Wicipedia:Sgwrs am Gwledydd y Byd

Sgwrs wedi symud oddi wrth Wicipedia:Y Caffi#Daearyddiaeth ar 18 Hydref 2004.

Daearyddiaeth golygu

I've got hold of my copy of yr Atlas Cymraeg newydd - if you don't mind I will go through all geography articles and change the names accordingly. Pleidleisiau? --Okapi 22:56, 16 Med 2004 (UTC)

I do very much mind! Yr Atlas Cymraeg Newydd is a highly excentric work in which Gareth Jones has taken it upon himself to change the Welsh language according to his own personal preferences. As I've always understood it up until now, the principle in Wikipedia has always been to employ the most widely-used forms (with others mentioned too where they also have wide currency). Ridiculous forms like "Ukrain" -- why import a non-Welsh letter unnecessarily, how are we expected to pronounce it, EE-krine with the accent on the first syllable? -- have just sprung fully formed out of Mr Jones's fevered imagination, the politically correct principles he aspires to follow just making matters worse. Try finding these inventions anywhere but in that book (and alas, now, far too often here). Okapi has called on me to cease restoring absurdities like "Slovenija" to "Slofenia" in the Wicipedia -- I know how the Slovenians spell the name of their own country but are we to be expected to start talking about "Yr Italia"? I will go on restoring genuine Welsh names but -- I feel strongly enough about this to say -- if the majority feel that I am wrong to do so, then I'll just leave you to get on with it and concentrate on the other-language Wikipedias I contribute to, as I cannot accept the corruption of the Wicipedia by Mr Jones's arrogant inventions. -- Jac-y-do 14:44, 17 Hyd 2004 (UTC)
I dispute your comment that Gareth Jones has taken it on himself to change the Welsh language according to his own personal preference. Welsh language academics in Welsgh language departments in the University of Wales were contributing to discussion on the atlas as they do in the usage of new technical terms in many fields. It would be rediculas for us not to use what would be used in schools and colleges here in Wales, not to mention examination boards. I feel streongly on this point too Dyfrig
So it IS a case of trahaison des clercs -- the situation is far worse than I thought: puts bye-bye from me (and a reply of "good riddance from bad rubbish" from linguistic cringers) that much closer, "Dyfrig", if that is the way the acadamic Taffia is taking us. -- Jac-y-do 18:54, 17 Hyd 2004 (UTC)
Jac-y-do, I did not so much ask you not to change the names but to read this discussion before you do so and to offer an opinion if you disagree. I did so, because this obviously is is a disputed issue and I suppose that coming to a conclusion here would be helpful in avoiding changing names back and forth. I thought it might be a way to avoid trouble. Hwyl, --Okapi 23:09, 17 Hyd 2004 (UTC)
Granted, Okapi. My first posting on this matter (above) didn't adequately convey the intended tone of your request. Nevertheless, I feel that there is a genuine linguistic issue at stake here, and it remains one in which I can see little scope for compromise à la Dyfrig (just because schoolchildren are being taught at the behest of one publisher that the Welsh alphabet is inferior to the English, we should tug our forelocks and aquiesce) -- Jac-y-do
Just popping in for the first time in ages (real life intrudes, sometimes), I'd just note that I share many of Jac-y-do's misgivings about this. I'd rather we sorted things out with a good discussion here (or set up a special page for it, if it looks like it's going to be extensive) rather than indulge in timewasting edit wars! It does seem to me to be rather counter-intuitive to use English transliterations of foreign names rather than Welsh ones in the Welsh Wikipedia. I recall reading a stamp identification guide over 40 years ago, which was published by a firm in Rhyl, which quite clearly listed "Dae-Han Min-Guk" as "Corea" rather than "Korea" -- and that was in an English publication! Oh yes, I meant to ask, does anyone know of multiple outside authorities whom we could ask for an opinion on this, if we were trying to get a consensus? -- Arwel 00:04, 18 Hyd 2004 (UTC)
Should we move this discussion to the discussion page of "Gwledydd y byd"? At least it wouldn't vanish into the archives so very easily as long as it is on that page. I think a compromise is called for and I agree I would not enjoy edit wars. Outside opinions sounds good, but unfortunately I don't know where to get them... --Okapi 07:52, 18 Hyd 2004 (UTC)
I do not intend to get into a battle of words with you but I do object to you making assertions that are wide off the mark as was the one you made about Gareth Jones in a previous post and now "(just because schoolchildren are being taught at the behest of one publisher that the Welsh alphabet is inferior to the English, we should tug our forelocks and aquiesce) " It is not at the behest of one publisher. There is usually a long discussion between Welsh language academics and specalists in the subject under discussion before a form is adopted, not only in geography, but in many many subjects, - technology, science etc etc and this has been the process certainly since the early 60's. This is accepted then by ALL publishers and users in Wales. [Dyfrig]
I do not accept that there is an established concensus on this matter. If Belarws, Latfia, Lithwania, Moldofa, Slofacia, Slofenia, etc. are good enough for the BBC and S4C, for Cyfundrefn dros Leiafrifoedd Ewrop, for cymru.fydd.org, cymru.gov.uk, Gwasg Gomer and the OUP, etc. etc. - then they're good enough for me.
Printing maps with placenames in their local forms is one thing. English-published atlases showing Norge, Lietuva and Eesti (not to mention Magyarország, Suomi and Crna Gora -- damn! I've mentioned them) are interesting and useful. Their existence doesn't, however, mean that the English are thereby obliged to cease writing about Norway, Lithuania ... Finland, Montenegro.
Apart from anything else, Jones's neologisms are frequently absurd, leading the reader easily to conclude that he knows little about other languages. Take, for example, his *România for Romania. Yes, that IS how it's spelt in Romanian -- but in no other language, because that use of "â" to indicate the vowel sound which is actually that of North-Welsh "u" is unique to Romanian. "â" exists in Welsh, of course, but means something quite different: it's use here implies there is a difference between the endings of *Lithuania (pronounced how?) and *România. If Jones really wanted to be faithful to the original he would write *Romunia.
There is no reason why any of us should take the Jones/CBAC inventions as Holy Writ. Living languages do not exist by fiat. Rival forms have to fight it out for survival: language evolution IS a battle of words. Not only is the battle on this matter by no means lost, but I come back to my main original point: the Wicipedia should reflect the language as it IS, not as some academics would like it to be.-- Jac-y-do 14:56, 24 Hyd 2004 (UTC)
If Wicipedia is going to be accepted as an encylopedia of authority in Wales, and this is the only way we going to have an on line one as far as I can see, as opposed to printed ones, we must accept the conventions that are accepted in real life out there in Wales. Dyfrig
My point exactly, Dyfrig. -- Jac-y-do 15:00, 24 Hyd 2004 (UTC)
I note that Jac-y-do continues to change palce names despite Okapi's request and others for a monatorium. So much for Wicipedia guidelines. Is it any wonder that so few first language speakers frequent and contribute to this Wicipedia. Dyfrig 00:14, 27 Hyd 2004 (UTC)
Is there going to be a lot of them? I'd hope we got Europe right at least.... -- Arwel 23:36, 16 Med 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, Europe looks pretty fine, though I haven't checked in detail yet... the others definitely could do with a brush-up. And also the seas and oceans and so on... --Okapi 23:50, 16 Med 2004 (UTC)
Whew... I've done with the continents. And I'm done for, too... Problem: Now the lists of countries differ quite considerably from the names of the countries on the maps. Especially outside Europe. Ehm... Volunteers??? (I don't know how to do that anyways...). --Okapi 09:46, 18 Med 2004 (UTC)
I have to seriously doubt some of the changes -- it looks like the Atlas Cymraeg has simply taken the local names for some places, and the English forms for more distant ones. I know where København and Grønland are, because I collect stamps and have dealings with the post offices there, but I doubt most Welsh-speakers would have come across them (or know how to generate the ø!). I've only looked at the Atlas briefly in a bookshop several years ago, but I recall that I saw Glasgow is down as Glaschu, which if I recall is really as Gaidligh -- does anyone know if the name is actually used in Welsh? Let me guess, does the Atlas show the Faeroes as "Føroyar"? -- it might be more sensible to call them "Ynysoedd y Defaid", which is what it actually means! We have a perfectly traditional (and still used) Welsh name for Rome, which I don't think we should be abandoning, any more than German speakers have stopped used "Rom", or "Mailand" for Milano, or "Venedig" for Venezia, or "Laibach" for Ljubljana. As for moving Mecsico to México, it simply doesn't make orthographic sense in Welsh (and in Mexican Spanish it's pronounced "may-chi-ko" anyway!). -- Arwel 12:22, 18 Med 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm, yes... (scratch, sctratch....). So what shall we do? Yr Atlas Cymraeg Newydd had been pointed out to me several times when writing about countries or towns, see for example Sgwrs:Tajikistan (the same on Pakistan and some other -stan) and Sgwrs:Strasbourg. On Wicipedia:Cymorth iaith Gareth also tends to quote the same source, for example on Texas/Tecsas or on Atebion (Rhan I): International Quiz. I also was wondering about Rhufain/Roma, but to give the book credit it gave both, but with Roma one on the top (BTW., not really the point here, but German speakers do actually say Ljubljana, not Laibach...). That is why I put in all the other names I have also found, too. And I also was wondering about the former transcriptions, like for example Tsili, which ist the Welsh transcription of the English pronounciation of a Spanish name. Another problem is that there are so many variations of names anyways, if you search the internet you usually come up with a handful, even the BBC giving several and often enough none at all. With the Atlas Cymraeg Newydd there would at least be a common base, and apart from that we could make as many redirects as we like... Any ideas? --Okapi 02:15, 19 Med 2004 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, the atlas has a paragraph inside one of the covers which explains their reasoning: if there's a Welsh name (eg. Rhufain), then use that. Otherwise, use the native name (transliterated into the Latin alphabet if necessary). The problem I think we have is that the Wikipedias tend to use the most popular name (taking NPOV into account) which in the Welsh case would generally be the English name transliterated into Welsh (eg. Ynysoedd y Ffaro, Siapan, Tsieina etc.) Calling the Faroes 'Ynysoedd y Defaid' would be going too far in the opposite direction to the Atlas Gymraeg in my view; nobody would know what we're referring to (I think this goes for 'Y Lasynys' too). Perhaps the only way around this would be a Wicipedia: page where we could list consensuses reached for each geographical identity, discussed on various talk pages? Perhaps we could take the Atlas Gymraeg names as default but change some names according to common sense. Gareth 22:34, 23 Med 2004 (UTC)
That sounds very reasonable. There are names that aren't listed in Yr Atlas Cymraeg anyways, aren't there? At the moment we have the Atlas names on the list of all countries - apart from Scotland and Wales which were added lately they all are independent countries, but we would be free to include all countries, wouldn't we? The question about what is independent and what isn't seems to be quite difficult to answer, anywyays. We could put the names not given in yr Atlas Cymraeg in italics, too, to make them more obvious. And maybe start another list for towns and one for other geographical names (or just use categories for the lists?). I would opt for mentioning all names in the first line of an article anyways (as, e.g. in China: hefyd: Gweriniaeth Pobl China: GPT, Tseina neu Tsieina) and make the according redirects. Using the most popular transliteration also might be difficult: as in China there often are quite a few and sometimes there are so few internet pages mentioning them anyways that it is difficult to decide what's used often and what's been made up on the spot by the author (or at least it is quite difficult for me). And I'm not sure whether making up names is very helpful anyways... Another thing possible to do would be using the Atlas Cymraeg name for the article about the country/region/river/town for the article name-space where possible but accept any transliteration plus link in texts of other articles. That would save us the trouble of chasing after names in texts and having to discuss the names all the time. There are much fewer generally accepted standard expressions in Welsh than in any language with loads of speakers, so why not go a different way?--Okapi 00:04, 24 Med 2004 (UTC)
Dw i'n argyhoeddedig bod rhaid i ni gadw at dermau yr Atlas Cymraeg a'r Atlas Cymraeg Newydd. Dyma'r termau sydd yn cael eu cydnabod gan yr ysgolion, colegau a'r byrddau arholi. Gobeithio y bydd Wicipedia yn adnodd addysgol gwerthfawr yn y dyfodol ond all e byth fod yn hynny os bydd yn dibynnu ar fympwy unigolion.
Bu gweithgor o chwechh o arbenigwyr yn gweithio dros bedair blynyedd yn datblygu ac yn cytuno ar bolisi golygyddol - pwy ydyn ni i gwestiynnu ei barn.
Dyma'r canllawiau y maent wedi dilyn a rwyn dyfynnu
" Gwledydd"
(a) lle bo enw traddodiadol Cymraeg ei ddefnyddio. e.e. Ariannin, seland Newydd
(b) Cymreigio ambell enw neu ran o enw e.e. Gogledd Korea
(c) Lle nad oes enw Cymraeg nac ymgais i Gymreigio'r enw
(i) Gwyddor Rufeinig - cadw'r sillafiad cywir gan gynnwys yr acenion e.e. Brasil, Mexico
(ii) Gwyddor Anrufeinig - cadw'r fersiwn ryngwladol a arddelir gan y gwledydd e.e. Afghanistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia
"Taleithiau, Siroedd ac ati"
(a) Lle bo enw traddodiadol Cymraeg, ei ddefnyddio e.e. Caint, Gwlad yr haf
(b) Cymreigio ambell enw neu ran o enw e.e. De Cymru Newydd
(c) Yn gyffredinol cadw at y brodorol, swyddogol, e.e. Castilla-La Nueva
Os na ddefnyddiwn ni enwau'r Atlas Cymraeg Newydd a dilyn yr egwyddorion uchod bydd anhrefn llwyr gyda ni
Gyda llaw mae gyda fi broblem gyda'r modd yr enwir Brenhinoedd ac ati, eto yng nghyd-destyn beth sydd yn dderbyniol i ysgolion, colegau a byrddau arholi, ond stori arall yw honno ar gyfer rhyw ddiwrnod arall!!
Dyfrig 11:22, 24 Med 2004 (UTC)

====Mae'r sylwad gwreiddiol mwy neu lai yn gywir. Ond mae honni bod termau'r Atlas yn rhai sy'n cael eu derbyn gan academwyr yn hollol anghywir. Siaredwyd gydag academwyr wrth lunio'r atlas, efallai, ond rhaid iddyn nhw wedi cael eu hanwybyddu! Does ond rhaid edrych ar yr atlas i weld mae rwts llwyr yw e. Mae'n syndod imi y gellir defnyddio llyfr mor amlwg o wael ei hiaith fel canllaw safon iaith. Rhaid cofio mai Geiriadur yr Academi yw Geiriadur yr Academi, canllaw safon iaith go iawn. Mae rhoi blaenoriaeth i'r Atlas yn neud cam i'r iaith. Mae'r canllawiau uchod yn dderbyniol ar y golwg cyntaf, ac yn unffurf â Geiriadur yr Academi, ond nid yw'r Atlas yn dilyn ei reolau ei hun. Cawn "Latvia" yn lle "Latfia" neu'r enw brodorol "Latvija", "China" ac "Ukrain" yn lle eu ffurfiau Cymraeg. Penderfyniadau gwael iawn. Un peth yw dweud Cabo Verde heb ei gyfieithu, peth arall yw dewis enwau Saesneg ar gyfer gwledydd fel Tsieina, Coweit, Cwrdistan, Sawdi-Arabia ac Affganistan. Mae hyd yn oed newyddion y BBC yn defnyddio gwell dermau na'r Atlas. Na fydd pwynt inni siarad yn Gymraeg o gwbl os derbyniwn safonau iaith mor wael â safon iaith yr Atlas Sanddef 14:15, 8 Chwefror 2007 (UTC)SanddefAteb[ateb]

Dwi'n weddol gyfarwydd a'r Atlas, a byswn i ddim yn dweud fod safon yr iaith yn wael. Dwi ddim digon cyfarwydd â geiriadur yr academi i roi sylw ar yr enwau gwledydd ynddo. Ond dwi'n meddwl ei fod yn bwysig roi blaenoriaeth i'r sillafu neu'r ynganiad brodorol pan nad oes ffurf wirioneddol Gymraeg ar enw. Weithiau mae sillafiad sy'n edrych yn estron yn cyfleu gwybodaeth pwysig. Er enghraifft, mae'r gh yn Afghanistan yn cynrychioli sain debyg i r ffrangeg (mae'r ynganiad rhywbeth fel Affghanistân dwi'n credu). O'r ynganiad Saesneg mae'r 'cymreigiad' Affganistan. Ac yn y blaen. Er fod ambell engrhaifft o'r Atlas yn pechu uchod, oleia'i fod yn osgoi hyn i ryw raddau. --Llygad Ebrill 15:08, 8 Chwefror 2007 (UTC)Ateb[ateb]

Wel, yn achos Affganistan, mae'n ynganiad Cymraeg cymaint ag un Saesneg, fel roedd y Cymry yn rhan o luoedd yr Ymerodraeth gyda'r Saeson. Dw'i'n derbyn enwau brodorol ar gyfer dinasoedd a rhanbarthau lle nad oes enw Cymraeg eisoes, ac i raddau gyda rhai gwledydd gydag enwau ecsotig o safbwynt orffograffeg, neu enwau Sbaeneg fel Cabo Verde, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, ond nid lle mae'r sillafiad yn groes i'r ynganiad Cymraeg, fel yn achos Chile, China, Afghanistan. Mae'r Atlas hefyd yn llawn o gamgymeriadau digon amlwg yn ei ddewis o enwau gwledydd Ewrop, fel yn achos Latvia, Lithuania, Ukrain, Slovenija (yn lle dewis enw mor syml â Slofenia!), a România (mae'r enw Cymraeg Rwmania yn un hanesyddol). Am hyn o beth dw'i'n cyhuddo'r Atlas o fod yn wael. Dw'i jyst ddim yn gallu dychmygu sut yn y byd naethon nhw neud y fath ddewisiadau. Sanddef 17:17, 8 Chwefror 2007 (UTC)SanddefAteb[ateb]