User talk:-sche/Archive/2016
Why did you delete that page? Do you think that it’s sum‐of‐parts? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 00:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Romanophile: Because it was just nonsense, the page contained only the text "i love my family and everybody else around me". --WikiTiki89 00:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Wikitiki89 Ah! All right. Still, do you think that this entry would be acceptable if it were properly designed? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 00:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Depends on what meaning you have in mind. --WikiTiki89 00:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Wikitiki89 Ah! All right. Still, do you think that this entry would be acceptable if it were properly designed? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 00:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. I'm familiar with the collocation in sayings like "She was all heart" (=was very loving and/or compassionate, that kind of thing), but it does seem like it might just be "all" + "heart", and one can also say things like "She was all brain(s)" (=was very smart, perhaps without things like social awareness, hence the "all"), or "She was all legs" (=had long legs). - -sche (discuss) 00:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- "Definitions" 2 and 4 of heart#Noun cover the range of meanings of heart as used in "all heart" in my experience and in a review of the phrase at COCA. DCDuring TALK 02:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. I'm familiar with the collocation in sayings like "She was all heart" (=was very loving and/or compassionate, that kind of thing), but it does seem like it might just be "all" + "heart", and one can also say things like "She was all brain(s)" (=was very smart, perhaps without things like social awareness, hence the "all"), or "She was all legs" (=had long legs). - -sche (discuss) 00:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you
For finishing cleaning out RFV, especially given that it had become too large to archive. The page that really needs your help, though, is WT:RFM (and I suppose to a lesser extent WT:RFDO), because I simply can't close many of those. Some of them are language mergers etc.; the ones that you haven't looked at need some expert attention, and even those upon which we've come to a consensus need to be executed. I still don't know all the steps one ought to go through to handle mergers and name changes (is there a manual somewhere?). The other hitch is that I don't have AWB, so it's a lot harder to find all the uses of a language's name or go through every page in a category to change it, which especially slows down requests at RFDO. Anyway, I appreciate the help! Cheers —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- I will take a look. As for AWB, you could download it; it's not that hard to learn. There is Wiktionary:Guide to adding and removing languages; changing a language's name is not handled too differently from removing a language (you have to find the same things — old uses). - -sche (discuss) 00:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have a Mac, so using AWB would require virtual Windows AFAICT. In any case, I should've known about that guide — thanks. I'm not always sure where to archive the discussions, though. In any case, I guess all that I really need is for you to weigh in on long-ignored discussions. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Update of "Template:quote-book/source"
Hi! I have done an update of {{quote-book/source}}, which is at {{quote-book/source/sandbox}} (see {{quote-book/testcases}} for sample uses). The main changes are these:
- Improved handling of
|format=,|genre=,|language=and|doi=. - Addition of
|archiveurl=and|archivedate=.
If it looks all right, could you please replace {{quote-book/source}} with the contents of the sandbox? Thanks. Smuconlaw (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Done. I'm monitoring Category:ParserFunction errors to see if errors arise, and actually, it looks like the category is losing a few pages, though that may be due to Kenny's edits. :) Still, thanks for all your hard work sorting out these quotation templates! - -sche (discuss) 17:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, and you're most welcome. Let me know if anything in the template needs fixing. Smuconlaw (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Whoops, there seems to be a space missing if
|title=and|publisher=are specified, but|location=is not: see "freedom of speech". (I don't think this was an issue created by me.) Fixed it at{{quote-book/source/sandbox}}. Smuconlaw (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Cool Beans
Have added a recording of the phrase at the discussion page below, can it be added to the actual page?
https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Talk:cool_beans — This comment was unsigned.
Collocations data
I don't think our discussions of collocation space included anything about what the data might actually look like. I have a 1.7Mb file of sample (free) data from COCA. We could try using it for a few polysemic words for a demo, to determine its actual value to us, etc. The cost of getting more complete sets would not be prohibitive. I don't think it could be part of Wiktionary because of licensing. There are really only a handful or two of Wiktionarians that could and would make good use of the data anyway. DCDuring TALK 02:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- The mock up that you provided would add little value to English, for which we would want frequency data at the very least. I guess I am thinking principally of improving the quality of English definitions, not just of providing a home for translation targets out of principal namespace. Perhaps I should add the kind of table I am thinking of. DCDuring TALK 21:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, yes, that would help me to understand what you're thinking of. Recording which collocations are most common? (Some usage notes already do that — added by you, I think; thanks!) - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- See Talk:goods. DCDuring TALK 22:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Is "frequency of collocation" how often that collocation occurs in the corpus? Then what are "total frequency" and "mutual info"?
- Access to this kind of information seems like it would be helpful to Wiktionary in determining which collocations to list (and in what order). The frequencies of the different collocations might also be of interest to some readers. Is COCA copyrighted? Wiktionary should consider whether it would be infringing COCA's copyright to repeat such information in a large number of entries.
- The table is quite large; obviously, it could be made collapsible. Another possibility would be condensing it radically into the list format a few entries (usage notes) already use: Words which collocate with goods: (goods and) services (), consumer (goods) (), . It would also be possible to combine the table's data with translation tables, by putting the information from each row of the table into the "gloss" atop each translation table.
- - -sche (discuss) 08:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- "Frequency of collocation" is frequency of the collocation (occurrence within 4 words of the main term, before or after) in the corpus, "total frequency" is the frequency of the individual term (eg, services) in the corpus. "w:Mutual information" is a measure of the strength of the association between the terms (ie, between goods and services)
- I've started using this. (See sheer.) It is most helpful for polysemic words, but also helps determine whether a term is polysemic. I have had a brief e-mail discussion with Mark Davies at BYU who has pulled this together. I think we can experiment with this for quite a while before we would have to consider our options. I know that he would not be happy with our license terms.
- Ultimately the presentation would probably be most useful if we grouped the collocates by the definition(s) most appropriate for them and their part of speech and presented them in decreasing order of frequency, first by PoS, then by term.
- But the table that would be most useful for a contributor is one exactly like what is in ], but with a fuller list of collocates of the headword. We need such a voluminous table if we hope to cover all (well, most, actually) of the definitions in some of our polysemic entries. So I don't think they could fit in translation table headers. DCDuring TALK 00:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- See Talk:goods. DCDuring TALK 22:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, yes, that would help me to understand what you're thinking of. Recording which collocations are most common? (Some usage notes already do that — added by you, I think; thanks!) - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
adverbs Monday, Tuesday etc.
Yep, that's fine what you have done. I considered doing that, but I thought some "wise guy" would come along and revert my edits denying the truth, hence the wording I used. Cheers! Donnanz (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Do Brits not say that? --WikiTiki89 23:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. On Tuesday, on Tuesdays etc. It's not the same as on the west side of the pond. Donnanz (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- I mean, we also say "on Tuesday", but not always. In fact I would probably say that "on Tuesday" is more common than just "Tuesday" adverbially. I'm trying to think whether there is a pattern to when the "on" is dropped. --WikiTiki89 23:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have heard it minus "on" on American media, also read it in American literature. I tend to notice the usage when I see or hear it. There are also entries in Oxford saying this. Donnanz (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it doesn't exist. It is pretty common, but what I'm saying is that I don't think it is the primary usage. And I'm wondering whether there's a pattern to how it's used. --WikiTiki89 01:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have heard it minus "on" on American media, also read it in American literature. I tend to notice the usage when I see or hear it. There are also entries in Oxford saying this. Donnanz (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I mean, we also say "on Tuesday", but not always. In fact I would probably say that "on Tuesday" is more common than just "Tuesday" adverbially. I'm trying to think whether there is a pattern to when the "on" is dropped. --WikiTiki89 23:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. On Tuesday, on Tuesdays etc. It's not the same as on the west side of the pond. Donnanz (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- FWIW I ran the numbers and ngrams confirm the regional divide; it's about twice as common to say "work on Tuesday(s)" than "work Tuesday(s)" in US books, whereas in UK books the "on"-less forms are too rare to register. - -sche (discuss) 06:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Could you look at the IPA for Michäas? This is just my guess. —JohnC5 03:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've actually never encountered this form. In Ngrams, it seems to have been about 1/20th as common as Micha until the 1870s, thereafter about 1/50th as common (with a spike in 1952) until the 1980s, and thereafter trending sharply downwards towards about 1/1000th as common by 2008. I would pronounce it the way you noted. - -sche (discuss) 04:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! —JohnC5 05:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Huh
So the term girl can't be used in a platonic context, but only in a romantic? Ubuntuuser13 (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nvm, I've opened up an RfV for it. Ubuntuuser13 (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Definition one ("A young female human") and two ("Any woman, regardless of her age") and five cover non-romantic use, do they not? Are there citations where "girl" means "a female friend" as opposed to "a female (who may or may not be a friend)"? That might clarify matters. As it is, it seems like someone calling a female friend a "girl" is comparable to someone calling a blond-haired friend a "blond" — it doesn't cause "blond" to mean "a blond-haired friend", it's just the general definition. Usage like "girl, let's go see Andy!" is sense 5, the term of endearment. - -sche (discuss) 03:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Just so you know I've opened up an RfV. Ubuntuuser13 (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Category:Regional Translingual --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 13:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for noticing those. - -sche (discuss) 02:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
ISO codes
Hey thanks for updating according to the new ISO standards. I was noticing when adding ancestors that we are missing some of the more newly added ISO codes. Is there anywhere I could look for a list of the new, merged, and deleted codes? —JohnC5 05:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Changes to the standard are published here. :) I'm going through the 2015 changes now. - -sche (discuss) 05:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'll let you do it then! Tell me if you need any help. I'm a little terrified of sorting Austronesian. —JohnC5 05:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- The key to understanding the structure of the Austronesian languages is admitting that there isn't much: you have Malayo-Polynesian and the various Formosan branches, but within Malayo-Polynesian there are no widely accepted proto-languages outside of Oceanic and an assortment of local groupings. There are areal phenomena and substrata that let you classify Malayo-Polynesian into major subgroups, but those subgroups aren't genetic at all. Blust reconstructs all kinds of things, but his approach is to plug word lists into cladistics software designed for plant and animal taxonomy to produce trees, then use comparative reconstruction on the branches. His Austronesian Comparative Dictionary has an extremely impressive amount of data, but he regularizes the orthography, so you need to check the spelling against other sources, and you can't trust the comparative stuff due to his methodology. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- ...So we're doomed until better research is done? :( —JohnC5 15:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- The key to understanding the structure of the Austronesian languages is admitting that there isn't much: you have Malayo-Polynesian and the various Formosan branches, but within Malayo-Polynesian there are no widely accepted proto-languages outside of Oceanic and an assortment of local groupings. There are areal phenomena and substrata that let you classify Malayo-Polynesian into major subgroups, but those subgroups aren't genetic at all. Blust reconstructs all kinds of things, but his approach is to plug word lists into cladistics software designed for plant and animal taxonomy to produce trees, then use comparative reconstruction on the branches. His Austronesian Comparative Dictionary has an extremely impressive amount of data, but he regularizes the orthography, so you need to check the spelling against other sources, and you can't trust the comparative stuff due to his methodology. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'll let you do it then! Tell me if you need any help. I'm a little terrified of sorting Austronesian. —JohnC5 05:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I noticed you added this to Champs-Élysées, while removing the entry from Category:fr:Fictional locations. Just thought I'd let you know that no such category currently exists. Purplebackpack89 19:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've created it. - -sche (discuss) 21:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Kiriri
- Discussion moved to WT:LTD.
zerkreuzen and other things
Thanks for the catch! I am indeed aware of the fact that we don't use the IPA ligature, and I do indeed copypaste from de.Wikt. I normally will catch those, but I also forget, as you saw. By the way, if you'd like to take a break from your wonderful work updating the mod:languages data, I could use the help of some more German editors. Kenny and I have written a new mod:de-headword that is already running the nouns, proper nouns, and adjectives, and has the verb logic written but not in use. The new logic allows us to detected the inflection type (strong, weak, irregular, etc.) of verbs automatically, which means that they may all be merged under {{de-verb}}. It also means, however, that we need to manually sort the current trnasclusions of de-verb into either {{de-verb-weak}}, {{de-verb-strong}}, and {{de-verb-irregular}}. Once that is done, we'll switch {{de-verb}} to the new module then have a bot merge all the other templates into it. If you'd be willing to help move the remainder of de-verb's tranclusions, I would appreciate the help, but only if you have the time. Regardless, thanks for the IPA fix! :) —JohnC5 06:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's been a while since I used the de-verb templates, so I'll have to refresh myself on all the parameters, but I'll try to help out. - -sche (discuss) 08:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Where?
You wrote "as you have been told previously, such obsolete invariant forms aren't listed in entries' tables". Where have I been told that? -Random187056 (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- When you've added RFCs to other entries requesting that such invariant forms be added to the tables. - -sche (discuss) 23:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Languages that use the IPA
Are there seriously languages that adopted the international phonetic alphabet? I know that it’s possible, but I thought that every language with writers simply had its own alphabet. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 05:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- It’s not that they adopt IPA, it’s that the only documentation available for a lot of languages is articles published by linguists. These tend to use IPA out of convenience, without any intention of establishing it as the language’s official writing system. — Ungoliant (falai) 05:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Right. That said, a few languages have adopted IPA or IPA-like alphabets. `- -sche (discuss)
Hi -sche. I'm not sure whether the ping on Talk:sy³³ worked properly - I'm having doubts about the use of IPA to write languages mostly unwritten or lacking a writing system. Could you point me to the policy on this? Wyang (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Holy shit! We both made the same topic simultaneously! --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 05:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- As a side note, Bai language has a Latin-based writing system: see for example *g-sum, *ts(j)i(j) ~ tsjaj, *(s/r)-ma(ŋ/k) and *k-m-raŋ ~ s-raŋ. Wyang (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- In the general case: if we are to include words from languages which have been written down using IPA and which have not been written down in another way -- and they meet the criteria for inclusion, so I don't see a basis for excluding them -- how else would you suggest including them, if not in the way that other references do? (That's not a rhetorical question.)
- I don't know that we have (m)any policy pages spelling out which scripts to include languages in (except some language-specific policies allowing multiple scripts, e.g. allowing Cyrillic Romanian). De facto we've had entries like this for years, e.g. naːnʔ³³, paʔ²⁴, and wã³nũ³tũ̱³ka̱³txi³su².
- In this particular case, if there is another script we can match these entries to (either Chinese, or a Latin script), and you want to make the argument that these should be mapped to and moved to that script even if it's not the one they're attested in, that's OK by me.
- - -sche (discuss) 05:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- For the first question, I think it would be best to hold off on creating entries in that language, until a substantial amount of studies have been done on that language. The status of having a writing system, or at least achieving transcriptional consistency in scholarly studies, should be used to assess whether transcriptions for a rarely attested language have become relatively stable. I don't have a strong opinion on this, however.
- Regarding Bai language, here is a picture of the word "water" in Latin-scripted Bai: tinyurl.com/bai-xuix. I think the Bai languages should be grouped together, and recorded using this writing system. Wyang (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- We can't exactly "hold off"; that's antithetical to "all words in all languages". As for the Bai lects, do you have a source that supports grouping them? I'm inclined to agree with you just because you are so much more knowledgeable about that part of the world, but evidence helps. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- This suggests that though they grade into one another, there are enough differences across the groups of lects that there is unintelligibility. That suggests that multiple centres of intelligibility may be a better way to capture what's going on, even if the ones the ISO uses are slightly arbitrary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- "All words in all languages" is a simple enough catchline that summarises this project reasonably succinctly. We, however, do not aim to record all words in all languages, for example all the words in agglutinative languages, or transcribing words in a previously-undocumented language singlehandedly. We record lemmata and certain non-lemmata in as many languages, in forms these words are usually recorded in. (cf. the policy on neologisms)
- Bai languages have a fairly well-conserved set of basic vocabulary across varieties, and are perceived by speakers and usually handled in studies and dictionaries as varieties of a single Bai language, which is the reason I'm in favour of the amalgamation. Wyang (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Like Metaknowledge, I'm disinclined to exclude some languages, especially ones about which we have modern (often detailed and careful) documentation, sometimes in the form of entire dictionaries, grammars, and compendia of transcribed stories. We include some old languages from which only one old text or even only one word survives; that is arguably less useful or more prone to error: maybe it happens that the one word was spelled lazily; whereas, ɕy³³ was carefully recorded as the exact word used in 8 of 9 places. We can always move the content later if the community settles on a certain orthography; we do that even when a community of speakers changes from one established, non-IPA orthography to another (e.g. German entries use the currently-used currently-prescribed spellings — not the spellings from a mere 20 years ago — as the lemmas).
- I find some PDFs that say they are examples of Bai, and that use xuix (27, 32); the difficulty they pose is that they don't contain glosses/translations, so it's difficult to figure out how to map the scholarly transcriptions into that orthography, or tell what the words in the texts mean.
- Most references I can find do speak of "Bai" or "the Bai language" (or "Bai Dialect") as if it were a unitary thing, so I'm not opposed to merging and making liberal use of
{{label}}s and{{a}}s. I would have entered the words as only one language if there had been a single code for that. (Interestingly, a lot of its "fairly well-conserved set of basic vocabulary across varieties" is borrowed from Chinese — 47 of 100 Swadesh items.) - If we merge the Bai varieties, do you think it's better to repurpose one of the varieties' codes as the code for the whole language (as we tended to do in the past, e.g. with acf/gcf), or create a new (longer) code from scratch (as we've tended to do recently)? - -sche (discuss) 08:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Willy2000
We've already blocked Willy2000 (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks) for mass creation of entries in languages they don't know based on non-English Wikipedia entries. They just created some more as an IP (36.75.252.54 (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks), at least some in languages you've worked with. Could you check those entries? I would also appreciate your opinion on whether to start mass-deleting their entries in an attempt to get them to stop. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- He could also just nuke his work, but that’s kind of a lazy thing to do (in my view). Still, I can understand why he’d prefer that. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 13:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- By "mass-deleting", I was referring to what we call nuking. As for laziness: volunteer time from people who are knowledgeable enough to check Willy200's edits is a precious resource that shouldn't be wasted on following people around to clean up their messes- unless those volunteers want to do it. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- The Pennsylvania German words were correct. @Kolmiel can probably shed light on which Central Franconian spellings should be made the lemmas and which should be alternative forms, but the spellings this user entered are at least correct as alternative forms. Entries created based on Wikipedia articles could be wrong (in the BP we're discussing how some Wikipedias make up words), but when it comes to basic concepts like these, they're probably correct (which is probably why the user thinks it's OK). At least, it will normally be possible to find out what the correct terms are and move the entries (for well-documented languages, anyway; I'm having trouble finding out about Lombard), so I wouldn't nuke all the entries, but maybe the ones that it's not possible to find independent confirmation of (like Lombard). - -sche (discuss) 16:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- The days of the week? They look okay. Only in Sambsdaach I don't see any need for the -b-; the normal spelling would be Samsdaach, but Ripuarian wikipedia seems to use Sambsdaach, too, for whatever reason. Kolmiel (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, and Freidaach is Moselle Franconian, while all the other forms entered are Kölsch. Kölsch for Friday would be Friedaach. Kolmiel (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
homoflexible
Hi. What prompted my removal of my edit to the homoflexible page? You asked me to move it to the homoflexible page from the homofelxibility page, and I did, yet you took it down again. What, may I ask was wrong with it? I very much want my edit to stay, so if there is anything I can do to, to make it right, please let me know.
Amuzgo entries
These need some cleanup after your rename of the language. DTLHS (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. I tried to go through them with AWB yesterday but I couldn't log in (perhaps the same problem Semper mentions that his bot is having). - -sche (discuss) 06:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- (Now that AWB is working again,) I think I've fixed all the Amuzgo entries, and now only have to fix a couple dozen translations-table entries. - -sche (discuss) 16:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Did you mean to add this word to the translation table of woman or water? The definition you put says water and I was curious as to whether something had gone wrong. Tulros (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Tulros Thanks for catching that! I added the Yanomamö translation of water and an entry for it, and then copied and pasted that to create this entry, but forgot to change the gloss (despite updating the references!). - -sche (discuss) 16:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Palochka
Currently the Russian Wiktionary has a mixed use of lowercase (20%) and uppercase (80%) Palochka. I'm trying to understand what is right. In this discussion on en.wiktionary in August 2012, you stated that "we should use the lower case", but was there any reason or documentation behind this recommendation? I think the Wikimedia project that uses this character the most is the Chechen Wikipedia, and it is totally dominated by the uppercase Palochka. I found 2.7 million occurrences in the latest XML dump. It would be nice if we could find a consensus covering all WMF projects on how to handle this special character. --LA2 (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- There's an ongoing discussion at User talk:Stephen G. Brown#Palochka. @LA2: It would make things easier if we didn't have millions of discussions in different places on the same topic. If you feel that someone's input is needed, it's better to direct them to an existing discussion than to start a new one on their talk page. --WikiTiki89 21:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Leftovers from Zarphatic merge
Just on the off chance these were overlooked: see CAT:E. If you just haven't gotten around to fixing them, never mind. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks; I had searched for pages containing the language code, but I got the impression that the site was in the middle of updating (to reflect the removal of the code) at the time, which apparently means those few pages were in limbo and didn't show up. - -sche (discuss) 16:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- son got missed, probably because I said Zarphatic and the translation in question is Shuadit... Chuck Entz (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Old Italian module errors
Hi, -sche. It seems your edit to roa-oit in the modules caused a bunch of module errors. Please see CAT:E. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think I've fixed them all. - -sche (discuss) 02:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
All those languages
I've added another stack of them to RFM, which is now positively flooded. I'll probably stop adding anything for some time now; I've a planned wikibreak coming up somewhat soon. I'm happy to help add them, but for the most part, a) it's good to have another set of eyes check things and b) it's even better when that set of eyes is as good at being scholarly as yours are. Please ping me whenever you want an opinion or need access to any research materials, etc.
On a related topic, I remembered that I'm still responsible for FWOTD for an indefinite period of time. I set a "barely attested languages" focus week recently and I was annoyed how Eurocentric it turned out to be, especially considering how many barely attested languages there are around the world. I think this merits focus weeks for the barely attested languages of North America, South America, and Australia respectively, probably spaced out over the next 6 months or so. Considering you're making the entries now, I'd really appreciate if you could keep a list of words with particularly interesting meanings (i.e. not just your typical "boy" or "fire") from such languages, either here or at WT:FWOTD/FW or on a userpage, so they can become focus weeks in the future. Thank you so much for all your hard work! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
auto cat
I don't know if you are aware, but it may make your life easier just using "{{auto cat}}", without the need to use a language code. See diff for example.
The auto cat should be able to work in all POS and derivation categories, but it does not work in categories that use {{langcatboiler}}, like Category:English language. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was just running a script that replaced the deprecated codes one-to-one with the modern codes, though. I figure replacing explicit templates/parameters with auto-cat can be done by a bot whenever desired. - -sche (discuss) 18:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- The nice thing about auto cat is that you can move categories using it without editing them, since it gets the codes from the page name. Changing it to auto cat now means you won't ever have to mess with the wikitext ever again. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Just curious, why did you have to do a bunch of fancy deletions and moving rather than just editing the page? --WikiTiki89 17:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- When I tried to save the page with updated content, it had no effect - it brought me back to the edit window and hadn't changed the page (and hadn't given an error message, either — and if you look at the content I was trying to add, it was well-formed, AFAICT). This persisted in two browsers and after logging out, but didn't effect my ability to edit other pages or even other modules(!), hence I could tell it wasn't the result of the database being locked. I tried a workaround, and along the way learned that pages have 'types' set, and when moving a non-Module-space page to Module-space, it retains its classification as a non-module... :/ - -sche (discuss) 17:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm... Very strange. Our practice has been to create userspace modules as Module:User:-sche/x, that way it's in the module namespace and still works as a module. --WikiTiki89 18:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Btw I'm making a run of null edits to the pages in CAT:E to clear them. - -sche (discuss) 18:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Smuconlaw vote indentation
Ah, I see what you mean. My issue was that indenting WF's vote under mine made it look somehow "attached" to mine, like a child or subsidiary vote. Not a big deal, though; we can leave it as it is. Equinox ◑ 23:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, it has that negative side-effect, but it seems to be the usual way of handling ineligible votes. I'm not aware of any other way of doing it, unfortunately, short of entirely removing the vote or separating it at the end of all the other votes. - -sche (discuss) 00:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Proto-Qiangic
Do you think there is enough evidence for it? I've found some scholarly references for this, but I don't believe the language itself has been reconstructed, only elements. —JohnC5 21:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- LaPolla reconstructs a Proto-Qiangic first-person actor suffix *-ŋa and second-person suffix *-na and some other things; other references mention other words, like *pram "white" (whence the Prinmi / Pimi / Pumi name, apparently); but several scholars such as Matisoff note that a systematic reconstruction has not been undertaken. There is extensive information on various sub-branch proto-languages (I'm not sure if that's what you mean by "elements" or if you're referring to reconstructing e.g. the lack of tone, or the phoneme *f as opposed to a word *foobar). Dominic Yu reconstructs Proto-Ersuic (I may add it later), and Guillaume Jacques and Alexis Michaud reconstruct Proto-Naic in connection with their argument that Qiangic should be called "Na-Qiangic" with Ersuic and Naic being considered separate branches alongside Qiangic rather than branches of Qiangic per se. One scholar (Chirkova) argues that Qiangic is not a family at all but rather a diffusion area, but more other scholars support a genetic relationship. But I added the family code not so much to reconstruct a proto-language as because it seemed odd to have a large number of languages sorted directly into the highest-possible family (Sino-Tibetan), lol. - -sche (discuss) 22:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'll admit that I kind of want this so that Kenny's Module will sort them into a subgroup. —JohnC5 02:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- That module ought to be (and I thought at one point it was) adapted to accept families and not just proto-languages. :-p As a side effect, that might encourage people to add families, the way the module's initial creation lead to a rush of adding "ancestors" (which were, however, often redundant to the family info). - -sche (discuss) 02:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- You're right: it had been suggested! (@kc kennylau *hint, hint, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, cough, cough, gasp, gasp, asphyxiate, asphyxiate*) —JohnC5 02:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- @JohnC5: Please edit my ANC yourself; I'll be quite busy for the next few months. --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I'm not sure I'm clever enough to do so. @CodeCat, might you be free? :D —JohnC5 03:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
About the "Visual description" section
I added separate support/oppose/abstain options for each name in Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/August#Poll: Description section.
I suppose your comment "This name is too long, IMO." about "Visual description" should be counted as an oppose vote? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Cascading protection of main page
I remember the BP discussion about this where I voiced my concerns, and I didn't remember that you ignored said concerns and proceeded to remove cascading protection. As a result, we had vandalism on the main page for more than an hour today because an anon edited the FWOTD template. The main page needs cascading protection unless you (or someone else) takes it upon themselves to find a way to protect everything that goes on the main page individually. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- FWOTD templates should be protected the way we protect WOTD templates, which is to say, individually (protect only those pages which need protection) so that all the modules that transclude them aren't restricted as collateral damage. For what it's worth, I didn't ignore your concerns, you voiced them after I acted and you were the only editor to voice concerns. - -sche (discuss) 00:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. Sorry for my tone; I was rather angry about the vandalism, but I shouldn't have been so accusatory.
- Obviously, protecting all the FWOTDs individually is not reasonable, given that a new one is created for each day. However, there is still a scenario where the next day's FWOTD can be vandalised and nobody will notice before it appears on the main page (as happened in this case). Can we get that one protected as well? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's alright; I understand how easy it is to get stressed when something goes wrong, like vandalism. I'm sorry that my reply was also snippy. I think we could create a page that would load the next day's FWOTD (and then protect that page the way Template:FWOTD main is protected), if we can find the magic words to do it (I mean, the Mediawiki magic words). I've tried here (btw I am open to any suggestions if there are better names for these pages); I haven't got it working yet, but it seems like it should be possible because the preload templates for creating new votes seem to manage it. However, there doesn't seem to be a pre-made magic word for "tomorrow" (or is there?) the way there is one for "current day", so we might have to have the page load several possible templates to account for "tomorrows" at the end of months, years, etc. - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, looks like you'll have to special-case them all (or ask at the GP to get further advice). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Or you could use #time: instead of magic words. I've fixed Template:FWOTD tomorrow so it would show tomorrow's FWOTD- if there was one. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! And yes, you've noticed that I tend to wait until the last moment to set FWOTDs. It's a bad habit, but I'm always hoping for something brilliant to be nominated. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Aha, thank you! Are the workings of
#timedocumented anywhere (presumably on mediawiki-wiki)? - -sche (discuss) 06:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)- Yes, here, which is linked to from the magic words page you linked to above. When I looked at the code in
{{timestamp}}, I saw it used there, so I knew we had the extension installed. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, here, which is linked to from the magic words page you linked to above. When I looked at the code in
- Or you could use #time: instead of magic words. I've fixed Template:FWOTD tomorrow so it would show tomorrow's FWOTD- if there was one. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, looks like you'll have to special-case them all (or ask at the GP to get further advice). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's alright; I understand how easy it is to get stressed when something goes wrong, like vandalism. I'm sorry that my reply was also snippy. I think we could create a page that would load the next day's FWOTD (and then protect that page the way Template:FWOTD main is protected), if we can find the magic words to do it (I mean, the Mediawiki magic words). I've tried here (btw I am open to any suggestions if there are better names for these pages); I haven't got it working yet, but it seems like it should be possible because the preload templates for creating new votes seem to manage it. However, there doesn't seem to be a pre-made magic word for "tomorrow" (or is there?) the way there is one for "current day", so we might have to have the page load several possible templates to account for "tomorrows" at the end of months, years, etc. - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure why, but your fix didn't work... an anon went and created the next FWOTD before I got a chance to (Special:Contributions/101.109.32.230). I'm still pretty perturbed by how easily anons can edit stuff that ends up on our front page — luckily this one isn't a vandal. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge I'm sorry for the late response. I believe the reason that edit wasn't stopped is that the protected page we're using (and even the main page, if we moved the code and protection back to it) loads the upcoming FWOTD and then cascades protection down onto it. If the FWOTD doesn't exist (if no November 7th FWOTD has been created yet), the code can't load it and hence can't protect it. - -sche (discuss) 16:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, that's pretty screwy. Any ideas? @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's probably like -sche described. Not sure how to avoid it; perhaps we should make the template load missing FWOTDs from the FWOTD of the corresponding day in 2013. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, that's probably a good idea anyway, as a failsafe. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's probably like -sche described. Not sure how to avoid it; perhaps we should make the template load missing FWOTDs from the FWOTD of the corresponding day in 2013. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, that's pretty screwy. Any ideas? @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge I'm sorry for the late response. I believe the reason that edit wasn't stopped is that the protected page we're using (and even the main page, if we moved the code and protection back to it) loads the upcoming FWOTD and then cascades protection down onto it. If the FWOTD doesn't exist (if no November 7th FWOTD has been created yet), the code can't load it and hence can't protect it. - -sche (discuss) 16:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
RTL or LTR marks
Hi, what is the best way to see these marks? The diff does not show them. I'm sure they were added by copy and paste, but how does one copy/paste without adding these marks? --Panda10 (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know how to avoid copying them when copying text, but one can delete them after pasting text by using the delete key on the places where one "knows" they're hiding, either from experience (e.g., I know Google Books uses them before and sometimes after authors' names) or — I use a Firefox extension that lets me highlight text and then "identify characters", showing the Unicode values and names of each character and revealing any hidden marks like those; Chrome probably has a similar extension. Obviously, it's inconvenient to check any and every text one pastes, so I wouldn't worry about doing that: it's easy enough to do periodic AutoWikiBrowser runs to eliminate them from a database-dump list of all pages that use them. Ideally we would resurrect the AutoFormat bot and it could probably remove the marks automatically.
- PS there's a (RTL-mark-free) arrow → in the "Miscellaneous" field of the "Edittools" below the edit window when you edit a page.
- - -sche (discuss) 03:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
How many genders does Nasioi have? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 22:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Technically maybe no genders, although it has a lot of noun classes. Poking around, I see that John McWhorter claims in two different books that it has "a hundred" or "two hundred genders", but he is apparently oversimplifying/mislabelling a system of noun classes. (In fairness, Ranko Matasović, in Gender in Indo-European, while mentioning various non-IE languages for comparison, says "languages such as Nasioi (of southern Bougainville) have a nominal classification category which is intermediate between a true gender system and" a noun-class system. And what's the difference to a layman?) Nasioi attaches enclitics to adjuncts in a sentence, based on the class and enclitic of the head noun, and these classes are very specific, e.g. raampu "tens of sago shingles", ruʡ "fluid", ruta "eye", va "house", vari "tree", vo "mother and children" (per William Foley, The Papuan Languages of New Guinea, saying Hurd 1977 has a comprehensive list). - -sche (discuss) 03:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Noun classes are genders. This sounds significantly different from that, though, whereas Bantu noun classes function remarkably similarly to SAE genders (although SAE doesn't make verbs agree for gender as well). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Conceptually, most of the time. But certainly the works above make a distinction, at least on the level of terminology. Probably "gender" is more likely to be used when there are only a few classes. - -sche (discuss) 22:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Noun classes are genders. This sounds significantly different from that, though, whereas Bantu noun classes function remarkably similarly to SAE genders (although SAE doesn't make verbs agree for gender as well). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi -sche, thanks for your attention to this page. Rather than go back and forth with edits to the page, I wanted to bring up a couple of points here…I'm happy with "now sometimes proscribed" (though personally I still think that's giving too much ground, especially outside the US), but I really don't think citations support an "informal" tag. It's used in all kinds of formal English. The only reason I think this is so important in this case is that – the idea that this is "informal" usage is put forward as a matter of assertion by certain sides of the debate; it can't be justified historically and I'm doubtful it can be justified now. I'd also ask you to reconsider the Guardian quote that you removed, which I think is pretty clearly talking about "men" and "women" as separate classes of people, not as different social constructs.
Part of the problem, maybe, is that any use of the "sex" meaning is now inevitably influenced by the "social construct" meaning, so that assigning citations to one definition or the other is quite hard – in many people's heads the word probably exists in a vague superposition between the two. I'm just looking at the OED's entry, and under the "males or females viewed as a group; sex" definition, they add the following note: "Originally extended from the grammatical use at sense 1 (sometimes humorously), as also in Anglo-Norman and Old French. In the 20th cent., as sex came increasingly to mean sexual intercourse (see sex n.1 4b), gender began to replace it (in early use euphemistically) as the usual word for the biological grouping of males and females. It is now often merged with or coloured by sense 3b." Which sums up the difficulty, I guess, although their own entry has no problem putting citations of the "both genders" type under the "sex" definition. Any thoughts? Ƿidsiþ 13:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Widsith
- Thank you for your edits to the entry, especially adding the missing electrical sense. (Does one also speak of the "sex" of plugs as well as the "gender"? I see one book saying "For every cable connection, the cables that plug into a connector must be of the opposite sex." But it's hard to find any more because the other meanings are so common, hah.)
- Re the "informal" tag, you're right that it wasn't informal historically; the usage notes touch on that. Perhaps "now chiefly informal and sometimes proscribed"? Or I guess just "now sometimes proscribed" would work, inasmuch as people would probably realize that formal works would not be likely to use proscribed words/senses. As you note, uses of "gender" to mean "sex" are usually ambiguous now, because the other reading is usually also possible.
- In my view, the Guardian citation more likely refers to social categories, but is ambiguous in any case. If I say I think reviewers of Sherlock are judging Vinette Robinson based only on looks and not acting, someone might say: "well, Rupert Graves faces the same problem, I think both genders are judged on looks." And if I say I think reviewers of #Hashtag are judging Jen Richards only on looks, the same person might say: "but Ryan Crice is judged the same way: again, both genders are judged on looks." Occam's razor suggests the person means "gender" the same way each time, and the second example makes clear that they're talking about the visible social categories of 'men' and 'women' to which people belong based on how they live their lives, present themselves, etc, and not the genital/gonadal/chromosomal/etc ('sex') categories. (If the speaker meant "both sexes", the second sentence wouldn't make sense, since it's my understanding that the actress Jen Richards and the actor Ryan Circe are of the same sex.)
- Maybe the "biological category" and "social category" senses should be subsenses of a broad sense to the effect of "a category such as 'male' or 'female'" (", to which organisms belong based on biological or social factors]"?), paralleling how the grammatical senses were made into subsenses...? Then ambiguous citations — and pre-1900s ones! — could go under than broad sense. When writing the sense, we would need to keep in mind that there are works that use this word in talking about real and fictional species with more than two genders/sexes and societies with more than two genders.
- - -sche (discuss) 06:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
North American native languages project
At this page is information about a native language preservation project based at the computer science department at Southern Oregon University. Have you heard of them?
One of their projects involves dictionary software. I wonder whether there is any kind of cooperation that makes sense with respect to:
- a smooth interface between their software and ours (both ways)
- getting content from projects associated with them
- using their software to encourage users to create specialized glossaries from our content.
- DCDuring TALK 12:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- I was not aware of that site; thanks for linking it. (I have seen a few similar sites run by other universities.) They say their project "provides web-based export of information", but I don't know how they / the dictionary-authors who are using their format would feel about letting us import their content (which would release it under our licence). They might be interested in importing our data into their format, since they could do so for free as long as they attributed us per our licence, but there are not many North American languages that we document more extensively than other online (single-language) dictionaries, e.g. our coverage of Cheyenne is tiny compared to the online Cheyenne Dictionary. - -sche (discuss) 02:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Willingness to share depends on attitude and situation. Death, retirement, loss of funding, etc might cause some of these databases to become available. Facilitating export to their format might yield future benefit in the form of increased willingness of dictionary makers to let us have their data when the time comes. DCDuring TALK 12:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Verb form of "king" at article on "kings"
I agree that there was already a definition of the verb on the page for king, but shouldn't the page for kings have information that the word "kings" is the third-person singular simple present form of the word "king" ? The lack of any mention of the verb form was why I put the verb in at "kings". Is this kind of back pointer common for verbs? I know the back pointer is there for nouns. ie: "plural of king" Bcent1234 (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- You put the definition of the noun "kinging" ("the action of promoting...") into the verb ] and used {{head|en|verb}} as if ] were a lemma, which was incorrect on a number of levels. If you look at an entry for any third-person verb form, e.g. looks, you can see how they are formatted: {{head|en|verb form}} # {{en-third-person singular of|king}}, like so. :)
Incidentally, I'm not convinced "(poker slang) a pair of kings" is really a sense of "kings" distinct from "plural of king"...
- -sche (discuss) 22:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)- By the logic for inclusion that we follow. Because one could be confused as whether kings in poker meant "2, 3, 4 kings", we would include it. DCDuring TALK 10:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- But is it really limited to two kings? Wouldn't you say "there were kings and aces scattered around the room" if poker players threw a couple of packs of cards in a fit of rage? How is this different from defining "rackets" as "(tennis slang) a pair of rackets, or (doubles tennis slang) a foursome of rackets" because that's how many rackets tennis is played with? - -sche (discuss) 19:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- You could be right. It's just a matter of fact. Unfortunately (?) I don't spend much time playing poker or watching/listening to others playing poker. DCDuring TALK 19:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- In poker, out of the final five-card hand, if you say you have "kings" that means you have a pair of kings and not more than that. If you have three kings, you would say you have "trip kings", or if you have four, "quad kings". It's of course not limited to kings and applies to all cards. And of course if someone dropped the deck, you can still say "there are aces and kings scattered on the floor", because having a poker-specific sense doesn not imply that all other senses suddenly don't exist. Having said that, I still don't think we necessarily need to have this sense. --WikiTiki89 19:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- By the logic for inclusion that we follow. Because one could be confused as whether kings in poker meant "2, 3, 4 kings", we would include it. DCDuring TALK 10:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Zigeuner
You said to leave a post on your talk page about the Zigeuner entry, but I just started and want to follow Wiktionary recommendations, so we should talk about this in the
Dzungalo77 (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Proto-Nawiki
Hi @-sche, Could you please add a Proto-Nawiki language code, perhaps nwk-pro, which is based on PNwk from this paper. Thanks. Pinging @Metaknowledge as well. --Victar (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Also related, I have a few Arawak family languages that need codes as well. Thanks!
Yumana:awd-ymnMariaté:awd-mrtWainumá:awd-wnm→ Wainumá-Mariaté:awd-wmt- Wiriná:
awd-wrn Guinau:awd-gnu- Marawá:
awd-mrw
--Victar (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- As I told you,
awd-nwk-prowill be necessary. Also, we've been discussing some of those languages already (search for their name at WT:RFM). Specifically, I remember being unsure about whether Wainumá and Mariaté are actually separate languages, and I think -sche may have added notes about some of the others. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)- No need for nasty "I told you"s. You said
awd-nwk-prowas necessary if NWK is of my own invention. As I stated above, it is not. If Wainumá and Mariaté are considered one in the same, that's fine, but I'm still lacking a code regardless. --Victar (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)- Sorry, I didn't intend that to be nasty. I suppose I was unclear earlier; we are trying to make codes that complement ISO standards, rather than conflict with them. It's not about who made it up, but simply that it's not in an ISO standard. And I don't know enough and haven't done the research to judge whether those should be merged or separated; I would trust your judgement either way, but I wanted to bring up the issue. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks a ton for the explanation. I didn't realize that ISO was the only excepted source for new un-hyphenated codes. It makes sense though; cuts down on arguments and possible future conflicts.
- I think quite a few indigenous American languages are actually dialects on one another, but because they have more research, ISO assigns them separate codes. I figured since these are just hyphenated codes anyway, it doesn't much matter. Either way, I just need some way to add them. --Victar (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I've added Nawiki as a family and Proto-Nawiki as a language, with the code as above (hopefully I did it all correctly). We'll have to populate the family; which codes ought to be in Nawiki? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! Proto-Nawiki corresponds to the parent of Western Nawiki and Eastern Nawiki on Wikipedia, so the descendant codes would be:
awd-pas,rgr,cbb,awd-kaw,ycn,mht,gae,bwi,kpc,tae,pio, along with the propossedawd-ymn,awd-wmtandawd-wrn. --Victar (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC) - @Metaknowledge: could you add Proto-Newiki as an alternative name? --Victar (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- I added the alternative name for the family and the protolanguage, and added the family to all the already existing codes. I haven't created the new codes you requested yet because I'm waiting on -sche's input. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- You rock! Thanks once again. --Victar (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- I added the alternative name for the family and the protolanguage, and added the family to all the already existing codes. I haven't created the new codes you requested yet because I'm waiting on -sche's input. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge if you could, I also have another related proto language, proto-Piro-Apurinã. I figure if I'm reconstructing them for PAwk, I might as well be creating entries for proto-Piro-Apurinã as well. I've also seen is called proto-Apurinã-Piro-Iñapari and proto-Purus in one case, but proto-Piro-Apurinã is most common.
awd-pia-prowould be perfect. Derived languages code would beapu,inp,pibandmpd. --Victar (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! Proto-Nawiki corresponds to the parent of Western Nawiki and Eastern Nawiki on Wikipedia, so the descendant codes would be:
- Sorry, I didn't intend that to be nasty. I suppose I was unclear earlier; we are trying to make codes that complement ISO standards, rather than conflict with them. It's not about who made it up, but simply that it's not in an ISO standard. And I don't know enough and haven't done the research to judge whether those should be merged or separated; I would trust your judgement either way, but I wanted to bring up the issue. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- No need for nasty "I told you"s. You said
- I can't find linguistic works with much to say about Mariaté and Wainumá (Wai, Waima, Wainumi, Wainambí, Waiwana, Waipi, Yanuma) beyond that they exist; native-languages.org has short wordlists which are quite similar. Do we want to take a conservative approach and give each its own code as we often do, or are we confident enough that WP is right to group them?
- My preference is to keep them separated, but I don't have a strong opinion. --Victar (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Marawá needs to be distinguished from Marawán. And do we want to give it, Guinau, and "Baré" (a terribly ambiguous name) three codes, or merge them as Barawana, as Aikhenvald suggests?
- It's quite annoying that they're so similarly named, but they are indeed two separate languages: mara1408, mara1409.
- Guinau and Baré are actually quite different in many ways, from what I've seen. --Victar (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- I thought Uirina had already been discussed somewhere, but I guess not (must have been a language with a similar name). - -sche (discuss) 05:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've added Yumana. - -sche (discuss) 05:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Victar (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- @-sche: What code did you use, because the proposed
awd-ymndidn't work? --Victar (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've added Wainumá as awd-wai, which was suggested on WT:RFM and which is more clearly distinguished from sai-wnm (Wanham) — it's a small thing, but it seems better not to have a sai- ("South American languages") code and an awd- (South American "Arawakan languages") code be identical except in their potentially mentally-interchangeable prefixes. And I've added Mariaté as awd-mrt, as proposed here, rather than -mar (as proposed on RFM), to better distinguish it from sai-mar. Yumana was added as awd-yum (as proposed on WT:RFM). I added Guinau and noticed we already had a word in it, and a code for Bare despite that term (Bare) 's ambiguousness. - -sche (discuss) 04:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, do you happen to know whether espan is also a descendant of the Munsee word (or whether a related language is more probable or whatever else)? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- I can't find any references that say anything explicit about the Swedish term (you've outdone me by just finding so many citations of it! excellent work!), but the word is clearly Algonquian, and based on where the Swedish settlements in America were it 's most plausible that it came from Munsee, Unami or possibly Nanticoke. Of those, Nanticoke echsup and the (clearly unrelated) Unami nahënëm are phonologically implausible, but Munsee é·span (where é· is /ɛː/) is a great fit. Combined with the sure derivation of the very similar Jersey Dutch word from Munsee, I'd say the Swedish word is from Munsee, or if one wanted to be conservative, "From an Eastern Algonquian language (from Proto-Algonquian *e·hsepana, most likely Munsee é·span." - -sche (discuss) 22:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll add the more conservative version to be on the safe side. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Kurze Anfrage
Tagchen - Du bist doch in der weiten Bücherei deutscher Regionalismen gut rumgekommen. Ich bin neulich an 'ner Studie vorbeigekommen, die erwähnte, dass /ɛː/ in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern als Merkmal eines fremdsprachlichen (plattdeutschen) Akzentes empfunden wird und nur die Aussprache von ⟨Ä⟩ als /eː/ als korrekt empfunden wird. Ich weiß nur leider nicht mehr, welche es war. Es wahr wohl Dahl 1974, der norddeutsche Sprachatlas oder diese andere Arbeit über Sprache in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern aus den 70ern, die mir einfach nicht mehr einfällt. Du weißt nicht zufällig, wo man dieses Zitat findet oder wo man diese Arbeiten einsehen kann oder wenigstens, wer die Arbeit geschrieben hat, die nicht Dahl ist? Korn (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Illion numbers
You can see the larger number to Wiktionary.
Millillion - 10^3003
Dumillillion - 10^6003
Myrillion - 10^30003
Micrillion - 10^3000003
Nanillion - 10^3000000003
Picillion - 10^3000000000003
Femtillion - 10^3000000000000003
Attillion - 10^30000000000000000003
Zeptillion - 10^3000000000000000000003
Yoctillion - 10^3000000000000000000000003
Xonillion - 10^3000000000000000000000000003
Cyrus noto3at bulaga (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
A proposal on splitting Monguor into Mangghuer and Mongghul
Hey, a proposal I've made at Wiktionary:Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits#Splitting_Monguor_into_Mangghuer_and_Mongghul seems to be stuck for a long time now, could you perhaps take a look at it, share your thoughts and vote? Crom daba (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
//NOTE: This message was crossposted to multiple talk pages. Crom daba (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Salar
Hey, I see you've made a Salar entry in Arabic script, do you have any resources on the orthography? I'm making some Proto-Mongolic entries and it will feature in descendants. Crom daba (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)