Word PronounciationsEdit

In Index:An Etymological Dictionary of the Norn Language in Shetland Part I.pdf Pronounciations are given for some words, these look like they are given in IPA ?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The pronunciations are at least similar to the IPA, however considering the age of the publication (and my lack of knowledge around the specifics of IPA), I'm wondering if this is one of several variations it went through as the IPA was being developed? There's usage of quite odd symbols such as ꜵ̈̄ and (what I think is) ɢ̧ , (neither of which seem to render very well on here). As such, what little I have transcribed so far has just been my best guess at what the symbols are meant to be. If you happen to know the specifics of what this is please do let me know, (and it should be reasonably simple to Ctrl-F any ones I have misused so far), and if there's any conventions for this sort of thing going forward let me know and I will try my best to follow them. Griceylipper (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Template hintEdit

I think in the {{Nornabr/switch}} template, in the switch, you can switch on the lowercase transformed text like this:

 | abbr. = Matches {{{1}}} == abbr. ABBR. and Abbr., etc

Then you don't have to add all the casing variants. Keep using a plain {{{1}}} in the outer template to control what is actually displayed. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: – I would ideally like to do this, however there seem to be some abbreviations that are different based on their capitalisation. For example, c. = common gender, but C. = Conningsburgh, a district of Shetland. Thanks for trying to my life a bit simpler though!— 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 23:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

An Etymological Dictionary of the Norn Language in Shetland and its copyrightEdit

I must say that I hadn't looked at the front of the work, though I was surprised today to see that that the reproduced work is 1928-1932 and that you have put a cc-by-4.0 license to it.

If this is a reproduced work, something published in 1928-1932 would normally be considered under copyright in the US as there is a 95 year cut-off, so at this stage we have stop at works prior to 1925. We also would apply the license relevant to the author, as explained at Help:copyright tags.

I think that we have a problem with the work and our reproducing it. What are you seeing that is different? What is the NLS saying? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:This is where I got the source files. As you can see the NLS themselves have released the volumes under CC-BY-4.0. I have assumed that they do in fact have the rights to do this, and I have not specifically asked any further than reading this notice on their website. I would assume the NLS have sought permission to be able to do this?— 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 06:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)