Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word
User talk:幽霊四. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
User talk:幽霊四, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
User talk:幽霊四 in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
User talk:幽霊四 you have here. The definition of the word
User talk:幽霊四 will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
User talk:幽霊四, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Welcome Message
Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.
If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:
- Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
- Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
- Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
- If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
- If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
- Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (
~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
- You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.
Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! --Apisite (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
We document how language is used: this term has been declined, thus we document it.
- “it's spelled differently (homo vs. Homo)”
- Capitalization of taxonomic names varies (e.g., one can find “canis familiaris” and “Felis Catus”).
- “it's (currently) not a mul alt form (does it exist in mul?), cite language is English”
- English is a part of the “Translingual” heading; the italics (obviously also its declension) indicate it is not an English term. Some taxonomic names may only be attested in English.
- “not a template for mul”
- The template was made for Latin terms (some consider taxonomic names to be Latin), nonetheless it works well for this term and, if required, can be replaced by a manual table or a new template; removing the information instead does not improve the entry.
- “not how it inflects (e.g. accusative "einen Homo sapiens" in German or English objective "of/to a Homo sapiens")”
- The entry does not claim the term has to be inflected thus; information on other inflections can be added.
J3133 (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
- Indeed, we document how it is used. But we also differ between different languages and different spellings, such as: color (US) vs. colour (UK), black vs. Black, computer vs. German Computer (“computer”) ...
- Does Translingual homo sapiens exist?
- Other terms and their capitalisation don't matter here. There can be Translingual Felis Catus, felis catus without there being homo sapiens.
- If yes: Then it's an alternative form, which should be mentioned in the appropriate section (Alternative forms).
- If it's only English, then it's not translingual, obviously. Same can hold true because of German noun capitalisation, e.g. German Jus ... besides Translingual jus ... (“some right, law”) or German ... Darwinii vs. ... darwinii (“Darwin's something”).
- Note: Unless homo sapiens isn't attested outside of English, there're differences between taxonomic terms only attested in English and this one:
- The template isn't made for mul and doesn't work, doesn't fit:
The links are wrong: it's linking to Latin terms like Latin Hominēs sapientēs and not to e.g. Translingual Homines sapientes.
The template doesn't make sense: "Third-declension noun with a third-declension participle". That's only understandable from a Latin point of view, not for German or English which are both given under Pronunciation. According to en.wp Russian has a third declension as well. Russian is given under Pronunciation too and the inflection of the template doesn't match to the Russian 3rd declension.
The inflection/spelling is wrong, or doesn't make sense: it's Translingual Homo sapiens, yet the template generates "Homō sapiēns" and "Hominī sapientī". German (not: ) shows that the macra don't make sense in mul, and also aren't (regulary/commonly) used in mul spelling as the quotations show.
- The entry implies that the term is inflected thus, and the inflection is wrong, or incomplete which makes it wrong too: See header "plural .. Homo sapiens", quotes with "einen Homo sapiens" (accusative), "to a Homo sapiens" (objective).
The English quotes for homo sapiens are for another sense, namely for member of a species (appellative noun) and not for the sense species (collective noun). This distinction is indicated at Citations:Homo sapiens.- By the way, in other cases there could also be a thing because of genders: French doesn't have a neuter, so what's neuter in Latin and maybe in German can be masculine in French.
- --幽霊四 (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
- Remember that this is a wiki and you alone do not decide whether entries for alternative capitalizations should be created, what an entry implies or what to remove, especially because you are new and do not know much about our taxonomic entries. J3133 (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
- Same for you. Practice shows that:
- --幽霊四 (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
- You do not have much practice at Wiktionary (and do not comprehend this) and therefore should not decide this. J3133 (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
- (Nor do you know that we use the Latin gender.) J3133 (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
- That are just insults (esp. "not comprehend"), no arguments. --幽霊四 (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
- No, you are overestimating your practice; you have much to learn about Wiktionary before you decide this—which is obviously not an insult. J3133 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
- No, and your ad hominems speak for themselves. --幽霊四 (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
- Now they are “ad hominems”? Seems you are now only wasting my time—your ignorance spoke for itself. Remember again: this is a wiki. J3133 (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
- You're not arguing like "hey look, macra are used translingually in taxonomic terms, see examples" or "homo sapiens is used outside of English as well, see here for French, German", but instead your points are "You do no have much practice at Wiktionary", "You .. do not comprehend this". That's what ad hominem or argumentum ad hominem means. --幽霊四 (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
- I am aware of the definition and I argue in more than one way, nonetheless, all falls on deaf ears. J3133 (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
- Arguing regarding experience/practice ("You do not have much practice at Wiktionary", "you are new"), knowledge/intelligence ("You do .. not comprehend this"), and many other, yet similar, things ("your ignorance", "you are .. wasting my time") can be subsumed under insults or ad hominems. "this is a wiki" is different argument, but doesn't support your point -- it can also be held against your "I placed those citations here and do not agree".
Theoretically, you could try to proof me wrong:
- I stated macra (¯) are not used (or at least are not commonly used) in taxonomics. With some examples, you could proof me wrong. google books:Homō sapiēns didn't really bring anything up. What can be found: Homo sapièns (English; italics, accent).
- I asked if homo sapiens is used outside of English. With examples, it could easily be proven to be translingual. l'homo sapiens (French; italics, no capital) is without capital too. Does it mean Homo sapiens or wise man (contrasted with stupid man, idiot)? , only have the literal sense. So, are there non-English usages?
- I've no problem with learning new things, with seeing quotes for Homō sapiēns or homo sapiens (non-English)... --幽霊四 (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
- For some reason, you seem to think that having an account rather than your usual IP gives you a license to be high-handed and rude (yes, your interests and editing style make it obvious who you are). Please remember that this is a wiki, which means you are only one member of a community. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
- It's not me who uses insults or ad hominems, I don't need them. --幽霊四 (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
- No, you can be quite rude enough without using them. Although I let my annoyance get the better of me above, I think I had a valid point: the things you do when logged in to an account, and the manner in which you do them, are different- mostly in bad ways. I've made a point of using my real name throughout my wiki career. That's because I've seen too many cases of people losing their moral bearings when they become anonymous. I liken it to a mob mentality, where losing one's identity in a group gives one the feeling that morality and responsibility for one's actions no longer apply. A mob will do unspeakable things that none of the individuals that make it up would ever even think of doing as individuals.
- Either that, or you've held back due to feeling like an outsider and now think that you can do anything you want because you're a full member of the community.
- I could say more, but that's all I have time for at the moment. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
- I was talking about the subject, J3133 mostly about me (already in J3133's first reply to me, there was nothing regarding the arguments I brought for but instead: "you .. do not know much .."), and you too about me (in your first post here: "you .. rude"). Calling somebody stupid or rude is much more rude than pointing out that the points brought fore are ad hominems and the like.
Can you answer my question at WT:Tea room/2021/February#Homo sapiens, "Was there any discussion/vote to add it?"
- If there was, then I might have missed something, and have made an accidental mistake. But even then it would be correct and polite to point to the discussion instead of "you .. do not know much ..", "you .. rude" etc.
- If there wasn't, then your point "justify .. without discussion" doesn't apply to the removal but to the addition of incorrect (or as you admitted: "Yes, it's broken") stuff. And if you now want to argue like "I'm an admin and you not" or "J3133 is much longer registered than you", it's just ad hominem, appeal to authority, applying double standards again...
- --幽霊四 (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hello! It would be both helpful as well as interesting if you used {{babel}} on your user page to indicate your language competencies! — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 18:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply