. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
you have here. The definition of the word
will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Welcome!
Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- How to edit a page 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.
- Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
- Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
- The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
- We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.
Again, welcome! --EncycloPetey 14:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for help with Navajo. Are you interested in this language, and interested to contribute further? It appears that you have good sources for the language. 71.66.97.228 05:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I'm interested in a lot of languages, really, but I'm the epitome of an amateur, and I've only read a couple short pieces on Navajo, that article of Sapir's being one of them. I could add a few more words and etymologies from it, if they're not there already, but I'm not well placed to be a regular contributor for Navajo. 4pq1injbok 05:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, please do. The categories already exist, thanks to the work of a few of us over the past year or so. Interestingly, the dog/horse issue has been discussed in recent days here. 71.66.97.228 05:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Ah, neat.
- A first procedural question. I've just added to adeeʼ the extra senses 'ladle' and 'gourd' that Sapir gives for it. (Is the latter still current, by the way? I see we have ndilkal.) But for these words the whole form adeeʼ is the stem, whereas for 'horn' it's indefinite possessor a- + stem -deeʼ. How are you marking that distinction? 4pq1injbok 16:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have just asked the main contributor and administrator at nv:WP and s/he should provide input shortly. 71.66.97.228 19:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
- In general, I am not interested in contributing at wiktionary, I just occasionally comment on the most blatant errors when they bug me too much (I discuss these issues in more depth with Stephen because he has a better understanding of Navajo).
- Having said that, the issue of ndilkal vs. adeeʼ is easy: ndikal is the plant. The fruit, when dried and used as a spoon or other utensil, is called adeeʼ. So adeeʼ should be in the list for dried and hardened shell of a gourd fruit. That's because spoons were originally made of (deer's) horn, and the word, in the meaning of "spoon" was kept even as spoons were later made of dried ndilkal fruit. Since it is no longer a deer's horn, it becomes independent in that meaning and grammatically loses its inalienable status: bįįh bideeʼ deer's horn, beʼadeeʼ his spoon. The latter could be added as possessed form to point 2 in the list which should also contain "gourd":
2.ladle, dipper, spoon, gourd (possessed form beʼadeeʼ)
- (Fictional pop-quiz for you guys: a group of anthropologists visits Papua New Guinea and meets a head-hunter who proudly presents his favorite head. Say "my head" in Navajo.) Seb az86556 21:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
shitsiiʼ? 71.66.97.228 22:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
- That's the one on your neck. I meant the headhunter who says "this is my head"... Seb az86556 22:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
That is very difficult! I don't think we're going to be able to figure it out. 71.66.97.228 22:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Did you mean ndilkal (not ndikal) for the gourd plant? 71.66.97.228 22:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
- yes, ndilkal, fast typing. Seb az86556 22:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Oh, hey, Navajo party on my talk page. Yeah, I wanted to add that about the horn spoons and the alienability and so on once I'd figured out how to denote the difference. (But probably tomorrow at this rate.)
- As for "my (alienable) head", would it be shiʼatsiiʼ? 4pq1injbok 05:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
I did the best I could with the entry--see how it looks. Looking forward to working on more of them. Regarding the heads, the answer is here--you were very close! 71.66.97.228 05:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
- (Sorry for the couple days away, I've been behind tor.) adeeʼ looks quite good to me now. 4pq1injbok 17:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
WT:ELE#Example sentences says that example sentences shouldn't contain links. {{usex}} used to call on {{delink}} but it caused problems because some code was getting left behind. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Yeah, I noticed the existence
{{usex}} shortly after making that change. I had embarked on fixing it up but you seem to know better what you're doing; have at it. 4pq1injbok (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
On 30 November you modified an anonymous edit at the article former, which ought probably to be completely undone. I can't speak English very well, but "the former" does not seem to be a "noun", but just a pronoun, and the "formers" does not seem to be possible. I wonder if you might check again. Thank you very much.--Jeanambr (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Good catch. Before that IP edit it had been listed as an adjective, I'll put it back that way. 4pq1injbok (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it's common in linguistics. From The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar: "But whereas in a syntactic definition -ed and -en are variants (i.e. allomorphs) of the same (abstract) past participle morpheme, in a phonological definition -ed and -en are different morphemes." Equinox ◑ 16:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Good to know, I'll stick that in. I don't suppose it's worth adding an actual citation? 4pq1injbok (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply