User:KYPark/Beer Parlor calling for the bad guy

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word User:KYPark/Beer Parlor calling for the bad guy. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word User:KYPark/Beer Parlor calling for the bad guy, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say User:KYPark/Beer Parlor calling for the bad guy in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word User:KYPark/Beer Parlor calling for the bad guy you have here. The definition of the word User:KYPark/Beer Parlor calling for the bad guy will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofUser:KYPark/Beer Parlor calling for the bad guy, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

Orientation of this witch-hunting party

Hi, everyone

Hi, everyone. I just drop in here. But I like to remind you of the orientation of orientation and orient. I like orientation to allow a direct link to orient rather than via orienting. So I just added orient under the "Related term" of the orientation page. Still I miss a better "Etymology" of the orient page as an associationist orientation. It looks akin to Greek oriri "to rise," oros "mountain," ornis "bird," and arguably English rise and horse akin to M. Dutch ors, Dutch ros and German Ross. This is just one little thing in itself. It would matter indeed, however, if Wiktionary especially in English were mis-oriented, I fear. I feel like Indo-European etymology being safeguarded in a/the nutshell, in such a way that it may some day turn out very ridiculous. I am not inviting any dispute but just advising the liberal to pay an exceptional attention to Korean as highly likely akin to Indo-European, which might have been oriented to the Orient! For example, Greek oriri may be akin to Korean 오르다 oreuda. Furthermore, mount is just mount; it appears no more, though a sense of heap or put together seems to underlie it. So it relates hard even to mound, not to mention meet, moot, moat, mouth, mute, mutual, montage, mud, etc. (No thanks right here for your attack on my originality.) But they might appear more akin to each other, if Korean 뫃다 mot-da "to gather or put together," 묗 moet "mount, mound," 무덤 mudeom "tomb," 뭍 mut "land," 모두 modu "altogether," and many others were taken into account. Thanks. --KYPark 14:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:못하다

Talk:못하다

Administrative violence or personal attack?

Atelaes deleted the following commentary from under the section Homophones without any prior discussion. This is hopelessly nasty, isn't it?

Notes on orthoepy vs. orthography
The /th/ of the Revised Romanization (RR) mothada of this page name 못하다 may more often than not be mistaken as such of mother, that or thank.
The conjugation "못타요" as given below is derived from 못 and 타다. The RR normally transliterates it to mottayo from mot and tada, which also confusingly stands for the nonsensical "모따요". It should be hyphenated as mot-tayo to avoid such orthoepic confusions, while degenerating into awkward orthography.
Furthermore, the Phonetic hangul "모ː타" as given above may be mistaken for a common corruption "모타" of 모터 (moteo, "motor"). Hence, the Phonetic hangul "마른 모타요" (mar-eun motayo) may be mistaken as: "The horse is a motor!" or "What a slim motor!" Orthoepy or phonocentrism ignoring orthography is likely to suffer from lots of bad semantics.
Note also that the RR would rather shy away from long vowels, as of 못 (mo:tʰ), though it is strongly oriented to orthoepy at the cost of orthography. Such vowels, however, should be taken as seriously as English accents.
Wiktionary may not yet be well prepared for the Roman orthography of Korean par excellence. Perhaps this cannot be realized with the existing Romanization systems, and thus should be newly created. Such is not an original research in science but system design or technology that has shaped Wikipedia and Wiktionary up to date.
The last paragraph may be put into Korean as follows:
윅셔너리는 한국어의 바른 로마자화를 아주 잘하기는 아직 미흡할 것이다. 아마 이런 것은 알려진 로마자화 시스템으로는 이루어 지지 못하므로, 새로 만들지 않으면 안된다. 이런 것은 과학에서의 오리지널 리서치가 아니라 오늘날의 위키피디아와 윅셔너리를 만들어 온 시스템 디자인 곧 기술이다.
(wiksyeoneori-nun hangug-eo-ui bareun romajahwa-reul aju jal hagi-nun ajik miheup-hal geos-ida. ama ireon geos-eun allyeojin romajahwa siseutem-euro-neun irueo jiji mot-hameuro, saero mandeulji anh-eumyeon andoenda. ireon geos-eun gwahag-eseo-ui orijineol riseochi-ga anira oneullal-ui wikipidia-wa wiksyeoneori-reul mandeur-eo on siseutem dijain got gisur-ida.)

--KYPark 00:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The information above talks about the entry as though it is from the outside - this is the wrong tone of voice for a dictionary which should only describe the words. It is also a bit long and lengthy and doesn't make its point clearly and succinctly which is what dictionaries are all about. I feel the talk page is the right place for the commentary as it stands. Conrad.Irwin 00:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Conrad summed up my motivation rather succinctly. I feel very strongly that such commentary does not belong within the entry (but is acceptable on the talk page). Also, you may want to post this on the WT:BP if you hope to get much more of a response. I doubt many people will see it here. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Both of you should have talked like this prior to Atelaes' complete deletion. The length, clarity, relevance, "tone," or whatever may be more or less debatable. The "wrong tone of voice" could be counter-edited to the right tone, namely through edit wars. But few readers would agree that my commentary is wholly irrelevant and worth such rubbish as to be entirely deleted without prior discussion, advice, or counter-edit. I am quite upset by such a nasty way of treating me as an editor who has tried to contribute as much as I could. (Atelaes may duly excuse himself or apologize for this.) Yesterday I spent practically the whole day aiming for more and more improvements of that commentary and the other contents, willing to make a preciser and conciser point, as shown by such frequent edits.
In this regard, I talked cats and dogs last year with a few admins, including Stephen and perhaps you Atelaes. As a result in my favor, I guess, the so-called "RR Transliteration" provision was reflected on the Wikt policy and the "ko-pron" template. My point is that all the existing Romanizations of Korean is highly problematic not only from orthographic but also even orthoepic perspective. The Wikt readers should know that anyway! So I will further speak up to show up here and perhaps elsewhere. Someday I may post this question on the WT:BP as Atelaes sugguests. By the way, Conrad, what do you mean by "as though it is from the outside?" --KYPark 05:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

mothada

For Hangul 못하다 "cannot do"

This RR conforms to the Wikt policy. Nevertheless some readers may mistake its /th/ for English /th/ as of moth and/or mother, especially when the Pronunciation section is missing, as was the case prior to my edits. I am blaming no previous one for this. But readers should know how such information could possibly mislead them.

A reasonable alternative is mot-hada. Yet, it should be taken into account that the primary motivation for Romanization lies in proper names, which people may well like to do with few or no hyphen. Such would be moreover the case when the Roman orthography is intended besides Hangul. --KYPark 08:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

mottayo

For Hangul 못타요 "cannot ride"

Readers may well mistake the /tt/ of this RR for /ㄸ/, or perhaps be puzzled by the difference between this RR and motayo for the phontic hangul "모타요". A shift may be mot-tayo. --KYPark 08:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

motgayo

For Hangul 못가요 "cannot go"

Readers may be puzzled by the difference between this RR and mokkayo for the phonetic hangul "모까요". Orthography is one hare; orthoepy is another. Such are the orthographic or canonical Hangul and orthoepic or phonetic Hangul. Accordingly, such should be the orthographic and orthoepic Roman transcriptions or transliterations of Korean. Then, the current Wiktionary policy of Romanization of Korean attempting to adapt the orthographic Hangul to the effect of the orthoepic Hangul exactly looks like chasing the two hares. Such a policy is inherently self-contradictory and all inconsistency. Simplicity and clarity are what the dictionary is all about!

In a nutshell, motgayo does relate to orthography, while mokkayo to orthoepy, from which readers may learn an additional lesson that the voiced /g/ and the like becomes voiceless after /t/ or the like, as is the case with motgayo. This is exactly the principle underlying the orthographic Hangul that appears to violate orthoepy so often. In conclusion, Wiktionary would better have two Roman transliterations: one for the orthographic and another for the orthoepic or phonetic Hangul. --KYPark 08:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Every language using the Roman alphabet is proud of its own way of pronouncing it. Thus, /j/ for example sounds different in English and German. Such should be the Roman alphabet for Korean. And foreigners interested in Korean should learn the Korean way of pronunciation, however eccentric it may sound. It would be an additional virtue to make it less eccentric. In this regard, the RR motgayo in its own right would be good enough to be pronounced like mokkayo for the phonetic hangul. It is from this perspective that even the so-called "RR transliteration" mosgayo exactly matching with Hangul could be superior to motgayo which is still far from the orthoepic mokkayo. The "middle way" or "third way" like motgayo may not always be the best, if not the worst. --KYPark 11:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Category:Euro-Korean words

Deleted_Category:Euro-Korean words

Deleted Category:Euro-Korean words

I wonder if you ever know what the "Category:Euro-Korean words" you are supposed to have deleted is all about. Just in case you're not quite sure, get it back right away, I should say. Or leave your reason at my user page talk. I know people Often like to behave funny. Thanks. --KYPark 11:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See the archived deletion discussion. If you want to recreate it, go ahead - but please provide a reason on the talk page (probably best to copy the archived discussion there at the same time). In future could you please be more polite, your comment makes it sound like Dmc personally affronted you; he was merely enacting a community decision. Conrad.Irwin 11:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the extremely dubious reason for deletion.

Category:Euro-Korean words As above. — Beobach972 02:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The least defensible of the three, but would arguably be a useful superordinate for various more specific "language X derivations" categories. For instance, I'm not in a big hurry to go out and create Category:ko:Portuguese derivations just for 빵. -- Visviva 06:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

delete. Nobody uses that phrase except to try to demonstrate that Korean has roots in the Indo-European languages tree. If we want a third etymology category for Korean words, it should be more general, e.g. “Category:Korean loanwords”. Rod (A. Smith) 21:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Were you going to effect that change to Category:Korean loanwords? --Connel MacKenzie 20:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Sino-Korean words As above. — Beobach972 02:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This should be at Category:ko:Chinese derivations, if it is kept at all. — Beobach972 04:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, not all Chinese derivatives are Sino-Korean, a term which is generally restricted to hanja and hanja compounds. I'm given to understand, for example, that 자장면 (jjajjangmyeon, “noodles in black sauce”) is from the Chinese zhajiangmian (炸醬麵). So even if we create ko:Chinese_derivations, there is arguably still a role for this category. -- Visviva 06:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. This is a very common classification of Korean words and "Sino-Korean" is by far the most common English name for them. (See #Category:Native Korean words above.)

  • Keep. Rod (A. Smith) 21:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Kept. --Connel MacKenzie 20:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This reason is not enough at all, and grossly ridiculous. Therefore, get it back, I should say. --KYPark 12:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the reason was, that was what was decided. As I said before, feel free to recreate it. Conrad.Irwin 12:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you really a member, if not representative, of the decision-making admin community? I was saying that the decision was wrong, whoever was responsible. You said it doesn't matter what the reason was. Do you mean or admit by this that it was wrong in fact? Anyway, it's up to you to undo it. I would never bother re-creating it myself. You would know why. --KYPark 13:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's up to you to demonstrate the need for such a category. You've been pushing the Korean-IE connection for a long time, and everyone else still thinks it's bunk. Unless you can manage to convince someone else of the validity of your views, putting them into Wiktionary is going to be a constant uphill battle. Also, if you could stop with the snide little comments (i.e. I wonder if you ever know what the "Category:Euro-Korean words" you are supposed to have deleted is all about.), insinuating that everyone besides you is an ignoramus, that'd be swell also. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 17:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
As you can see from the discussion you copied here yourself, there were two delete comments and one ambivalent (at best). It was deleted according to community agreement. If you disagree and think you have a compelling new argument that wasn't discussed there, please raise the issue on WT:BP. You should be asking there for the community to overturn its decision, not asking me to overturn the community's decision. I have no knowledge of Korean or the issue at hand and am not the one to be talking to about this. Dmcdevit·t 18:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:witch

Talk:witch

Etymological notes deleted

Etymological notes
As "Word and Object" (W.V.O. Quine's book title) alike, the witch has been cursed and persecuted in Europe for millenia, culminating in evil and cruel witch-hunts. They firmly believed in "word-magic," say, the magic of the word witch. The word has survived, and the object is reviving together with neopagagism.

Yet, most etymological discussions at present seem to shy away from even the likelihood that it may be cognate with wit, white, wise, wissen, vision, videre, and so on. (Therefore, the above quote is quite surprising and striking.) For the Slavic and Finno-Ugric, whiteness is the same as brightness, and ultimately light. Witch-hunt was light-hunt, as it were, hence the mark of the dark.

The emergence and evolution of the modern Enlightenment Movement and science in Europe simply may have been the radical reaction and revolution, to get back the light. So it was, and has remained to date, highly polytical from the beginning or by nature. This is the pathology Thomas Kuhn and Michel Foucault are talking about.

User:DCDuring behaved as the "bad guy" enough to delete the above from the main page witch. I reverted and he deleted again. I gave up re-reverting. Instead I copied and pasted it here. For this caused User:Atelaes to initiate the Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#Can_someone_else_please_be_the_bad_guy talk, which would make far less sense without this. Therefore this needs to be here or somewhere else for easy access.

To me, User:Atelaes appears instrumental in making me something like a witch or prey of witch-hunt. I am supposed to be "whitelisted" without being informed of the fact. To me, again, such whitelisting without notice seems to be unforgivably evil and cruel. But this is not my point.

Why do they mistake me for a witch or the like? They claim that I used to claim the Euro-Korean liguistic genetics, while "everyone else" unwarrants. I think "everyone else" is a gross exaggeration, as it is simply a version of w:Eurasiatic hypothesis, however minor. Personally I do believe it to be highly likely. But I have refrained from explicitly claiming it as such, especially under the Etymology section, with only a few exception.

From the w:Ural-Altaic perspective, I suggested the likely kinship of Korean 밝다 and 박쥐 to Estonian valge "white," Finnish valkea "fire," Hungarian világ "light," and Middle English bakke "bat." Perhaps, bakke was the only IE word whose kinship I suggested under Etymology. The two Finno-Ugric pages had included my etymological edits more than a year until yesterday when User:Ivan Štambuk cleaned up my edits but for the Estonian valge. I wonder why he left it. He also talked at the end of this section. The following are the two quotes:

  • ``You cannot claim that obvious borrowings like word for gong and menu are cognates, or try to masquerade it under the "Euro-Korean" category.`` (my underline as a sheer nonsense.)
  • ``I strongly advise you to abandon any kind of Uralo-Altaic speculations in etymologies, justifying them as "minority views that need attention". They're not some "minority views", they're complete 19th century rubbish...`` (You need not strongly advise me, bacause this thesis is highly polytically muddled, and because my main point or intention does not lie in linguistic kinship or etymology but in offering coincidental bonus information as will be detailed below.)

If I were really so rash or reckless as they recklessly claim, the above Etymological notes would have included the Korean cognates 빛 (bit, "light"), 비추다 (bichuda, "to shine"), 비치다 (bichida, "to look through, shine"), 보다 (boda, "to see"), etc. They were completely excluded even from pure comparison. Otherwise, User:Atelaes' initiation of the talk would have sounded understandable and reasonable (or far more so).

I strongly believe that the pure comparison of Korean words with the semantically and phonetically similar European words (but for obvious loanwords) is far more useful and pragmatic than Anagrams at least. I never understand why such additional comparative information should be definitely avoided, especially from the reader's perspective and curiosity. Yet no one has yet persuaded me as such.

I note that most cleanups of such data have been done by admins rather than neutral editors, who have only poor knowledge of Korean, if any. To me, their community looks like the wicked Wikt wick. (Note I make an original sense of "wicked," that is, "twisted." Historically, the Christians did, and possibly admins would, make an evil sense of it. I coin the term as a warning.) It seems to have made a decision that my contribution shall be discouraged as much as possible or entirely kept from Wiktionary. My past contribution seems to have been systematically regenerated, if not evilly degenerated. Lots of links and categories are found destroyed.

I created the following three categories mutually exclusively to cover most Korean words:

  1. Category:Native Korean words
  2. Category:Sino-Korean words
  3. Category:Euro-Korean words

These are neutral indeed, and just too crude for good etymology, but perhaps were suspected of their motivation for "Euro-Korean" kinship. They talked about their abolishment, and decided to abolish the last without an alternative, just for one unreasonable, actually ridiculous reason, degenerating into no category for the loanwords of European origin, which appeal least to me while native words do most. User:Visviva was to keep; User:Rodasmith was to:

delete. Nobody uses that phrase except to try to demonstrate that Korean has roots in the Indo-European languages tree. If we want a third etymology category for Korean words, it should be more general, e.g. “Category:Korean loanwords”. Rod (A. Smith) (my underline)

The underlined is all absurdity. The likely kinship I mostly expect lies between native Korean words in the category (1) and European words out there, rather than the loanwords in the "Euro-Korean" category (3) (which may have been better reworded as "Korean loanwords of European origin, but was simply rhymed with the "Sino-Korean" category (2) for easy memory). Such an aburdity of one man User:Rodasmith, strongly preoccupied by the "Euro-Korean" kinship syndrome, was the decisive reason for that decision to degrade categorization.

I was quite sure of the mischief and aware the wrong-doer was User:Dmcdevit who I never knew! On page User_talk:Dmcdevit#Deleted_Category:Euro-Korean_words, I harshly asked to undo what he did, while not noticing he is also known as User:Conrad.Irwin against whom I butted on page Talk:못하다 a few days ago. He used to attack on me in group with Atelaes. They seem to do in group as if doing a witch-hunt. They seem to dictate rather than talk as if I were a witch. This is quite harassing style, isn't it?

When User:Rodasmith was little aware what Korean adjectives look and behave like, I talked to him quite a lot about them as well as parts of speech. There you may note particularly my last reply including a vital reference, a link to a 6000-vacabulary excel file and my collaboration proposal. No reply, no thanks for my help. He or someone else must have used the file, contributing definitely to making such a large vocabulary as we have now.

When I started editing, it counted just a few hundred pages. Most of them appear to have been appropriated from the Translations section of the English Wikt, as are most of the foreign. I have contributed nearly a thousand pages in quite detail. I am supposed to have laid the foundation. I met few native Korean speakers. so I also served as a proof reader. Then, my bona fide bonus edits began to be deleted. I grew sick and tired, and almost stopped editing any more. They must have thought Wikt could do without my contribution. It certainly could if it had nothing to do with quality. A bot or young teen could edit guided by Translations.

For what was I aiming in particular? Let's take, for example, Korean 만지-다 (manji-da) and esp. its archaic 마니-다 (mani-da) "to handle" and French mani-er "to handle," not to mention manage, hence exact equivalence. The most critical point is that I have never understood why the former should never be compared with the latter, so as to serve for motivation, memory or curiosity, just for fun or whatever. (In contrast, I have no idea what is the virtue of Anagrams otherwise than mostly for fun.) To serve for Eurasiatic students would be additional. The reader's uses may be rather undefinable.

I am mainly interested in talking to them rather than admins. BP appears to be a place for admins hence not for me in general. So I prefer to talk here. Thanks. --KYPark 12:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Eurasiatic is as controversial as Ural-Altaic (though much more probable), and as such hardly merits mentioning in etymologies. Altaic comparative list could be added to appendix though (with the appropriate warnings that the Altaic hypothesis is still not generally accepted). Stuff like comparing the Korean mani-da to the offspring of Latin manus is just nonsense that will be deleted on sight, and would give you progressively increased blocks (you sound just like Dušan when he compares modern Serbian words with those of Akkadian or Ancient Egyptian). There's absolutely no reason whatsoever that Korean alone would follow different categorization scheme by means of Category:Euro-Korean words as opposed to all the other languages here that use the usual "xx:<language name> derivations" category.
I'm sure that there are many areas here in which person like yourself can fruitfully contribute to, and I suggest that you find them ASAP. --Ivan Štambuk 14:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone else please be the bad guy

So KYPark and I have been butting heads a few times as of late. The most notable discussion can be seen at Talk:못하다, and there's also a bit at User talk:Dmcdevit#Deleted Category:Euro-Korean words. Additionally, I blocked them last year for the continued insertion of Korean-Germanic cognates into Korean entries. KYPark has a history of making edits which, in my opinion, use guerilla style tactics to push their point of view (a point of view which they are generally alone in), notably with Korean etymology and transliteration. However, they are also, again in my opinion, an excellent and highly skilled editor, which is what makes them so problematic, because it would be so much easier if they were worthless and I could simply put a long block on. So, I just noticed Citations:witch. The citation seems reasonable enough, but the etymology bit seems completely outside the bounds of what we want to have......anywhere on Wiktionary. My first instinct was to simply remove the content, but every time I've done something similar I've been accused of being a rogue bully admin. If the community agrees with my opinions on the matter, can someone else remove the content (and can we please remove KYPark from the whitelist so someone can keep tabs on their additions). If I am being a bully, please tell me so, and I will desist. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You are in fact and effect inviting the innocent to an evil age-old witch-hunt party. Just stop it right now, I say. I expected this proceeding, and edited the very Citations:witch in advance, just to suggest that you are unforgivably wrong and evil. Behave yourself, I warn you. Should you be told to do so by Wikt, it should be prepared ... --KYPark 11:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This user should definitely never have been whitelisted. The best I can say is that many of his recent contributions have been simply value-neutral, not requiring immediate cleanup. -- Visviva 11:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Non ety, non-citation content deleted. DCDuring TALK 11:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Atelaes, could you talk a little more about your reasoning for blocking/deleting vs. posting something at WT:RFV or WT:RFD? Also, I think we should be using the {{fact}} template more often. For example, if you found his claim about the Indo-European thingy (I didn't read the whole debate in detail) to be dubious, you would insert the template so that everyone would know that it is an unverified claim (until a proper reference is given).
KYPark, you strike me as a non-native speaker of English. Just an impression, please correct me if I'm wrong. My initial feeling is that some of your posts come off as a bit defensive (clearly, you were unhappy about your stuff being deleted. An understandable reaction) or impolitic. I attribute some of this to a lack of ability with some of the finer points of English discourse. If your skills in English are not the problem, then it could be that you feel that your work is being attacked by non-experts. You must understand that we have no way of verifying anyone's level of knowledge. This is why it is important to cite credible references when entering potentially contentious information.
At this point, I'm trying to remain neutral. I'm doing my best to give both of you the benefit of the doubt. How will you respond to my post, I wonder? Will your response be diplomatic, sarcastic, funny, mean? I have no idea. What I do know is that a lot of people form opinions about a contributor after reading posts at places like Beer Parlour. -- A-cai 12:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Tbis is not to respond to A-cai at all. Please, please, don't be too excited by the fact that some Korean words sound like Western words.
What is the the way you like best?
The note material at Citations:witch was not etymology and was not citations. It simply does not belong there. I believe that Mr. Park's judgment may possibly be impaired by the anger generated by the exchange leading him to revert my removal of it. I have rolled it back. I do not wish to get into a revert war. Could someone else take a look at the material and determine whether there might be another place where it can do Wiktionary some good. DCDuring TALK 14:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the correct line to put a response to A-cai, but hopefully they'll see it anyway. The problem with using {{fact}} for the Korean/Indo-European "cognates" is that it was simply too distributed, for one thing. This was not an assertion made on a Wikipedia article about the history of the Korean language, but rather was contained within the Etymology and Related terms sections of a number of entries (I'm not really sure about the exact number, you may have to ask Stephen about that, as I believe he did most of the cleanup). Now, I'll come right out and say that I know very little about the Korean language, however the initial claim of a relationship between Korean and European languages struck me as, well, surprising. I did a bit of research, talked with some other editors, and the conclusion I came to what that this was not a claim taken seriously at all within historical linguistics. When I initially talked to KYPark about this (which can be read at User talk:KYPark#Block), they gave me the impression that their only evidence was that words sounded alike. It is my opinion that this is not an acceptable method for deducing genetic relationships on Wiktionary. I hope that at least begins to answer your questions. Please feel free to restate any that have not been answered. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Also to respond to your query concerning posting something on rfv/d versus simply removing it: That is something which I decide on a case by case basis, and I do not think I could give you a reliable rubric for it. However, I can note on my reasoning for the content removals specific to this case. Concerning the Korean-PIE cognates, I think I covered that fairly well in the preceding paragraph. As for the bit on 못하다, I felt that such a discussion about and critique of Wiktionary policy was clearly outside of the bounds of what we have in the mainspace entries. Thus, discussion about the merits of the specific content were unnecessary, as to include such content would require a complete revamp of what we have in our entries. As for Citations:witch, the etymology was completely unscholarly, and, again, not the type of content we have in our entries (additionally, etymologies, of any quality, do not go in the citations namespace, but rather the mainspace; although since this was a quoted pseudo-etymology, perhaps that is a grey area). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know enough about word histories to even judge the arguments here, about whether these things belong in Wiktionary, but I am confident that they do not belong on the citations page. As little as possible there should be composed, so if you find yourself trying to phrase something just so then it probably doesn't belong. What you could cite are other references that make your argument for you... although I doubt quoting them so extensively would be fair use. Even so that's apart from the question of how much should be mentioned, if any of it. DAVilla 18:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If your skills in English are not the problem, then it could be that you feel that your work is being attacked by non-experts. You must understand that we have no way of verifying anyone's level of knowledge. This is why it is important to cite credible references when entering potentially contentious information.

by the way who are you at all, mr. dcduring? do you know Korean at all? how much you know? would you dare to compete with me? you choose the best way you like. come on baby. --KYPark 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I know an angry person when I am in contact with one. I know material that doesn't belong in Citations when I see it. The material about Korean etymology looked tendentious to me, but I do not hold myself in any position to act on that impression alone in a matter of Etymology - and did not do so, as best I can recall. I am aware that there have been disputes in the past about areas of conjectural etymology. As a Wiki we need to limit ourselves to theories that are fairly widely accepted among lexicographers. DCDuring TALK 16:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
dear DCDuring, who are you talking to? me? oh no it's not me. you must be talking to someone else. go ahead. but if you'd answer me, read my word carefully enough. then the anwer should come out of itself, not necessarily by you. understood? --KYPark 16:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No. I do not understand. DCDuring TALK 16:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
AEL 1
  • Atelaes did the right thing. Lots of KY's contributions have been useful, but the promotion of supposed Germanic-Korean cognates is so far out-there as to be extremely misleading to users. Widsith 19:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Atelaes, I agree with you that it is not good evidence if words sound alike. I would like to note though that they have found evidence of so-called Caucasian humans in the middle of China. That could be a link between Korean and Indo-European, but I'm not sure. Mallerd 21:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This one and more I believe It could be something, it could be nothing. Mallerd 21:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Those fair-haired blue-eyed Caucasians would be Tocharians, Indo-European ethnolinguistic group responsible for some well-known IE loanwords into Old Chinese and other neighbouring languages. They certainly do not represent evidence in favour of "Uralo-Altaic" hypothesis, or of common development between IE and Altaic. --Ivan Štambuk 01:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Talk:witch#Etymological notes deleted

This call for the "bad guy" started from the Etymological notes, which is necessary for this talk but deleted by User:DCDuring. So I copied and pasted it on the above page. From the above talk, I reallize there appear a very delicate misunderstanding against me and the resulting injustice done to me. So I have to defend myself positively while showing how others offend me intelligently. Please come and read, though you may need much patience. I'm so sorry not to respond individually. Thanks. --KYPark 13:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have already tried to reason with KYPark in years past, in regard both to his unsupportable folk etymologies and his refusal to stick to the Revised Romanization that we use here for Korean, and he absolutely refuses to listen to reason on either score. Now whenever I encounter his edits, I simply remove everything concerning etymologies and I fix the transliterations. It is true that there are a small number of Korean words that were borrowed from Sanskrit in ancient times, but I don’t think that KYPark knows about those. If he would stick to definitions and grammatical work, he would be a very valuable contributor, but what he does here makes a laughing stock of our Korean entries. Because he’s never going to give an inch, I believe the only options we have are (1) to slowly and tediously correct all of his work, or (2) automatically revert everything he does that hints of a Korean-Indo-European nexus, or (3) just block him for a period every time he adds an etymology. —Stephen 14:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
마니다 (manida)
# to handle, cf. French manier

This illustrates "what he does here makes a laughing stock of our Korean entries" or Stephen's intention to "automatically revert everything he does that hints of a Korean-Indo-European nexus," that is, to remove "cf. French manier."

Is this "etymology," "Korean-IE nexus," and "a laughing stock" indeed? You are supposed to be the opinion leader in this regard. Yet you look hypersensitive or extremely allegic to the possible Korean-IE nexus to your great dismay. I don't understand why you are so harsh. Do you know the fact that the exact 1:1 transliteration that you have opposed so harshly is now being given as additionally as was done by me as a bonus as well as "cf. French manier" above? To me, your allergy looks like a real laughing stock. --KYPark 16:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

By the sheer number of human languages (around 7,000) and the number of terms in each language, it is relatively easy to find in 2 non-related languages a few words that are similar in meaning and pronunciation. This information may be interesting, but does not make the word pairs cognates or make the information fit for the Etymology sections of entries. Keep the information in Appendices or the User area, unless it has been accepted by area experts. Thanks to those that cleaned up the entries. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Right, Bequw. The majority of the linguistic community remains unconvinced that an early Altaic version of the Korean language was strongly influenced by IE, so we must rely on published linguistic works to claim that, for example, 마니다 (manida) derived from (deprecated template usage) manier. (I speculate that it more likely derived from the native Korean root in 만하다 (man-hada) or from that in 만들다 (mandeulda, “to make”), but I won't make such claims in our main namespace.) Similar to the English Wikipedia, we avoid original research in such controversial matters and must fall back on authoritative publications. Rod (A. Smith) 20:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me Rod A. Smith, but I thought that experts didn't see Korean and/or Japanese as Altaic languages as well. Have I missed something? Thanks Mallerd 20:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Correct, Mallerd, and no need to excuse yourself.  :-) KYPark seems to be in the minority group who considers it an Altaic language, and he further distances himself from the mainstream by claiming that an early version of it was strongly influenced by one or more IE languages. I didn't mean to lend any support to that notion, nor to support any claims that Korean or Japanese are Altaic languages. (I've modified my above post to clarify that.) Rod (A. Smith) 21:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with providing readers with possible mnemonics for learning Korean words, but there is no place for such information in mainspace entries. Specifically,
  • such information doesn't belong in the definition line, since it has nothing to do with the definition of the term.
  • It doesn't belong under "Derived terms" or "Related terms," since there is no etymological relationship.
  • And it certainly doesn't belong under "See also," since a reader following the link will learn nothing about the Korean word.
Such information could be placed in an Appendix:Mnemonic aids for English speakers learning Korean words, or similar. Of course, a French sounds-alike term would be useful only for French speakers, so that would need to go in a separate Appendix. And frankly, I don't think any such correlations are useful for the majority of language learners; effective mnemonic strategies are something which individual learners have to work out based on the peculiarities of their own brains. For instance, I first learned "매다" as "to weed," by drawing a picture in my vocabulary book of a hawk (매) weeding a garden. Would that be useful enough to put in an appendix? I rather doubt it. -- Visviva 03:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Having read through the entire exchange to this point, I think I understand the nature of the problem more clearly. The original question posed by Atelaes was whether anyone else could be the "bad guy." In looking at the qualifications of the various contributors, it would seem that Visviva and Stephen are the most qualified. Of the available contributors, these two seem to be the most knowledgeable about Korean. If anyone has a chance of getting KYPark to be reasonable, it would be another Korean expert who could provide credible evidence to counter any dubious claims. I know nothing about Korean, so I obviously wouldn't even attempt to debate KYPark about Korean. However, I do think it is legitimate for non-Korean speakers to ask a Korean speaker to refrain from original research and to cite his or her sources etc. -- A-cai 13:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
AEL examples
Excuse me, but I have to move to the leftmost as follows:
매다 (mae-da)
# to weed, cf. mow

Uses

* 호미로 김을 매다 to weed the weed with the hoe.
* 낫으로 풀을 베다 to mow the grass with the sickle.

This should be absolutely all right. This has nothing to do with original research. I wish to make this more interesting, surprising, or motivating as follows: 

매다 (mae-da)
# to weed, cf. mow, Dutch maaien, German mähen, 
  Old English māwan, Old High German māen. 

Uses

* 호미로 김을 매다 to weed the weed with the hoe.
* 낫으로 풀을 베다 to mow the grass with the sickle.

Neutral Korean students would be surprised, while some of Korean scholars, anti-Eurasiaticists, anti-Euro-Koreanists, etc. probably more or less upset. But do you insist that this is an original research, especially claiming the "Korean-IE nexus"? Why should this be so different in effect from the first example?

Currently, Wikt misses this well-known etymology in the mow page. I don't know if it has done so all the while. What if that etymology were deleted? Then I cannot help but guess that it may have been deleted by those who were badly afraid of the relation to Korean 매다. Such could probably exist on earth. And they must hate me as if a witch hated by Western Christians. Then, they would make me a prey of witch-hunt. To me, such is a war, so-called w:science war!

Refrain from saying too easily here. Please try to be more cool, smart, and neutral. Evaluation is up to everyone, hence mostly subjective rather than objective. Note that I look like being witch-hunted. Please do any justice to the likely prey to the wicked, twisted or evil, like me. Your sense of justice is on the testbed. (Let me drop below another example for your reference. I am not sure but may further respond to Visviva.) 

wick (plural: wicks)
# a bundle of twisted fibers in a candle or lamp.  

See also
* witch 
* wise
* wit
* white
* bitch
* Korean  빛 (bit, bich) light

--KYPark 03:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

KYPark, I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Do you mean that the English word mow is somehow related to the Korean word mae-da? If that is the case, can you list a reliable dictionary, book or website where you found this information? If you cannot provide a source of the information (other than yourself), then it would qualify as original research. As you know, original research is not allowed. -- A-cai 04:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
A-cai, no, I don't. I said above: "But do you insist that this is an original research, especially claiming the "Korean-IE nexus"?" This is to deny your and others' doubt. The above comparative data may be regarded as such, if I were listing them under Etymology, Derived terms, or Related term. So far I've denied again and again and again. But they would not understand and believe my word as such. So I cannot help but doubt their mindset, orientation, or motivation. In a nutshell, I've edited Wikt mainly to help Korean students learn foreign languages, esp. English more effectively. (I wish them to know that Korean is not such an island as the mainstream linguistists believe.) They are most famous, if not notorious, for spending an enormous amount of money in learning them. Unfortunately, however, their achievement is very doubtful, not to mention their hardship and loneliness. All the gentlemen above, including you, need not bother them, nor what Korean education should look like. This is a matter of Korean strategy, in a way at least, which I thus warn others to be very careful not to interfere with. Thanks. --KYPark 06:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Reducing the language anxiety of Korean students is a worthy goal. However, it is extraordinarily unlikely that Korean EFL students would be looking up common Korean words on the English Wiktionary. I say this as someone who has been working with such students for the past 6 years. It is far more likely that they would be looking up English words on the Korean Wiktionary. If such content belongs anywhere, then, instead of putting notations like "cf. mow" at 매다, it would make much more sense to place a note at ko:mow, something like "<매다>의 뜻과 비교됨." (I'm not sure whether such content belongs on KO either, but that is a KO issue.)
Likewise for the respective Old High German (etc.) material. This is completely useless for someone learning either Korean or English, but might conceivably be useful for L1-Korean students of Old High German. In any case, it doesn't belong here. -- Visviva 07:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Traditionally, the Korean-English dictionary or 한영사전 in the book form and now online has offered the kind of information given under == Korean == of the "English Wiktionary" (en.wiktionary.org) you mentioned. No doubt such dictionary has been a must to put Korean into English. Now there are a number of similar online dicts. For example, just take a look at this page for 매다. And compare this with my example given above, and evaluate the difference. Explicitly and implicitly, there is everything I answer you.
The naver page ends with a blind alley or 막다른 골목, while my wikt edit is widely open toward boundless information resources. My edit is not just for young Korean students, but for any Korean who bothers foreign languages, e.g., to know Dutch maaien or German mähen, if not Old English māwan, Old High German māen. Suppose her common exploration routine such as 베다 or 매다 > mow > Translations > Dutch maaien or German mähen. On my page, she may be glad to go direct to her destination, rather than through Translations.
What is the comparative superiority of English Wiktionary (en.wiktionary.org) over all the other online dictionaries. Outstandingly through the hub called Translations of == English ==, all words of all languages are interconnected within one framework. In principle, anyone can begin with any word in any language and end with any other word in any other language. This is just great to anyone! Visviva's real intention is not to advise Koreans not to bother using "English iktionary" (en.wiktionary.org). --KYPark 13:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
But on the Wiktionaries, there is not one Korean-English dictionary, but two: that found on the Korean (KO) Wiktionary, ko.wiktionary.org, and that found on the English Wiktionary, right here. The difference is that the KO Wiktionary aims (in part) to provide English translations for speakers of Korean, while this Wiktionary aims to provide English glosses and usage information on Korean words for speakers of English.
These may seem similar, but in fact there is an enormous difference between the two. If you have ever compared a K-E dictionary made for Korean speakers with one made for English speakers, you will understand this.
  • If you want to provide translations of Korean words in multiple languages, you can only do so on the KO Wiktionary. English words are the hub of the English Wiktionary; Korean words are the hub of the Korean Wiktionary. Cf. ko:묶다.
  • If you want to assist Korean-speaking students of foreign languages, you will only reach your target audience through the KO Wiktionary.
  • On the other hand, if you want to provide information for English-speaking students of the Korean language, you should contribute here on the EN Wiktionary.
The KO Wiktionary is currently quite neglected. Nonetheless it is, in principle, the equal of this project; eventually it should contain as much information as any other Wiktionary. However, it cannot do so without the help of native Korean speakers like yourself. -- Visviva 14:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
KYPark, you have now just admitted to everyone that you have no way of verifying your claim. If you cannot verify information, then it doesn't belong on Wiktionary. At Wiktionary, we cannot simply post whatever we want, and assume that others will not challenge it. You should be prepared to defend any edit with solid evidence. Some of my entries have been challenged by non-experts as well. The best way to handle such a situation is to provide proof which is independently verifiable. What proof (book, dictionary, website etc.) can you offer that your above example is not an example of a false cognate? -- A-cai 07:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear A-cai, again you misunderstand my English. By "A-cai, no, I don't." I meant "I don't mean that the English word mow is somehow related to the Korean word mae-da. This was to respond to your primary question: "Do you mean that the English word mow is somehow related to the Korean word mae-da?" By my answer, I need not answer the next. Watch out your English understanding. Cheers. --KYPark 13:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
KYPark, I think this is part of the problem. Your English is difficult to understand. You seem to have an adequate grasp of English vocabulary. However, your English sentence structure needs work. Ok, so if that was not what you meant, then what did you mean? If explaining your argument is too difficult in English, perhaps you could post your explanation in Korean to Visviva, and he can translate it into idiomatic English for the rest of us. I do not wish to embarrass you by suggesting this. I only wish to help you communicate with us. After all, isn't that why we're all here? -- A-cai 13:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


== Korean ==

=== Alternative spellings ===

* 띄엿 (ttuiyeos, ttuiyeot) (obsolete) 

=== Noun ===

 띠앗 (ttias, ttiat)

# brotherhood, fraternity, fellowship 
  Cf. Dutch, deutsch, w:Theod, þeod
Trivia
  • Taegukgi: The Brotherhood of War, simply known as Brotherhood in Europe, is a 2004 best-selling Korean film dealing with the Korean civil war where brothers turn into enemies. Theod or Brotherhood must sound far more revealing, appealing and even exciting than just Brotherhood.
  • Few Koreans seem to know this vital word 띠앗, perhaps contrubuting to the above tragedy! Why not get it back as well as the Western neopaganists?
  • The neopaganists are supposed to be more specifically interested in brotherhood and fraternity than fuzzy people and nation.
  • Is this sort of thing just a laughing stock or witchcraft?
  • Isn't it a great fun and run that Koreans may enjoy?
  • Is it doing any harm to what or whom, as if a fraud?

As I said, Visviva, nothing but English Wiktionary is just great to anyone. It is not in this case that "anything goes." There is a royal road in learning, say, English in English! This is partly why young Koreans spend so much money in English-speaking countries. They should better or more use the English-English dictionary, say, English Wiktionary or Merriam-Webster, than the English-Korean except in the beginning. This is partly why I would not accept your advice for me to go to KO, though it may not stand for Knock Out. Definitely no thanks anyway. But let me argue this way instead.

The international language or lingua franca shifts from language to language. English is the currency of which native English speakers take great advantage. Yet it is not their community's monopoly. Simply their national and international languages are the same. Everybody's language is nobody's language. English as such, e.g., en.wiktionary, should remain a universal melting pot which should include the Korean nativity per se together with the others. An objective, accidental, factual, neutral, unvocal, uncommitted, uncrowned, unaffected, undeniable, unalterable, unassailable simple comparison of Korean mae-da with Dutch maai-en should not be excluded from en.wiktionary. I do hate such nationalists as create a myth to brainwash their people as if they had been specially created by their God. I would never do such ridiculous evil.

Linguistics could become a science as far as subscribing to scientific methods, empirical and rational, inductive and deductive. Theories or hypotheses are rather rational and deductive by definition. So are Indo-European, Eurasiatic, Uralic, Altaic, Ural-Altaic, and so on. Neither is either historically or archaeologically proved. Either is no more than hypotheses, each aiming for better explanation than other. The Altaic hypothesis takes Korean as Altaic, while some others take it as an island not without reason. Suppose Korean shares far more cognates with European than with the mainstream Altaic. Then the Eurasiatic would best explain this fact, however minor. Every hypothesis has its own use. Even the Ural-Altaic should not be wholly denied. "Anything goes," according to w:Paul Feyerabend (1975). To treat it as rubbish is to degenerate linguistics into a lesser science. The more claim for community opinion, the more degeneration into the lesser science.

The "normal science" performed within a community called "paradigm," as noted by the science sociologist w:Thomas Kuhn (1962), is not quite scientific but quite socio-polytical. I would rather call it scientific pathology. In effect, if not on purpose, he stirred up scientists to the wrong, unscientic, polytical direction. His notion of normal science is abnormal science in an ideal sense. Scientists have the reason to prefer pragmatic interests, personal and communal, or pursuit of happiness to pursuit of truth. (In Korean parlance, 염불보다 잿밥 (yeombul-boda jaeppap) literally means that the mass service of Buddhism is valued less than the mess served to Buddha.) They used to wage w:science wars such as w:Creationism vs. w:Darwinism. The former fights for the Christian community, while the latter for the Darwinist.

In a sense, science and the w:enlightenment movement emerged and evolved in reaction to the clergic community called church. (Note that the church is no more than a community, whatever absolute claims it may make. Any church would make such claims.) At least, the movement, if not science too, became highly polytical, culminating in w:French Revolution. The English industrial, the French polytical, and the German religious revolutions share the same thing, that is, rebellion against the Christian church.

To know Korean truly is to know its greatness underlying. Unfortunately, Koreans seem to know little about that, I fear. It has undergone lesser changes. Its syntax and vocabulary is well organized. In contrast, English has undergone greater changes, hence a highly corrupted or eccentric version of the Germanic and European. It almost does without the European inflection. The /-en/ ending of Germanic verbs gave way to the root and to-infinitive. OE "mawan" now sounds "mow." Everything has been simplified, if not corrupted, but for the vocabulary of the greatest mixture. It may have changed so as to be used by a great mixture of ethnicity such as w:Huns, especially of Altaic origin, perhaps from the Far East!

The mysterious name Hun may have been simply derived from the Chinese hun (混) meaning (1) mixture (2) western barbarians or "西戎混夷". Anglo-Saxons may have risen from Scythia or w:Khazaria afterwards around the Caspian Sea, aka Bahr-e-Qazvin meaning "Khazar Sea" in ancient Arabic. Then it would be a great "laughing stock" for the British who may be more Hunnish to make fun of Germans as Huns or Sauerkrauts, (that is, most similar to one of the best Korean trademarks, kimchi 김치, together with the millenia-old caviar to Korean 젓 cet in Yale).

Such English eccentricity could never be explained by the helpless I-E hypothesis but hopefully by the Eurasiatic. Strangely, the Far Western English language has been easternized in effect, if not in fact. I can hear all sounds spoken in King's English, say, by Queen Elizabeth, as clearly as Korean.

Islands on the surface rarely float like an iceberg but mostly connect with the land mass below the surface. Such may be Korean. If it dubiously or hardly connects with the surrounding Altaic on the surface, it may do more closely with the other mass below the surface. Strangely it rarely shares cognates with the Altaic neighbors, in spite of syntactic similarity. Thus linguists regard Korean as an island. But the SOV syntax does not surely warrant the linguistic neighborhood. The older Latin also used SOV, which may have been more prevailing two millenia ago.

Korean is a great mystery as well as a great heritage. Such is the case with Korean Scythian-like clothings, fermented food in variety, floor heating, unbeatable archery and hand work, Amazon-like tough women (millenia-old iron headgears for women were excavated), half of the world's dolmens, and so on. --KYPark 06:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

KYPark, you do well to emphasize the point that is (or at least should be) a science, not a democracy. And it is quite true that science should be open to any theory, tested on evidence and not whether people like it or not. However, I think what you may be confusing is whether we're doing science here. The fact is, we're not. We are not coming up with, testing, and debating theories here. That is not the purpose of Wiktionary. What we are doing is simply reflecting academic consensus. Thus, we are not at liberty to come up with interesting thoughts and propose them to our readership. We only copy what the experts have already figured out. If you would like to try and argue for a Korean-PIE relationship, you are certainly welcome to do so. But do it in linguistics journals, not here. This is not an academic forum. It is an academic reflection. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Atelaes, I was arguing that things like academic consensus are very very rare, but ever-diverging points of view or community opinions in disguise of consensus. For example, there can be no consensus between creationism and evolutionism in parallel for ever, between Judaism, Christianity, and Islamism within Abrahamism, between unaccountable sects of Protestantism. Such is science carried on by ever-diverging competing conflicting paradigms or academic communities, as anything goes! or as if Thomas Kuhn had taught scientists to behave divergingly like religion rather than convergingly! Religion and science are a firm belief system. These are too dirty for me, hence none of my business. I have no intention whatsoever to promote or prove the Eurasiatic hypothesis, Euro-Korean hypothesis, or the like. But I would like to share and communicate the objective facts I know about Korean. These are mere data perhaps to be evaluated by scientists from theory to theory. But I don't bother them but the general readers. To help simply compare Korean mani-da with French mani-er is not science at all, but to insist both are cognate surely is. The question of fuzzy boundary is very crucial in science, so easily leading to category mistakes. It is a foolish category mistake to insist my help is science. A tour guide to show us around is not a scientist at all! A Shakespeare cannot become a Newton at will. (my parody in reverse order) But he helps us open our eyes wide to see what the world looks like. Please try to get to my point. You may ignore all my argument mainly aiming to draw attention to Korean, but evaluate the example in the boxes on top of it and answer the three questions below the boxes. Thanks. --KYPark 13:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've already told you: compare Korean mani-da to the progeny of Latin manus on your blog or personal web pages, but not on the definition lines of either here on Wiktionary, for that would be masquerading supposed IE-Korean genetic relationship based on nothing but vague sound similarities. Mnemonics argument is also not applicable to mainspace (it's usefulness is debatable even in separate appendix), as you've been told.
About your "anything goes" and "science as a belief system" claims - you're barking up the wrong tree. We don't want proofs or new theories or invalidating the old ones (which you've hardly done in your lengthy rant), but cites supporting mainstream theories established by professionalists. To what extent are they wrong - it's not our problem. --Ivan Štambuk 16:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I expected Visviva to respond to my long argument mainly intended with him. But he did not.
  • Instead, Atelaes responded, mainly arguing for "academic consensus" as the sole source of reflection on Wiktionary. I disagreed and advised that things like "academic consensus" is very very rare. And I asked him to ignore all my argument but answer my three questions on top. But he did not.
  • Instead, Ivan responded, mainly repeating his claim elsewhere. In a sense, he answered my last question on top "Is it doing any harm to what or whom, as if a fraud?" ignoring the previous two. His word "masquerade" would be equivalent to my word "fraud" that may do "any harm to what or whom."
  • In effect, he insists I do harm by "fraud" or "masquerading." What is this? Is this what Wiktionary says to me? Please advise me how I can be assured that this is what Wiktionary means. I advise Wiktionary and Wikipedia to answer my question when it is well aware who I am.
  • Meanwhile, I cannot help but describe this is gaepan (개판) in short in Korean. No more witch-hunt please. Thanks. --KYPark 15:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Nobody wants to respond to your long "argument". I'm personally just waiting for this discussion to end and for you to accept that this sort of speculative original research does not belong on our defintion pages. It think it's blindingly obvious that concensus is against what you're trying to do. Mike Dillon 15:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
KYPark, I will attempt to give you a short answer. Wiktionary and Wikipedia have a policy of no original research. Your argument is that you should be allowed to enter original research into Wiktionary, because there is no academic consensus on the subject. So far you have given us your personal opinion. You have not cited a single source that supports your claim. I find your argument about creationism vs. evolution to be disingenuous, because there is academic consensus among scientists on that subject. You ask us why it is harmful to enter unverified information into Wiktionary. The reason that it is harmful is that it affects our credibility as a dictionary. If Wiktionary cannot point to a reliable source for its information, then nobody will take Wiktionary seriously. We want people to take Wiktionary seriously, because we want Wiktionary to survive and thrive. -- A-cai 12:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It is a shame that one often defeats oneself, especially without knowing the fact. It is unclear if to let her know that is to do her harm. So some just suck their cheeks or stick their tongue in cheek. But I would not make fun of her behind her back, but tell her the truth, which in itself is neutral, but could sound cruel to liars and obscurantists.
Suppose w:Darwinism or w:evolutionism is a thesis of academic consensus. Then should its antithesis such as w:creationism or w:intelligent design be deleted from Wikipedia and Wiktionary? Should w:Lamarckism be deleted? Should w:Ural-Altaic as rubbish be deleted? In practice, few things die and most things do. Even w:Flat Earthism survives! Wikipedia is very proud of the greatest number of entries. What is the implication of this greatness? Are there that many theses of academic consensus indeed? Oh, no, never, ever!
The idea of "academic consensus" is a huge stumbling block and self-contradiction. Academia in essence is a place for partisanship Kuhn called paradigm, rather than for consensus beyond paradigm. Academic circles are like polytical parties. It is now well accepted that science is not value-neutral. The title The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy authored by w:Hilary Putnam (2002) is striking. Korean linguistic facts, for example, should be of more value to Korean general public above all than scholars, education than science.
Christians see Muslims evil, and vice versa, namely, proto-religious war endangering the peaceful excluded middle. A practical solution would be peaceful co-existence of black and white, say, Muslims and Christians. Wikipedia where anyone does and anything goes in general is the last place for black-and-white judgment and choice, but the ever-lasting place or melting pot for black-and-white confusion. All it could and should do is to inform readers of both black and white for their own judgment and choice, namely, w:reader response. --KYPark 14:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You are missing the point, Wikipedia articles and Wiktionary entries do not deal in original research. The articles and entries relating to Darwinism and those relating to evolutionism, as well as all the others you mention, reference respected reliable third-party sources. Your etymological additions are not backed up by any third-party sources and so are not accepted here. There are plenty of sites on the internet that operate with an "anything goes" philosophy, but Wiktionary is not one of them. The governing philosophy here is reliability and verifiability, which means that everything must be sourced and referenced with reliable sources. If it cannot be reliably sourced then it must be deleted, regardless of the importance or otherwise of the word/topic/goal/etc. Thryduulf 15:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The admin community is supposed to be brainwashing me and the third party by repeating again and again as if I had imposed my original research on Euro-Korean etymology on Wiktionary. That is, it seems to be unjustifiably harassing me. I take this likely offence very seriously. My contribution must have included a negligible amount of original research if any. I cannot show up the whole state of affairs, as what I had done was mostly destroyed by the community one-sidedly. Instead, I recently brought a few new examples to attention, and asked how problematic such would be. The ever-changing answerers have rather avoided answering my questions directly while repeating their one-sidedly assumed claims in other words to the brainwashing effect. From those examples and another new page 고인돌 (as originally edited by me), you should discuss very persuasively which parts are definitely an original research and why. Otherwise, you are in effect harassing me without enough evidence beyond the reasonable doubt. You would know perhaps better than me what could be the possible consequence of such repeated false charge and evil harassment. --KYPark 08:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Either you are trying to present serious etymological relationships, in which case you need serious etymological sources, or you are simply adding accidental similarities between words in a handful of the 7,000+ languages we try to cover, because you think readers will find them interesting or motivating. (You have appeared to make both claims in this discussion.) In the first case, the claim must be verified; in the second case, this is simply indiscriminate trivia, which we do not welcome here. -- Visviva 09:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You show me two choices. But you are well aware that I deny the first is my choice. So you actually allow me just one (second) choice and dictate it based on your subjective evaluation, without discussing "very persuasively." OK, anyway. But, as you are not supposed to be the wiki law-giver, please convince me that all my above examples plus all my edit on the page 고인돌 are useless and undebatable enough to be entirely ignorable and deletable (even without prior discussion with the original editor), and that your remark is the final, non-negotiable wiki policy. Thanks. --KYPark 15:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "share the same Roman syllable" ? What, if any, usefullness there is in comparing Korean dol and English *dol < Breton teol (which means table not stone) appearing exclusively inside the adopted compound term dolmen ? Looks to me that you're again trying to masquarede genetic relationship based on vague phoentic correspondence. --Ivan Štambuk 11:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
``Korean goindol and English dolmen share the same Roman syllable /dol/ by accident, meaning "stone" and "table" respectively.`` Ivan, you are very irresponsible to answer me without properly understanding the above single self-evident sentence. So are most others. So are most witch-hunters in Western history. So I called this talk the twisted or wicked witch-hunt party loud and clear, so convincingly from the beginning. So I blame you all for blaming me unjustifiably, without enough understanding and evidence beyond the reasonable doubt. At least on this occasion, you mistook my word and harassed me. I wonder if you are brave enough to apologize for this, and again to look for my weakest link you have to attack. Cheers. --KYPark 15:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to KYPark

KYPark, you invited us to explain which parts of 고인돌 contain original research. I don't speak Korean, but I will attempt to give you an answer. First, let us look at your definition:{{subst:Beer parlour}}
===Noun===
{{ko-noun|rv=goindol}}
  1. A dolmen, a prehistoric megalith having a capstone supported by two or more upright stones.
The above does not constitute original research, and is easily verifiable. However, you should include a references section to show where the information comes from. Here is how I would do it in this case:
===References===
*{{pedialite|고인돌|lang=ko}}
*{{pedialite|Dolmen}}
The {{pedialite}} template will give you the following text:
The above is convincing evidence that the Korean word 고인돌 equates to the English word dolmen.
Now for the second part, your etymology says:
===Etymology===
From 고인 (goin, “supported”), adnominal form of 고이다 (goida, “to support”) + 돌 (dol, “stone”). Korean goindol and English dolmen share the same Roman syllable /dol/ by accident, meaning "stone" and "table" respectively.
Where did you find the information in the etymology section? Did it come from a dictionary? Did it come from a book? Did it come from a website? Did it come from an academic journal? We don't know where you got the information from, because you don't state that in a references section. If you cannot point to a dictionary, book, website, academic journal or other reliable document as the source of your information, then we are free to assume that it is your own personal opinion. If it is your own personal opinion (even if your opinion turns out to be correct), it is considered to be original research, and is not allowed on Wiktionary.
Does the above answer your question? -- A-cai 12:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
KYPark, one more thing. The purpose of the etymology section is to explain the origin of the word 고인돌. With respect to the second sentence:
Korean goindol and English dolmen share the same Roman syllable /dol/ by accident, meaning "stone" and "table" respectively.
The second sentence does not explain the origin of the word 고인돌. Therefore, it should not be included in the etymology section (whether it is original research or not). -- A-cai 12:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
KYPark, take a look at 刻舟求劍. Notice how I provide a source for each piece of information. -- A-cai 12:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Again and again and again, you mistook my word and harass me! But I will help you understand me properly. First you need to go to the history file of 고인돌 I created today. There were great edit wars today, presumably without your knowledge. The most important admins visited and edited against my edit. Have you done any? Oh no forget it, but examine carefully the historical processes, and sort out what is my real contribution. Really I did not want this sort of confusion, and asked my original edit to remain as such for a week. Nonetheless, my edit was immediately destroyed perhaps to your dismay. But forget all these, but just remember that you have to answer me at all after you have mastered the whole history of this god-damned page! Understood? Many Thanks. --KYPark 15:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hurriedly, just one more thing. Read the talk page, too. Thanks again. Sincerely yours, --KYPark 15:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
KYPark, I now see that the following part was deleted:
  • "Dolmen" originates from the expression taol maen, which means "stone table" in Breton. (Beside this Wikipedia article: Note that this Bretonic word was allegedly incorrectly fabricated so that taol stood for "table" and maen for "stone." Also note an assumed Sino-Korean word consisting of 돌 (dol, "stone") and 宀 (Japanese men, Korean myeon, "roof").)
  • The etymology of the German Hünenbett or Hünengrab and Dutch Hunebed (lit. Huns' bed) all evoke the image of giants building the structures. Of other Celtic languages, "cromlech" derives from Welsh and "quoit" is commonly used in Cornwall. Anta is the term used in Portugal, and dös in Sweden.
KYPark, the above was deleted because it is not directly related to the origin, definition or usage of the word 고인돌. Wiktionary guidelines are fairly clear about what kinds of information can be included in an entry (see: Wiktionary:Entry layout explained).
Finally, please read the following Wiktionary policy pages: Wiktionary:No personal attacks and Wiktionary:Assume good faith. -- A-cai 20:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I dare to declare I won

  • If not, just talk why not. --KYPark 17:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It was 15:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC) I first began to count. --KYPark 17:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you want permission to add etymologically unrelated words to the etymology section of Korean entries? If so, then a simple "no, that's not the purpose of the etymology section, but feel free to use the talk pages for such trivia" seems sufficient. If you want something else, please be specific. Rod (A. Smith) 18:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I still sit up at 5:20 local time. --KYPark 20:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I read you, A-cai. Thanks always. --KYPark 20:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
May I go to bed at 6:04 local time? Good night everybody... --KYPark 21:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Afterword

See also

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia