User:DCDuring/2017

Hi DCDuring, I have a question. I created this new template along with a documentation page used for a conjugation table of the German verb "senden" by copying this template of the German verb "wenden" that shows the same irregular conjugation pattern. This newly created template works fine as you can see here: zusenden#Conjugation. I wonder, however, whether something is missing that might cause some kind of difficulty. So my question now is: Did I do anything wrong or is this sufficient?--91.61.124.170 13:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

All I can do is take a superficial look, not being at all conversant with inflection templates. It looks OK. Try a couple of the DE-N, DE-5, or DE-4 Users for a more cogent review. DCDuring TALK 13:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.--91.61.124.170 13:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I created entries for Dutch names of fox species in Category:nl:Foxes, also some in Category:nl:Canids (for those that are not true foxes). I noticed many of the English words are redlinks, so if you want to make entries for them...? —CodeCat 14:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Is adding Translations to Translingual taxonomic entries an accepted practice? —suzukaze (t・c) 04:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: Yes. WT:EL contains the rule "Translations should be given in English entries, and also in Translingual entries for taxonomic names.", which was voted and approved in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-01/Translations of taxonomic names. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Carrero: Thanks. —suzukaze (t・c) 04:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

(@Daniel Carrero) What about "translations into English"? —suzukaze (t・c) 05:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I think translations into English are fine. I don't remember any explicit consensus/proposal/vote/discussion to allow them, but they seem a natural thing to have in Translingual sections, if the translation table exists in the first place. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Just so you know, per a recent vote, this header is being phased out in favour of "Further reading". —CodeCat 23:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Why? The new name doesn't well characterize the links in taxonomic names. I suppose I can replace it with "See also". DCDuring (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

"See also" is for links within dictionary only, e.g., entries, appendices, categories. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The only explicit reference to See also in ELE from the days BDC is under "Semantic relations", which would but rarely include appendices and categories. That's not entirely consistent with its placement separated by Translations from the other semantic relations headers.

It take it that the basis for the wording in WT:ELE is the vote outlawing the use of "See also" for external links. DCDuring (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Greetings. As for "I wonder why no one brought this vote to my attention or noticed the widespread use", I think watching WT:VOTES is a must. The required minimum practice is to check WT:VOTES and its proposals at least once a month.

By the way, thank you for your late oppose in Wiktionary:Votes/2017-03/"External sources", "External links", "Further information" or "Further reading". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

More to the substance: I think editors might accept a proposal to use "Further information" heading for taxonomic entries. I for one think that External links was the best heading overall, but editors at large disagreed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

One might argue that if the source contains words, then the user has to read the words. That is to say, even perusing a bullet list of items would be reading. One kind of source that would not be read in any way would be image-only database. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course it's on my watchlist. But votes often make my eyes glaze over. Of course, too, there is a definition of read that suits the desired meaning, but it is not the most common one and indeed is not normally applied to dictionaries or databases. It's a choice of words that indicates that native speakers are not much at work in enwikt. DCDuring (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

In Wiktionary:Votes/2017-03/"External sources", "External links", "Further information" or "Further reading", I count 7 native speakers in the support rubric for Further reading; I count 3 non-native speakers. --Dan Polansky (::::talk) 20:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we could use "Taxonomic databases" as a new heading. Even though I prefer "Further reading", which is a great heading name for links to databases. But I see DCDuring thinks differently. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

When I look at Google Books "read|reads|reading a database" only about 10 of the approximately 50 hits that had a preview were from books that were not books in areas of computing. Sadly, it was not possible to see specifically how the expression was being used in any of those works. When the word read is used I guess most folks here have adopted the stance of a computer program with respect to its meaning. That is, they are adopting a word usage differing from that of "normal" users, this time because they have some intimate familiarity with computer programming (not computer use, which is much more widespread, of course). DCDuring (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• I suppose that the best header for the items included formerly under External links is "References", not "Further reading." The important content for Wiktionary is the correspondence or lack thereof to the semantic relations and definitions included in the entry. The "reading" content is mostly incidental. Even if it were not, I can't see any good from having both "References" and "Further reading" in our already heading-heavy entries. I wish that footnoted references did not appear in a way so distinct from other references. I am sure that our technical mavens will resolve this sometime in this millennium, possibly even this decade. DCDuring (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

  OK. Why "References"? I'm not saying it's a good or bad idea. I'm just asking why. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

  I gave my reason above. The taxonomic references (See Category:Translingual reference templates, which contains mostly items from the category fka Taxonomic reference templates (another infuriating bit of harassment from CodeCat).) support semantic relations in or to be included in the entry or show alternative, mostly obsolete, semantic relations and definitions of the taxa. DCDuring (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

  Doesn't that already fit the use of "References" as described in WT:EL#References anyway? That would mean you can use "References" according to the voted policy. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  Someone has thoughtfully inserted 6,222 "Additional readings" headings where there were 6,222 "See also" and "External links" headers in Translingual entries. I think there are probably many more such poorly selected headings added in English entries. DCDuring (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The rollback was inappropriate, because you deleted the RFD tag when the RFD discussion had just started. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about removing the RfD. I wss in a snit about the other changes you had made and didn't take appropriate care. BTE, see Talk:like#Is_the_preposition_definition_right.3F for MWOnline's definitions of like Preposition. They have seven to our one. DCDuring (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I for one would appreciate if you could reduce the use of sarcasm. In me, it creates unpleasant emotions; I often feel a strong urge to write something angry in response, but luckily, I usually resist the temptation. I believe an excessive use of sarcasm is basically incivil insofar as it contributes to inflamming the conversation while contributing no substance to it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I suppose passive-aggressive is the preferred means of (non)communication. DCDuring (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any specific instances in mind? DCDuring (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

A recent item is this: 'Someone has thoughtfully inserted 6,222 "Additional readings" headings'; obviously, you do not think it was thoughtful yet you say "thoughtfully". (In fact, those were "Further reading" headings.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't that if I said "thoughtlessly" that it would have been an improvement. DCDuring (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It would be an improvement. The pragmatic meaning of the "thoughtfully" sarcasm is "thoughlessly" anyway, so it would at least be plain and honest. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd prefer a little more sarcasm. But make sure to put the text in green when doing so. --WF back from hols (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You subst'ed this template at Myzostomida and Template:Myzostomida Hypernyms but it does not exist. —suzukaze (t・c) 22:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I had misspelled the name ( "ll" for "l") and didn't check what I'd done. Thanks. DCDuring (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Conus is not a fish. It's a snail, some species of which eat fish by firing venomous darts at them. Is Rhombus, the flatfish, an invalid homonym of the subgenus of Conus? PierreAbbat (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Let me check Rhombus at World Register of Marine Species etc. DCDuring (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The flatfish is now Scophthalmus. The remaining question is how is rhombus#English actually used to refer to the snail, the flatfish, neither, or both.

Thanks for asking. DCDuring (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

See ]. DCDuring (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you fix the formatting error in sense 6 when you get the time? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done DCDuring (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear DCDuring, regarding your comment "If you want to challenge it, this is how (hit the "+" and provide a rationale) if not please remove the RfD template".
Thank you, but I know how RFD and RFV work.
I didn't intend to RFD this or a similar term (at least now because of a lack of time). My intention was to revert some removals of attestable terms (which were removed without using WT:RFV or WT:RFD). The meaning "German" of "germanicus" is attestable (e.g. in "lingua germanica" = "the German language"), and it's more general and hence more important than the biological usage of this sense "to indicate that a species was discovered or is common in Germany".
BTW: English uses the word "German" similary in German Shepherd, German cockroach, German Rex, German chamomile, German measles, German Autumn but the entry German doesn't have senses like "(biology) used to indicate that a species was discovered or is common in Germany", "(medicine) used to indicate that disease was discovered or is common in Germany", "(politics) used to indicate that a political event happened in Germany". -84.161.15.91 02:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

As you are not registered and your IP address has few edits, I wondered whether you were visiting from another project that didn't have the same procedures or at least the same templates. I don't mind your presentation, though the more common one has the non-gloss definition (templated to show italics and so that such definitions can readily be found) starting the definition and the meaning, eg, "German", thereafter. I have long campaigned against the waste of vertical screen space, so IMO the one-line format is to be preferred to your 2.x line format. DCDuring (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

.redundant-template-message {
display: inline !important;
}

I realize I did not explain things very well. The message you added to {{taxlink}} in this edit will display for all users. So I went and modified it, so that it will not display by default. This is what I meant by "placing the CSS in the HTML tag", which I realize I did not explain. I changed the class name used to identify the message. Now you will have to add the CSS code above to your common.css to get the message to display again.

You can revert me if that's not what you wanted. It may not be necessary to hide the message since now it gives instructions on what to do. — Eru·tuon 22:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

My thought was that it wasn't so bad to display it for all. I could leave it until someone complains. It took a couple years before there were any complaints about "=>". DCDuring (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I undid it. If someone undoes my undo there can be a further discussion. DCDuring (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I could either:

1. replace the instructions with "=>" in the preview only text or
2. hide it from everyone who does not have the line above in their custom.css.

The second option is a bit too concealed. DCDuring (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

In general, I prefer error messages that are easier to understand, so I think the longer message is an improvement over the arrow thingy. You're probably right that it doesn't need to be hidden. — Eru·tuon 02:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Again, thanks. Your are wise to check what I do as my understanding of CSS and JS, and even HTML and templates, is minimal. DCDuring (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I couldn't help noticing that there are over 11,000 entries in this category. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I only add a name when there are multiple hits for it. Now the threshold for species is SEVEN hits. I have a higher priority (lower threshold) for the principal higher ranks, phyla, classes, orders, and families. See User:DCDuring/MissingTaxa. DCDuring (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Can't find any documentation - "i=1" ? Does it indicate image present? Perhaps not! — Saltmarsh. 10:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It selects display in italics. Not useful for much except generic and subgeneric taxonomic names.

Thanks for working on organism names. At User:DCDuring/MissingTaxa you may find some that are of interest to you and frequently linked to from entries. DCDuring (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Cheers - I'm going through the Greek bird names I can find - but even English names for birds and fish are variable! — Saltmarsh. 17:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If you can find any sources that give taxonomic names, that would be very helpful. Of course, some names will apply to more than one species, and taxonomic names tend to change over the years, but I would be happy to help sort that out. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Birdwatchers produce checklists galore, in addition to the more definitive sites.

You might find the following useful:

• Avibase useful, though Greek is not among the 20 European languages that it supports.
• Birds of Greece.
• Multilingual European Bird Dictionary has 543 species with Greek equivalents (I think).
• Birdwing has a list of heterogeneous links that may have something.

HTH. DCDuring (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks - although expect the interest may wane - I shall just have to remember to return occasionally!
• and do I gather that species are italicised but not taxonomic terms? — Saltmarsh. 14:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Genera and all subgeneric names are italicized, but not "subg.", "subsp.", "var.", "sect.", "subsect.", etc. {{taxlink}} handles all that. It can be substed if it is redundant, but then a lot of spurious stuff has to be cleaned out in the edit window. DCDuring (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, this really old diff on swiftboat changed the etymology. As far as I can tell the old etymology applies to the political sense, perhaps not the scam sense. Does that sound right to you? I can split the entry into two sections if it does, but I wanted to make sure you didn't have other reasons for removing the old etymology. - TheDaveRoss 15:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. In retrospect, my mistake. Not too long after that time I came to think that we often don't give enough attention to "sense development" or to explaining no-longer-live metaphors, such as rural/agricultural ones, the sense of which often seems to elude urban speakers.

Also, I wonder whether the scam sense would be attestable. Since the political sense is actually something like "slander", given the specifics of the original John Kerry case, the scam sense seems less than likely. DCDuring (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey! nutela comes from Nutella. I think there was a category for these kind of genericised names here...--P5Nd2 (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

There's "Genericized trademarks". Not sure if that applies when the word has actually mutated from its original form. Probably. Equinox ◑ 19:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I finally noticed that you'd added an rft to the みょうが (myōga) entry in April last year. Do you remember what you wanted to talk about? There's some additional detail in the senses at the lemma entry 茗荷. Perhaps that addresses your question?

Curious, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I forgot why I originally asked, but the combination of the plant and "dimwit" on the same definition line seem weird to me now, so that was probably my problem then. Why are different definitions combined like that? DCDuring (talk)

For non-lemma entries intended as soft redirects, disambigs even, it's a tricky question -- providing no gloss does users a disservice, as does providing only one gloss for multi-definition terms. So over the years, I took to providing simplified glosses as a list, separated by semicolons, as I had seen others do occasionally for links to entries in other languages. Trying to find a balance between usability and elegance, basically. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know that it was a non-lemma entry. But it is in the lemma category. DCDuring (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Ya, all of the kana-only entries appear to be so categorized. I'm not sure how or why that's so. Some kana-only entries are lemmata, but in most cases, the kana-only entries are soft redirects to spellings that include kanji. C.f. ほし, にじ, かみ, etc.

Another good point that your experience brings up -- {{ja-def}} apparently doesn't give a clear enough indication that the user should refer to the linked lemma form. I've wondered about that before, but I'm not sure how to improve things. Any ideas? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 04:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm accustomed only to the approach taken for inflected forms and alternative forms in some Indo-European languages, which have no definition other than the specification of their inflected form and a link to the lemma. If the kana and kanji entries are fairly completely alternative systems with some users preferring on and some the other, maybe they should both be lemmas, with cross-references. Perhaps the definitions should be in separate pages for transclusion so the definitions remain complete for both, if that reflects reality. I notice that some Chinese pages are (in part?) transcluded into others. Perhaps that offers a model. I'll see if I can find an example on my watchlist or recent changes. DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

南沙參 is a page that is transcluded in other Chinese pages. See what links here. I don't have any knowledge that would tell me whether that is very relevant to the situation in Japanese. DCDuring (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

good morning. i believe we're missing a figurative meaning, see merriam webster: "one that initiates or gives impetus to an undertaking". thank you. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:F031:62F8:23B7:FCB8 10:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wiktionary is a wiki, so anyone — including you — can edit any entry by following the edit link. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wiki convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

hello, i've taken a stab at spark plug but i don't speak english, can you review it.

im confused by the 9th definition of the conjunction as ("(now England, US, regional) Functioning as a relative conjunction; that."). the 2016 example is not good i think, its not a relative conjunction there. what do you think of "you can't kill a man for lying to protect them as was his brothers." --2A02:2788:A4:F44:318D:E7D1:3F58:A1F2 13:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as (or as how) you don't speak English, I appreciate your effort at spark plug.

Note that prior sentence uses as in the same way as the citations for def. 9 do. A relative conjunction is defined to be one that introduces a relative clause. "(How) you don't speak English" is such a clause. Your example adds the grammatical mistake of using was instead of were, making the example extra hard to understand. In these uses as can be replaced by that. DCDuring (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

thank you. i disagree that "(how) you don't speak English" is a relative clause: for me there is difference between "the thing that you want isn't the thing that i want" (relative "that") and "the fact that you don't speak english doesn't change anything: you will be treated as everyone else" (subordinating "that"). better examples for 9th def would be where "as" can be replaced by "who", because it's unambiguous. sorry i dont have capitals. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:7950:9F6C:B6D3:8FA4 18:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This is an old (2008) entry of yours. Would you consider expanding it a bit to indicate whether these senses are figurative or literal? I can imagine a school class where one raises one's hand to indicate that one is volunteering but I'm not sure whether you meant something else. Equinox ◑ 18:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I meant some "figurative" or, better, communicative uses, but I don't know whether they would be attestable. The use of this in books is of two types: one about a motion for a non-communicative purpose (raised his hand to shield his eyes from the glare), the other for communicating some intention, the exact nature of the gesture and its meaning being determined by context (eg, "volunteer", "seek permission to do do something, eg, speak", "threaten"). "Literal" and "figurative" don't correspond to this distinction. I am not sure that any of these possible meanings of the gesture are meanings of the expression. I am not sure whether this case differs from give the finger/give someone the finger and still less how to characterize the difference. DCDuring (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Is this verb ambitransitive? I'm pretty sure it can be transitive ("How do you parse this sentence?"), but can it be intransitive (does the sentence "This sentence doesn't parse." parse?) as well? --Barytonesis (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Google "sentence doesn't parse" (Books • Groups • Scholar). DCDuring (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This reminds me of an old argument I had with Rua (née CodeCat) re: the ergative label. There is confusion in discussions about how this concept applies to English, in that the "transitive / intransitive" distinction in English grammars is primarily a syntactic one, while the "ergative" construction inherently involves the semantics of the verb.

parse in this sentence doesn't parse meets my understanding of an ergative verb. This differs importantly from our definition at ], which appears (to me) to get caught up in the syntax without considering the semantics. To wit: an ergative verb in English is one where the underlying meaning of the verb requires an object, and that object is used syntactically as the subject, with the agent of the verb generally left unstated. In this sentence doesn't parse, we understand that someone (i.e. a person) is doing the parsing, and that the sentence itself is the object of that parsing. Likewise for this egg cooks up nicely, or this car handles poorly, and similar constructions.

FWIW, a syntactically intransitive and unergative use of parse would be something like the code interpreter parses. → the object is left unstated (presumably "source code"), and the syntactic subject is not the semantic object of the verb. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, I believe that most (all?) semantically transitive English verbs can be used with ergative syntax. I.e., I don't see any utility in having any ergative verb label. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

For the sentence above, 'sentence' is semantically the patient, whether it is the subject or the object grammatically. I think that makes for ergativity. In contrast a verb like 'hammer' does not allow a patient to be subject. That is, some verbs are ergative and some not — or so it seems to me 10 minutes before I fall asleep. DCDuring (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes, thank you! That was the word I was missing -- ] is what I was calling the semantic object.

And re: hammer (verb), why not these nails don't hammer in straight? The "nails" here are both syntactic subject and semantic patient, which would seem to meet the criteria for an ergative use of the verb. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You are right about hammer. Hence, my dormitive sleepiness disclaimer. DCDuring (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if statives are exceptions. I can't think of good examples though. The ergative *This idea doesn't understand easily doesn't work, but the transitive version ?I don't understand this idea easily (= I find it difficult to understand this) may not either. — Eru·tuon 22:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how to characterize the distinction between verbs that do operate ergatively and those that don't. Consider:

He grasps the hammer clumsily

? The hammer grasps clumsily.

He handles the hammer clumsily.

The hammer handles clumsily.

To me, the difference seems to lie in the difference in the range of other meanings of grasp and handle, which somehow lets handle but not grasp be ergative. DCDuring (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

William Empson wrote an article (in The Structure of Complex Words) (1951) on dictionaries. The article seemed to argue against isolated definitions, because the range of meanings can influence each individual use of a word, even across parts of speech for homonyms. (Also homophones?) DCDuring (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Eirikr, Erutuon: If I understood that well, there are three uses to consider:

• transitive (syntactic subject = semantic agent, syntactic object = semantic patient)
• intransitive 1 (syntactic subject = semantic agent, syntactic object/semantic patient implied or absent)
• intransitive 2 (syntactic subject = semantic patient)

A standard ambitransitive verb has transitive and intransitive 1 uses: hear: transitive ("I heard a sound from outside the window.") and intransitive 1 ("I was deaf, and now I can hear.")

An ergative verb has (at least) transitive and intransitive 2 uses (are there even verbs which only have transitive and intransitive 2 uses to the exclusion of intransitive 1?).

translate would have all three uses: transitive ("Hans translated my novel into Welsh"), intransitive 1 ("Hans translated for us while we were in Marrakesh.") and intransitive 2 ("That idiom doesn't really translate.").

Would you agree? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam: That sounds like a reasonable analysis. Thinking about your question, given the way English works (where objects can be omitted from a sentence), I can't think of any examples of verbs that have intransitive 2 senses (ergative) but no intransitive 1 senses. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam: I think that's a correct summary (ignoring any verb whose arguments don't fall into the categories of semantic agent and patient). I believe that intransitive 1 is sometimes called unergative and intransitive 2 unaccusative. This is odd terminology, but it means that the subject could theoretically, semantically speaking, be assigned ergative or accusative, respectively (if the syntax of the clause is ergative–absolutive or nominative–accusative) – under the assumption that the ergative is meant to mark the more agent-like argument and the accusative the more patient-like one – but is not. So, an ergative verb can be used transitively or unergatively, an accusative verb transitively or unaccusatively. I don't know if there's a term for a verb that can be used transitively, unergatively, or unaccusatively.

I think break can't be used unergatively: I break easily means it is easy for me to be broken, not that it is easy for me to break things. But I could be wrong. — Eru·tuon 20:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon: What about "he breaks well" in this Baltimore Sun article:

He chased last out but could have the upper-hand if he breaks well.

From the context about horse racing, I assume the breaks here is in reference to break away -- but I'm not that up on horse racing. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Eirikr: Well, it seems to be an inherently intransitive meaning of break. I don't know if it's unergative or unaccusative, or whether it counts as a counterexample, because its meaning is so different. — Eru·tuon 00:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, could you look at 'reverse rape' please. Thank you. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of reliable authority, ie, another dictionary that has it, there is no substitute for citations. Urban dictionary has a variety of definitions, many broadly similar to ours. There manrape is advanced as a synonym. DCDuring (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Google "reverse rape" (Books • Groups • Scholar). (News portion doesn't work.) Although there are many usages that don't quite fit our definition, it fits most usage. BTW, manrape doesn't seem to have nearly as much use and may not be attestable from Google Books. DCDuring (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I have added some book cites, some from academia. Equinox ◑ 09:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you might have proposed something like this, hence bringing it to your talk page. We now have a "hot word" system that works well overall, but is lacking when it comes to some scientific words. A new element, for example, is so notable that it will work its way into durable media quickly and the hot word status will tide it over until then. But what about something obscure: a new species of beetle, or a new mineral? I am currently bothered by the case of davidsmithite, a mineral that was just named but is so rare and obscure that it is not likely to meet CFI for many years hence despite being, well, the only name for it and the only name that people will use in the future for it. I think this could be an important inclusionist push, but I'm not even sure it is necessarily a wise one. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that not all new scientific words are important additions to Wiktionary, even after they meet our attestation standards. Species names of macrofauna and pathogens are an important set of words we should cover, probably as soon as they appear in newspapers, if not sooner. I have subscribed to several science news aggregators to see what might be trending, but I haven't followed through, even to test whether my sources would produce many entries.

I remain focused on the backlog of missing taxonomic names, especially those which already appear in non-Translingual definitions(!) or in etymologies and image captions (including in Translingual entries). Equinox is working on the backlog of mineral names. Other underrepresented items are geological strata and time periods.

It would probably be best if someone else took charge of scientific hotwords. At present I am the only one who cares enough about taxa to have systematized them. That effort consumes most of the time I can devote to Wiktionary. The approach I've taken gives me relatively little to contribute to scientific hotwords in general, though I'd be happy to support the effort, especially with respect to taxonomic names. DCDuring (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I just created these fish entries based on Wikipedia, but they seem sort of inconsistent re hyponyms and which family is which. Are you able to fix? Thanks. Equinox ◑ 09:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency is unavoidable if you are accurate about usage. Usage is the problem.

So far, I have created ] and expanded ]. There is a fair amount still to do. In general, the mapping between vernacular names and taxonomic names is many-to-many. The referent of a vernacular name is often very unclear, though it can be assumed that it is almost always an organism found where the language is spoken. For English, it helps to know whether the vernacular name is used in UK, Canada, US, Australia, NZ, India, or elsewhere, so that a local species can be associated with it. DCDuring (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello DCDuring. Do you approve of my archiving endeavour? --2A02:2788:A4:F44:11FD:8514:F4C1:3A2 16:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

If what you are doing is getting discussions from RfV, RfD, TR, etc onto entry talk pages, you are doing God's work. Keep it up. DCDuring (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)