Talk:Indonesian orthography

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~ozideas/wmalind.htm

Rajmaan (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The article tells us what this was. This implies either that it didn't go anywhere, or that it has since been replaced by yet another system. Or is it the case that this is still the spelling system used today, but the article has failed to say so? It says "The aim was greater harmonization of the Indonesian and Malay-language orthographies." Well, did it achieve this? How was it supposed to achieve this? It would be useful for someone who knows the story to explain things more fully in the article. Largoplazo (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Now that I've looked into it, and read Malay alphabet, I see that it IS the current system. I've updated the text accordingly. Largoplazo (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

NO, this spelling system (EYD) have been replaced by new spelling system (Ejaan Bahasa Indonesia/EBI) in 2015. Although there is only minor changes compared to previous system. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The article title translates disempurnakan as 'enhanced', and the first sentence offers the alternative 'perfected'. Then, in the second paragraph, in the translation of the titles of the two guides, 'improved' is used. Shouldn't 'perfected' or 'enhanced' be used? Or if 'improved' is also a standard English translation in this context, shouldn't it be indicated along with 'perfected' as an alternative in the first sentence?Diogenesbukananjing (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the real question is "what is the English translation of Ejaan yang disempurnakan or EYD?".

Bebasnama suggest on his edit, EYD translation is "Revised Spelling" per this source. Which I disagree, as except for that source, I couldn't find any other reference that use "Revised Spelling" as translation of EYD.

I am suggesting to use "Perfected Spelling" as translation of EYD. As it was easier to find English source with that word to refer EYD. simple google search and google book search can easily found "Perfected Spelling" that refer to EYD. While there's no result found for "Revised Spelling". Therefore, "Perfected Spelling" is the commonly used word to refer EYD. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Echols and Shadily define "menyempurnakan" as "perfect or complete", while defining "EYD" as the "official system used since 1972". Stevens and Schmidgall-Tellings (A Comprehensive Indonesian-English Dictionary Second Edition - Ohio University Press) define menyempurnakan as 1. to perfect, complete, make s.t. more perfect. 2. to improve, revamp (a cabinet/law), overhaul (an engine) and "EYD" as "Reformed Spelling". "Perfected spelling" always struck me as rather clumsy translation, and I prefer "revised", used in the same way as the Revised Dwikora Cabinet is the Revised Dwikora Cabinet. My vote is therefore for "Revised Spelling System"

Since it's almost certain whichever translation of EYD that we agree will becomes the article title, then this should follow WP:COMMONNAME. The translation of EYD as "Perfected Spelling" can be found on the following books: Mapping Asia: Cartographic Encounters Between East and West, Language, Nation and Development in Southeast Asia, Spelling and Society: The Culture and Politics of Orthography Around the World, Focus on Indonesia, Historical Dictionary of Indonesia, and many more. It's surprisingly easy to find references that translate EYD as "Perfected Spelling". However, it's not the case for "Revised Spelling" or "Improved Spelling". Also WP:NOENG states Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. Ckfasdf (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I also tried to look up "Enhanced", "Improved", and "Revised". "Enhanced", most of time it's used by English sources written by native Indonesian (IMO due to the fact that that's the translation used by WP for quite long times, WP:CIRCULAR may applies?). For "Improved", there are some references for this translation but not as prevalent as "Perfected". "Revised", I couldn't find references that uses this translation, I commend Bebasnama for finding reference to this translation. But, unfortunately that's the only reference. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Personally I'm fine with Perfected Spelling as a strange but most common translation too, buta would not be fussed if some other decision was made over time. Dan Carkner (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I changed the intro to say Perfected Spelling and to mention Revised Spelling as a possible alternative. While our discussion is ongoing, the article is still called Perfected Spelling so it's strange to have the intro not even mention that and to use a different translation. Did some minor copyedit too. If we can find a basis in secondary sources to move the article later to Revised Spelling it could be changed of course. Dan Carkner (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok thank you... I did the same approach on Perfected, Enhanced, Improved and Revised to find which are the most prevalent translation (see my previous comment above). And it seems "Perfected" is the most commonly used translation. Ckfasdf (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Not that it needs to inform what we decide, but I note that in the other 3 translated articles about it on wikis, the French article is titled Réforme orthographique de l'indonésien de 1972 1972 Indonesian orthographic reforms and mentions "perfected orthography" as a literal translation; Italian the article is simply titled EYD and the first sentence translates it as Sistema di ortografia avanzato (advanced system of orthography), and Portuguese both the article title and first sentence have it as Sistema Ortográfico Indonésio Aprimorado (Improved Indonesian Spelling System). Personally I'm still leaning a bit towards Perfected Spelling but as we can see there are a lot of ways to describe the same thing. Dan Carkner (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Dan Carkner (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment apologies, I altered my request a bit to be more consistent between Indonesia and Malaysia. Dan Carkner (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Dan

that is a thoroughness that is beyond the capacity of what this noticeboard has encountered, ever. Thank you for your hard work, it is to be congratulated! JarrahTree 01:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• A potential issue with Indonesian orthography as a title as it may imply a more general approach, covering various periods of orthography. Looking through the articles, is there a significant benefit to having 3 separate ones? Enhanced Spelling of the Indonesian Language feels like it could be merged with Joint Rumi Spelling, which seems to be already written in a way that covers both countries rather than just Malaysia. CMD (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  The way I see it, there is room to have articles about historical aspects in addition to the current one, but I'm not married to any one solution. At least the 1972 joint reform seems like it's on the level of an international project with some historical/political aspects that go beyond the spelling. Dan Carkner (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  The Joint Rumi Spelling article seems to already be about the 1972 joint reform. Aside from the Malaya-focused first paragraph of Background, the article is about the reasons for the reform, discussions between Malaysian and Indonesia, implementation of the reform, and the resulting changes to the system. Looking at Enhanced Spelling of the Indonesian Language, it's a short article where the #Characteristics section overlaps with the Joint Rumi Spelling#The System section, and with two short sections on background (History and Changes, which both seem to cover the same content and so should be merged at any rate) that could fit into an Aftermath or even a "Changes" section on the reform article.

  I suppose what I'm pondering is how the scopes of potential articles could be crafted to differ in a way that helps faciliate reader understanding. There is also the existing Malay orthography article, which provides another point of potential duplication and mentions the current and past systems. CMD (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't even notice that Malay one, there are so many.

  I still kind of thing there's room for "the current orthography and a summary of what came before" vs important historical ones. They exist for other languages. But for sure it could get by with some consolidation too. Dan Carkner (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Majlis Bahasa Brunei-Indonesia-Malaysia is yet another related stub to the 1972 orthography, although it is conceptually easier to stand alone as it focuses on a specific body. There is also a small amount of overlap with Comparison of Indonesian and Standard Malay, although that seems distinct enough to be a matter of cross-linking rather than adding it to the 3-4 orthography articles here. CMD (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nomination, actually this is excellent idea. And I believe the next step is to merge Republican Spelling System and Van Ophuijsen Spelling System into Indonesian orthography. And to merge Za'aba Spelling to Malaysian orthography. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  I could live with that approach too. Especially when talking about incremental change between systems. Dan Carkner (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Kudos to @Dan Carkner for the thorough survey and the Gordian knot solution. I also agree with @Ckfasdf that having one article each for the complete periodization of Latin-based orthographies is a better way to present this topic than having atomistic perennial start-class articles for every period. –Austronesier (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)