely (purposefully, I'm afraid) misses out on the interpretation layer. It's not the sentence that is political, it is someone's interpretation or projection. Observing the reality that is shaped by politics in all sorts of ways is NOT politics. If you want to reflect on the surrounding political environment, that's actually a great thing; somewhere else, not on Tatoeba.
> So you completely backed off from your absurd claim. Well, that's something.
??? What claim did I back off from, when? If that were true, why would you be responding? ???
> Observing the reality that is shaped by politics in all sorts of ways is NOT politics.
You mean like by making factual statements about the political activities of a billionaire? I'm glad we agree. There's no political program inherent in doing this. It's just an observation of a reality shaped by politics in all sorts of ways.
Marriage is CREATED and CONTINUED by politics. Politics is the sine qua non of marriage. The fact that it is uncontroversial for most people does not make it less political. It isn't "projection" to acknowledge its political nature; it's calling a spade a spade and using consistent standards to define and classify things rather than the received wisdom you seem to be going by.
> If you want to reflect on the surrounding political environment, that's actually a great thing; somewhere else, not on Tatoeba.
Your commandment is noted and filed, fellow contributor.
You backed off from "apolotical means fixated on talking about the absolute truth". Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you did, thank you very much.
I tend to agree that factual statements shouldn't be seen as political, or "the problem". It's not the sentences but the attitude, the context, the cultural environment etc. which cannot be directly measured or extracted. The recurring problem is that a certain vivid meme, masquerading as the rightful protector of the oppressed, makes people shove their context and their narrative to everyone, or else you are a right-wing bigot fascist. As somebody who utterly refuses these labels but also isn't fond of this aggressive meme and its apparent influence on society, I will absolutely stand up for Tatoeba as a project where there still is good faith and collaboration, not just endless ultimatums and pulling politics into everything. Those who cannot put up with this and still try to make schemes against the humble, welcoming and helpful people running this project just have no place here.
I'm saying it once again, preferably the last time: talking about something "created by politics" (so basically everything, starting with language) is not politics. That's like saying that chocolate is a vegetable because it contains cocoa. When something exists as an individual entity, talking about it is no stance. That's all descriptive, not normative.
I was backing up my actual original claim, which is that people who claim to be "apolitical" are just pretending their political opinions are absolute truth that is beyond criticism. They effectively place their political opinions outside of an arbitrary realm they've defined as "politics."
For example, your crusade against what you view as this "meme" is very much political, as is your hatred for this "meme" and your view of what it is and means.
But there's no point in continuing this.
I still think it's being called a "radical" when somebody pretends that their political opinions are absolute truth and this is what I see in people reciting things that can absolutely be understood in good faith as some big agenda. After all, if you can think outside of your political bubble, you don't even start into a harm narrative with a mundane statement about a marriage.
And I already said it a long time ago: if you take standing up for the good faith collaboration that Tatoeba has always been about, and refuting any sort of friction created on a political basis, as "politics", then sure. This has always been the "politics" of Tatoeba, and this is what needs to be protected, whether somebody says that Tatoeba is about anti-religious indoctrination, serving global capital, racism apologetics or whatever. It is more or less accidental that far-right extremism is easier to be detected and sent to junkyard, therefore it takes less effort to keep it outside.
To be clear, I'm not calling it political to "stand up for the good faith collaboration that Tatoeba has always been about." On that matter, Tatoeba would do well to adopt Wikipedia's "assume good faith" principle. Most people here care about the project, even people who disagree with you.
I'm calling it political to be an "anti-woke" crusader, and calling it dishonest and hypocritical to claim this is "apolitical" rather than right-wing. You're not standing up for the values of Tatoeba; you're trying to impose a right-wing agenda on it. You've already managed to scare off one left-leaning user and much-needed Belarusian translator (User55521) by talking to them as if you were an authority on who should and shouldn't be here. They were by no means a propagandist; they just had thought more than you about what was and wasn't political. The admins are not as extreme on this matter as you are, so you'd do well to stop speaking with authority you don't have.
I forgot to add that this will be my last post in this thread. Enjoy the last word; I'm sure you'll make good use of it.
Nah, it's nothing new. Radicals calling those who oppose their radicalism the enemy. This is how it all started here as well. You might as well call me a radical leftist; it only tells about the people who say these things.
Nie rozumiem czemu jakiekolwiek zdanie poprawne miałoby być ukrywane/usuwane. Przecież to tylko narzędzie poznawania / ćwiczenia języka.
@Thanuir,
+1
Jos taas sisältöä rajataan, pitää vetää raja johonkin, ja aina joku jää sen väärälle puolelle. Mutta tästä ei pääse mihinkään - jos rajaa ei vedetä selkeästi, niin sitten se muodostuu kun ihmiset valitsevat olla osallistumatta.
Why searching "Mars" in French, finds sentences containing "Marie"?
https://tatoeba.org/en/sentence...query=Mars&to=
Try an exact search instead.
=Mars
https://tatoeba.org/en/sentence...&query=%3DMars
Maybe it’s because “-s” and “-ie” are suffixes.
Yes, and perhaps also because "mar" is a word in its own right. Unless the search engine is told to do otherwise, or is acting on a language without a "stemmer", it "stems" words by discarding sequences of letters that sometimes act as suffixes/endings from the words in both the search query and candidate sentences and determining whether there is a match. This works only imperfectly, but injecting a human's full knowledge of the words in question into the search engine may not be feasible.