This is a manually created and maintained list of pages that require cleanup.
Adding a request: To add a request, place the template {{rfc}} to the messy entry, and then make a new nomination here. Include an explanation of your reasons for nominating the page for cleanup, but please put any extensive discussion in the discussion page of the article itself.
Closing a request: A conversation should remain here at least for one week after the {{rfc}} tag is removed, then moved to that page’s talk page from here. When the entry has been cleaned, please strike the word here, and put any discussion on the talk page of the cleaned entry.
Pages tagged with the template {{rfc}} are automatically placed in Category:Requests for cleanup. They are automatically removed from the category when the template is removed, or, if the template has not been used, when Category:Requests for cleanup has been removed from the page.
If an entry needs attention from experienced editors in a specific language, consider using {{attention}} instead of {{rfc}}.
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Noun section has 4 encyclopedic-style definitions that look to me like instances of the verb form. IMO, they aren't even worth adding as senses to monitor#Verb, but others may disagree. DCDuringTALK11:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
All adjective senses. Which of these are a true adjective sense with a meaning distinct from that of a corresponding verb sense? Are we missing some verb senses? DCDuringTALK17:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is defined in the way square peg in a round hole is and should be defined. I can't think of how to define this without reference to one of the several verbs commonly used with this (at COCA: fit (2), force (2), ram, pound, drive). It could be finessed by defining it as an alternative form, though that is not the narrow definition of alternative form. (We do use a broad definition of alternative form for proverbs.) Is this derived from a proverb? DCDuringTALK17:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
I think it is principally the noun that is the problem. Some to the senses (those having a sense of "group") belong to the ety derived from secta#Latin. After those have been separate into Ety 2 3, the assignment of the remaining noun senses should be relatively straightforward. But h[H]aving an OED handy would be very helpful essential for a split between an Etymology from a OE/ME verb and the past participle of that verb. I don't know if it would be sufficient. MWOnline provides no etymology for the noun. AHD has a single etymology for all but the "group" senses.
I have begun the process, but must stop. The entry is usable., but has the non-standard title "Etymology 1 & 2". Some of the noun senses in Ety 1 may not belong there. There are also missing senses and poorly worded senses among the nouns. I haven't looked much at the other PoSes. DCDuringTALK02:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I find all four definitions confusing. They seem to overlap a lot. The first definition is probably accurate but really hard to understand. #4 I think is #1 worded specifically for people. #2 and #3 seem really similar. In fact I think #3 and #4 might be the same definition, but one is worded as psychology, the second is in layperson's terms. So basically, help, or put forward your own opinion. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, it can be use as object of prepositions like at, after, until, before, by, since, toward so it is a nominal. What other PoS would you recommend? Also, consider:
"Ten to is when we are leaving." (subject)
"The ten-to train left two minutes late." (attributive use of ?)
"It was nearing ten to, when we were supposed to board the train." (object of verb)
It seems to simply beg a meaningful question to declare them "Phrases" and let the user figure of that they aren't verbals or adjuncts or whatever. DCDuringTALK02:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Etymology 1, noun section. Definitions don't match translation tables. Usage notes formatted as usage examples and possibly not just about the usage of the word. Would take a bit of time and multilingual knowledge. DCDuringTALK14:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
The changes introduced by "GatorGirl" need to be examined carefully. Some seem good, some OK, some poor. In any event, the relationship to the translation table needs to be checked. DCDuringTALK15:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
An encyclopedia article would be more concise. This is an article, the notes section and the bibliography from the back of the book, all dumped on the same page. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I have moved the Latin material to [[repraesentamen]], which leaves the excessively long definition, which is solely based on the usage by Charles Sanders Peirce. We could use other citations, which seem abundant enough in the literature of semiotics to warrant Collins having a definition. I personally don't speak or read semiotics. DCDuringTALK13:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An excellent specimen of an encyclopedic entry. The entry has lots of redlinks which should either be filled with alternative forms or deleted or something. DCDuringTALK17:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's inconsistent with Wiktionary formatting conventions: our headword-line templates are supposed to generate one line, not four.
The word "Eumhun" is just thrown in there in a place where it can only be described as "wrong". (The fourth line, labeled "name", is the eumhun, but the "Eumhun" appears on the second line.) (Edited to add: Actually, this comment wasn't really right. The eumhun is both the meaning and the pronunciation taken together. So the presentation is not really wrong, merely incredibly confusing. 17:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC))
It generates stray parentheses in some cases, and probably stray commas in others.
I suspect that some (much?) of the template's content should simply be removed.
I'd be happy to see some bold editing in this case. Bold editing not recommended for widely used templates in general, but in this case I think it's appropriate. Maybe use {{ko-hanja/new}} to make changes then move it on top of ko-hanja (that is, deleting the current version of ko-hanja and replacing it with ko-hanja/new). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
After working on this a while, it's getting harder to tell the prepositional from the adverbial from the nominal from the adjectival in all of the different sections (I may have actually made things worse). In addition, the role of the term in phrasal verbs doesn't seem to be explicitly addressed at all, which has to be confusing to people trying to look up the phrasal verbs by way of the parts. I realize such problems are rampant among entries for the ubiquitous "little words", but we might as well start somewhere. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Regarding "up to New York" (adverb #3), could we say that "up" is a preposition? I think that it goes like "I'm going [PP up [PP to New York ] ]" and not "I'm going [AdvP up ] [PP to New York ]" because we can say "It's up to New York that I'm going" and not *"It's to New York that I'm going up". Same as into which is just in + to. —Internoob02:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
But consider: "We went up in the balloon for a one hour tour." Other prepositions that can follow up include on ("He climbed up on the roof." != "He climbed upon the roof." !!!), with, and over. The following prepositional phrase can be replaced by some locative expressions (eg, here, there, yonder). DCDuringTALK13:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
A way forward for this may be to explicitly include (under the Adverb PoS, I think) non-gloss definitions for usage in phrasal-verb constructions, possibly as subsenses for any corresponding purely adverbial sense. We could then remove phrasal verb usage examples, ie, probably all usage examples involving the most common verbs and replaced them with less colloquial examples using multisyllable verbs that unambiguously do not make phrasal verbs [my hypothesis]. Also, all the usage example that involve synonyms of become need to me moved to the adjective section. DCDuringTALK11:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Done all of k- minerals, some z- ones, and the beginnings of l- minerals. At my rate of 2 letters per 7 months, this should be done by November 2021 and under 13 usernames. --Genecioso (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
It depends on whether one uses a narrow or wide definition of mineral. Or we could rely on the various mineral databases for category inclusion. DCDuring (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
For example: pararealgar isn't visibly crystalline, but is included in at least two of the major mineral databases, at least one of which gives a crystal structure for it. DCDuring (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
So almost all the nouns are to be in the Minerals category, but the denominal adjectives will constitute the bulk of the items in Mineralology.
I note that some common materials like the various forms of asbestos are not now in the category. Some call coal and lignite minerals. Do we? What about ores? Forms of gravel? What is the difference between a rock and a mineral? DCDuring (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
MWOnline has six arguably relevant, current definitions: 1 ore; 2 an inorganic substance; 4 something neither animal nor vegetable; 5a : [1] a solid homogeneous crystalline chemical element or compound that results from the inorganic processes of nature; [2] broadly : any of various naturally occurring homogeneous substances (such as stone, coal, salt, sulfur, sand, petroleum, water, or natural gas) obtained usually from the ground; [5]b : a synthetic substance having the chemical composition and crystalline form and properties of a naturally occurring mineral.
I could see restricting our definition to 5a [1], but that would require determining whether a given named substance had a crystal structure, possibly only visible under substantial magnification. We could put ourselves through an RfV-like process of determining whether speakers in a given language used their word for mineral applied to a given substance. With either of these options we have the further choice of whether we include ores. Or we could limit ourselves to those substances which were included in at least one, two or three mineral databases. I like the last option because it relies on prevailing practice, including grandfathering, that yields category membership that is meaningful to the group of people who most use the terms used to name the substances. DCDuring (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
I wasn't sure where to start on this one. (1) Layout is non-standard. (2) Some senses/translations are too specific - others need writing in simpler English. (3) Translations probably need pooling for re-checking. — Saltmarshαπάντηση05:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Insanely, there's nothing to cover the mental state of being concentrated. I've added a French entry for it, but the English definition it refers to doesn't exist yet. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
But it isn't clear whether "the act or process of concentrating" (all the subsections refer to the amounts of one material in another) includes mental concentration. (1) does "mental concentration" get a 3rd subsection or a new section of its own. And (2) does the relevant translation sense include both mental and physical concentration when some languages will have separate terms? — Saltmarshαπάντηση12:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
How much do other languages use different words for translating this as a process, an act, an ability, a result? What about the distinction between a reflexive/intransitive sense ("the concentration of the particles in the lower portion of of the fractioning apparatus", ie, the particles could be viewed as concentrating themselves) and a transitive sense {"the concentration apparatus proved effective", ie, the apparatus concentrates something else)? DCDuringTALK20:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
RFC-sense "The Mendelian Law of Segregation related to genetic transmission or geographical segregation of various species." For starters, could someone clean it up so that it doesn't define "segregation" as, basically, "segregation related to segregation"? - -sche(discuss)19:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The noun portion of the entry has seven senses, which do not seem very distinct. I cannot find more than two senses in other dictionaries (Century). The entry does, however, reference the OED. Can someone verify that the OED has all the senses. Even if the OED has all seven senses, I wonder if three cites can be found to clearly support each distinct sense. DCDuringTALK23:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
"A species of landscape that is flat and open." seems too poor to be included. Some of these seem very much distinct, for example someone who farms open land is clearly distinct from the land itself. A field of study seems to be like field (expert in one's field, for example). Mglovesfun (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
rfc-sense: "The art of using similar techniques in politics or business." Similar to which sense, sense #1 or sense #2? Or neither, perhaps it means the art of using techniques which are similar in politics or business (I don't think it means this, but it's the most literal interpretation from where I stand). I think maybe it's trying to suggest that strategy can be a mass noun, which I think it can, in which case it's not limited to business and politics, in sports you can use strategy (mass noun) and not only a strategy or strategies (count nouns). Mglovesfun (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
MWOnline has six senses, none of which fit the uncountable sense, which I agree exists and is not uncommon:
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2964: Parameter "books.google.com/books?isbn" is not used by this template.
I think there are two kinds of meanings: more or less neutral: "strategizing, the activity of developing an implementable strategy"; more or less favorable: "good, clever planning". I generally don't think we should have definitions like the second if they are arguably included in a neutral sense.
The MWOnline senses are for: 1.a.1 - national grand strategy, 1.a.2 - military strategy, 1.b - a type or instance of the above, 2.a - a careful plan, 2.b - the art of devising such plans, 3 - something to capture what is imputed to a species for its successful evolution.
These are supposedly adjectives meaning "citizen of". I'm not sure how that works. Adjectives modify nouns, but "citizen of" would seem to require that the noun following it not be the one modified (e.g. in "citizen of Germany", "citizen of" is describing Angela Merkel, not "Germany"). - -sche(discuss)20:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I took a stab at it. Couldn't hurt to have someone who knows Rohingya (or had even heard of it before this thread, unlike me) to look it over, though. —Angr14:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
entries beginning with "wouldn't"
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
There is an additional set starting with "couldn't" and some we lack: We only have couldn't punch one's way out of a paper bag as a redirect to way out of a paper bag. (fight could substitute for punch) The entry fails to make it clear that this only exists with could (BTW, not would).
We have Category:English predicates with nearly five hundred members and probably one or two hundred other entries that could be so classified. These should be so classified.
These do have some verb-like inflection potential, eg, wouldn't have shouted if a shark had bitten him".
These phrases really only exist idiomatically in association with some kind of subjunctive. The forms in which we have them are by far the most common. An entry for shout if a shark bit him would tempt many who just saw the headword to waste time opening the entry preparatory to challenging it with an RfV or RfD. If I were designing the entry for a machine I probably wouldn't do it this way, but our current approach seems OK for humans. DCDuringTALK04:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
This entry has both an adverb and a conjunction POS, which seems justifiable. The senses, however, seem to be randomly added to one or the other, and there's overlap between the senses under one POS and those under the other. At the moment, it's really hard to tell what the difference is between the two POS. Can someone take the time to sort this out so the entry as a whole makes sense? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I agree that some of the wording is similar and that one could not readily distinguish based on the wording alone. But don't the usage examples clarify the functional distinctions adequately? A functional non-gloss definition would seem likely to read as duplication of the meaning of the L2 header, but might clarify things further. DCDuringTALK13:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Actually, the usexes agree reasonably well with the defs. The problem is that they're in the wrong POS. Substitute how for however in the sentences, and you'll see the distinction: the adverbial ones sort of work, but the conjunction doesn't. "However far he may get" would work as "How far he gets", for example. It looks to me like a clear-cut modifier of far, thus, an adverb. I'm just not sure what to do with the "conjunctive" adverb sense, which looks exactly like the one clear-cut conjunction sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've been working on simple substantives too long: I've lost the ability to make fine distinction on functions words. I'd have to work my way back up to it. DCDuringTALK18:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion
definitions: "a species of plant" and "name of various plants"
These are virtually worthless as definitions, but similar definition are common among Sanskrit entries here. Can this be improved upon at all? Similar situations in Latin and especially Greek usually generate plausible conjectures. Some of the cases where a species name is given are not much better as the species name may be used nowhere but in dictionaries or south Asian languages. DCDuringTALK00:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
There are analogous cases in Old French especially regarding plants where there's no way to be sure all the authors are talking about the same plant. I can see a lot of problems on that page, "a species of plant" seems redundant but "name of various plants" is probably as good as it can get. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
That is a typical Sanskrit page with typical problems, including no differentiation of proper nouns, except for higher prevalence of "name of" as part of the definition. The definitions look like wikiformatted copies of old Sanskrit-English dictionaries, possibly different ones combined, with the old dictionaries not being as well done as LSJ (Ancient Greek)or L&S (Latin). The definiens often use polysemic English words with no gloss to suggest which modern sense. DCDuringTALK01:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
You haven't begun to guess at the true enormity of the problem: I've copypasted the relevant part of the Monier-Williams entry from a pdf I downloaded (enclosed in collapsible header templates for those who don't care to read through it all), and interleaved it with our definitions. The OCR severely mangled the romanized Sanskrit and it would have taken too long to fix it, so don't try to decipher that part. As you can see, our entry is simply the Monier-Williams translated into our format, stripped of the source abbreviations, and paraphrased a bit.
It seems like a combination of multiple dictionaries because Monier-Williams went through libraries-full of sources and made notes, then compressed those notes into an incredibly dense and cryptic format in order to fit everything (barely) into one very large volume. All the bulleted lines below take up what looks like a single 2 or 3 inch square in a much larger three-column page, with nothing separating them but spaces and semicolons. The amount of detail in that work is astonishing- it would take years to properly unpack all the abbreviations and taxonomic names and convert them to modern equivalents. Just one page would take days! Nobody has all the necessary reference material at hand to do it, anyway, so the best we seem to be able to do is reformat this massive lump of condensed shorthand to make it look like a Wiktionary entry, without properly decoding it.
I had looked at some of the Dictionary pages given as references.
My interests and "expertise" are quite limited. I think I can modernize some of the taxonomic names from the 130-year-old ones that were the best he had to work with, but I have to always look at the dictionary page itself. Some of the species names I cannot find in any authoritative online source.
DCDuring keeps repeating that we're dealing with a "130-year old dictionary" but he fails to mention that the dictionary is a synthetic result of tens of thousands of man-hours, and that it's perfectly valid today due to the simple fact that Sanskrit is an extinct language that doesn't change anymore. If the respected authorities have failed to determine what exact species of plants saha denotes in some works, then probably nobody else will. Comparing it to Webster 1913 and modern English is stupid. Regarding proper nouns - they are not recognized as a separate lexical category by Sanskrit grammarians (there is no uppercase/lowercase distinction, there are tens of thousands of deities in Hinduism representing just about any imaginable concept). I have been separating proper/common nouns in some early entries, but have stopped doing so. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's a great dictionary. It's available online for free to scholars, so Wiktionary's having copied pages is simply duplicative. It's copied pages are only a first draft of a Wiktionary entry. DCDuringTALK16:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Apart from the research done on the new interpretation of meanings of Sanskrit words in the 20th and 21th century, it's a complete entry. Sanskrit entries copied from MW dictionary are far more complete than English entries copied from Webster 1913, because the language is not productive anymore as a literary device. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
I have three problems with our English entries based on MW 1913 and two with the Sanskrit entries. To me they have one problem in common.
with English entries from MW 1913:
it has English words whose meaning and usage context have changed in some cases, whereas we have not brought the entry up to date.
it uses a dated English for all of its definitions
it includes lists of synonyms in the definiens (instead of under Synonyms), a defining style we don't use.
with Sanskrit entries:
it does not adhere to Wiktionary format and structure eg, not having distinct L3/4 sections for proper and common nouns and non-definiens material in the definitions.
it uses a dated English for all of its definitions.
Just as with MW 1913 entries: I am glad we have the Sanskrit entries. They are an excellent first draft. They need work to be up to our high standards. DCDuringTALK01:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've told you already: proper nouns are not recognized as a separate lexical category by Sanskrit grammarians. This "e.g." of yours is the only objection you actually have to the structure of Sanskrit entries, and yet you keep parroting it as if it is one of many. Non-definiens material (i.e. the list of works were the set of meanings makes appearance) is essential due to the fact that Sanskrit literature stretches over three millennia, and someone reading Rgveda is not interested in the same meanings as someone reading Gita Govinda. We already include non-definiens material in all of the entries - they are called context labels. I fail to see how "this meaning is only used in UK" is any different than "this meaning is only used in the Vedas".
Most of its English is perfectly fine. You're needlessly exaggerating. If you find "dated English" feel free to update it. Perhaps some terms are a bit dated, but often no clear non-dated synonyms exist, and replacing them could introduce new interpretation of some words. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
All of this makes it seem as if a user of the material would be better off to be using the complete text, not Wiktionary's half-formatted, subject-to-insufficiently-respectful-editing version. For example, see Category:Sanskrit proper nouns. Do we need 97 RfC for them?
What value are we adding if all we do is copy? One value might be that we can link to the Sanskrit from other language entries. But that is not for Sanskrit scholars who know the peculiarities of the original dictionary; it is for ordinary Wiktionarians and folks who are simply curious, even recreational users. As scholars have the free online source and should have page links in the Wiktionary entry to that source from every entry copied from it, our Sanskrit entries ought be rendered consistent with Wiktionary format to facilitate use by those other than scholars. DCDuringTALK17:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
The really terrible one is the neuter noun = बल(bala), because बल has 28 noun definitions. Which one of the 28, or all 28 of them? Limiting only to neuter nouns transliterated as bala, that's down to 14. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
This passed an RFD with no consensus, so it has kind of just been left there. Today, an editor decided to add Catalan, which makes me wonder now, how big should we make the list? It's going to be impossible to include all languages, and people are always going to think "their" language is worth including. So we really need to decide which languages should be there and exclude any others. —CodeCat14:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I changed the English Pronunciation Keys; therefore, I was also responsible for the changes. (AT LEAST according to "main-stream medicine", THAT'S the legalese kind of matter that we may want to deal with, right?) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
If we decide to drop Catalan, why not drop Dutch? It has less than 30 million speakers, and the dialects of most of those claimed speakers have a different pronunciation (and lexicon, and even grammar). --80.114.178.701:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This definition: "The final point of something in space or time."
The use of the word "final" is too temporal and telic. "Point" is too limiting, to an instant or an event. This definition doesn't even fit one of the usexes: "At the end of the story they fall in love".
Spatially, end can be a point, a line, an area, or a volume. As an area it could be as half of a total area ("the West End"). Temporally, it can be an instant or, usually, a period or a sequence of events, processes, or states.
Though I dislike the wording, Webster 1913 took pains with their first sense: "The extreme or last point or part of any material thing considered lengthwise (the extremity of breadth being side); hence, extremity, in general; the concluding part; termination; close; limit; as, the end of a field, line, pole, road; the end of a year, of a discourse; put an end to pain; -- opposed to beginning, when used of anything having a first part."
I think it would need to be changed into a Determiner anyway. "all" is not a property of something, but a reference specifier like other determiners. —CodeCat00:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
I could also do it myself. I was just feeling lazy when I requested this. Mostly because the pronoun sense needs to be split across весь, вся, всё, and все. Additionally, I'm not sure what part of speech it is in "оно всё там", which is the exact 100% equivalent of "it's all there". --WikiTiki8900:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure I can clean as per the nomination but I'm happy to take suggestions. The choice for SoP itself is not so obvious and the Russian Wiktionary uses "местоиме́нное прилага́тельное" (pronominal adjective). Perhaps providing more usexes would make the senses clearer? --Anatoli(обсудить/вклад)01:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
"Бумажник упал в лужу и весь промок." What part of speech is that according to you? I guess you could say that it is an adverb and the second clause has a null subject, but then we'd have to add an adverb sense. Now that I think about it, I think that the adverb interpretation is more accurate because it also accounts for "Он весь промок." --WikiTiki8904:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
That answer seems to agree with me that in "Бумажник упал в лужу и весь промок." and "Он весь промок.", it is an adverb. But this is a strange case of an adverb that agrees with a noun in gender, number, and case: "Я его всего высушил.", "её всю", etc. --WikiTiki8904:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
We can get more people to weigh in than that. As I said above, the exact same dilemma exists in English, only since English does not have gender/number/case agreement, there's less of a problem calling it an adverb: "They all went home." ("Они все пошли домой."), "I ate it all." ("Я его/её всего/всю съел."). --WikiTiki8913:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
It just making everything horribly complex to satisfy some arcane sense of category. I don’t see anything wrong with it the way it is. This reminds me of a few years ago when Michael decided to rename a bunch of files to separate them into Wiktionary:X and Appendix:X, and then I could never find the pages that I used to use because I don’t share his sense of categories. I never again saw some of those pages. —Stephen(Talk)20:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm not suggesting getting rid of anything we have. It's just that certain senses are missing (the adjective/pronoun/whatever-they-are ones), but are present in usage examples. A sense needs to be created for them, and since it is not an adjective/determiner, we have to decide what it is. --WikiTiki8920:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
That’s what I’m saying. To me, весь is one simple part of speech. We used to call it an adjective, and in my opinion, that is what it is. Or mark them with the Russian terminology, attributive pronoun. All this modernistic stuff about determiners and such is just so much nonsense to me. If you want to divide it up into all sorts of part of speech, you have to do it yourself. I don’t recognize those categories and I don’t see the need for them. —Stephen(Talk)02:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
That's not my point at all. I also consider the distinction between adjectives and determiners to be quite useless, especially in Russian. What I'm saying here is that in the cases I mentioned, it is not an adjective or determiner. It's either an adverb or a pronoun, depending on how you look at it. It makes more sense as an adverb, except for the fact that it declines for gender, number, and case. --WikiTiki8902:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
There are many entries for short function words that have similar problems, but we've started an off-topic discussion of this one at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#in cash, so we might as well begin with this one.
I've added a sense to in (though it, and many of the other senses, could use some tweaking) that covers this usage. When you're speaking of money, you can say "in" almost anything- cash, securities, tens and twenties, even Monopoly money. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
I have taken a run at a subsense structure for the definitions. I feel we are still missing some senses and have unnecessary specificity in some definitions (See the sub-subsenses.), though the usexes could stay. I find prepositions among the hardest PoS sections I have tackled, requiring a great deal of abstraction to deal with the senses that are not spatial or temporal. DCDuringTALK20:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Much better, though getting it perfect might be a lifetime job. Sense 3-2 seems particularly off the mark: "he met his match in her" is just another way of saying "he met his match, and she was that match". All that stuff about "a place-like form of someone's (or something's) personality, as his, her or its psychic and physical characteristics" is just unnecessary verbiage. Consider, for instance: "In boxing, he found the perfect outlet for his anger and frustration". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
I couldn't agree more. I just didn't have the courage to hack away at every piece. We are certainly missing subsenses and also some senses that are hard to fit under the senses now in the entry. Having access to the OED would help make sense of the groupings, though there might be too much information not strictly relevant to current senses. I should probably put some musings on Talk:in. DCDuringTALK21:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) There's also the "dressed in, wearing" sense, as in the famous quote from w:Animal Crackers: "I once shot an elephant in my pajamas- how the elephant got in my pajamas, I'll never know", not to mention the "target of an action, within a greater whole", as in "shot in the heart", or as in "they attacked the fortification in its most vulnerable section", or as in "he was shot in the fracas, which, as we all know, can be quite painful". Chuck Entz (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
I had forgotten that five years ago I had created a page [[Appendix:Collocations of
in]], intended to provide a factual basis for improving the entry. In principle, using that data, we could develop an approach that would apply to other prepositions, for the data is easily obtained. We need to look at other lexicographers' efforts, of course, because they will have captured some less common uses. We should make sure that any sense from a Wiktionary contributor is fully captured as our contributors may have noted a change of meaning that has eluded others. Talk:in has some useful material. DCDuringTALK21:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This article, particularly the adjectival sense is an absolute mess. The glosses on the translation tables don't clearly match up with definitions, are out of order, and many are missing. I attempted to rearrange the definitions a bit to add some clarity, but I found the mess absolutely confusing myself, so what I've done may be undone without causing me any offense, so long as the article is improved. The definitions also contain a level of vocabulary above that of the word they're defining, which will absolutely not be helpful to most people looking up the word.
I was halfway through fixing the translation section when my browser crashed, leaving me absolutely annoyed, so I'm afraid I must pass the unpleasant job off to someone else, since I feel what I tried to do ended up being an absolute waste of time. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I've overhauled the adjective section, following a Tea Room thread which highlighted the same issue. I've moved the tag into the noun section, which I'll try to overhaul later. - -sche(discuss)05:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
See Talk:goblet drum. Both Wiktionary and Wikipedia have, for some time, described "goblet drum" as though it is a synonym for the darbuka, which is one type of goblet drum. "Goblet drum" is a musicological term, there are lots of goblet-shaped drums. goblet drum does not mean darbuka any more than flat-backed lute means guitar. So I've added a better def at goblet drum, but the translations appear to mostly be translations of darbuka, not goblet drum. Some are not. Can someone who knows more about the applicable languages move most of the translations to darbuka? WurdSnatcher (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure how important the term is to either topic. The Wikipedia articles don't mention the word. Are there sources that say it is important? I'd just delete sense 4 and 5. Dbfirs01:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
A disease in turnips and other crops, produced by a species of caterpillar.
As far as I can tell from a glance at Google and bgc, black canker is the caterpillar itself. I haven't seen anything indicating it's the disease (but didn't look properly). Separately, there seems to be a disease of trees, or maybe a fungus that causes such, of the same name.—msh210℠ (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
In plants black canker seems to be any cankers that manifest in black disfigurement of plant tissue, including various ones affecting cherry, apple, parsnip, soursop, willow, and mango. There is a black canker caterpillar (genus Lua error in Module:taxlink at line 68: Parameter "noshow" is not used by this template.), but modern sources refer to fungi and bacteria as the causal agents, mostly differing by affected plant. Perhaps the caterpillar is a vector for some black cankers. It seems like yet another little research project for proper disambiguation. DCDuringTALK00:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Just FYI, Tenthredo aren't caterpillars, they're sawfly larvae- primitive Hymenoptera. They do look a lot like caterpillars, though (sometimes it takes counting legs to tell them apart- sawflies have more pairs of legs than caterpillars do). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Here is an example of the larva being called black canker without any mention of a disease. Sawflies tend to appear in large numbers and devour everything in sight belonging to their food plant species with unnerving speed. If your entire crop is being rapidly destroyed by a huge mass of insects, you might start to think of them collectively, as a force of nature like a disease. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I had trouble with the definitions, too. I hope I have not been a mischief (3.1.1) and that any mischiefs (1.3) I may have undertaken do not rise to the level of (serious) mischief (2.1). If the definitions are comprehensible then it would be easier to proceed to the specific problems that @Jberkel had.
I had the most trouble believing in the "agent of trouble" definitions (3), but found one citation for each and could probably find more. DCDuringTALK01:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
It would benefit from some simplification, but the older uses seem quite distinct, at least in degree, from the most common current senses. DCDuringTALK14:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
In general I agree and avoid moving things to Wikisaurus but for these longs lists it makes sense, it's even specifically mentioned in WT:ELE: "Instead of listing many synonyms in each of several synonymous entries, a single reference can be made in each to a common Wikisaurus page". – Jberkel (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
It is one thing to add a reference to a Wikisaurus page to an entry that had no synonyms, and it is another thing to remove lists and replace them with the references only. WT:ELE should probably be edited to clarify whether editors find such a replacement okay. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
I liked this revision and found nothing confusing. By contrast, what I see now seems rather confusing, above all the subsensing, although it is probably more accurate and refined. I especially do not understand what is going on with the 3rd sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
I don't see why moving things around is such a controversial thing, especially given the size of these lists. Why can't entries be modified according to guidelines? Some options we have: 1) Keep synonyms in the entry and add a mechanism with a collapsible display, similar to {{der3}} and {{rel3}} which makes it feasible to include long lists 2) move long lists of synonyms to Wikisaurus + add references. 3) cap the size of lists. I personally prefer 1). – Jberkel (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Jberkel: Too many people oppose moving content away from the mainspace; multiple people proposed abandoning Wikisaurus and moving its content to mainspace. It is therefore wise to tread lightly and avoid harming Wikisaurus position and reputation by avoiding associating Wikisaurus project with content being moved away from the mainspace. As for the comma-separated list to be too long to display directly, I think you'll find you are in the minority of people who have any problem with them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
I don't like long lists of anything (except definitions) unless they can be concealed by a show-hide. These particular lists seem like a hodge-podge of things which don't match the headword's various definitions very well, so they could readily be shortened, one list at a time, once the definitions were stabilized.
But in this case the lists would be made more useful if they could match some of the definitions. For example, the main current sense of mischief as something "minor trouble or annoyance" would warrant a subset of the current list which does not differentiate by degree of trouble or harm. Thus, annoyance, nuisance, and prank might belong whereas sabotage might not.
A more drastic approach would be to not have any long list of synonyms for any obsolete sense or one that is currently rare. A Wikisaurus link could still provide access to a fuller set of synonyms. One advantage in the case of this entry is that it would somewhat reduce the weight of the obsolete/less common senses in the entry.
For any of this to be worth doing we first need to stabilize the entry. OED has even more senses than we now show. I don't know whether a fuller set of definitions can usefully be brought into any sense/subsense structure that I can produce. DCDuringTALK20:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
If the lists are deficient as for accuracy or coherence, they need to be pruned rather than dumped to Wikisaurus. If they are considered too long even after that pruning, they may get shortened to contain only the most salient or common synonyms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
BTW, could someone with access to the OED see whether they have a different, preferably shorter, list of senses and a similar delineation of which senses might be considered archaic, which countable, etc. Cambridge Advanced Learner's has only two senses, both uncountable, one for "behavior that is slightly bad", another for "damage or harm", but links to entries for do sb/yourself a mischief (we don't have any corresponding entry), ie, countable mischief, and make mischief which means about the same as stir the pot. DCDuringTALK17:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
I am informed that the OED has 13 senses and subsenses, but some of them seem to be archaic (they label them obsolete) or rare in current use. Two are legal, too finely distinguished for me to even paraphrase. DCDuringTALK18:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
After last night's controversy over Rhymes:Romanian/abilitate, which Equinox thankfully deleted, I have been going through this category and discovered that the user who contributed, has made a lot of errors. E.g.:
Categorisation is wrong. For instance, Rhymes:Romanian/e is placed in an inexistent category named Romanian rhymes/e and this tends to happen to every page in the category Rhymes:Romanian. I compared it to Rhymes:French and it doesn't happen there.
The category Rhymes:Romanian is a mess – among the many problems, we have for instance Rhymes:Romanian/easkɘ: Romanian doesn't have IPA ɘ. Also, the user who added these categories misinterpreted "rhyming with..." as meaning "words ending with..." which was proven last night after the Rhymes:Romanian/abilitate debacle.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Language: English
Part of speech: Adjective
Definition:
{{sense|idiom}} A statement meaning an end of a discussion.
Added by a notoriously incompetent IP who managed to get a little bit of everything wrong. There may be something worth salvaging in this, but I'm not sure if it's English or Latin, and not 100% sure that it's not SOP. They provided a link to an article on a Roman Catholic website as a reference, which suggests that this is in use among Catholics. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
I've seen this phrase before, it's an old maxim that (if I recall correctly) pre-dates the RC / protestant schism, that says that in matters of canon law &c. decisions of the bishop of Rome are final. Nowadays in protestant circles mostly quoted as an example of how not to go about things. I can imagine it could metaphorically also be applied to other cases where someone's word (presumably the word of someone with authority) ends a discussion or dispute, but even so I think the lemma as quoted is confusing and unclear.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Usage notes with reference (not included here): "Accountability is condemned by some as jargon of the political élite and referring to a mechanism for democratic good-governance that is unworkable in practice."
I can't quite work out what it's on about and the fact that this is mentioned in one book, without seeing the citation in question, so what? One author expresses an opinion on a word and we put in some usage notes? Also very weasely. Condemned by some? Who? I'm looking for a reason to not just delete these as nonsense. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is apparently unattested for CFI purposes as a single word (there are lots of web hits, though, so it probably needs to be moved to tracker phone. The definition gives the impression that it's used for tracking other people or things, but the usage seems to indicate that the idea is a phone that can be tracked. There were a few other problems, but they were easily removed as clearly wrong.
There's probably a real entry in there, somewhere, but it needs to be either fixed up or deleted. I don't have time for either, at the moment. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If etymology 2 is correct, some definitions need to be brought over from etymology 1. I'm not sure if this belongs here or in the Etymology Scriptorium, but at any rate, I don't have time to fix the entry myself. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
One approach is to split the noun and verb senses now in Ety 1 leaving all or most noun senses in Ety 1 and putting all or most verb senses in Ety 2. Another is to combine Ety 1 and Ety 2 on the grounds that the stems of the etyma are the same. The MED asserts that Middle Englishrakken (verb) is deemed to derive from rak (noun). I have the feeling that the etymology is confused by the persistent trend to Dutch etymological imperialism that characterizes many of our etymologies. DCDuringTALK22:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Should the proper noun be uppercase? Everything should probably be at the non-ligature spelling (we tend to lemmatize modern rather than archaic and ligatured spellings when possible). - -sche(discuss)20:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I think the words ‘capital’ and ‘principal’ are too ambiguous to be used as definitions by themselves. Somebody fluent in Sanskrit should verify what exactly is meant.
The definitions for मूल्य(mūlya) at the Sanskrit Dictionary suggests that the capital sense is more specifically capital in the form of goods purchased, rather than capital in the form of the monetary amount initially invested: the principal as opposed to the interest. The latter sense is what is given for मूल(mūla) instead.
Apparently there are plenty of Indian Sanskritists who converse to one another in fluent Sanskrit - but I suspect that perhaps none of them are Wiktionarians. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
I notice a discrepancy between our definitions for मूल(mūla) and मूल्य(mūlya) and those of SanskritDictionary.com. If the latter are more reliable, then maybe some knowledgeable person could work on this.
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
...some of which use "(Black's Law)" as a context (not formatted), and many of which say "(A Non-Copied Entry)" in the references, which is probably not necessary to note. Check the contributions of 75.69.172.246 and X8BC8x. - -sche(discuss)19:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
The user has replied to me in private. He/she seems to intend to not edit anymore. Seems inexperienced with wikis as I would normally expect a reply on a talk page to go on the talk page rather than in private message. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Oh, dear. We don't want to scare people off, but we do want them to exercise some care and ask for help if needed. Maybe we can refer the user to some places where he or she can seek advice? — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
I don't really want to quote a private message directly (even one with no personal information in it) but I get the impression they hadn't been scared off so much as they feel like these entries would be better handled by someone with Wiktionary experience. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Hello. On that page, we list ДНР as an "alternative form" of Донецкая Народная Республика, but AFAICS it's just an initialism. Should we move it somewhere else? Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
We used to put forms such as that under the heading ====Abbreviations====, but I believe that has been discontinued. I don’t know what if anything has taken its place. —Stephen(Talk)15:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
I searched and see that there are quite a few entries with an ====Abbreviations==== section, so maybe it is still being used. For example, seee мужской род. That would be my preference. —Stephen(Talk)15:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
In my opinion, we should use the header ====Abbreviations====, although some words that start out as abbreviations take on a slightly different shade of meaning or usage and then would have to be put under ====Synonyms==== or ====Related terms====. --WikiTiki8915:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
I could be wrong, but I believe it was the POS header "===Abbreviation===" that was discontinued. I don't know anything about an "====Abbreviations====" subsection header. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The third sense could use some attention:
Ostensible source/founder of Mithraism, the "mysteries" of the Roman Mysteriae Mithrae ("Mysteries of Mithras", "Mithraic Mysteries"), an astrology-centric, middle-platonic mystery cult of the 1st-4th century Roman Empire whose adherents worshiped in "caves" (i.e. Mithraea) in imitation of "Zoroaster". (Porphyry, De Antro Nympharum 6)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On this page, it says "A Korean character used in transliteration." But transliteration in which language. Chinese or Korean? TIA 21:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Although I understand the concerns of this anon, I don't believe that recent changes are in line with how we treat German lemmas. Any input from more seasoned German-speaking users? --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
The Pitjantjatjara word had a cleanup request from 21 February 2015 with the comment: "Almost certainly not Pitjantjatjara. It appears to be Ngaanyatjarra, but I can't be sure of that." IMHO that doesn't sound like it's a matter of RFC but of RFV. -Ikiaika (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but unattested items appearing in RfV could be deleted after just 30 days. RfVs for items in languages with very few contributors might not be seen for quite some time. RfC allows more time. DCDuringTALK17:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
It had an RFC tag for over a year and nothing changed. I might be mistaken, but I doubt that anything would change in the nearest time and I doubt that there would be much attention for the entry. So I hope that this discussion brings some attention towards the entry and that the RFC/RFV can be resolved. As ngaa also has other entries ("Gamilaraay" and "Hiligaynon"), it wouldn't be completely deleted anyway and one could still find the 'Pitjantjatjara' entry through the version history. However, I'd be okay with changing it to RFC again and moving this discussion to Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup to raise some attention and to give the entry some more time.
There is heavy overlap between Pitjantjatjara, Yankunytjatjara and Ngaanyatjarra. Some would consider them dialects of the same language. To make matters worse, texts are often misidentified as being in one language when they are actually in one of the others; a lot of reference works relating to these languages are old, use idiosyncratic orthographies, and contain inaccuracies; and Ngaanyatjarra in particular seems to have quite little material available. All this makes it very difficult to sort out the entries in these languages. We really need the assistance of an expert in Western Desert languages to sort out the situation and help organise our coverage.
It probably is a matter for RFV, but I don't think there are many users here who would be able to deal with this problem. I'd favour keeping the RFC tag in place for now. I will have to go and look up a Ngaanyatjarra word list in a library when I have time. This, that and the other (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
It's certainly not Pitjantjatjara and shouldn't be labelled as such. This and many of Vedac13's other contributions to Pitjantjatjara are flagrant nonsense. BigDom15:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Many nouns in the category have a known gender: Given names of male persons are masculine, given names of female persons are feminine, names of cities are neuter. While it's easy to add the gender, it's maybe not so easy to verify it, and it's not so easy to add the genitive.
As for the gender:
For greater cities one should be able find examples like "das schöne Berlin", "in Berlin, das", "Berlin ... es". For smaller and less known cities it might be harder to find such examples.
Some examples for the gentive:
Catharina should have the genitives (der) Catharina and Catharinas, maybe also Catharina's (obsolete nowadays, though colloquially it might be written with a Deppenapostroph). Note that the proper noun genitive Catharinas is an exception of the rule that feminine nouns are invariable in the singular.
Kassel should have the genitives (des) Kassel and Kassels, maybe also Kassel's (obsolete nowadays, though colloquially it might be written with a Deppenapostroph).
Worms should have the genitives (des) Worms and Worms', maybe also Wormsens (similar to e.g. Klausens). "Wormsens Bischof" and "Bevölkerung Wormsens" can be found, but "Wormsens" is rare anyway.
When just adding the gender, the templates often automatically add a genitive which (often) is incorrect or incomplete in case of proper nouns.
-Ikiaika (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yes. For cases where a singular exists (or at least, a singular form of the gender-carrying part exists), I think the "intended" solution is to specify n-p, etc. But where no singular exists, the question of gender is meaningless and the template should accept "p" as a "known gender". I will change ["p"] = "unknown gender", in Module:de-headword to ["p"] = "plural", to accomplish this. That this will also populate Category:German plural nouns seems desirable or at least tolerable to me, but could of course be overridden... - -sche(discuss)22:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
@-sche: Thank you. I think I slightly support suppressing the plural category, but I don't have an articulated reason. Another issue is surnames, which are a major remaining component in the category. I'm not really sure how those work, as they seem essentially to be genderless, in that they take the referent's gender. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds22:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I don't know how one could prood either of these statements, but German should have it the name from Latin. The older German spellings Constantin and Constantinopel (now Konstantinopel) are evidences for this. In older German texts one maybe can even find the Latin names and maybe even declined the Latin way.
"Finnish: Konstantinus" looks like it even has the Latin ending -us, not a Greek os. I don't know how Finnish borrowed Latin and Greek words, but the entry Konstantinus says it's from Latin. Similary "Icelandic: Konstantínus", "Estonian: Constantinus" and "Turkish: Constantinus" (all in -us and not in -os) could be from Latin.
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This user has been contributing quite a variety of new entries in good faith, but without a good understanding of what they were doing. Some cleanup has already been done, but at epithelially I ran into the definition "In a epithelial manner", and realized how much like an assembly line their definition-writing was. I think we need to take a second look at their edits with an eye for other examples of glib meaninglessness that might have slipped under the radar while we've been focusing on vandalism and serious incompetence. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In the French section, one of the definitions is "the regions (provincial France)", plural sic. What does this mean? Does province refer to "one of the regions of provincial France", perhaps? Or to provincial France as a whole? Side note, the English definitions could also use some work, e.g. "The most common subdivision of Canada, but exclusive of its territories" makes it sound like a province is one thing, the way death is "The cessation of life"; a better definition might be along the lines of "One of the subdivisions of Canada that is not a territory", but perhaps someone can come up with even better. - -sche(discuss)03:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
In French you say en province meaning not much more than "elsewhere than in Paris", so yes, I would say that French province often corresponds with the English plural "regions, provinces". Ƿidsiþ11:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The accusative is also "Thomam" besides "Thoman". Same might be true for many other Latin nouns in as.
Here is a (Spanish?) grammar which has Thomas, Thomae, Thomae, Thoman and Thomam, Thoma, Thoma (by common Latin case order nom., gen., dat., acc., voc., abl.).
Thōmās, Thōmam with Greek nominative but Latin accusative (which fits to Latin genitive and dative)
Thōmas, Thōmam - though maybe Late, Middle or New Latin, compare with German Thomas [ˈtoːmas] and Lucas/Lukas [ˈluːkas] which (a) should have their length from Latin or (b) could have been used in New Latin but with German vowel length.
It seems to be copied from fr:void (NOT fr:voide which has a different regional label) and for some reason, changed from Occitan to Old French. Possibly one of those things where you've got two windows open and you edit the wrong one. FWIW FEW lists vuech and voig as the Old Provençal and voide does seem to be Old and/or Middle French, either as a feminine form or as a masculine and feminine form. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Those three entries are in Category:English clitics. 'd, linked to from 've, is not listed as a clitic but as a suffix. -'s (note the hyphen) has a verb part of speech with the headword line "-'s (clitic)" and then other parties of speech with the headword line "’s" (should that be moved to 's, with prominent cross-links between the two entries, or should the headword lines be updated to include the hyphen?). Can someone check that the entries are in the right category, check whether other entries like 'd belong in the clitic category, and check whether some of the POS sections of -'s should be moved or have their headword-lines updated? Some of the mess in -'s is probably my doing; I'm sorry. - -sche(discuss)19:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
I second the request for clean up with regard to this issue. Given the discussion in Talk:'ve, it seems that clitics are not suffixes (for morphological reasons), though of course they are suffixes in the sense that they are written affixed to the ends of other words. Accordingly, I propose the following:
We should use section headings that reflect the POS served by the clitic, e.g. ====Verb====. My rationale is that, when parsing, clitics must be identified as having separate parts of speech from the words they are affixed to. Consider the sentences "she's talking" and "let's eat", where 's acts as an auxiliary verb and as a pronoun, respectively. Simply tagging this as suffix robs the parse of useful information.
We should use headword macros of the form {{head|en|POS|cat2=clitics|clitic}} for the appropriate POS. This lists the term in both, e.g., Category:English verbs and Category:English clitics and clearly marks the definition with "(clitic)". To my knowledge, there is no separate clitic headword macro, though one could be defined as suggested.
Note: This macro will also list the word in Category:English lemmas, which appears to be correct given the categorization of Category:English clitics. There are possible workarounds if this is not desired.
Undecided: We may also want to use "cat3=suffixes" in order to list the term in Category:English suffixes as well. Clitics aren't the same as other suffixes, but I suspect many users will expect to find them in Category:English suffixes because they occur at the ends of words. (Clitics can also be prefixes, though mostly in languages other than English; the only English candidate I can think of is s', as in s'ok. Noting this via category inclusion seems appropriate.)
We should avoid the use of hyphens in clitic page titles already demarcated with apostrophes. This seems to be the present trend, and it serves to establish clitics' distinction from other affixes (i.e., their syntactic independence). English clitics almost always have apostrophes where the hyphen would go; the only notable exception is -s', though this is a weird case as either a hybrid non-clitic plural -s and clitic possessive 's or a modified possessive 's after an existing s (itself not a suffix). (Note that -n't is not a clitic!)
We may nonetheless want to add usage notes indicating that the form should always occur affixed to the preceding word, unless we are confident that users will interpret the apostrophe itself to indicate that. (We currently assume users interpret the hyphen that way.)
Alternately: We could go the opposite route and always use hyphens in clitic page titles. This eliminates any possibility of confusion between clitics and other entries with apostrophes at either end such as 'twas and doin'. Further, it would separate the entries for s' as it occurs in, e.g., boys' club and s'ok (assuming the later had an entry and indeed is a clitic).
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Firstly, this should be in a category, even if only the "non-entry" category that {{no entry}} adds. Secondly, the page it directs users to for more information never mentions it ... is せう an obsolete form of every sense of しょう, or only of some? - -sche(discuss)04:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Japanese kana entries are basically all about reading -- i.e., pronunciation. The historical kana rendering せう was formerly read as /ɕeu/. Over time, this pronunciation shifted to /ɕoː/, and during the spelling reforms of the Showa era, the kana spelling was changed to しょう to match the pronunciation. There is nothing in modern Japanese that is read as せう, with a modern pronunciation of /seu/.
I've reworded the usage note to match the above. Is that clearer?
By GBC it seems like "SchH" is used in English, but abbreviates German "Schutzhund" (or "Schutzhundeprüfung"). Alternative form could be SchH.. German forms could be Sch.H., SchH., SchH. German SchH could also abbreviate Schutzhundeprüfung. Related terms could be BH (Begleithundeprüfung), WH (Wachhundprüfung), maybe also AD (Ausdauerprüfung), FH (Fährtenprüfung), hyponyms could be SchH 1 or SchH I etc. But I'm not sure regarding the use/mention distinction. Exclusionist maybe could argue that SchH is often just mentioned and not used. -16:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
A very wordy, POV sense was added and the etymology morphed into an equally word and POV discourse on that sense. It looks like this will need to be split into two etymologies, and the new material will need to be pruned into something suitable for a dictionary- does anyone have a chainsaw? Chuck Entz (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
I did some more cleaning including re-merging the etymologies; sorry, DCD, I did this before I read your comment. However, the OED shows plenty of usage for this sense back to the 1600s so I think the proposed 2008 etymology was one of those spurious back-formations. Ƿidsiþ09:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yes. But I can't see a distinction between senses #1 and #2. It seems like the same thing (mild deformation of a sheet of metal) just one occurs in manufacturing and one occurs when the item is already in place (roofing). Presumably because oilcans are round and not flat sheets. I'd just reduce it to a single definition (like mine in brackets above) and be done with it. I assume existence is not an issue here? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
User:BrunoMed has just created a large number of new prefix entries, apparently from lists in appendices. I've dealt with the ones where he copied content whole from entries for prefixes ending with vowels to new entries for the same prefixes without those vowels. That still leaves the majority, which are nationality prefixes. For these, he copied the same content into every entry:
English
Etymology
Shortened unetymologically from [Latin country name] in compounds- 20th century formation, perhaps echoing terms like Afro-, Indo-, Sino- etc.
Prefix
[headword]
pertaining to [English country name], especially as a political entity
This mechanical, cookie-cutter approach may be right in some cases, but it's clearly wrong in others. For one thing, I have my doubts about whether these are all 20th-century coinages, and there are some which are obviously not "shortened unetymologically"- such as Malayo- from Malay. This last one shows that there was no checking for whether the English country name actually exists as a country name.
Would someone please check these and either fix them or delete them, where necessary?
4. ref has "Boenninghausen classified the characteristic symptoms into seven categories. They are: [...] 4. Quibus Auxilus (Concomitant Symptoms)". That should be an error. In caps quibus auxiliis is QUIBUS AUXILIIS and could be misread as QUIBUS AUXILUS, i.e. quibus auxilus, like [books.google.com/books?id=lc9zfg_dLF8C&pg=PA302&dq=%22quibus+auxilus%22 here] where a GBS gives QUIBUS AUXILIIS while searching for quibus auxilus. The correct spelling and a literal meaning can be found in the 2. ref: "Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando? - Who, what, where, with what, why, how, when?". As the 4. ref should have an incorrect spelling, it could also have an incorrect meaning or an interpretation or something like that. The literal meaning however could be SoP (Sum of Parts), and so maybe the entry should be deleted. -84.161.40.14411:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This entry is divided in a very odd fashion into three senses, with odd example sentences to go with them:
A singularia tantum for the plant with the example sentence: "The beet is a hardy species"
A countable sense for an "individual plant (organism) of that species". Example sentence: "They sell beets by the pound in the supermarket. All I want is the roots. Can I cut off the roots and buy them alone?"
A countable sense for the "root of such a plant".
This is especially odd since the plural mass noun sense (as in "she got beets on her new blouse") isn't mentioned in the lemma or in the plural entry.
The distiction between senses 1 and 2 is grammatical, not lexical, and I have merged them. One could just as well say "the tiger/alligator/oak is a species that...". Is "she got beets on her new blouse" using a different sense than (the plural of) the "root" sense? - -sche(discuss)20:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Not really. My point was that normal usage is closer to always plural than to always singular. There does seem to be a difference, but it probably isn't lexical: one could say "These are big beets- if you cook up even just one, it makes a decent serving of cooked beets". The first is countable and plural, while the second is a plural mass noun. Like most vegetables, mass noun usage tends to be plural only. You can still say "a cup of cooked beet", but "a cup of cooked beets" sounds more natural. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The list of alternative forms includes many that have two syllables (eg, whoopy-doo) and therefore seem to me to be different terms. I don't know exactly how to characterize the relationship among words in the two groups of terms, but it is not that members of one group are alternative forms of one member of the other group. DCDuringTALK18:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
This OCS word is only attested in the plural. We have it lemmatized twice, once at the (unattested) reconstructed singular кънига(kŭniga) / ⰽⱏⱀⰻⰳⰰ(kŭniga) and once at the plural кънигꙑ(kŭnigy). Presumably either the plural should be made into a form-of definition, or the singular should be deleted as unattested; what is the standard policy? —Vorziblix (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
The SJS claims that the one-time attested кънигоу is an error for къниги; the expected dative singular would be *кънигѣ in any case, since it’s an a-stem. All of the other attestations given in SJS and SS, which cover almost all of the OCS canon, are plural forms. Do you know of sources that attest the singular? —Vorziblix (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'm more concerned with the first and last definitions, though the middle one seems to be just a play on the other two.
The phrase is mostly used in the rhetorical question: "were you born in a barn?". Asking that is a way of indirectly criticizing someone for bad manners, especially with regard to leaving a door or window open. Another variation is to say "you must have been born in a barn."
The indirectness seems to be where things are going wrong. The best way to see this is by substituting in the definitions: "Were you [Lacking a sense of etiquette/ill-mannered]?". "Were you [leaving open a door or window]?". To start with, the time frame of the phrase is always in the past relative to the time period of the utterance as a whole, but the first and last definitions are in the same time frame. Also, this is a rhetorical question/metaphor, so the phrase isn't supposed to be true- it's just implied that the behavior of the other person is like what one might expect if it were.
At first I thought this could be fixed by moving the entry to "were you born in a barn", but the variations make that difficult.
This has only been directed at me specifically for leaving the door open. I never had the sense that it was about manners but about not knowing enough to close the door or having grown up in a place where it is customary to leave the door open (as if it would be typical to leave barn doors open, which, not having been around barns, let alone been born in one, I don't have sufficient information to comment on). Eric Partridge in A Dictionary of catch phrases actually gives leaving the door open as a sole usage for this phrase, without any attribution of any further underlying meaning. Unless it has been documented that people using this expression are specifically intending this as a comment on manners or etiquette (is there a difference?), lack of education, or humble upbringing, then it would seem to be synthesis to extend the meaning any further than "Close the door!". Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
There is also a weird use to imply delusion of divinity, and related poetic reference to Bethlehem myths. "He thinks he was born in a born." - Amgine/t·e16:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The third sense if super-long. Perhaps it could be condensed? As a whisky drinker, I'd like to have some mention of that beverage on the page too --Derrib9 (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Not an expert, so I can't really judge if these contributions from the same anon are unpolished gems or candidates for speedy deletion. Any takers? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
An anonymous editor added a noun sense ("shirtfront"). It's unclear which of the three etymologies it relates to, or if the sense is legitimate. Cnilep (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I found this in New Partridge 2014: "up your juke under the front of your clothing [...] UK, Scotland 1985". No etymology, though. Cnilep (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The anon who created it, who was probably Wonderfool, who had never read a poem in his/her life, tagged it as poetic. Totally wrong, right? And I'd suggest merging the entry, along with many an, into many. --Quadcont (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
“many a”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows that dictionaries include the term, usually as a redirect to many. I suppose what distinguishes many + [Noun] (plural) from many a + [Noun] (singular) is the emphasis on the individuality of the [Noun]. DCDuringTALK15:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Not totally wrong. It definitely has a whiff of song/poetry to it – "I've been a wild rover for many a year…", "Many a time and oft on the Rialto…" – these are expressions familiar from songs and literature, not current in contemporary speech except when trying to generate various kinds of archaic/jocular effects. Ƿidsiþ14:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Re English noun: derived/related terms seem to be arbitrarily mixed up, and I think there's something wrong with the indentation levels. Equinox◑07:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
There could be the following problems:
Two "=" were twice missing, now the levels should be correct.
"Related terms" are present twice.
Many or even all of the first "Related terms" are simply derived terms. Well, one could differ between real derived terms which are derivates (new terms formed by derivation, by adding affixes) and compounds (new terms formed by composition, by combining words), but both is placed under "Derived terms" here in Wiktionary.
Many hyponyms are also derived terms and many derived terms are also hyponyms. E.g. "birthday party" is a hyponym and a derived term of "party".
"party" has several meanings like political party and social gathering. So it might make sense to split it up by senses: "green party" is a hyponym and a derived term of the sense political party, "birthday party" is a hyponym and derived term of the sense social gathering. BTW: Both terms, "green party" and "birthday party", might be SOP, but that might be the case for several terms listet at party.
"political party" is derived term of party and could be both a hyponym and a synonym depending on the sense of "party". To sense 4, "A political group [...]", it should be a synonym. To sense 3, "A group of people forming one side [...]", it could be a hyponym.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This has gone through RfD and RfV (not all definitions). I have partially cleaned it up, but I fear that I have lost objectivity. Accordingly, could someone take a look at what I've done and correct it and figure out what to do with the "Usage notes", formerly one of the two etymologies, the "Etymology" that I commented out, and the footnotes to the calques/translations in the translation table. DCDuringTALK01:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Suzukaze-c: It should be cleaned up for the most part. The glyph origin is still incomplete. The problem is that the glyph origin is different for the three etymologies. Should we have different glyph origin sections (Glyph origin 1, 2, 3), or should they be lumped under one? Pinging @Wyang, Bumm13 as well. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }00:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I've done some work on it. It seems to be a synonym of how only used as the interrogative part of rhetorical questions intended to highlight the unreality or illogic of something. It reminds me of a similar (but more personal) rhetorical question: what color is the sun in your world? I just added that one. Feel free to correct it. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sense: "A bad place of abandon", with subsenses. I'm not entirely clear on what the author intended to communicate, maybe sense and subsenses should be deleted altogether. Subsense 2 seems to be inspired by a sense labelled "ironic" in the WNT, if so then it would just be an ironic use of the literal sense. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
@CodeCat That may be obvious to you as a native Dutch speaker, but with The Netherlands and Holland being synonyms in English how should we decide where that translation table goes? Not saying I disagree, I just honestly don't know. W3ird N3rd (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
This list was created a few months ago by someone with apparently little knowledge of Zulu. In Zulu, all nouns, including names, must have a noun prefix in front of them, but it's lacking for these, which makes the list of relatively little lexicographical use. @Metaknowledge Any idea what to do with it? —CodeCat23:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't say it's of little lexicographical use. It seems like the content is correct, so I'd add a note at the top about how it's very inexhaustive and the form of the prefix that names have when used in Zulu, and leave it at that. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds23:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Except that I don't know the prefix. Normally, it would be class 1a (prefix u-), as you probably know, but there's some names beginning with vowels and Zulu doesn't allow two vowels to be adjacent in native vocabulary. In theory, the prefix would become a consonant before a vowel-initial word, so is wAmahle an attested name? Modern loans use hyphens instead, so I guess u-Amahle is another possibility. I have no idea. —CodeCat23:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
One should also consider that the noun prefixes would only apply to languages that use them. (A super-obvious forest that seems to be missed for the trees of Zulu-ness.) These are the names as they would be used in many other languages that either don't have noun prefixes on names or use different ones. By stripping these down to the bare name, they are far more useful and less confusing. The noun prefix could be covered in a simple sentence: "When speaking Zulu, all the names would have the noun prefix 'u-' but this might not be a part of the name in other languages." Rather like the "o-" for female Japanese names at one point. So someone stopping by here from NaNoWriMo won't come to the conclusion that all their Zulu characters must have names beginning with U in their novel written in English, Spanish, or Mandarin.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I can't even find the senses among those huge tables. Moreover, the senses are not marked with # in the wikitext. —CodeCat19:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Not as bad as the one above, but there's still a giant table in the place reserved for senses. Also, "stem set" is not an allowed section. —CodeCat19:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
"Stem set" is the way Navajo roots change depending on mode and aspect. It is not a "conjugation" table in the standard meaning of it, but if you feel it better fits the practices here, I can make that change.
Then, regarding the "huge" table, it is how the Navajo vocabulary is built up, around roots to which various preffixes are added. In many Navajo verb pages, a lot of information is duplicated from verb to verb belonging to the same root. It is a lot more efficient and genuine to the language to gather this info inside a "root" page. This saves the burden to add to each verb their related verbs. See for instance yoołmas, haiłmáás, neiłmaas in their "related terms" section.
Then, a group of such verbs comes usually in a number of predefined "categories", as motion, successive, operative.. depending on the set of prefixes that the roots can take (for instance, yoołbąs, haiłbąąs, neiłbąąs follows the same pattern as the examples cited above).
In the same way a Indo-European root page just lists the descendant terms in the daughter languages, in the Navajo root pages I just list the verbs, arranged by sense, theme, transitivity and "category". (The only difference being that the Navajo root is not a reconstructed root, it's a lexical root).
I believe that for learners of the Navajo language these are of great help since it helps structuring the lexicon.
The one issue I had I admit is that the # sign doesn't work when I have multiple submeanings with verb tables inbetween them.
We have pages for roots of attested languages (Category:Roots by language), that's not really an issue. They are treated like any other morpheme. For Proto-Indo-European, though, we list terms derived from a root under "Derived terms". There's nothing in principle against there being a table under "Derived terms" instead of a list, and I think it is a better location than right underneath each sense.
As for stem sets, if it's not a conjugation table, then I assume that these would be considered separate verbs, am I correct? If so, then the situation resembles that of Proto-Indo-European as well, which also had various ways to derive stems for aspects. We list those under "Derived terms" also. See *leykʷ- for example. Would such a format work for Navajo? —CodeCat20:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Stem sets are not separate verbs, and if anything, are closer to a conjugation. For instance, yoołmas, yiłmáás, neiłmaas, all mean "he is rolling it", but the first one is progressive aspect (he rolls it along), the second is momentaneous (he is rolling it ), the third one is continuative (he is rolling it about). The difference is in the stem : -mas,-máás,-maas. Then each of these verbs can be conjugated for mode (imperfective, perfective, future...). Then many of these verbs can then take on lexical (non-aspectual) prefixes (just like English "to roll", "to roll up", "to roll out"...), like haiłmáás (he is rolling it out horizontally). That's why the notion of theme is so central to Athabaskan languages, because behind a given lexical verb actually hide multiple segments of somewhat predictable meaning, combining meaning, mode, aspect and lexical derivation. (sorry if that I'm not being clear enough).
Based on these premises, that's why I wanted to have the derived verbs right below each senseid, because the verbs are the incarnations of the themes. A meaning listed without actual verbs doesn't really make sense to me. I could move this to the derived section, but then it would be weird for the synonym section to come before the "derived" terms, because the derived terms are the root itself and a way to define it. And doing this would also make it very repetitive and not synoptic enough. Unless I'm allowed to have "derived terms" before "synonyms", and that I skip senses altogether? Julien Daux (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I haven't really ever dealt with these languages but I'm trying to understand. If you consider what you might call a "whole" verb, with all of its forms, what is included in this? Would you consider yoołmas, yiłmáás and neiłmaas to be different forms of a single verb? Why or why not? —CodeCat22:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
This is a very good question, and actually this is the central question of all Athabaskan linguistics. Verb mechanism in these languages is so foreign that trying to define it in terms of European linguistics necessarily leads to some categorizations and views that don't belong to it.
The lexicographic "tradition" in Navajo is to consider yoołmas, yiłmáás and neiłmaas as separate "verbs", just like "gain" / "regain" or "perceive" / "receive" are in English, even though the first pair is a predictable derivation and the second much less so. This also fits the definition by which these are the bare shape before any inflection for person, tense or mode is added. Anything that remains after removing person, tense or mode is considered a verb (in Wiktionary and in all Navajo dictionaries). This definition is workable because first this how native speakers feel it (they actually explicitly told Young and Morgan after a survey to arrange their 1980 dictionary by lexical verbs rather than per root), and also because as in any language, some unpredictable or specialized meanings sometimes emerge from these lexical verbs, so it means they can clearly stand on their own (for instance haaʼeeł means "it floats up out", but can also mean "it (a baby) is miscarried, aborted". No other verb derived from this root has this specialized meaning).
Now, other views have emerged in the 1970 that the "real" verbal unit is not the verb (like neiłmaas), not the root (like -MÁÁZ, which can occur in various actual meanings, like "to roll" but also "to be spherical", not that far semantically, but some other roots do have much more disparateness), but the theme, which is the combination of : a root, a thematic prefix compound (possibly null), a thematic classifier (possibly null) and a category (motion, stative, successive, operative....). It is a virtual unit, whose awareness to Navajo native speakers still need to be tested, but whose explanatory power is enormous, and articulates the entire lexicon. James Kari was one of the first to investigate that route with the Alaskan Ahtna language. No such work has ever been carried out for Navajo, even though the reality of themes is a striking overarching phenomenon.
A theme is for instance "Ø + Ø + -MÁÁZ (motion)" (to roll) or "ʼa + ni + Ø + -TʼIʼ (motion)" (to stagger) (you'll agree that that would be weird to have pages named so on Wiktionary, but that's how the paper dictionary of Tlingit is construed). Like many motion themes, these themes can combine with the lexical derivation "ná + di + yi + Momentaneous aspect" (to start to...), to give the following lexical verbs: "ńdiimáás" (to start to roll), "ná + ʼa + di + ni + yi + Ø + mom(TʼIʼ)" = "ńdíʼníitʼééh" (to start to wobble). The question being, can all motion themes accept this derivational prefix? Skimming through Young's dictionary, one can notice that many such combinations are missing from his dictionary, raising the question whether this combination can be freely formed or if it is lexical constrained. Until one finds this out, it better to consider each of these lexical verbs as separate lexical units as opposed to the result of a productive derivational process.
Wow, ok. It seems, then, that Navajo verbs are quite similar to Proto-Indo-European ones, in that you have a root that can serve as the basis for one or more aspect stems, whose existance is unpredictable (not every root has every aspect) and whose meaning can also be idiosyncratic. However, I'm not quite clear on why it's necessary to list verbs by sense. The meaning of each verb is determined by the aspect/mood isn't it? —CodeCat00:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Well, two things: 1. I needed one place where to list the verbs belonging to the same theme instead of the copied-pasted list found at the end of each verb entry. 2. Showing the actual possible verbs demonstrates the theme's well-foundedness and also shows places where expected forms would be missing. Also because just listing a root and a theme (like a+ni+Ø+T'I') is way too abstract to be useful to anyone. This was actually the first draft I came up with when I started creating pages for root, and after a couple of these, I saw how useless and disconnected from reality it was. See for instance -CHĮ́ that I didn't have time to reformat.
(Keep in mind that when I'm showing 12 derived verbs in a given theme, there can actually be close to 100 in reality...).
One thing that is in my plate is also to create Wiktionary categories for each theme, like "Navajo verbs derived from the theme X". Currently, the verb entries do not show their appartenance to a theme, the Etymology section just lists the prefixes, but doesn't distinguish between those that are thematic from those that are derivational. Julien Daux (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I suppose that "huge table" refers to the theme/classifier tables. The tables look good to me. The Stem sets are important, and that's what they're called. I can't think of a better way to do them. Maybe the Stem sets could be reduced to mere bolded lines, placed under a headline such as ====Usage notes====. Not a very good solution, but if we're going to shoehorn Navajo stem sets into a format intended for English, it might work:
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The entry has "3. (substantive) a quadruped".
This misses the gender of the substantive. According to dictionaries there a three substantives, a masculine, a feminine and a neuter.
It misses the declension of the substantive. The entry would imply that they are declined like the adjective, but that's doubtful. It seems that the adjective has abl. sg. -ī and also -e (maybe in poetry out of metrical reasons?), and might have neuter pl. -ia and gen. pl. *-ium. The masculine and feminine substantive however might have abl. sg. *-e and gen. pl. -um; and the neuter substantive might have plural -ia, gen. *-ium, and abl. sg. *-ī (like e.g. animal).
A doubtful reference for the adjective declension:
Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar for schools and colleges founded on comparative grammar, 1903, p. 53f.: "121. [...] a. The Ablative Singular commonly ends in -ī, but sometimes -e. [...] 3. The following have regularly -ī:—āmēns, anceps, concors (and other compounds of cor), cōnsors (but as a substantive, -e), dēgener, hebes, ingēns, inops, memor (and compounds), pār (in prose), perpes, praeceps, praepes, teres. [...]" b. The Genitive Plural ends commonly in -ium, but has -um in the following:1— 1. Always in compos, dīves, inops, particeps, prīnceps, supplex, and compounds of nouns which have -um: as, quadru-pēs, bi-color. [...] 122. The following special points require notice:—[...] d. Many adjectives, from their signification, can be used only in the masculine and feminine. These may be called adjectives of common gender. Such are adulēscēns, youthful; [†dēses], -idis, slothful; inops, -opis, poor; sōspes, -itis, safe. [...] [...] 1 Forms in -um sometimes occur in a few others."
This would mean that adjectives like quadrupes have gen. pl. -um - which would usually imply that the neuter plural is -a and not -ia. BTW: As for the adjective inops, A&G says it has abl. -ī, gen. pl. -um and no neuter plural (so neither *-ia nor *-a). Maybe note that there is a substantive inopes with gen. pl. -um and a substantive inopia, so finding inopum or inopia doesn't necessarily attest a form of the adjective.
However, dictionaries and grammars sometimes do not to properly differ between the inflection of adjectives and substantivations. Based on cites or references given in dictionaries, it should be like stated before the quote. Examples of related words:
Cites (based on mentioned forms and given references/cites in dictionaries):
Note: thelatinlibrary.com (TLL), LacusCurtius (LC) etc. are just used as they are easy to mention, and although they could contain errors, the important parts should indeed appear in printed editions.
concolor:
Plinius at LC in book 8, 9, 21, 33 has "concolori" which might be abl.
versicolor:
Maybe also see versicolor. L&S: "abl. versicolori, Liv. 7, 10: versicolore, Prop. 4, 7, 50; Ov. F. 5, 356 [...] Subst.: versĭcŏlōrĭa, ium, n., dyed stuffs, colored woolens. constabat apud veteres lanae appellatione versicoloria non contineri, Dig. 32, 1, 70, § 12; 34, 2, 32, § 6" — Georges: "Plur. subst. [...] pingere versicolora (Ggstz. unicolora), Fronto epist. ad Ver. 1, 1. p. 113, 18 N."
Livius at TLL has: "Corpus alteri magnitudine eximium, versicolori veste pictisque et auro caelatis refulgens armis"
Ovid, also at TLL, has "sic haec est cultu versicolore decens?"
substantive:
Plinius at LC has "[...] stupueruntque litora flatu versicoloria pellente vela."
Marcus Cornelius Fronto's Epistulae (he lived in the 2nd century A.D., but his letters were found 1815 or later) at TLL has: "Quid si Parrhasium versicolora pingere juberet aut Apellen unicolora aut"
Digesta cited with versicoloria are from the 6th century, though they could quote or contain an older text. book 32 (chapter "Ulpianus libro 22 ad Sabinum") at archive.org: "Et constabat apud veteres lanae appellatione versicoloria non contineri"; book 34 (chapter "Paulus libro secundo ad Vitellium") at archive.org: "Labeo testamento suo Neratiae uxori suae nominatim legavit "vestem mundum muliebrem omnem ornamentaque muliebria omnia lanam linum purpuram versicoloria facta infectaque omnia" et cetera. Sed non mutat substantiam rerum non necessaria verborum multiplicatio, quia Labeo testamento lanam ac deinde versicoloria scripsit, quasi desit lana tincta lana esse, detractoque verbo "versicolorio" nihilo minus etiam versicoloria debebuntur, si non appareat aliam defuncti voluntatem fuisse."
sepes:
L&S: "six-footed: populi (formicae), App. M. 6, p. 177, 26."
Apulejus, Metamorphoses, liber VI. In: Apuleius The Golden Ass being the Metamorphoses of Lucius Apuleius with an English translation by W. Adlington (1566) revised by S. Gaselee, 1922, p. 264f.
Ruunt aliae superque aliae sepedum populorum undae summoque studio singulae granatim totum digerunt acervum separatimque distributis dissitisque generibus e conspectu perniciter abeunt.
Incontinently they came, the hosts of six-footed creatures one after another in waves, separating and dividing the grain, and after that they had put each kind of corn in order, they ran away again in all haste from her sight.
The Latin text is also at TLL. Elsewhere "sepedum populorum" was translated as ants (here, in German "Ameisen"). sepedum here could be an adjective like "of the six-footed peoples" or a substantive like "of the peoples of the six-footed [creatures/animals]". I guess it makes more sense as a substantive just as in the given English translation which uses hosts instead of peoples for populi.
bipes:
L&S: "neutr. plur. bipedia, Aug. Mor. Manich. 9 [...] Subst., mostly contemptuously, of men: hoc ministro omnium non bipedum solum sed etiam quadripedum impurissimo, Cic. Dom. 18, 48: Regulus omnium bipedum nequissimus, as great a rogue as walks on two legs, Modest. ap. Plin. Ep. 1, 5, 14; Cic. Dom. 18, 48; Lampr. Alex. Sev. 9"
3rd or 4th century, Augustinus, De moribus Manichaeorum at augustinus.it does have bipedia, and also quadrupedia: "[...], malum esse animalia in illis singulis nata elementis, serpentia in tenebris, natantia in aquis, volatilia in ventis, quadrupedia in igne, bipedia in fumo." and "Quis enim tantam perversitatem ferat, qua dicitur in tenebrarum gente, cui nihil admixtum erat luminis, animalia bipedia tam firmam, tam vegetam, [...]".
CCEL has an English translation: "[...] to the animals born in each of these elements,—serpents in the darkness, swimming creatures in the waters, flying creatures in the winds, quadrupeds in the fire, bipeds in the smoke." and "For is it not intolerable perversity to say that in the race of darkness, where there was no mixture of light, the biped animals had so sound and strong, [...]"
quadrupedi/quadripedi cursu Apul. Met. 6 - TLL has: "Et alacri statim nisu lorum quo fueram destinatus abrumpo meque quadripedi cursu proripio." A better source:
Apulejus, Metamorphoses, liber VI. In: Apuleius The Golden Ass being the Metamorphoses of Lucius Apuleius with an English translation by W. Adlington (1566) revised by S. Gaselee, 1922, p. 286ff.
Et alacri statim nisu lorum, quo fueram destinatus, abrumpo, meque quadripedi cursu proripio
Then while I devised these things, I broke suddenly the halter wherewith I was tied, and ran away with all my four feet1 1 Quadripedi cursu seems to be a phrase for galloping, as in modern Greek στὰ τέσσερα.
de quadrupede equo Gell. 18, 5, 5 - in PHI Latin Texts it's "de hoc anagnosta et de quadrupede eco uidetur?"
All the given cites for quadrupedia are for neuter substantives.
"gen. plur. quadrupedium, Capitol. Ver. 5, 2": At LC is "donata et viva animalia vel cicurum vel ferarum avium vel quadripedum" with the note "So P; quadrupedium B, Peter.". Translation at LC is: "and also live animals either tame or wild, winged or quadruped, of whatever kind were the meats that were served,". So it depends on manuscript or edition, and as avium is a substantive (gen. pl. of avis), so should be quadripedum/quadrupedium, although it's translated with an adjective in this English translation.
A GBS preview had "Gen. Pl. quadripedum, bipedum, alipedum usw. sehr oft [etc. very often]" - but it could be that that are the gen. pl.s of substantives and not necessarily of any adjective.
Missing:
Missing are cites for the abl. sg. of the substantives. The masculine and feminine quadrupēs should have abl. -e as they are substantives and have gen. pl. -um. quadrupedia could be a plurale tantum (there are many more neuter pluralia tantum derived from adjectives, e.g. in -ālia from -ālis). But L&S gives a cite for a singular: "crocodilum, quadripes malum et infestum, Plin. 8, 25, 37, § 89" (text at LC). It should be more likely that it belongs to the i-declension like animal with abl. sg. -ī.
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Part of the second definition of the noun авось(avosʹ) contains a definition that sounds more like an adverb: "may still; might yet; possibly". Was this inserted by mistake into the wrong POS header, or is there some way in which it can be rewritten into a nounish definition? — Eru·tuon00:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev made that edit. I think it's correct. English uses both verbs and adverbs that have a similar sense (maybe, possibly, could be, might yet, may yet, could happen, etc.), and other languages may well translate a "may yet" with a particle or adverb. Atitarev probably had an example in mind when he made that edit. It would be helpful to add the example. That would make it clear. —Stephen(Talk)06:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
Under etymology 3. Manifestly not a symbol in our usage. No definition. Should we add something to the noun section or just revert to a previous version? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
It is an image symbol, should it go under U+1F34D 🍍 instead then? It's a traditional symbol in imagery and as a word meaning hospitality. The etymology is different from the fruit, since it comes from the existence of the fruit and is usage; and is unrelated to pine+apple that the name of the fruit comes from. The wording form is used in English in the U.S. South (so could be moved to "adjective" then?) The image/shape form is as well. -- 70.51.200.16215:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Image symbology is part of communication, and we have glyphs here like the unicode emoji symbols, so would seem to be appropriate that the hospitality definition for whence a pineapple appears, should appear on Wiktionary. -- 70.51.200.16215:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Ah, but that would be used in a string of emoji, or other symbolic communication. Wouldn't the men's room merit mentioning at U+1F6B9 🚹 ? (in which our definition actually says it's a men's room symbol); The term "Mens" or "Men's" is written on doors of men's rooms as well, so would seem to be written verbal communication, permitting additions there. (our definition at men's actually does say it means the men's room) -- 70.51.200.16205:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
It's a symbol used on signage, so would seem to provide symbolic communication, thus could be lexical, in a symbolic/pictographic lexicon (which is being added to Unicode as we speak, with various emoji additions, etc); It is used in corporate naming of companies, locations and items (The word "pineapple" being attached to hospitality related things) -- 70.51.200.16205:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
It is possible to find citations of pineapple used to refer to the woodcarving sometimes used to surmount a bedpost (eg, He fell when the pineapple he grabbed came loose from the bedpost). It MIGHT be possible to become convinced that this was a separate meaning of pineapple, somewhat analogous to the definition of landscape ("A picture representing a scene by land or sea, actual or fancied, the chief subject being the general aspect of nature, as fields, hills, forests, water. etc.").
I don't see any evidence that the word was actually used in the "Old South" (or anywhere else before the 20th century) in reference to symbolic pineapples. Some suspect that the pineapple-as-symbol-of-hospitality story is a "tradition" invented by Dole Food Company in the 20th century. Older decorative uses of the pineapple-like motif as decoration maybe attributable to the old meaning of pineapple ("pinecone") (See “pineapple”, in The Century Dictionary[…], New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911, →OCLC..), associated with Bacchus. DCDuring (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Verb entries 2 and 3 doesn't seem clearly differentiated. Entry 1 talks about technology, but seems to refer to hardware. Only entry 3 is labeled as computing, though all seem tech-related. It seems to me that the example phrase at entry 2 fits better under entry 3. --SentientBall (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't see that there is any transitive use of upgrade that is computing-specific. Differentiating transitive and intransitive use is a good first step in improving the entry, perhaps along the lines of MWOnline's:
transitive verb
to raise or improve the grade of: such as
a: to improve (livestock) by use of purebred sires
b: to advance to a job requiring a higher level of skill especially as part of a training program
c: to raise the quality of
d: to raise the classification and usually the price of without improving the quality
e: to extend the usefulness of (something, such as a device)
f: to assign a less serious status to upgraded the patient's condition to good
intransitive verb
to improve or replace especially software or a device for increased usefulness
I've added a missing noun sense, an adverb PoS section, transitive/intransitive labels, some new verb senses, some citations and usage examples. Senses a and f from MWOnline are clearly needed. I'm not as sure about b-e. DCDuring (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I was asked to put a notice here. The etymology is poorly written; it needs to be formatted and more easier to read. I am not an expert on Greek, but I have an interest on that language. TatCoolBoy (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Entries with the text "from borrowing from"
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Someone has been replacing translations that are direct borrowings from English (i.e. the word malware in other languages) with other terms. I have checked the three Portuguese translations they added and found that malware is much more common (about 5 times) than the most common of them, and the other two are quite rare.
I appreciate your efforts and your participation in this discussion anon, but I feel that there are still some issues with your edits:
you have reintroduced the rare term software mal-intencionado, writing that it is “used by Microsoft in Brazil”; however, even in Microsoft’s website this term is significantly less common than malware;
the regional qualifiers you added to software malicioso and software mal-intencionado are absolutely incorrect; both (including software mal-intencionado, despite its rarity) are used in Brazil and Portugal;
you added the qualifier Anglicism to several translations and as a label in the definitions; surely that’s information that belongs in the etymology sections of their respective entries, not in the translation table.
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
These words define themselves as "dinner", which can mean either "midday meal", "evening meal", or "main meal of the day, regardless of when it's eaten". Can you clarify which sense is meant if you know any of these languages? (A few entries define themselves as "lunch, dinner" or "dinner, supper", but I can't tell if the second word is intended as a synonym or an indication the word refers to both the midday and evening meals. Some entries are homographic with words meaning "evening", but that doesn't ensure they mean "evening meal", compare middag!) Strike through words you've done. - -sche(discuss)04:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
What makes this one special? This kind of problem is so widespread that we could use some kind of automation to at least assist in identifying all the deficient FL definitions.
Our entries disagree on whether mathematical terms like "plus", "minus", "times" and "over" are prepositions (as argued on Talk:minus and asserted by other dictionaries), or conjunctions. Does anyone want to argue against relabelling them prepositions? @Msh210, as a mathematician and a wiki-lexicographer, what is your view? - -sche(discuss)20:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
"Plus" and "minus" can be used without a preceding word, which is not typically a feature of conjunctions. "Times" seems to be more in between, as you can say "fifty times that", where "that" appears to be the head of the phrase rather than "fifty". However, like plus and minus, "times" has started to be used without a preceding word as well. —CodeCat21:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Since the basic operations of arithmetic… postdate the Classic Latin Eight Parts of Speech, and since… we're not speaking Latin here, why be surprised if the words for them don't fit the Procrustean Paradigm?
Mathematicians would call them "operators" or "relations", and that's not a bad name. Check out "divided by", a participial phrase, but equivalent to a true preposition, "over". Parts Of Speech are for grade school (if that). Let's not let our zest for the Classics get in the way of numeracy the way the way it has of literacy.
Of course he's a linguist, not a lexicographer, so don't mind his descriptivism. The relevance of his comment to us is in its pointing out the difficulty of categorization; see other posts in that thread for more.
I've relabelled plus a preposition; although one of its senses was "and also", even that does not seem to require being a conjunction, as "besides" and some other terms can be substituted into the usex in its place, (plus|and|besides which) it does seem to be the same POS as the senses before it, which are argued above and on the talk pages and in other dictionaries to be prepositions. The other entries were already labelled prepositions. - -sche(discuss)21:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, I see it also in dictionaries, and that puzzles me -- this doesn't strike me as particularly lexicalized, it's just と(to, quotative particle) + 言う(iu, “to say”).
How about making it a redirect? Daijisen has an entry for という, but the content is repeated in the entry of いう. という is special in that it can have a pause before it, but it is rather a characteristic of the particle と. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I agree that someone with too basic an understanding of English might have trouble getting this, when it is used in the way indicated, at least in written dialog, if not in speech, where tone and gesture supplement the words. But the sense of get(“to understand”) is fairly common and is used with any number of objects, though, eg, Get her.Did you get the car he was driving?I didn't get what they were trying to say., He wasn't getting it.. It's the same as or close to get in He didn't get the joke.
Following Wiktionary:Tea room/2017/May#-cele_-coele_-coel_suffices, Kwataswagri and I edited these entries to more clearly distinguish the two suffixes, one from κήλη and one from κοῖλος. Entries which end in these suffixes probably need to be checked to see if they're linking to the right one. Any words which more commonly use the "wrong" suffix would be interesting to find. - -sche(discuss)05:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
And of those first three -celes, -coel seems to be more common and more standard in each case. Whereas, laryngocele and ureterocele are apparently the most common spellings of those words, with -coele less common in Ngram Viewer and -coel not showing up. This issue may be resolved at this point, but confusion and entries with the "wrong" suffixes will probably re-arise in the future. - -sche(discuss)05:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it seems to be the same person. They seem to be working off of some source with the translations of PC/Computer terms into a wide variety of languages- I'm guessing something put out by Microsoft. Since they don't know most of the languages, they can't tell if the terms are idiomatic. The entry at malware seems to have been their initial and main focus, but they've been working on the whole range of terminology relevant to PC operating systems and software.
I brought up the subject of their edits here in March with a concern that they were editing in so many languages that they couldn't possibly know all of them. You confirmed that their edits seemed to be accurate, and the discussion was archived to User talk:Anth2943. That account has since been renamed, so it's now User talk:Deletedarticle. There have been a series of edits blanking the page and others reverting the blanking, but for the moment you can see the archived discussion there. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Language family names are generally both adjectives and nouns. But some of the entries here contain only an adjective definition, while others contain only a noun. Would anyone be willing to sort these out? —CodeCat16:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
It's cleaned up - but does it now again miss a PoS? If the word can be both, determiner and pronoun, and if the term pronoun is used in a strict sence, then properly two PoS headers (===Determiner=== and ===Pronoun===) have to be added as in that. The definitions of the two PoS could even be very similar, but the examples would differ. Examples for the determiner should look like "several people were killed" (several + noun + verb) while for the pronoun it should look like "several were killed" (several + verb, no noun). In same cases it could be more complicated to determine the PoS because of possible ellipsis (compare with adjectives vs. nominalizations thereof). Sense 3 should indeed have a pronoun variant. By the definition I would think that sense 1 has none, while I'm not sure about 2. This should be real examples of a pronoun with a sense similar to 3, so if there are no objections, a pronoun should be attested by it:
2011, Daniel Baracskay, The Palestine Liberation Organization: Terrorism and Prospects for Peace in the Holy Land, p. 157 (google):
Several were killed in Feburary 2008 when a suicide bomber from Hamas attacked a shopping center in Dimona.
1811, Edward Augustus Kendal, Pocket Encyclopedia or a Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Polite Literature. Vol. I, London, p. 209 (google):
In 1538, a proclamation was issued against them, and several were burnt in Smithfield.
It's "The baptists in England ... . other sentence. In 1538 ...". Just like them is a pronoun, several should here be one too.
1820, A Graphic and Historical Description of the City of Edinburgh. Vol. 1. Views in Edinburgh and its Vicinity, London, p. 128 (google):
Thus several were burnt for heresy during this year; and when cardinal Beaton succeeded to the see of St. Andrews, a still greater persecution ensued.
There it is "... authors. another sentence. Thus several ...". Anyhow, "several" should still be a pronoun in this cite.
(If secondary sources could be used like in some other wiktionaries, then dictionary.com with "(as pronoun; functioning as plural): ..." could be used.)
Cambridge Grammar of the English Language argues against including several and many other determiners in the word class 'pronoun', but I don't think any dictionaries follow that advice. Consider this from page 421:
"The fused-head analysis avoids the need to recognise a large amount of overlap between the pronoun and determinative [sic] categories. In the present grammar, there are just four items that belong in both categories: what, which, we, and you." DCDuring (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Other dictionaries follow various courses: AHD, MWOnline, and WNW call it only a pronoun; Oxford (online), Cambridge (online) and Macmillan have "Determiner & Pronoun"; Collins English and COBUILD have "Determiner"; RHU shows no word class. DCDuring (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Labelled a "prefix", but with the form of a suffix (preceded by a hyphen). In the derived terms, it seems to be an interfix, and is spelled out as -é-. It seems like it should be moved to -é- and the POS should possibly be updated.
Oh, sorry; Navajo, the section that's tagged with {{rfc}}. (I wonder why the template accepts a language parameter but doesn't generate language-section links like {{rfv}}.) - -sche(discuss)19:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
First, any morpheme found before the final stem has traditionally been considered a prefix in Athabaskan literature, but as typical of these languages, prefixes can be stacked up to 8 or more in a row, making them appear as infixes, but they really are prefixes (just like suffixes can be stacked in langages like Japanese or Turkish). Now, in all Navajo etymology sections here on Wikipedia the convention appears to be to hyphenate both before and after any non-initial and non-final morphemes. It is what it is, but it doesn't really change the actual nature of said morphemes.
Secondly, on the nature of -í, -é, -ba,... : these morphemes are actually postpositions found as part of a constituant of a prefix, but they never occur outside of these prefix combos, unlike postpositions -á, -aa... This means, they require a personal pronoun "prefix" before them (sh-é: about me, n-é: about you, b-é: about him,...) and the whole thing becomes a legit "prefix" (shé-, né-, bé-). So it seems we could move -í to -í- but where the logic might break is that some of these postpositional prefixes can also act as regular postpositions (like -á above) , so that positing both a pre- and a pre/post- hyphenated forms might lead to confusion and unnecessary repetitions.
If I had to choose, I would prefer to keep them classified as (pre-hyphenated) postpositions rather than prefixes (or even less so, suffixes). —Julien D. (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Also, see {{nv-prefix}} for a list of these postpositional prefixes so far referred to here in Wikipedia (second table). There is only a couple of them, so the situation is still manageable. —Julien D. (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Navajo is mainly a prefixing language. There are only a few suffixes. Prefixes may be stacked up to eight or more deep. For example, the verb form diʼnisbąąs ("I am in the act of driving a vehicle into something and getting stuck") is formed with a final stem and five prefixes: ʼa-di-ni-sh-ł-bąąs. I think this entry is good as is. —Stephen(Talk)14:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
They seem to think every word is a noun, add random invalid parameters to templates, and have also added odd "Zazaki language" definitions to some entries. —CodeCat13:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Looks like Vuzorg does not know English as well as they think they do (en-3 in their Babel box; I would speculate en-1 would be more accurate), and they do not quite understand the proper entry format. — Eru·tuon19:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but I would go further and say they don't understand the concepts behind the formatting, either. For instance, they had inca derived from "Indo-European English here", which shows they don't know what an etymology is for, and elsewhere they had a definition line that said "Zazaki language" before the actual definition lines, and added Category:zza:Grammar to several entries that weren't about grammar.
Their account was created a week after Marmase was globally locked in 2015, and they've avoided notice because, until today, no one has looked at or edited their work except for bots (and in one diff, User:Embryomystic editing like a bot). Unless Vahag can confirm the accuracy of their edits, I'm inclined to delete and remove it all as "No usable content given". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
I have cleaned up after the user based on my Zazaki sources. His definitions are usually correct, but the formatting is terrible. I don't know if this is Marmase's sock. @Vuzorg, please look at the changes we made to your contributions and learn our formatting guidelines. --Vahag (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hey what's problem there? I'm not sock puppet of Marmase. I only don't know formatting guidelines very well. I won't contribute anymore. And Eru·tuon, you, be careful when you speak about a subject, don't attack me, even you don't know me, you can't judge me and my English. Do I know you? No, so I don't talk about you. Vuzorg (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Translation table glosses that translate only part of the definition:
“fetch” for “(transitive) To fetch, bring, take.”
“adopt, assume (a position)” for “To adopt, assume, arrive at, or progress towards (a certain position, location, state).”
Glosses that point to God knows which definition:
“don”
“doff”
“betake”
Glosses written in a way that encourage incorrect translations:
“go or come” for “To cause to come or go or move.”: wrong transitivity
I’ve changed “respond to” to “respond to (a telephone call, a doorbell, etc)”, to prevent people from adding translations of the more typical use of “respond to”. The Finnish and Swedish translations need to be checked.
“colloquial: be” for “To be. Used to form the passive of verbs.”
I changed “become ill” to “to become ill with” to prevent intransitive translations from being added. The Bulgarian, Dutch and Swedish translations need to be checked.
In addition, some tables could be merged into other entries and changed to {{trans-see}}
Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Definition one is copied verbatim from Century 1911:
Of or pertaining to the useful or mechanic arts, or to any academic, legal, science, engineering, business, or the like terminology with specific and precise meaning or (frequently, as a degree of distinction) shades of meaning; specially appropriate to any art, science or engineering field, or business
I am too tired to deal with this now, but it should not remain in this state. Other parts of the entry have wording problems (dated, etc.) as well. DCDuring (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
I rolled it back. That may be the primary definition in Urban Dictionary or in your idiolect, but certainly not in that of most others. The "improvement" was shorter, but didn't provide the basic definition. See “technical”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. for the basic definition, usually the first shown, in the opinions of professional lexicographers. DCDuring (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
@DCDuring I just thought of one explanation that would explain everything: you thought I had only changed the first sense and overlooked the other two senses and example. In that case your revert is perfectly understandable. If this is what happened, you can revert the revert (hmm..) and ignore what I said above. W3ird N3rd (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
First definition:
A Sanskrit philosophical term that may be literally rendered in English as nonduality: denoting that though differences and variegation appear in the human condition they are unreal or illusory and are not ultimately true.
This is supposed to be an English-language entry, not a Sanskrit one, and the wording smells of teaching Enlightenment to the ignorant. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Someone needs to go through the entries edited by all of the above accounts and IPs and rework them in the interest of what's best for the entries. As much as I dislike the games they're playing, I don't want to just revert everything they did- as I said, a number of their edits are at least partly an improvement, even if the overall pattern is harmful. It will take a bit more time and editorial judgment to do it right than I can put into it myself right now. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz, I took a look att Campista1891's contributions and made necessary changes. I'll take a look att the other two this evening. Thank you for keeping an eye on these edits — I've reverted several of them myself while tracking anons. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
No, "SOP" is a much better description- unless you think we should have entries like "四十三本"... Either delete it, or use {{&lit}} like the Chinese section already does. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A mishmash of things have been stuck under "Related terms": some are derived terms, some are synonyms, some would belong under "See also", and some may just be junk. I don't have time to sort these out now - could someone else have a look? — Paul G (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Unsure how to fix template. Spaced forms need to be removed. "Further flung" etc. (with a space) is not an inflection of "far-flung" (with a hyphen). Equinox◑18:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The Middle Chinese and Old Chinese readings (there should be three) seem to be out of place. It is also unclear what the different meanings are for the different readings. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }03:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Note (Schuessler, 2007): "This word could be a cognate or variant of gǔ above, but the same graph also writes a word hù (ɣuoᴮ) ‘overnight wine’ [Shi 302, 2] with which it may be related since gū means ‘buy wine’. Karlgren (GSR 49b’) has assigned readings to meanings as given above, yet traditional commentaries and dictionaries don’t agree which reading, gū or hù, goes with which meaning." — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }03:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung: I did some re-editing, and I removed the RFC tag after I think the article is usable, without seeing here. As far as I know, the sence ‘to buy alcoholic drink’ has a definite pronunciation /*kuo/. The sense ‘overnight alcoholic drink’ does have different accounts in historical documents, and I accepted both, whithout thinking much. Any other thing need to do? Dokurrat (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This was originally the Wikipedia article squeezed into dictionary format. A great deal of cleanup has already been done, but the "definition" is basically a string of quotes from a description of the alleged practices of this group, and not a definition at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
This English entry was created 7 years ago by User:Leasnam with two senses:
To contradict; speak against.
To gainsay; renounce.
There were two quotes added at the time it was created. The first (on the first sense) is a quote from a science fiction short story which gives the word as an example of a made-up Germanized substitute for contradict, albeit in a sentence. The second (on the second sense), used it as a one-off science fiction coinage for some kind of telepathic or other deeper-level communication, which doesn't match the second sense at all.
User:-sche changed the second sense to (sort of) match the quote:
To direct conversation or questions (to).
I've only been able to find a couple of actual uses in Books (here and here) and a couple dozen uses in Groups (mostly not Usenet) by a few non-native speakers, supporting the "contradict" part of the first, so it might squeak by rfv. I'm not sure what the original second sense even means, since gainsay and contradict are synonyms and renounce means something else. The replacement second sense is only found in the one science fiction short story quoted, and it's in-universe at that.
I'm not sure exactly how to approach this. I'm not sure whether it would be worthwhile to rfv the first sense, but it should be labeled as rare or nonstandard, or something. I'm not sure if archaic makes sense, since I can't find anything more than a century old (Middle English has it, but under a different spelling). Maybe I'll rfv the second sense. The quotes already in the entry should probably be removed- if not, the author attribution needs to be corrected on both. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
To me we seem to have as many as 5 definitions offered and two citations which are, erm, ambiguous, possibly irrelevant. For example, is "speak against" meant to be the same as "contradict" or is it something akin to "denounce"? I propose that we limit the damage that this entry can cause should it prove as wrong as it seems by inserting {{trans-see}} for each of the five definitions. And that we RfV each of the five definitions. Century 1911 doesn't have an entry, though they do have one for withsay.
The practice of starting an entry from its etymology, making sloppy definitions, and offering such shoddy "evidence" makes for bad entries, as we have seen before. DCDuring (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
What we need to also do (in addition to the suggestions (?) mentioned above) is to quit thinking that entry creation is ever a final step in adding any term--preferably it is; but sometimes it is not, despite best efforts to make it so. The whole purpose of this project is to allow for multiple user inputs to ensure things are correct and balanced. So if it needs cleaning up, let's clean it up. Yeah, if you're expecting everything I do to be perfect all the time, well I've got disappointing news for you... Leasnam (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
@DCDuring, and to answer to your comment about the etymological connection, No, the last known definition is not a surefire way to know how the word is used/will be used today, but it is absolutely the most logical place to start with, especially when the current usage is rather fuzzy Leasnam (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
For sense #2, I believe we could also add "speak or answer back", no ? That is not an inherited sense, but it is analogous to what with- connotes in related modern words, like withdraw(“draw back”), withhold(“hold back”), so it seems like the author might mean "the only timeframe in which he could speak/answer back to the Spirit Ring" Leasnam (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Both the "1957" (really 1999) and 2010 quotes added to sense 2 are both from the same short story, "The days of Solomon Gursky", by Ian McDonald, which appeared in several anthologies. In both cases you attributed it to the editor of the anthology, not the author. Your other science fiction quote (added to sense 1) is from another short story that first appeared in 1984 in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction magazine (now w:Asimov's Science Fiction), "Blued Moon" by w:Connie Willis (Asimov didn't write the story, he just had his name in the title of the magazine). As for sense 2, the context of "1957" quote shows that the word wasn't limited to responding, and in fact seems to be based on the idea of "speaking with", which isn't the same sense of with, at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz, is it appropriate to call this an inherited word, or a (re)borrowing from Middle English ? I can't really find older uses of the word, and I don't have access to OED. If the word indeed shows a gap in use, I think it's good to show it with a label of nonstandard. Otherwise, if it continued throughout (doubtful), then rare might be better (?) . In any event, I feel weird saying it's inherited from ME...Leasnam (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Leaving aside the question of whether the proper-noun sense meets the requirements of WT:FICTION, this entry has a translation table full of terms in languages the sole editor of the entry doesn't speak, including Gothic. That's right- Gothic. Even scarier, some of the translations are bluelinks- because that same editor has been creating entries in languages they don't speak for a term that probably doesn't meet CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
And what exactly should be cleaned up? Should t (in {{t|CODE|TERM}}) be changed into t-check? The German translation for example is correct, so it could be changed back to t. Whether or not the German term or any other translations meets WT:FICTION should be a matter of WT:RFVN to decide. -84.161.12.3509:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Looking at User talk:Equinox, it doesn't seem like someone asked you on your user page: user page's first post is from 20zh November 2017 (this revision), post above from 12th October.
The etymology seems to be copied from it's source (Adrian Room, Dictionary of Pseudonyms, 5th ed., p. 518, s.v. C.J. Yellowplush). Is it a copyright violation?
"used this name" - which name? The source makes it clear by the dictionary entry: The pseudonym C.J. Yellowplush. "The same character appeared" - which character? Charles James Yellowplush is the purported author and the servant was a living guy. "character" seems to refer to Charles James Yellowplush as if he is the purported author and the character in his story, but IMHO it's not so clear.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
These definitions are probably all pretty good, but formatting is weird. Dunno why someone put all those "unnecessary" "speech marks". It's something I can't stand. --P5Nd2 (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Metaknowledge: This word/etymon has been a problem for a long time, given the *a vocalism and its proposed descendants.
In order to get the sequence -lv- in Latin, you need to have a syncopation of PIt. *-VlVwV-, since PIt. *-lw- regularly yields L -ll-. This means that the PIt. form has to look like *kale/owos. Some have tried to set up forms like PIE *kolHwos, but then you run into a whole bag of worms of whether Saussure's Effect is real (see Nussbaum "The 'Saussure Effect' in Latin and Italic"), and the a vocalism is still problematic. De Vaan on the other hand does something like PIE *kl̥H-e/o-wó-s > PIt. *kale/owos > L calvus, with cognates Sanskritकुल्व(kulva), Avestan𐬐𐬀𐬎𐬭𐬎𐬎𐬀(kauruua, “thin-haired”) < PIE *kl̥H-wó-s. Regardless of whether this etymology is good or whether we believe in PIE *a vocalism, the current reconstruction cannot possibly give Latincalvus.
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
They're formatted incorrectly and aren't actually etymologies, all they do is mention a Finnish cognate. They do this even if said Finnish cognate has an entry on the same page with a proper etymology. It seems to me like they just don't want to put any effort in but would rather leave it for someone else to clean up. —Rua (mew) 16:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
I've noticed, yes. My workflow on cleaning up the minor Finnic languages goes usually through checking up from Proto-Finnic entries once they've been sourced, though, so that may take a while before it hits all of these "naturally". I've barely even started the initial source literature scan (going on at User:Tropylium/Finnish inherited vocabulary).
This also makes me wonder if a database dump search for Etymology sections that do not use any of our etymology templates ({{der}}, {{inh}}, {{bor}}, {{suffix}}, {{compound}} etc.) might be worthwhile at some point. Maybe after our eternity project to depreciate {{etyl}} finishes… --Tropylium (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The Spanish entry includes a definition for el mayor and related forms as the superlative form of mayor. This is correct, though probably not deserving of mention: my understanding is that the general rule in Spanish is that el or la followed by any comparative results in the superlative, e.g. el másguapo (the most handsome). In this case, mayor is already a comparative form of grande or viejo, so más is unnecessary (and indeed, incorrect).
Also, is there a more appropriate means of annotating mayor as a comparative when in the sense of bigger or older? Mayor is apparently not always a comparative as it has an additional sense of wholesale, so noting it in the headword line is not appropriate (unless we add separate headwords for its comparative and non-comparative senses). Rriegs (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Some useful points you raise. You are of course correct about the structure of comparatives and superlatives in Spanish. However, mayor isn't always a comparative. It certainly isn't a strict comparative of viejo, just it means "older". And mayor itself doesn't mean wholesale - that's venta al por mayor (although I'd like to move that page to al por mayor. I'll have a shot at rewriting the page. --P5Nd2 (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Your changes make for a significant improvement, thank you! I'm curious, though, whether you mean senses 6 and 7 ("head; boss" and "(music) major") to be adjectives (more specifically, noun adjuncts) or nouns. If the former, then usage would be like ella es la cajera mayor to mean she's the head teller (as opposed to she's the oldest/biggest teller). If the later, then these should be moved under a ====Noun==== heading and usage would be like ella es la mayor to mean she's the boss. ―Rriegs (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Spanish entry has an additional headword for the plural derechos in the sense of duties, taxes, fees, or charges. Because this page concerns the non-plural derecho and a separate page already exists for the plural derechos, shouldn't this sense be moved over there? Alternately, is it necessarily the case that singular derecho can't have this sense? I note that the English counterparts all work fine in the singular (duty, tax, fee, and charge), even if the plural is also commonly used ("hidden fees", "filing one's taxes", etc.). ―Rriegs (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Could it be you are not entirely right on this subject? When I search derecho in Google, I get 645 million results. It means right, straight, direct. HansRompel (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This entry is a confusing mess. The formatting issues are just the beginning; the real issue is that the definitions are actually just a collection of examples from various languages. As noted in the talk page, the concept of absolute superlative should be language independent; its definition should be something like:
An adjective form indicating a quality expressed to the greatest possible extent, in contrast to the comparative superlative, which instead indicates a quality expressed to the greatest extent within some specific context.
A significant feature of absolute superlatives is that some languages use different inflections for the absolute and comparative cases. Accordingly, it is reasonable to still include some language examples in that context.
As an additional observation, I think the Romanian examples are actually just intensifying adverbs, not absolute superlative forms. Wikipedia provides a different explanation using the adverb phrase celmai and related forms. ―Rriegs (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Formatting should be slightly improved now (diff), but that doesn't address the real problems. The current senses maybe are better as usage notes in foreign entries; e.g. the Romanian sense could be put into an Romanian entry superlativ absolut (if the statement is accurate). -80.133.98.18603:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Looks identical to me. If it is not utterly interchangeable, the articles need that a distinction be formulated. And IPA is desirable. I have stumbled upon this after asking myself which one would have been preferable to gloss سِيَادَة(siyāda); I drop this for the native speakers of English. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 18:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
The etymology section in Chinese claims that Japanese 白金 is "semantically readapted from Chinese", yet the etymology section in Japanese claims that Japanese 白金 is "calque of Dutch wit goud". There must be one who is wrong, and this page currently is confusing. Dokurrat (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Dokurrat -- I've had a go at the Japanese entry. The Japanese term has an older sense of silver, in keeping with the older Chinese. The current Chinese etym is incorrect and misleading, as Chinese had this term long before platinum was known to the Dutch, and the current etym erroneously suggests that Dutch for platinum somehow relates to the archaic Chinese sense of silver.
I've pinged Shinji on the Talk:白金 page to get his input, as he was apparently the one to add the Dutch derivation.
I'm also tempted to remove the =====Descendants===== section from the Japanese entry, as that indicates that the term was wholly a Japanese coinage. I think we should at least remove the line for Chinese, and the lines for the other languages too if there's any evidence of earlier borrowing of 白金(báijīn) prior to the emergence of the Japanese term's platinum sense. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig21:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
If 白金 existed in the meaning "silver" first and then later came to mean "platinum" under the influence of Dutch wit goud, then I'd say this is a {{semantic loan}}, not a {{calque}}. In which language did it first refer to platinum, Japanese or Chinese? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Aɴɢʀ -- Re: original meanings, Chinese philosophy (or would "astrology" be the better term?) included the idea of the five cardinal colors: blue, red, yellow, white, and black. There were also five metals, each associated with a color: tin? (blue), copper (red), gold (yellow), silver (white), iron (black).
Re: repurposing, Shinji's research points to Japanese as the first language to repurpose this spelling to mean platinum, and Udagawa Yōan as the first author to use this term with the sense platinum (probably in his 1837 work, Introduction to Chemistry), based on now-obsolete European usage of various languages' equivalent of white gold to refer to this same metal. Udagawa's source material was primarily Dutch, and Dutch too formerly treated witgoud and platina as synonyms.
It is not a semantic loan but a calque. The character 金 means “metal” in the Classical Chinese word 白金, while it means “gold” in the newly coined Japanese word 白金. They are different words that happen to have the same characters. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The definition is unclear, the sections are in the wrong order, and the entry is generally confusing. I tried to fix it a little by moving a description that was in the definition into a Usage Notes section, but it's still kind of funky. Also, there's a misplaced synonyms section. Globins (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This template is basically a copy of an old version of {{en-verb}}, and is woefully inadequate for Middle English. Middle English verbs have many more forms than just the ones given in this template. There should be a proper inflection table. —Rua (mew) 16:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
The Middle English templates in general could really use some love. Some templates just don't exist where useful ModEnglish varieties do (e.g. {{enm-adv}}, as well as a number of grammatical boxes such as personal pronouns)); in others a number of factors make ME more complicated than English (some adjectives having plural forms in addition to the typical comparative and superlative forms.) I'm fairly new so I don't know how templates are born or altered here (or even whether this discussion belongs in RFC as opposed to the Grease Pit), but it would make a huge difference if someone could update and expand the Middle English templates. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
@POKéTalker -- For terms referring to living organisms, many monilingual JA dictionaries list encyclopedic details about the organisms themselves, while leaving out details about the terms, such as etymology and first citations. It can be rather frustrating.
Gogen Allguide is another resource that focuses on etymologies. They have an entry for 栄螺, but nothing for 笹. The entry they do have similarly lists 細・小・些些(sasa) as a possible derivation.
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The definition is very long, and so is the quote. Needs trimming, but I am not familiar with term to be able to redo it.--Dmol (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
I keep on finding instances of Scots-only entries appearing in English synonyms lists. It makes me wonder whether there is much consistency in general in the treatment of Scots vs Scottish dialect of English. DCDuring (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This category contains several entries which should not belong here. I propose to remove entries with current full definitions from this category. If you disagree with a specific entry's idiomaticity, feel free to send it to RFD.--2001:DA8:201:3512:F0D2:BCEA:BF85:63BB13:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The usage examples and many(most?) of the derived terms are not of terms derive from -tion, but rather of terms derived from -ion applied to a stem ending in t. And sometimes the word was actually taken on board English directly or via French from Latin, ie, from a Latin word ending in -atio. That means that [[-tion]] and will direct the contributor to many etymology sections that need to be corrected. DCDuring (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Many invalid entries have recently been added to the category. This will probably require ongoing cleanup. See also WT:RFD#-tion, where the suffix is proposed for deletion, although at least one word (scrimption) does seem to use it. - -sche(discuss)16:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Why would someone do that? Don't people believe in Occam's razor, if nothing else?
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I've suspected for some time that this is Luciferwildcat (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks) contributing as an IP: geolocation to the San Francisco Bay area of California, interest in scatalogical/sexual terms, Wicca and medical terminology consistent with EMR training, amateurish Spanish translations, and generally poor lexical judgment. Alarmingly, they're now branching into adding translations in a number of languages they obviously don't know and into terminology associated with Tibetan languages (They defined Old Tibetan as "Of or pertaining to Old Tibet"!).
I get the impression that people have been cleaning up the more boneheaded of the contributions in their own areas of interest without looking at the bigger picture of overall incompetence and bad judgment. The translations added by this IP need attention from those who know the various languages, and we need to decide whether blocking or other action should be taken. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In other technical details besides IP range, this IP is a perfect match to יבריב (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks), and indeed shows the same indiscriminate, high-volume and diverse editing- They seem to be adding translations in just about any language they can think of. Given that יבריב was blocked for making crappy edits in languages they don't know, this makes me very nervous. Depending on the source(s) they've been vacuuming up, their edits could very well range from ok to horribly, horribly wrong.
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The definition goes “One who's suspicious post-death […]”, but the quotations all use “Requiem for the Suicided”, which suggest something similar to “the Irish” or “the poor”. No plural is given.
I split off a few of the definitions which come from a common source, and added another sense with its own etymology. Etymology 1 still needs further work clarifying origins. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
RFC sense ‘One who works by the job and recruit other people’. Between the vagueness and the grammar problems I don’t know what this is supposed to mean. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 05:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
A jobber is one who's job is to recruit others to work for a company or some other entity, i.e. someone who recruits nurses to work for a travel nursing agency. — This unsigned comment was added by 2600:8807:5401:f760:6108:f455:228c:f21c (talk).
Moreover, most of the synonyms are included in the definitions themselves. Surely that duplication isn't necessary--either the definitions ought be pithier or the synonyms omitted. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
The addendum to the request, added by another person on 28 October 2018, has not been addressed here at all, nor discussed at all, in almost 14 months of time. Moreover, it is simply personal opinion. I would reckon that the King James version of the Bible itself is among the commonest places that people encounter the word today. In addition, it is found in multiple contexts there, revealing several of the usages present in this entry. It does not strike me that the balance is undue. 50.126.101.7000:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
German entry, but abbreviating a Latin term. At the momemt it's mis-categorised because of Category:Latin abbreviations. Properly, {{abbreviation of|TERM|lang=CODE}} would need two language parameters to produce "Abbreviation of [Latin] {{m|la|TERM}}" with category Category:German abbreviations. Should the abbreviation template be replaced by text and the category be added manually? -84.161.53.5916:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
No OneLook reference has even a redirect let alone an entry for this, but we have had the entry since before 2007 and we have translations etc, so we might want to try to make sense of this. I have a few questions:
What does the label "imperative determiner" mean? If it is a determiner, why is it in a Noun L2?
Isn't the noun definition SoP?
The three words presented as definitions on the same line in the Adverb L2 don't seem synonymous to me and there are no usage examples, let alone citations. Does anyone have a view on this.
I added an example that might be of non-SoP usage:
It's good that he's gone. This way we don't have to argue with him all the time.
I don't know how to define it. It might just be an elliptical deixis, which doesn't seem to me to be much of a basis for inclusion. Is it? DCDuring (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Also with other definite determiners like "his way", "John's way", etc. I was just looking for something I was familiar with that might be idiomatic, it doesn't seem very idiomatic to me. MW Online has a two=definition entry for that way that resembles ours for this way. Oxford has a euphemistic sex-romance usage.
FWIW, the kanji spelling is listed as the lemma form in the majority of the monolingual JA-JA dictionaries I've referenced -- Shogakukan's KDJ, Daijisen, Daijirin online. Shinmeikai and Daijirin non-online list the lemma at hiragana spelling へんてこ, noting that kanji spelling 変梃 is also valid. Shogakukan's KDJ usage examples all use the hiragana spelling. No source I can find lists the lemma at the katakana spelling ヘンテコ.
Anglo-Saxon and Middle English in (New) English entries
Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion
As Anglo-Saxon and Middle English are not (New) English and as thus Anglo-Saxon and Middle English cites do not belong into (New) English entries but might nontheless be useful for Anglo-Saxon or Middle English entries to be created, I'm moving them to here now:
c. 1430 (reprinted 1888), Thomas Austin, ed., Two Fifteenth-century Cookery-books. Harleian ms. 279 (ab. 1430), & Harl. ms. 4016 (ab. 1450), with Extracts from Ashmole ms. 1429, Laud ms. 553, & Douce ms. 55 [Early English Text Society, Original Series; 91], London: N. Trübner & Co. for the Early English Text Society, volume I, OCLC374760, page 11:
Soupes dorye. — Take gode almaunde mylke […] caste þher-to Safroun an Salt […]
This is difficult to address because our Middle English entries (if they exist at all) are in a poor state, with little standardization of spellings. DTLHS (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Following the headwords in the MED is a good safe bet, I think. We could then put the other spellings in alternative forms, I suppose? In some cases there are a plethora of spelling options, some of which are universal (e.g. the '-e' ending that may or may not be included; 'þ' and 'ð' instead of 'th' and vice versa, the wynn and the yogh, etc.)--it might be good to somehow standardize how those are handled as well. Or, perhaps, there are already ways the treatment thereof is standardized here--if so, I'd love to know. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
It's not really that simple. There is no hard dividing line between ME and modE, it's more of a sliding scale and some texts (like Malory) could fairly be counted as either. I think ME citations should not be removed from modE entries if they are doing the job of showing the word's usage through time. Ƿidsiþ09:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Well, we picked 1500 as a dividing line, but that is arbitrary. Language did not morph into modern English overnight. Malory is right at the end of the ME period, and in fact is functionally identical to early modern English. He is a world away from (for example) Chaucer. Ƿidsiþ04:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I see this as a four-step process:
make a list of works/authors used in English quotes and quote requests
select from those a list of those which are from before modern English
make a list of English entries with pre-modern English quotes
go through the list and fix them
The first and third require processing the dumps, the second can be done by anyone who has the time to research or who knows already which is which, and the last requires someone who knows ME well enough to create entries.
It's also not necessarily desirable, since it's been established here already that Middle English citations can be used to support modern English definitions if the definition in question is also attested from the modern English period. Ƿidsiþ14:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
User:Kaixinguo~enwiktionary and myself spotted mass-editing of Arabic verb forms. The anon refuses to interact and the edits don't seem right. He may be a native speaker or, more likely an advanced learner, but they are not familiar with some forms and they bulk-remove them. @Erutuon, Kolmiel, Wikitiki89, ZxxZxxZ, Backinstadiums, please review the edits, if you can. I have briefly checked some and I don't like what I see but would be better if they actually explained their actions. Please advise if a block or a warning is warranted. I wonder if they are one of formerly blocked users? --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)11:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
In some cases, like this or this, this user seems to be deleting definition lines that have the same inflectional categories as another definition line, but link to an alternative form of the lemma. In the first case the alternative forms are اِسْتَحْيَا(istaḥyā) and اِسْتَحَى(istaḥā), in the second مَاسَّ(māssa) and مَاسَسَ(māsasa). WingerBot created the entry, and I guess Benwing had decided to include both alternative forms. — Eru·tuon20:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Rfc for "the act of submitting", this clearly needs to be split into different senses and clarified, its translation table contains translations for very different senses (act of surrendering, act of submitting mail). ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Native vocab is in most cases identical in KZ and KP (they're not much more different than, say, American English and British English, and I'm not convinced that treating them as different languages is a good idea), but I'd have to double-check that there aren't any pitfalls here.
OK, I've split most of them. The only cases where these lemmas cannot be treated as both languages equally as well is the predictable л > в shift in KP. --Tropylium (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This has a translation table without a corresponding sense and the entry is classed as an autological term which makes little sense based on the current definitions, probably based on the translation table's "tending to use large or obscure words, which few understand". ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Reason for the inconsistence: diff (June 2016, sense "tending to use large or obscure words, which few understand" was removed while the transes stayed), diff (November 2017, a new second sense was added).
Compared with dictionary.com the old 2nd sense was wrong, which means the old transes should be deleted as well (or be checked, if they fit for the 1st or new 2nd sense). As for proper procedure, it would be more correct to re-add the old 2nd sense and add {{RFV-sense|en}} and have an RFV process. -84.161.46.2412:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I took an initial stab at cleaning it up. I think it is still far from ideal, but I tried to sift through the information to find the essentials, to pare away what might be considered unnecessary or over-encyclopœdic. Maybe some of that information should be added back in; I wasn't sure. I'm also not totally happy with a list format, but it seemed like a good starting point at least. SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I've tried to do a little digging, but I'm not strong enough in Old French to be of much use on that front. I'm also curious about the Tamil theory that was in the original etymology. There's no citation that points that way. The same conjecture is mentioned on the Wikipedia entry for culvert, and again here, notably as the only one without a reference in the table. That seems curious to me. SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Tagged but not listed. The comment was "la [or en?]", which I interpret to mean that it may be SOP in Latin itself but entryworthy in English. Maybe a case for RFV rather than RFC in that case. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk17:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Originally it was Lux Mundi but head "lūx mundī". That didn't fit. The senses don't seem to fit too: "3. Light is Protecting the World [Lux est prōtegēns Mundi]". The meaning seems to translate the Latin sentence and not just "Lux Mundi" or "lux mundi". -84.161.47.23705:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Metaknowledge expressed concern to me about the military senses. "Way too many badly written military senses... probably should all be clarified, and some might need to be sent to RFD". I agree, and I'm not familiar enough with the military to make a perfect judgement, but I can tell you now some of the red links look questionable, and one of the defs looks unnecessarily long. Any takers? PseudoSkull (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
He's been carelessly adding tons of unchecked translations taken from something like Wikipedia entry titles or Google Translate. --WikiTiki8918:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I think the list of uses for all the cases can safely be removed, as they are completely regular and unsurprising. It is as if we were to have examples "Singular: I have one cat" & "Plural: I have two cats" to illustrate the use of the singular and plural of the noun cat. Probably not accidentally, the Crimean Tatar declension template delivers entirely correct results, at least for this case, for standard Turkish. A peculiarity of the templates for Turkish proper nouns, such as {{tr-prop-v-aı}}, is that they also produce a column for the plural. There is no way to turn this off. --Lambiam12:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The "identical spelling" section is a mess. Some entries are red linked. Some have only an English entry and some have only a French one. Would it be simpler to just delete it? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Not having an entry isn't a good reason. Not existing in English or French would be a reason for removing single terms. A note could be missing: "The gender only applys to the French, not to the English". A reason for deletion could be, that the list would get to long as ~1/3 of the English vocabulary is of French (Old, Middle, New French) and Anglo-Norman origin, cp. File:Origins of English PieChart.svg, after all, l'anglais est un créole. -84.161.7.11109:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Fixed, I think, along the lines of 84.161's second suggestion. I doubt only speakers in the Philippines call a bag for making ice an "ice bag", btw, so I'm sceptical it's a calque and not a straightforward compound, like "soup bowl" etc. - -sche(discuss)20:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion
If these aren't attested (as the ue of {{reconstructed}} and an asterisk would suggest), then they don't belong in the main namespace, and should be handled like attested vs unattested Latin (if there is a reason to include them, e.g. descendants suggesting they existed). If one is attested (as the absence of an asterisk on the plural forms might suggest), then the entry should not use {{reconstructed}}, and should perhaps be located only at the plural form, with a better gloss. - -sche(discuss)03:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I object to this decision. What is the harm of leaving it the way it is? I mean it's clear that to anyone who will look at it will know what is and isn't attested. It will help those writing Old High German and especially help those understanding feminine n-stem nouns. Pagans would benefit greatly from the entries. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Probably it's an easy case: The OHG name for Easter (feast) being attested and being a plurale tantum (and beginning with a small latter); but the German name for the Germanic goddess of spring first being attested in NHG (Ostara). An RFV for Ostara (goddess of spring) should result in RFV failed, and would be an easy way to solve this (though it takes some time, at least 30 days, for the RFV process)... -84.161.25.15210:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Wasn't there a rule that reconstructions need a descendant? (I haven't found that at WT:Reconstructed terms though.) Else one could, for example, make up Germanic terms by applying sound laws to PIE terms which are only attested in Indian languages. A descendant of *Ostara probably is first attested in NHG as Ostara (which could also be a derivation of the OHG name for Easter (feast)). -84.161.7.11108:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
It would be non-inherited, but IMHO also not properly borrowed, but derived from an OHG term. If there are only terms like Irminsul or Irminsäule, and scholars notice that the second part means Säule and conjecture that Irmin might be a god or hero, would NHG Irmin be a borrowing? -84.161.20.504:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Based on some feedback we got via OTRS, I ran a report on the 4/20 dump to find headers (L3+) which occur twenty times or fewer in NS:0. If you would like to help clean up the many typos, feel free to knock some off of the list. Mostly the pages link to the section with the offending header, but sometimes things get weird. Just delete sections if you clear them all out so others don't try and duplicate the effort. I will run this again for each of the next several dumps with higher thresholds until things seem relatively clean. If you have any feedback on ways to make this easier to use, let me know. - TheDaveRoss17:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Could be better if anybody could edit it. After diff and diff, I thought of removing "Declension (Early)" and "Declension (Late)", but that didn't work. If the edit would be unwanted, it could easily be undone; but if wanted, it might be helpful... -84.161.20.18622:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The definition "point" appears in two etymology sections with the same passage of the same work (but with two different genitives) cited to support each one. I am sceptical that two strings which have homographic lemma forms and are so perfectly synonymous that they are used interchangeably can really have two different etymologies. - -sche(discuss)01:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Etymology is similar but is different as is the inflection:
2nd declension punctus (gen. -i): late alternative form of punctum (gen. -i), substantivisation of the PPP punctus of verb pungō. The PPP could be analysed as pungō + -tus (etymology 1, forming PPP) with changement of g to c (cp. usage notes in -tus).
As for the Pliny quote: The younger one doesn't reveal to which word it belongs (cp. Citations:puncto). The older as source for the sense point of punctus (-us) -- backed-up by L&S for the translation/meaning --, is older, so may be less reliable, less correct. Anyhow, Georges and L&S give other sources for both punctus (-i) and punctus (-us), that is even without Pliny both words should be attested, even though the sense point of punctus (-us) might not.
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This (and, I suspect, possibly other entries which use the same template) is labelled as an acronym of заграни́чный па́спорт. But it's not an acronym in the usual sense (sense 1), or IMO even in sense 2 (since it uses the first two syllables, not the first syllable). I suggest the wording should be changed to "short form" or maybe "abbreviation". - -sche(discuss)17:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
In discussions of Russian language, these are traditionally referred to as acronyms (I've never heard them called anything else). Most of the parts are single syllables, but multiple syllables are not uncommon. Russian-style acronyms are made up of (1) one or more initial syllables plus initial syllables (замза́в(zamzáv), детдо́м(detdóm)); (2) one or more initial syllables plus a whole word (Главка́бель(Glavkábelʹ)); (3) one or more initial syllables plus a letter abbreviation (ГорОНО́(GorONÓ)). An acronym can use even more than two syllables of a word: Беломоркана́л(Belomorkanál) (Беломорско-Балтийский канал). Russian acronyms may be long: Росглавтекстильснабсбытсырьё(Rosglavtekstilʹsnabsbytsyrʹjó) (Рос-глав-текстиль-снаб-сбыт-сырьё, meaning "Main Department for Supply and Marketing of Raw Materials of the Textile Industry of the Ministry of Textile Industry of the RSFSR").
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sense 2, "To occur unexpectedly, by chance or with a low probability." The usex "Do you happen to have an umbrella?" doesn't fit in here; it doesn't mean "Do you occur to have an umbrella?". I'm not sure how best to phrase the definition (which is why I'm asking here), but I have a feeling that happen is modal here, as the sentence really just means "Do you by any chance have an umbrella?". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk13:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Using the verb "chance" might work; it is at least substitutable ("do you chance to have an umbrella"). Otherwise, the definition could be made non-gloss, along the lines you mention; like {{n-g|Functions like a modal verb indicating chance.}} or something. One other dictionary uses "have the fortune of". - -sche(discuss)14:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Pronunciations don't entirely align with etymologies. Also, several unrelated etymologies have been stuck together within Etymology 4. Dylanvt (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Bad etymology; doesn't have an Interjection section; mildly strange definitions (wording?), and the common reading of banzai isn't presented first. —Suzukaze-c◇◇08:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This had only a single, rather narrow sense from its original creation back in 2005. I've split it into two senses, but I'm not completely happy with the results, and I'm not sure what to do with the translations. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Two out of the three definitions and their usexes were based on confusion between this, which is intransitive, and kick someone's ass, which is transitive. I think I fixed the definitions, but I have no clue what to do with the translations. Perhaps they might be moved to the other term if someone would be so kind as to create it. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Italiot Greek
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
With Italiot Greek being treated as a separate lang with own code grk-ita, "el" is wrong and label "Italiot Dialect" unnecessary. In this case the label could simply be removed.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I just listed this as a WT:TODO task because I expect it'll keep being an issue even after we fix the existing cases, but: numerous entries in "Terms borrowed from Proto-Foo" categories (like Category:Terms borrowed from Proto-Slavic) were not actually "borrowed" by the L2 language in the way we use the word; see e.g. here. (Surprisingly, one English word apparently was borrowed from Proto-Indo-European, ghrelin.) - -sche(discuss)08:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Zcreator alt -- Please see Talk:硴. If this character is actually used in any other language than Japanese, I'm happy to have a ==Translingual== section included. However, if this character is only used in Japanese, its usage is by definition not translingual. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig20:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
They're plenty of Chinese-only characters (e.g. Mainland-coined simplified characters), but nevertheless they all have a Translingual section. It provides radical, strokes and IDS data can not be found elsewhere.--Zcreator alt (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Notably, the entry lists itself as a descendant. @Victar argues that it’s normal on the talk page. In any case it doesn’t provide the script for some reason. Guldrelokk (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A clueless Wikipedia editor just merged a truckload of Wikipedia-formatted translations from the Wikipedia article into our translation table. Yikes! Chuck Entz (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Are proper names of dictionaries, e.g. "Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache" or "Wörterbuch der bairischen Mundarten in Österreich" [WBÖ], entry-worthly (as for WT:CFI)? -08:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I apologize for creating and authoring the descriptive text for this category. Merism suggests that the term is polysemous in a way makes it a poor category name. I don't see what characteristics the members of the category have in common apart from being coordinate expressions. At least the category membership needs to be cleaned out. DCDuring (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
It isn't just about adding formatting; it is also the fact that the letter case is wrong (it should be "Livedo racemosa"), and it would be a Translingual taxon entry. SURJECTION·talk·contr·log·17:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Overlong etymology, includes paragraph length encyclopedic content. Delete encyclopedic content or show-hide it and convert inline references to footnotes, etc. DCDuring (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Has tonnes and tonnes of false positives. wt:Grease pit may be a better spot to say this as the mistake here is more automatic than manual, but in any case it needs to be said that this category is a mess. (Although I also wonder about its necessity.) — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 09:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
There's also a more complex version of the rule, which I was taught: "I before E except after C, and when pronounced 'ay' as in neighbor and weigh"- not that I'm recommending incorporating that into the category rules. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I started to fix this, then realized I'm not up to the job at the moment. There doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency in the following areas:
In many cases, there is an entry for Portuguese but not for Spanish;
Sometimes plurals are included in the superscript, sometimes not (e.g. plural forms at 2.º vs. 3º vs. actual entries, like 2.ªs);
The headers usually display plural/feminine inflections (3º), but sometimes not (3o);
Sometimes "Ordinal Number" or "Abbreviation" is used as the header instead of "Adjective";
1ª is apparently nonstandard (according to the entry), with 1.ª being the main form, but elsewhere, no indication is given on whether one is more correct than the other;
The "abbreviation of" information is sometimes in the definition line, sometimes in the etymology.
Langenscheidt has: "Tante f Frau des Onkels mütterlicherseits", i.e. "[one's father's or mother's sister] [gender] [wife of the uncle on one's mother's side]", so for a person there are: person's mother -- person's mother's brother = person's uncle -- person's mother's brother's wife = person's unja -20:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
A user recently added a messy block of text relating to slang uses of Ralph in relation to vomit. We already have a verb ralph, but the text suggests there’s also an idiom calling Ralph which we don’t yet have, and that Ralph can potentially be used as a noun (and, attributively, as an adjective). Not having heard the word used in any of these ways myself, I’m not clear on how, exactly, it’s used, nor how to search for good attestations (as the name Ralph swamps these slang uses). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 04:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
Azerbaijani has vowel harmony, so each suffix can have multiple allomorphs. The practice for various languages, including the closely related Turkish, is to choose one of the allomorphs as the main lemma, and use that in the names of affix categories. So the categories for these allomorphs should be combined, as they are for Turkish. —Rua (mew) 11:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Surely someone who knows even the basics of Azerbaijani knows that anyway? We don't have such notices for other languages with vowel harmony, such as Turkish, Hungarian or Finnish. However, there is a link to the suffix at the top of the category, and any information regarding allomorphy should be described there. —Rua (mew) 15:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Rua, Allahverdi Verdizade: Hopefully what I say will be useful... I think we all agree here that -iş and, for example, -uş are allomorphs with regard to their ability to form verbal nouns from verbs. But why do you want to say that a word suffixed with -uş should be categorized as having been suffixed with -iş (at least as is)? I think it shouldn't have been done for the languages you mention.
Read for yourselves Miriam Webster's definition of an allomorph:
“one of a set of forms that a morpheme may take in different contexts
// the -s of cats, the -en of oxen, and the zero suffix of sheep are allomorphs of the English plural morpheme”[2].
Then, why isn't oxen categorized among the "Category:English words suffixed with -s"??...
That definition is simply wrong, shame on Merriam Webster for including it. I would consider it allomorphy if the form that should be used can be predicted based on some property of the word. An actual case of allomorphy is the variation between -s and -es in the plurals of English nouns, and in verb forms. This example is predictable: it's based on the final sound of the word. The example that Merriam Webster gives is not predictable, so I would not call that allomorphy. —Rua (mew) 17:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
> with regard to their ability to form verbal nouns from verbs
...and verbs from verbs. By the way, why do you think these two functions of the morpheme have different etymologies?
@Rua, Allahverdi Verdizade: I don't know if they have different etymologies. But "As early as 1912"[3], the suffix with the second function was compared to a Mongolian suffix by Ramstedt; I could write about it in the second etmological section when the page is unblocked, maybe something along the lines of: "Was compared as early as 1912 with a Mongolian suffix by Ramstedt[4]".
> But why do you want to say that a word suffixed with -uş should be categorized as having been suffixed with -iş (at least as is)? I think it shouldn't have been done for the languages you mention.
I think you should ask yourself why we even bother categorizing words by morphological properties in first place. Well, the answer is, if someone would like to have a look at all instances of words suffixed by a certain morpheme, it is much more useful to see exactly that, all instances of this morpheme, not only instances of this morpheme in a certain phonological environment, which is completely predictable. When it comes to English -en plurals, they are exceptions, fossilized remains of an older system, so it could be pretty interesting for someone to find out, what are the other words like this, and how many are they? I can't imagine why anyone would have interest of only inspecting -uş or -üş prefixed words, and if they want, they can easily do so by CTRL+F:ing the common category. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
If I were writing a poem, and looking for an Azerbaijani word which I knew ended with a certain suffix, but unfortunately this suffix happened to have plenty of allomorphs for the same function, the derivatives of which having been crammed into the same category on the Wiktionary, the said category now containing a total of so many words suffixed with these allomorphs, shouldn't I lose my time reading all the words ending with a suffix I wasn't looking for in order to find the word I needed? --ARBN19 (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Glad we have an entry for this. However, the definition is dated now - "expected to cover the whole country by the end of 2017". Also, nowadays there are about the same number of hits for lowercase universal credit - I was gonna make that as just an alt-form, but it looked more nouny than proper nouny. --XY3999 (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Non-standard "Sources" header; they're not all exactly references either. The most recent edits seem to have introduced an additional source which is presumably the origin of the quote given, so it should be converted as such. SURJECTION·talk·contr·log·17:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
They are subtly different, though overlapping. For example, Hand Solo is derived from a SW character's name but does not relate to SW itself (and so should be in the latter category but not the former); Machete Order was coined by a blog but relates directly to the films (and so should be in the former category but not the latter). In this fine distinction worth keeping? Ideally, yes, but it could be more trouble than it's worth. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds04:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Eeek. I don't think anyone will realize this subtle difference unless it is pointed out somewhere, and I doubt if the effort to try and maintain the distinction is worth it. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, large parts taken directly from WP. We could probably boil it down to one or two definitions, but maybe this detail is what we should aspire to. DCDuring (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Can we aspire to list each of the senses of the word 'majolica'? OED and others muddle the senses/definitions citing ambiguous texts. Let me do more editing then please review again. Your input invaluable.Davidmadelena (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Unambiguous citations are referenced in the WP articles. Multiple expert authors have 'got it wrong'. Impeccable sources, fortunately, do exist, and are cited.Davidmadelena (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Three unambiguous cites needed for each definition, but the cites should be "uses" not "mentions". Unfortunately narrow, precise definitions tend to be more like mentions than uses. "Mentions" include dictionary and glossary definitions. DCDuring (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
This difficulty of finding three uses of a word that are unambiguously uses of a single narrow definition is why general dictionary definitions can be unsatisfyingly fuzzy to specialists. DCDuring (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Here are some unambiguous cites I hope will meet the requirements... I have source details... and full quotes... and can match the cites to the definitions.
"The Palissy ware, formed of embossed [relief molded] biscuit covered with transparent glazes of various colors, is frequently called majolica…"
"Majolica [tin-glaze earthenware characterised by an opaque white surface painted in enamel colours] was produced for the first time by Messrs. Minton, in 1850, and they have been for many years the only producers of this article"
"The word Majolica, or Maiolica… was applied to all stanniferous faience of Italy and Spain"
"The Palissy ware, formed of... is frequently called majolica..."
"It would take too long to describe the processes… because [Minton] combine upon their majolica different sorts of transparent [lead glaze earthenware introduced as 'Palissy ware'] and opaque [tin glaze earthenware introduced as 'majolica'] enamels… sometimes [decorated] in the Italian method [raw tin glaze, dried, painted, then fired to produce characteristic opaque white glaze with painted decoration]; sometimes upon the opaque-fired enamel… and sometimes painting [with lead enamels] upon the… biscuit… afterwards covering the painting with a rich coat of transparent glaze. Such is the large ewer… [a one-off exhibition piece purchased by the South Kensington Museum]"
"The development of Victorian majolica occurred in two stages. First Arnoux produced a white opaque glaze which could be laid on to a basic earthenware body and then painted freehand in the maiolica style, using traditional faience techniques,...
and then he developed a fine buff earthenware designed to be decorated with a range of transparent glazes coloured with metal oxides that could be painted directly on to the biscuit body…"
"The collection of Palissy and Majolica ware, however, is that which appears to have created the greatest sensation among Parisian connoisseurs. The reader will remember that the main difference in these wares is that whereas the Palissy ware is coloured by a transparent glaze Majolica ware contains the colour (opaque) in the material [in the unfired tin glaze covering, brush painted, fired to produce the characteristic opaque white enamel with painted decoration fused within]... One sample of Palissy ware—being a little tea-service spread upon a leaf, the legs of the teapot being snails..."
Davidmadelena (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
I've gone ahead and reverted it back to an older version because despite other editors' help, the entry formatting just keeps getting worse with every passing edit. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 18:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
For the record, this is what it looked like before my latest revert. This isn't, has never been and will never be good formatting. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 18:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Def: "cry of celebration in the Middle Ages" Middle Ages end 1500, Middle French ends ~1600, i.e. after the Middle Ages. That doesn't make sense, needs a clarification.
If the interjection was used in the Middle Ages, it's not New French (fr) but Middle French (frm) [though there could also be a New French interjection Noël, for example used in novels for historic effect but not used in the Middle Ages]; and if the interjection is New French, it wasn't used in the Middle Ages [though there could also be a Middle French interjection Noël which was used back than].
-84.161.36.17411:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I don't speak Korean, so I can't fix this myself, but there are obvious problems here, such as odd use of italics and POV usexes translated into broken English. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion
For some reason a lot of entries are here, categorised as full adjective lemmas, when in the past these have always been treated as non-lemma forms. Unless there is some plan to start giving them full lemma status, they should be moved to Category:English adjective forms. —Rua (mew) 23:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
The vote seems to be mistaken then, because "comparative adjectives" is for lemmas, i.e. a specific subcategory of "adjectives". Non-lemmas should go in "adjective forms" and have a name that includes "forms" as they have always done. —Rua (mew) 23:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
If you disagree with the result of the vote, please start a new vote to change policy back to what it was before. But at the moment, it is policy. — Eru·tuon23:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
I've put "comparative x" and such under the corresponding "x forms" category as the vote prescribed, correcting Surjection's mistake. This should also be reflected in Module:headword, but Rua has reverted me there so I'm just going to give up because I don't enjoy fighting with people online. — Eru·tuon23:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
The vote makes the category structure inconsistent. In all other cases, "xxx POSs" are lemma categories, while non-lemma categories are named "POS xxx forms". Just look at Module:headword/data and the category tree modules. —Rua (mew) 23:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
That may be and it might be a nice convention to have syntax reflect category structure, but it needn't be an absolute rule. — Eru·tuon00:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
You should read the discussion. I'm not feeling like formulating it logically, but some considerations: judging by practice people were confused which of the three types categories (comparative adjectives, comparative-adjective forms, and adjective comparative forms) to put the entries that did and did not list inflected forms (for Ancient Greek, masculine nominative singular of the comparative versus its other forms) in, "comparative adjectives" and "comparative adjective forms" sound more natural than "adjective comparative forms", and people involved in the discussion figured that comparatives should be categorized as non-lemmas, like participles and infinitives and gerunds, even in languages in which they have their own inflected forms. (I'm using "comparative" here even though the considerations also apply to superlatives and other things.) — Eru·tuon00:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
"For some reason a lot of entries are here, categorised as full adjective lemmas" This is actually not the case; comparative and superlative adjectives are still considered non-lemma forms. As to the category having the adjective lemma category as its parent, this could very well be a mistake in a way that the categories should be linked under adjective forms anyway - that is something I can fix. I would recommend reading the vote and exactly what it proposed over. Specifically, all comparative/superlative forms are now non-lemmas, unless they are derived from a non-existent adjective or have developed a meaning of their own of some kind, and the "comparative/superlative adjective forms" are for inflected forms of such. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 09:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
I rechecked and "comparative/superlative adjectives" are indeed categorized under "adjective forms", so there's nothing wrong there. The existence of a separate "comparative/superlative adjective forms" for inflected forms of comparatives and superlatives is in turn influenced by participles too having a "participle forms" even though participles are not lemmata. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 09:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Participles are what's called a "sublemma", a non-lemma form that has further inflected forms. But we don't treat them this way for every language. Participles in many of the Romance languages are simply categorised as verb forms, despite having inflections. There are other kinds of sublemmas as well, such as Category:Northern Sami noun possessive forms. There has never been any kind of special naming scheme for sublemmas, they have always been treated as just non-lemmas and named as such. Are you proposing to change this? —Rua (mew) 12:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Exactly, and I proposed (in the vote) to handle comparative and superlative adjectives as such sublemmas as well. I'm not going to argue against the current system of sublemmas in that they are considered non-lemma forms but that they have their own form categories for inflected forms of such. As for the "participles in many of the Romance languages", that is a per-language thing and I agree that it is an argument that the handling of comparatives and superlatives should be handled separately. However, for this, participles do not say have feminine forms (to my knowledge) unlike superlatives that are essentially their own adjectives in terms of inflection. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 12:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Participles have four forms in the Romance languages: masculine singular, feminine singular, masculine plural and feminine plural. All four of those forms are currently categorised as "verb forms" in some languages. What about languages like English, Dutch or Swedish where comparatives and superlatives are not sublemmas? How should an editor categorise them then? —Rua (mew) 12:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
How they are not "sublemmas" in those languages? The vote makes them so; the Dutch and Swedish ones are multiple different forms (which I talked about in more detail on the other talk page). — surjection ⟨?⟩ 12:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
The current treatment of Dutch and Swedish adjectives is to have no sublemmas, and the vote did not say anything about forcing this to change. Instead, the vote is about changing the names of the categories to one that is inconsistent with all other non-lemma forms, sublemma or not. —Rua (mew) 12:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
The vote did not change it, but languages must decide to use either "comparative adjectives" or "comparative adjective forms"; for languages where this is more ambiguous, all forms can be chosen to be placed in either category, but most likely there is a specific "most lemma" form that can be chosen. And again, the naming is most definitely not inconsistent "with all other forms" - I've mentioned participles several times and it seems I will have to keep mentioning them, too. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 12:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
searching "give someone an inch" or "give them an inch" returns results for three pages, including this one;
however, this page does not link to any of the similar alternatives, and this particular wording seems to be a deviation from the much more common use of 'they'.
In this context I think that this page should be deleted.
"Someone" is not meant to be actually part of a saying, but rather a standard template per Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Idiomatic phrases intended to be replaced with the appropriate pronoun in context. But I agree that repeating "someone" sounds a little weird; we should tidy up that policy to spell out what should happen in that case. There are three options I can think of: 1) keeping "someone"; 2) using singular "they"; or 3) using "he or she". -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 07:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Interesting. In theory there might be a distinction between "X someone and they Y" (same person) and "X someone and someone Y" (two different people). Probably not in practice. Equinox◑07:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think the distinction is between "X someone and they Y" and "X someone and someone else Y", with "X someone and someone Y" lying unsatisfactorily in between and thus sounding a bit strange.— Pingkudimmi10:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
I don't know which form is preferred, but either this needs to be redirected to give them an inch and they'll take a mile, or the other way around (or choose a different form). "He or she" is too clunky, and in modern usage they (and its other forms) have come to represent an indefinite gendered single person. -Mike (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Messy entry created by @Romandalusí (whose entries in general may require some cleaning-up by someone who has knowledge of Mozarabic and Wiktionary formatting conventions). Not sure what to do with this; tried cleaning it up a bit. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dutch. The current definitions for this adverb are "does or does not – in some cases does, in other cases does not" and "did or did not – in some cases did, in other cases did not". ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This was created from a long list of "synonyms" that were cluttering up the Muslim entry, mostly add by banned user Pass a Method aka North Atlanticist Usonian, who had an obsession with making Wiktionary's body of English terms re: Islam and Muslims exactly like the body of terms re: Christanity. This often involved making stuff up and, since PaM had very bad lexicographic judgment, adding lots of useless garbage to the dictionary.
There are a great many terms in this Thesaurus entry that are really general statements someone might make about Muslims, often capitalized as if they were titles. For instance, Muslims might hypothetically describe themselves as "intelligent", so Intelligent is listed as a synonym.
I'm not saying this Thesaurus entry should be deleted- there's a long and colorful history of terms for Muslims in English, ranging from neutral and useful to bigoted and offensive, and this might help sort through those. We just need to clean out all the PaM garbage and make this reflect linguistic reality. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I just did a good bit of cleanup and it looks alright to me now. If anyone wants to expand on this, it would be necessary to collect some citations to improve the entries themselves and their qualifiers. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds20:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
An IP editor insists on a clearly overly long definition and I don't feel qualified enough to cut it down; they're saying the older definition was "ambiguous". — surjection ⟨?⟩ 13:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
I found this from a quick search for '"Sabine River" resaca':
"In East Texas, there are many small natural lakes formed by “horse-shoe” bends that have been eliminated from the main channel of a river. There are also a number of these “horse-shoe” lakes along the Rio Grande in the lower valley, where they are called resacas."
But judging from the Spanish definitions of resaca I wouldn't be surprised to find other similar features, in the Hispanic Americas called resacas in running English text. DCDuring (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ok, that's one entry. But there are sure to be lots more that misuse dot= on this template alone, and even more that misuse it on other entries. Also, @Moverton there's no such thing as "feminine personal". —Rua (mew) 22:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
To make it easy to find misuses of the |dot= parameter, I made an updated list of form-of templates with |dot= , using the list of form-of templates that Benwing2 gave me. Most of them have a single punctuation mark in |dot=. (Here are instances for which that isn't true.) But with the recent changes in template names, probably the list is incomplete.... — Eru·tuon00:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Rua: Whoops. Not sure what I was thinking. Here's the list of all |dot= in {{surname}}, and these are the cases with a lengthier |dot= parameter (not empty and not just a single punctuation mark). There are quite a few Polish surnames in there. — Eru·tuon19:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Greek-script αδουν is indeed attested in one of the el-Hofra inscriptions, it turns out; Gordon 1968, “Northwest Semitic Texts in Latin and Greek Letters”, gives the full text. The number of Punic inscriptions in Greek script is small enough that I hadn’t even heard of them before now, but apparently a handful do exist. In any case, the main entry is certainly best kept at 𐤀𐤃𐤍(ʾdn); thanks! — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Poketalker These have been sitting here for a while now, waiting to be deleted. But they still contain pages, and they can't/shouldn't be deleted until they're empty. Could a Japanese editor make an effort to empty these out so that they can go? Thank you! —Rua (mew) 12:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
This currently contains both terms derived from past participles, and terms derived with the -ed suffix meaning "having". Terms derived from past participles are not "words suffixed with -ed", though, because the suffixation happened with the creation of the participle, not in the derivation of another word from the participle. And since we do not categorise non-lemmas by morphology (thankfully! imagine how many plurals suffixed with -s we'd have!), the participles should not be in this category. —Rua (mew) 22:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
A side question, for a word like affectioned, should it really have multiple etymologies (one for the verb and one for the adjective) because the different parts of speech use the suffix -ed from different etymologies? -Mike (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
That's not a side question. It's a good question about the merits of the proposal, relating to the conceptual basis for its implementation. DCDuring (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
I've edited affectioned to bring it into the state I think it should be in. Lemmas should always be separated from nonlemmas in terms of etymology, lemmas always come first. I've added the usual {{nonlemma}} to the etymology section of the verb forms. —Rua (mew) 12:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
I agree that it is a bad idea to add etymologies for inflected forms with -ed, or any other common inflectional suffix. There are way too many such terms and either there will be a huge amount of work involved or not all of them will be categorized. — Eru·tuon21:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What's the real passive perfect participle for sedeo, sessum or sessus? The conjugation box on sedeō gives sessum as the passive perfect participle, as does the entry for sessum. However, if you take a glance at the sessus entry, it reads: Perfect passive participle of sedeō (“sit”).
What even is going on here? I find a few more things unusual. For example, sessus is a fourth declension noun, in addition to a participle. Am I missing something? I thought only supines like dictū can be fourth declension! According to my Latin textbook, Ecce Romani, sedeō doesn't even have a passive perfect participle, due to it being an intransitive verb. Sedeō is defined as: "to sit". You can't sit something, can you? I have a feeling that I'm missing out on something, perhaps somebody can clear things up - and possibly clean up the linked entries if necessary? Johnny Shiz (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Johnny Shiz The actual participle is sessus, no questions asked. Past participles in Latin are always 1/2 declension adjectives. I can't say anything about the claim that there are no masculine or feminine forms, but it needs investigating. There is also a 4th declension suffix -tus, whose nominative singular form happens to be the same as the participle's. Lots of nouns are formed from verbs with that suffix so there's nothing unusual about that. —Rua (mew) 17:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
I wonder if the "request for cleanup" might be removed at this point. The entry seems to fairly clearly portray the (quite varied) possible meanings for an adjective which has no directly equivalent translation in English, grouped into categories of sense and without rendering a lot of extraneous commentary. I hope that it is found to be acceptable. If there are any suggestions regarding this, please provide them here.
I hope that Rua, Robbie or Equinox will encounter this, as I would like feedback on the current status of this page. I do not have a Wiktionary account at present, and might consider creating one in the future, but do not want to do so at present. Specifically, I would like verification that the page conforms to Wiktionary's entry layout formatting requirements, and also would appreciate your thoughts about the presentation in general. I have endeavored to separate what I view as the more fundamental meanings of "insignis" from those derived and extended from that fundamental sense (indeed, my original motive for investigating this word derived from my realization that three of the most common translations presented for this term: "remarkable", "distinguished", and "marked" all seem to have entirely different senses from one another, and from my efforts to understand their relationship to one another). Please let me know what you think of the current presentation, and if the current "request for cleanup" might be removed. I am loath to take the initiative to remove Rua's request without such feedback (read: "permission"). Thanks much.
By the way, I encountered with some delight Rua's partial translation into Proto-germanic of Beowulf on his talk page...fantastic!
her, not his. Back on topic though, the definition lines still have what I think is superfluous at the beginning, and I don't think every definition line needs 10-12 different near synonyms. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 14:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
My goodness, Rua...sorry for that! (I'll just have to chalk that one up to my innate male bias.) Thank you, Surjection. Do I understand correctly that your reference to "near synonyms" refers to the Latin synonyms, or otherwise to an excess of possible translations in English as well?
Yes, I can apprehend the desirability of such sparseness when viewed from the lexicographic perspective. I certainly am no lexicographer (indeed, I am out of my league when dealing with those who can translate Beowulf into Proto-Germanic), and so can have difficulty in keeping such considerations in mind. I included so many possible definitions because of the fact that insignis has no direct equivalent in English, and all possible English translations must be viewed as mere approximations of its meaning. I will attend to paring down the first definition line (the "fundamental" sense), which is that most cumbersome, without delay. If there are any further suggestions, pray tell them.
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Coniugatio is listed as an alternative form of conjugatio. Shouldn't it be the other way around? (At least that's how it is on other Latin lemmas with the letter "j", correct me if I'm missing something.) Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Needs a conjugation template for its inflected forms. Request posted in the entry:
Please create a template for Vilamovian weak verbs ending in -a like maha, I don't know how to design them. These verbs are regular and follow a common pattern, here the pattern is design around the root -mah-
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If Hunsrik isn't Hunsrückisch but only Brazilian Hunsrückisch as Hunsrik and en.wikipedia claim, then the whole category needs a clean-up. For example, eich is Hunsrückisch but not (necessarily) Brazilian Hunsrückisch.
Otherwise, if Hunsrik and Hunsrückisch is the same, namely a German dialect spoken in Hunsrück and Brazil, then the entry Hunsrik and en.wp need a clean-up. Daloda (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The current definition and the one that an IP just tried to add are solid blocks of technical-sounding jargon describing what seem to be a type of computer application and a rather specific organizational method. The Google Books hits I see, on the other hand, talk about an element in the analysis of processes- basically, a concept. This smells like someone trying to promote stuff that just happens to be available on their website(s).
At any rate, there seems to be real usage, so it would be great if someone who knows more than I do could make a real entry out of it, phrased so that ordinary human beings can understand it. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
This entry seems to consist of type errors AFAICT.
Kappa is asserted to be a symbol; but it is the name of a symbol.
The Etymology section concerns the origin of the symbol, not its name.
Some of the citations are of the name, others of the purported symbol.
The purported symbol is an image of a smirking person. I don't think that, say, a photograph of a church is a "symbol" of Christianity in our use of symbol as a PoS header.
hi @DCDuring, i'll try to add some context to help understand:
when using the symbol, most people do not click on a special button or drag and drop like emojis (though that is possible to set up) -- they just type the word "Kappa" in the middle of a sentence which is then rendered as the face by Twitch and various other apps/sites like chatty.
due to this, i think the word "Kappa" and the symbol [5] are actually the same thing -- they are completely interchangeable in all cases, though the symbol should be considered the primary representation. in part because wiktionary forces us to use a unicode title, it makes sense to use the latin-script name for the page title to define both the image [6] and the word that refers to it. maybe this is similar to a word rendered in two different fonts? as you could imagine people using the "A" symbol interchangeably with the "peace sign" that it represents in Wingdings, even in a non-Wingdings font -- sort of like that.
as for the etymology, i agree that both the name and image etymology should be explained, so i added both to that section with a reference. the name is taken from the name of the Kappa creature in Japanese folklore, which lured children into lakes by "tricking" them hence the current usage.
as for whether or not it classifies as a symbol, i think it does despite looking semi-photo-realistic. many of the more recently-added emojis are surprisingly detailed and would certainly classify as symbols under wiktionary rules. similarly the church emoji ⛪ has a page on wiktionary to represent churches, and an eggplant picture 🍆 has a page on wiktionary that describes it as being used to mean a phallus even though it is not the "obvious" meaning of that image.
what do you think? i am interested in helping to improve wiktionary to be more readable for symbol coverage, and i think adding frequently-used Twitch emotes is a good step in that direction -- according to stream elements Kappa has been used nearly 500 million times on twitch alone since 2016, probably over a billion times total, so i think it is actually one of the most used words that hasn't made it to wiktionary yet. --Habst (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
I don't see why Wiktionary should ignore the meaning of symbol by conflating a symbol and its name, just to memorialize some artifact of Twitch.tv. Two (noun) is the same of a symbol 2; Aries is the name of the symbol ♈. Thus Kappa may prove to attestably be the name of a symbol, an image of which you seek to upload here, though we'd rather prefer uploading via Commons because they are set up to handle the licensing issues. The use of a symbol on proprietary software like Twitch is not really compelling as an argument here. Also we don't have entries for ~~~~ and other wikitext elements that are decoded by wiki software and for computer instructions generally. If Kappa is not used as a noun, but only as an instruction to Twitch.tv software I don't think we would include it.
If you want to 'improve' Wiktionary's symbol coverage, it would help if you recognized the difference between a symbol and its name. You might also examine how we present symbols now. DCDuring (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
hi @DCDuring, thank you for your response. i think Kappa can serve as the name of the symbol (for which it would need a separate noun entry like at two) but it can also serve as a one-to-one replacement for the symbol itself. more often, it is used as the symbol rather than as the name of the symbol. i understand this is a unique case, which is why i think it is important to discuss.
also, twitch is not proprietary software because it is a website. the website is actually just a javascript front-end to millions of IRC channels, which can be accessed with any free software IRC client or a twitch-specific free software client like chatty to render the emotes like Kappa, which i do. i do resent that there is nonfree javascript on the official website, but such nonfree software is optional to read and participate in chats.
also, i wanted to clarify that it is impossible to upload the kappa image to commons because non-free images are not allowed on commons at all, even under fair use. that's why it needs to be uploaded to wiktionary, i am not just trying to upload it to wiktionary because it's allowed, i'm doing it because it is unfortunately the only option.
most of my edits have been focused on swahili words with some other symbol edits, but i think it is important to add some symbols from these corners of the internet as well because i think they are underrepresented on wiktionary.
thanks, i responded on your rfv. i disagree that Kappa is a command though, and either way i disagree that commands are not allowed on wiktionary per examples like cat#Etymology_3. i responded with my reasoning on the rfv. --Habst (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yes, this is a real mess. Habst, I had corrected the part of speech and you screwed it up again...? Maybe I'm more inclined to argue for deletion if this entry is going to be a mess. Equinox◑18:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
hi @Equinox, thanks for your response. you're one of the most experienced editors i know here, i greatly respect the work you've done here and you've helped a lot with the article and i (honestly) appreciate that a lot. i'm confused about the tone of this message though, why the harsh word to describe the effect of my edits? i'm trying my best to improve the article, and i'm well-acquainted with the symbol part-of-speech usage of this term (which i know to be more well-attested than the interjection part of speech as shown on Citations:Kappa).
you removed the noun sense and the greek-letter sense because it only had a "used to refer to X" meaning, and i agreed with your reasoning so i left those removed. the only sense i re-added was the symbol sense, which i had a reason for that i explained in the edit summary. if this is the only point of contention, let's try to resolve it through discussion here. as there is no identical precedent on wiktionary for symbols like this, i think it is not a black-and-white issue.
if you think that Kappa is not the appropriate page title for the symbol part of speech, where do you think it should go instead? i am open to new ideas, but without any alternative lined up i did not want to remove the symbol part-of-speech from Kappa because there would be no clear place to move it. "Kappa" is what you type to render the emote on most platforms where it is used -- i view it as similar to typing "a" to render the "a" glyph. because Kappa does not have a Unicode endpoint, we can't just make the page title the Kappa symbol itself on wiktionary due to technical reasons. so i think "Kappa" is the best that we can do. --Habst (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
The image should be in WikiCommons as there is no Unicode or multi-character representation, like the original emojis. There it would join a large number of other symbols. The symbol named Kappa has the edge on many of this in that it actually has a name. If the image called Kappa is in fact the unique (and copyrighted) image used on Twitch.tv, then its name, Kappa, is a proper noun. DCDuring (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
given that the symbol part-of-speech is well-attested and certainly meets CFI (with over 1 million archived uses), where do you think it should be placed? i think that until we can answer that question adequately, the appropriate answer should be at the Kappa page, which is the encoding for the symbol.
keep in mind that, at least in theory, we do have to decide this before uploading the Kappa image to wiktionary, because fair use images must be in use on an article and can't stay unused in the file namespace for long.
i see your reasoning for adding a proper noun sense, and i think i agree. because images do not have implied text-based names for humans, i think the case is different than that of, for example, saying supercalifragilisticexpialidocious to refer to the word without using it as a word. so if you add that sense i would agree with it. but i'm most concerned about the symbol part-of-speech right now.
i think it is reasonable to keep the symbol part-of-speech on the Kappa page until someone can propose an alternative place to put it. --Habst (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have not studied law where English is spoken to know what this word means, but I doubt that this word is interchangeable with “owner”, at least in the main sense as currently used – in any case the definition “owner” is hardly enough not to leave doubts about its application; and the second and third definitions are redundant to each other; probably also the third and second to the first if the first is correctly defined, and possibly even the fourth is just subcase.
The translation tables contain “Inhaber” for German. Indeed, how I see the word used in corpora, it translates well so. So there are trademark proprietors, and those are Markenrechtsinhaber in German. But “owner” is not Inhaber, it is Eigentümer, which means the complete might about a corporeal object and it cannot be applied to trademarks or other intellectual property rights. A Besitzer means the de facto control about a thing (borne by the will to possess; it is possessor), a word hardly pertinent to proprietor.
This word is used in Northern England to describe 'head' It may be related to the Berlin slang word 'Bonze' used to describe "head' as in 'boss' or 'chief", and ultimately to the Japanese 'Bozu' meaning high priest.
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Applying {{lb|en|collectively}} and {{lb|en|collective}} causes entries to be placed in this category. These labels have been applied to miscellany of terms, including to Entente Cordiale and Welsh. I would think we would not want to include demonyms or, indeed, any proper nouns in this category. Further, nouns like academia seem to not fit ordinary use of the term.
I am not sure how many problems are here, but some possibilities are:
As should applied to determining category membership
I think this needs discussion before action, but I don't think it rises to BP. If there is a lot of disagreement, we should take it to BP once the problem(s) is/are sorted. DCDuring (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Century 1911 has: "In gram., a noun in the singular number signifying an aggregate or assemblage, as multitude, crowd, troop, herd, people, society, clergy, meeting, etc."
I would exclude multitude, crowd, people, society, clergy and include troop, herd, meeting, though I can't now specify the basis for the differences I find between the two groups. DCDuring (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I noticed that the spelling of the word ‘dollar’ is inconsistent in terms of the first letter. Sometimes it is spelt with a capital letter while in some cases, correctly, spelt with a small letter.
I took a screen shot of this inconsistency but don’t know how to attach it.
Meanwhile I copy the URL of the page it is on: https://af.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar
It is on the Afrkaans page Wikipedia
Lots of subcategorisation here. Didn't we previously delete similar stuff about Bangladesh before? If we decide these should exist, then at least they should be added to the category data so that they can be used in multiple languages. —Rua (mew) 16:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
This French IP just added a whole bunch of Greek phonetic transcriptions of English given names with the definition "A male given name, equivalent to English[…]" provided by the {{given name}} template. This is rather misleading, especially for names where the English forms are descended from Ancient Greek and the native Greek descendants of the Ancient Greek forms are far more common. These names seem to be attested, but I'm not sure whether they're really Greek or transcriptions of English. Can someone who knows some Greek, like @Sarri.greek, Rossyxan, Saltmarsh, Erutuon, Canonicalization advise on how to deal with these? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Sarri.greek, Rossyxan, Chuck Entz, Erutuon, Canonicalization For ease of access I assume that Μαρκ, Μάικ, Μάικλ, Μπράιαν, Ουίλλιαμ, Ρόμπερτ, Ρίτσαρντ, Τζέιμς, Τζον, Ντέιβιντ are the names we are talking about. I looked at Pierre, Odysseus to see how we handled names which I know of personally in the UK of English people; Odysseus has a Greek mother. (I would rather term us all European, but we won't go into that!) The treatment of these two seems fair to me, English people having an extra Category:English male given names from French. The English are generous about given names - anything goes - I don't know how a Greek would define a Greek name, my initial trawl of Βικιπαίδεια didn't find any native examples of these names but that doesn't mean much Μαρκ may be rare but Μαρκός isn't. We need Greek input :) — Saltmarsh. 05:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Saltmarsh, Chuck Entz, yes I can see Odysseus from the ancient name, but is anyone called Othysseas (Οδυσσέας -audio transcription of informal name-)? These are correct audio-transcriptions of the English names, unadapted, without declension: I am not sure of how these infinite code-switchings are handled. I do not know if you wish them to appear in Translations. I see the English Alexandros (transliteration of greek Αλέξανδρος/Ἀλέξανδρος) instead of Alexander. Or Alixandr, Aleksandr (of Александр). Perhaps, for Μάικλ something like...
Transcription of the English male given nameMichaelin Greek script. Equivalent of the Greek Μιχαήλ(Mikhaḗl)(older, formal form) or Μιχάλης(Michális).
Example: I know a person called Γιάννης, passport with formal Ιωάννης or Ἰωάννης but his family call him Τζον (John). Is this a greek name? No. It is English. In Eng. we have Iannis, Yiannis, Ioannis (various transliterations of old and modern greek forms).
The reverse procedure IS indeed a normal greek lemma: A foreign name may be hellenized: Robert (transcription & transliteration: Ρόμπερτ) became Ροβέρτος, with full declension, which IS used (rarely) as a greek given name. sarri.greek (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Sarri.greek Do we have 3 options (the first is non-commital)?
1. A male given name from the EnglishRobert, equivalent to the Greek Ροβέρτος(Rovértos).
The trouble with using {{given name}} is assignment as a Greek name, which might not be what we want. One option would be to use the first and leave the rest to the Etymology section. — Saltmarsh. 06:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
So apparently there are lots of sloppy editors here who accidentally type the same word twice. "the the" is a classic. There are dozens of cases that could be corrected by some users if anyone feels bored (I did some but then got even more bored). --Mélange a trois (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Plus it's a letter-for-letter copy of the Monier-Williams (1899) entry, with the transliterations converted to devanagari and maybe a few other adjustments here and there. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
A number of these are not formatted correctly, perhaps because of the operation of the redirects. The consequence is unsightly, space wasting citations. As I've seen it, the problem can be corrected by using book=, chapter= and passage=. I don't know what the total number of offending instances is. Perhaps CirrusSearch with "insource:/[insert regex here]/" can lead to a more selective list than Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:RQ:Malory_Le_Morte_Darthur. DCDuring (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Additionally all uses of the template have to be checked.
In general we place quotations with variant spellings of words under both the lemma and the entry of the variant. Thus, it's not actually wrong to have the Malory quotation under warrant just because it is spelt waraunt. However, I agree that we generally (arbitrarily) define citations dating to before 1500 as evidencing Middle English, so the quotation should be in brackets if it is to remain in the warrant entry. The reference to page 415 seems to be correct; why do you say it should be "414f"? What does the "f" refer to?
For the same reason, it's not wrong to have quotations from Malory in braid and stour just because of the different spelling. However, the quotations should be in brackets as they are Middle English, not modern English.
The entries that use "Template:RQ:Mlry MrtArthr1" and the other templates mentioned by you will probably need to be fixed by hand. See my comment to DCDuring above.
The quote shouldn't be in brackets. It should be in it's Middle English entry waraunt (or maybe warrant if that's a more common Middle English spelling), and the etymology of New English warrant should point to the Middle English entry.
It's f. with a dot and together it means "page 414 and the following (page)", compare f. for it's meaning. "page 415" is not correct as the quote starts on page 414. Alternatively it could be "page 414–415". --Tybete (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I see what you mean about the Malory quote. I've updated it to "pages 414–415". I don't know if we have a policy about placing or not placing Middle English quotations in modern English entries. I suppose Middle English quotations (placed in brackets to show they are not modern English) could illustrate the development of a word, but I don't have a strong feeling about this. If a particular sense of a word cannot be attested to by any post-1500 quotations at all, then it should be transferred to a Middle English entry. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
There are multiple problems surrounding entries with these template.
The Middle English vs Modern English dividing date is perhaps a BP issue and may not readily be resolved.
My immediate concern is with improperly putting references to "book" and "chapter" and the passage itself outside the template. The consequence is extra spaces and ugliness. Those are RfC matters. DCDuring (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
For a specific example see [[discover]]. I found it doing a quick review of the 250 items in this search: "Malory insource:/RQ\:Mlry/ insource:/\}\}\:/". The total number with the problem is much less than I had originally thought. DCDuring (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have created a new entry. It is very often used as a verb, but seemingly only in the forms "is roding" and "was roding". Not sure how to tag this. The en-verb template seems inelegant.
Also not sure whether to reference the french verb rôder which seems sure to be the origin of the word.
Actually the infinitive is rode and a new etymology should be added there. Example: "the fittest males can rode".[7]This page at Euskonews uses all of its forms (rode, rodes, roded, roding). I also found that A General Dictionary of Provincialisms (1840) has an entry for "rode".[8] You can find more if you Google "rode and woodcock" (without the quote marks). -Mike (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
They aren’t, and Low German (nds) and High German (de) aren’t different languages. The word has been used just north and south the Benrath line. Comparing High Prussian and Low Prussian, they aren’t different languages but dialects. “German” is the Dachsprache. Fay Freak (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
(Some of) those entries need a cleanup:
Some entries lack the page number, e.g. Eichhore, Nuss which are not even in the Wörterverzeichnis (p. 110ff.).
Nuss: The source has "nʊss Nuß" (p. 59). Properly it's not ʊ, but u neither. The source explains the characters on p. 7f.: "ı ı̄ [ı with macron] und ʊ ʊ̄ sind sehr offene Laute; [...] i und ī [i with macron] sind deutlich geschlossen; [...] Der mit u, ū bezeichnete Laut ist ein sehr geschlossenes u mit ganz leichter Palatalisierung". Thus apparently it's not "Nuss" and if the occurence on p. 59 is the source for the entry, the entry not only needs the page number but also a note or another cleanup.
Some entries need a note and possible other cleanups, e.g. Tuure, Määri.
Tuure: The source has "tʊ̄rə m. Turm, mhd. turn" (p. 19), "tʊ̄rə m. Turm, speziell der ‚Langobardenturm‘ in Hospental" (p. 34f.) and doesn't have "Tuure" on p. 34.
Määri: The source has "mǣrı n. Märchen, zu ahd. mâra" (p. 23, in § 26), "mǣrı n. Märchen" (p. 45, in § 51), and "Mä̂ri n. 26" (p. 112, inside the Wörterverzeichnis), and does not have "Määri" on p. 23. As for the Wörterverzeichnis, it begins with this note: "[...] Durch Aufhebung von Entrundung, Verdumpfung und Diphthongierung sowie der sekundären Dehnung und Kürzung ist der Lautstand soweit als möglich dem gemeinalemannischen Status angenähert worden. [...]". That is, the form in the Wörterverzeichnis is artificial, not really Urseren.
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've skimmed through some of Theo's most recent contributions and found many dubious edits and some obvious errors. I'm not a Latin, Thai or Chinese expert, but I think those edits should be checked too considering that he has a tendency of reverting edits by knowledgeable users. I also issued a 1 week block so we can go through his edits and maybe let him cool down. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
We don't really have any cohesive approach to the enormous variability of Japanese name (especially given-name) spellings and readings. I suppose, ideally, we'd treat each reading fully, but given the wide wide wide WIIIIIIDE range of spellings, I suspect we'd have to lemmatize at the kana renderings.
I would like to see given names lemmatized at kana only and surnames lemmatized at kanji or kana. I think listing these readings at {{ja-readings|nanori=}} would suffice. By the way, can we capitalize the rōmaji for the nanori readings? KevinUp (talk) 05:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
@KevinUp: Listing only as nanori doesn't tell us whether it's a name in itself (not used in conjunction with other characters) and it doesn't tell us whether it's a male given name, female given name or surname. Thus, the romaji for the nanori readings should not be capitalized. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }06:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
The idea is to have this information (male/female given name) at kana entries because there are multiple ways of writing the same name using different kanji (See ただし#Proper noun for example). I think nanori readings can be capitalized because they are proper nouns. KevinUp (talk) 06:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
@KevinUp: Then they shouldn't just be listed as readings under the Kanji header, but also have a soft redirect. Nanori readings may not necessarily be proper nouns in themselves if they're only used in conjunction with other characters to form a proper noun. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }07:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ping also @Poketalker for comment. Are there any nanori readings that are only used in conjunction with other characters, and shall these entries be designated as affix instead? KevinUp (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
The page has dubious given names such as まさつぐ, しんじ, and ますみ, and dubious surnames such as さねさき, まがさき, しんさき, しんざき, and まやなぎ. They should be deleted, or at least RFVed. I prefer having only nanori readings in a kanji page and attested surnames. Given names are really free when it comes to kanji. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Eirikr: Thanks for the explanation. I managed to clean up the compounds section and reduced the Lua memory from 50 MB to 35 MB. What are your thoughts on creating soft redirects for given names? KevinUp (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
@DCDuring It is a type of anthology that apparently includes various versions of the Wolfdietrich. The manuscript used for the quote is Hagens Handschrift, but I do not know what version that is though it is likely not version A. Also, the amount of variants of the work is a bit of a mess, so I have no idea what date to use. The surviving manuscripts themselves seem to be mostly 15th/16th century according to Wikipedia. ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
@DCDuring It is apparently version B and the manuscript has the siglum MS H, which the Wikipedia article dates to the 2nd half of the 15th century. Version B is generally dated to the 13th century. ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I suppose that, strictly speaking, one would want to date the citation at the date of the earliest manuscript that included the headword, but what would one do if the surrounding text differed in a way that influenced one's ascription of meaning? I suppose that it would be a rare user here that would be concerned. It makes me appreciate that most printed works are not subject to as much variation, except by well-defined editions, errata sheets, etc. DCDuring (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
make of car.
Apparently, all the citation dates are based on whatever edition the contributor found in their own library or on Google Books. I found 3 errors in the 3 that I checked, including Willa Cather's My Antonia dated 2006, rather than 1918, Elmore Leonard's Killshot dated 2003, rather than 1989. There are 10 others to be checked. DCDuring (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Created by a well known problem editor who insists on editing out of their depth in a number of languages (not to mention treating dead and reconstructed languages as modern ones, but that's not relevant here). This seems to be attested, or I would have deleted it already- but it's missing the bare minimum of information that the templates require, and thus has a module error. I also wouldn't trust their judgment on any aspect of the content.
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Many folk etymologies, uses of prefixes/suffixes and just complete hogwash entries here. I tried my best to clean some of the worst offenders. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 09:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The etymology trots out paragraphs of ancient references to people literally being told things by birds, and mentions carrier pigeons. Is this really necessary? Chuck Entz (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Estonian has first-syllable stress on most native words, like Finnish. Rhymes:Estonian doesn't say anything about rhyming rules, but if they are anything like English, a lot of these words do not actually rhyme because they are not stressed on the first syllable of the rhyme. —Rua (mew) 15:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm tempted to rfv the entire translation table, since almost all of the translations look like simple calques of the English, and the phrase was only coined a few decades ago (Old Church Slavic... really?). Someone has obviously made it their mission to translate this into every language that ever existed and is posting the results on a web page somewhere.
I don't know if these books and/or movies have been translated into Church Slavonic (maybe they have after all); but wherever I met that phrase in any language it was as a literal translation of the English, and what's surprising about that? Star Wars is rating near the top of the box office all over the world, not only in English-speaking countries (and even non-native English-speakers watching it in the English original would then use a literal translation to their friends in their own language). Tonymec (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
The literal meaning is "no problem". It is used in Maghreb both as a question (No problem? i.e. How are you?) and as an answer to that question (No problem i.e. I'm all right). A possible further question is B'zef walla shuyah? (A lot or a little? i.e. Yes, but how well are you really?).
"Modern Classical Arabic" synonym, understood from Maghreb to Mashreq: Keyf al-hāl? (How's the health?), Keyfa haluka? [literary] or Keyfa halak? [colloquial] (How's your [man's] health?), Keyfa haluki? [lit.] or Keyfa halik? [coll.] (How's your [woman's] health?), Keyfa halukum? (How's your [several people's] health?) and in that case the answer is hamdullāh [coll.] or al-hamdu lillāhi [lit.] (wfw. Praise [be given] to god!, actually a stereotyped answer giving no actual information about the answerer's state of health). Tonymec (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
comfort letter on Wikipedia.Wikipedia . DCDuring (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Done DCDuring (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
