Template talk:User pl

Again and again, word repetition is a mistake in Polish language. Hence the statement that Język polski jest językiem ojczystym tego użytkownika. is a styllistical error. At the same time, the term polszczyzna is an exact synonym of the term język polski. Why not to use it? Who promote errors instead of correct statements? I don't get it. Halibu tt 14:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you noted here the word "polszczyzna" is defined to be "język polski, mowa polska" so the meaning conveyed by the expression "język polski" is essentially the same. The difference lays only in the register of the expression. The word "polszczyzna" is from the "higher register" and is OK in books, essays etc. while the phrase "język polski" is from "neutral register" and is OK in everyday usage. Due to the fact, none of the titles of Polish language dictionaries mentioned in the Merlin bookshop category of Polish dictionaries uses the word "polszczyzna" whereas some use the phrase "język polski". As the language template is intended rather for everyday informative usage instead of being a part of a "higher register" text, I suggest to leave the template with the phrase "język polski".

Concerning the style remark you gave in the edit summary, note that the most important style direction is to keep the balance between form and the stylistic context in which the phrase belongs ("Odpowiednie dać rzeczy słowo"). The stylistic guideline you refer to is again the rule used for essays not for informative texts. In particular, the stylistic guideline is to much descent not obeyed in Polish technical texts where it is more important to refer to precisely defined notions than to present rich vocabulary. Even in the world of essay texts the word "język" in conjunction with an adjunct after the word (which indicates that this is a separate notion and which usage is the subject of our argument) is very often used as repetition. You can consult for instance Korpus Języka Polskiego Wydawnictwa Naukowego PWN to see many cases of the usage which does not obey the non-repetition style rule: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Again, I don't deny that the style guideline you mentioned exists. I only state that in the context of the template this rule does not apply. alx-pl D 17:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I see that you managed to change a sentence which was written in "polszczyzna" to a sentence which is written in "łamana polszczyzna". Anyhow, I don't think that you should attempt to change the pl template without mentioning it on the Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board. After all many of us use it on our user pages.--SylwiaS | talk 21:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Alx is right to some extent: some rules are at times dropped in serious publications. This is the case of, for instance, scientific publications where authors often sacrifice good Polish language for clarity. My field of science (linguistics) is a particularily good example as in proffessional dialect of linguists (żargon lingwistyczny, gwara zawodowa) the distinction between languages, dialects and so on has to be stated very clearly. This is also the case with lists of various phenomena (and most of the links you provided allow word repetition only in such lists, for instance in list of languages).

However, this template is not a list. Nor is it a technical or scientific publication. It is a tiny template with the sole purpose of informing the world that certain wikipedians speak fluent Polish. Since fluent Polish speakers should perfectly understand the rules of Polish language, they should have no problem with understanding both names of the Polish language. If so, then why exactly should we allow errors? For the sake of clarity? Simplicity? I don't get it.

Note that it's not a matter of register, this template consists of a single statement and it's really hard to translate it to several registers of the Polish language. It's simply the matter of correctness. Halibu tt 00:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Korpus języka polskiego is a piece of heavy artillery as it could be used to prove practically any idea

As the message above contains a few statements that are not true, I would like to clarify them:

most of the links you provided allow word repetition only in such lists, for instance in list of languages - non-list, non-list, list, non-list, non-list, non-list (one repetition may be regarded as a list one, the other not), non-list, non-list, non-list, non-list, non-list, non-list.
as it could be used to prove practically any idea - This is a general statement that relates to every piece of empirical data. If you use improper methodology you can infer every statement from the data (even in physics). My claim was "there are many cases of the usage which does not obey the non-repetition style rule" and I provided 11 examples. This was an existential sentence and I provided the witness. This is methodologically sound. However, there is possibility for more accurate analysis of the phenomenon by statistical means. Although this is very costly. All in all this is the matter of methodology. If you have any particular methodological objections please voice them I'll try to answer them.

alx-pl D 09:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again most of the links are either blobs or... lists. [13] For instance:

1 czerwca 2001 r. powstaną cztery Państwowe Wyższe Szkoły Zawodowe:

w Nysie
- informatyka stosowana
- zarządzanie produkcją i usługami
- finanse i zarządzanie organizacjami
- język niemiecki
w Przemyślu
- polonistyka
- historia z archiwistyką
- polityka regionalna
w Sanoku
- język polski
- język i kultura: ukraińska, słowacka, rosyjska
- kultura krajów karpackich
w Tarnobrzegu
- przedsiębiorczość i zarządzanie
- pedagogika ogólna

In such a text the author simply could not use synonyms for all of the instances of the term język as it is but a list. Halibu tt 13:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whtat's the point. This is one example, what about the others? The one example was to illustrate the point that it is used in list enumeratins. I even marked the link that you quote above with the tag "list" above. What about the other examples? Are you really insisting that the use of the word "język" in two separate sentences of a different structure (which is the case in most of the links above) is a list usage? Are you really insisting that the narration in the book Madame the author of which Antoni Libera is one of the most known and valued Polish contemporary stylist is a blob? Are you claiming that the descriptions in the handbook "MEDIA I KOMUNIKOWANIE MASOWE" by Prof. Tomasz Goban-Klas (working at the Jagiellonian University) published by PWN is a blob? I really took a while to present texts from the reputable sources in my selection above so these two examples are not just exceptions on my list. alx-pl D 14:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I argue that a styllistical error remains an error, even if some authors permit such usage for this or that reason. Even if 50%+ of Polish authors permitted such usage in their works, it would still not change the rules of the Polish language. As simple as that. Halibu tt 19:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is your opinion. In fact this opinion stays in contradiction with the linguistic methodology used by the official language regulating organ Polish Language Council and explained for instance in this document where in the article "Scrabble a język polski" you can find the statement

Reguł gramatycznych w zasadzie się nie tworzy, tylko się je formułuje na podstawie przeanalizowanego materiału językowego.

Translation: The grammatical rules are not created, but they are formulated on the basis of a language body being the subject of analysis.

Basically, if 50%+ of authors permited certain usage then it would be a perfect dominant of the language and that could not be regarded as an error by linguists. Again, I agree that the style guideline you refer to is a dominan good style feature in Polish. And again, there are contexts in which the use of the style feature is improper, or if you prefer, an error (as an editor in one of the reputable Polish publishing houses explained to me one week ago). alx-pl D 21:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]