Questionable translations
Hey, I'm the administrator of Scots Wikipedia, and I'm sorry to say but several of your translations and the advice you've been giving out demonstrate a less comprehensive understanding of the Scots language than you've claimed. Just looking over some of your translations, I've seen misinterpretations of how the language works, grammatical errors, rare/outdated word usage, typos and even using an entirely different language. For example:
- Yinlie is not a valid spelling for "only". I can only assume that you took yin (which does mean one) and applied it to on(e)ly. I asked two other native speakers and they both said "yinlie" was wrong as well
- Naw is responsive and should not be used as a negative. It should be nae or no (Naw, there's nae buns left)
- Ceaut and creaut are either extremely rare or non-existent in Modern Scots
- Aneat It's spelt "anent"
- Cræft is Old English, not Scots
- Skauk I honestly cannot find any evidence that this word exists. Somebody else said one of their dictionaries had "scouk" meaning skulk, but it doesn't seem to exist in Modern Scots
As for the advice given here, ee/ei is actually rather interchangable in Scots. Just comparing oreeginal and oreiginal, both have roughly equal numbers of uses. Eedit/eidit though gives zero hits.
Given the events of three years ago, and that quite a few of your faulty translations overwrote the translations of others that were fine (like this), I'm going to have to examine all the translations done