Talk:Jože Toporišič

Untitled

Jože Toporišič is the leading Slovenian linguist. This is a simple fact. He is the sole author of the newest Slovenian Grammar and the main author of the newest reference book of proper Slovenian orthography (Slovenski pravopis). Slovenian is a regulated language so this has great impact. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but when it comes to eminently subjective, evaluative statements about people's significance, there is no such thing as a "simple fact", I'm afraid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have rephrased it. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's still unsourced though. When I google for linguistics publications on Slovenian, I can easily find people who seem to have published just as much and get cited just as much or more than him. Not that I know the specific field, but I'd ask you to be cautious: just because you as a lay reader have heard his name and not others doesn't tell us much about his objective role in the field. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if he is the main or the sole author of all the books that regulate Slovenian language and the president of the SASA commission on Slovenian ortography, that tells us something, doesn't it? Some young people in our country almost think he invented Slovenian language! I'm sorry I don't have sources in English to back up my claims at my hand so you may remove them from the article. If someone speaks Slovenian, I recommend him to visit http://www.rtvslo.si/odprtikop/vecerni_gost/joze-toporisic/ --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. "Invented Slovenian", did he? :) It reminds me of a certain other linguist (who will remain unnamed here, let's just call him "X") who had a few leading positions in another eastern European country (let's just call it Psorokostanistan for now). He had his students refer to him, when quoting him in their term papers, with terms such as "the Psorokostanistanian linguist par excellence, X." Such a term paper got an "excellent" mark and was distributed to students as a model for imitation... -- Not that I'd want to suggest this is a similar case, this guy could of course still be the greatest linguist on earth, we just don't know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You made me laugh :) A lot of people criticise prof. Toporišič actually but a lot of them praise him too. This is inevitable, I suppose. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Made a new proposal for a re-wording, hope this will find your approval. I think characterising his grammar as "influential" is not too much of OR, it really does seem to be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The article seems much better now. Thanks for your help. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Pravopis

There's been some discussion in the revision summaries for this article regarding glossing pravopis (a guide to official rules on Slovenian spelling, pronunciation, declension, conjugation, accentuation, punctuation, word formation, linguistic registers, transliteration, and manuscript preparation, plus a dictionary comprising 83% of the work and published by the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts) as 'orthography'. It would be better to work it out here on the discussion page before changing the article further. Etymologically, one can show that literally pravo = 'ortho' and pis = 'graph' but, looking at the orthography article, it's a very poor match for this type of work. The German equivalent is generally being called "the Duden" or "the Rechstschreibung" (with a bit of "orthography" scattered about as a literal translation). The Spanish equivalent also scatters "orthography" here and there but seems to focus on the word "dictionary." Elsewhere online one finds phrases like "authoritative guide to the German language," "the official language guide," "the defining book on what is standard German language usage," "the one seminal, indispensable dictionary and reference of the German language," etc. There's something very "dictionary" about the whole concept, plus "guide" and "standard" and "reference". "Academy dictionary" would be a useful expression (and one common in other languages) for what the pravopis is, as would "Academy grammar and dictionary". Doremo (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. "Orthography" doesn't seem to be the right translation: it doesn't give the right picture. I think the Slovene term comes from the German "Rechstschreibung", but in English orthography means something else. "Academy grammar and dictionary" can be confusing, since we also have the "Slovnica", which would be something like "Academy Grammar". "Pravopis" is not really about grammatic rules (btw, are you sure declension & conjugation are described in the "Pravopis"? I would guess they belong more to the "Slovnica".) I would opt for something like "Reference guide for the language usage" or something like that. Viator slovenicus (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In addition to "special features" (e.g., sections 755, 756, 795, 840), the declensions and conjugations also get discussed in the context of accentuation (e.g., sections 906, 917). Not nearly in as much detail as in the "Slovnica", but well beyond what I would call an "orthography." Doremo (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Searching Google Books also offers Slovene Orthographic Dictionary[1] and Slovene Orthographic Code[2]. Both seem good to me, but if I have to choose, I'd chose the second, because it is more comprehensive (dictionary is only one part), the book is a result of codification, and the term is used by ZRC SAZU and the majority of prominent authors.[3] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel that "orthgraphic" is appropriate; it's a superficial root-for-root translation of pravo- 'ortho-' + -pis '-graph' instead of a characterization of what the work really is. Orthography is strongly linked to script (e.g., metelčica, bohoričica, etc.) rather than the usage rules, punctuation, and dictionary elements that the pravopis includes. I prefer the more accurate term normative guide, which also appears in publications (ignore the WP mirrors): here and here and here. Doremo (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Functionally, the pravopis is a style guide ("... rules for language use, such as spelling, italics and punctuation; .... They are rulebooks for writers ...") except that in the Slovene context it is "legislated" and obligatory, rather than selected from a variety of competing normative guides, as in English. Doremo (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm ok with using Slovene Normative Guide, as it is used by reliable sources. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jože Toporišič. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929134242/http://www.rtvslo.si/odprtikop/vecerni_gost/joze-toporisic/ to http://www.rtvslo.si/odprtikop/vecerni_gost/joze-toporisic/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)