User talk:AdamBMorgan

The translations you added are not in their lemma form (i.e. nominative singular). Russian киммериян, for example, is plural genitive. --Vahagn Petrosyan 19:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I was using wikisource to find translations. It is the same word in different translations of The Odyssey, found through the interlanguage links and double-checked against Google Translate, as that is the main reference work. I've made some changes and I'll try to find a better source of translations. - AdamBMorgan 19:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

When creating an entry, please don't put "new noun" or the like as your edit summary: if you leave the edit-summary box blank, then the software will fill in more information than that. Thanks!​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. This doesn't look much like a prefix to me: a general-purpose thing like pre- or non-. I would suggest that "stfan" is a compound rather than a prefixing. Or are there (m)any common words using this prefix? Equinox ◑ 02:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure but the dictionary Brave New Words describes it as a prefix on page 222 (Google Books link); it has separate entries for "stf" and "stf-". Some other related words in that book are "stfan", "stfandom", "stfdom" and "stfnal". Additionally, one of the quotations has "stfilm", I've seen "stfnist" elsewhere, and I expect there are more. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) It looks to me more like a blend, especially since the genre is very fond of coining by blending (as in scientific fiction > scientifiction), and almost everything starting with stf has a word starting with f as the second part. I agree that stf doesn't look like a prefix, though. For one thing the stf part seems to be of equal importance with what follows, not something tacked on. For another, there's the occasional term like stfdom where the second part is definitely a suffix. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

The first syllable is stressed, so it doesn't rhyme. Equinox ◑ 21:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks. Still new at this. Is Rhymes:English:-æfiə better? It doesn't seem to include the initial sound but neither does mafia or raffia. - AdamBMorgan (talk)

You seem to be getting it wrong about "instances" in Wikisarus. For instance, "mobot" is not an instance of "robot" but rather a hyponym, since "each mobot is a robot". By contrast, Mars is an instance of planet, and we cannot say "Each Mars is a planet", since "each" does not apply to Mars. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, noted. You're wrong about Wikisaurus:sentient and artificial intelligence, however, as one of it's definitions is a sentient machine. It also looks like I just put one list under the holonym heading instead of meronym, so I'll fix that too. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

artificial intelligence does not have a definition along the lines of "sentient machine". The closest one it has is "a computer system or software package which is artificially intelligent". A recognized operational definition of artificial intelligence was given by Alan Turing; by that definition, a thing showing artificial intelligence does not need to be sentient or self-aware. Furthermore, in artificial intelligence we now have in hyponyms this: (quality of a machine): see Wikisaurus:sentient. That is really incorrect, since it is confusing an intelligent thing with the quality of being intelligent. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

The term is used to mean the being as well as all the other definitions. As I was taught it, "strong AI" refers to a self-aware, sentient machine, while "weak AI" refers to a useful computational technique/quality, but it is still valid to refer to both as "artificial intelligence". The "quality of a machine" definition was initially intended in this sense, although it has been amended since the page was created. I have now split it into a separate definition for clarity. (To be honest, as I recall, Turing didn't actually use the phrase "artificial intelligence" but I don't have all of my books available to me at the moment, so I can't check.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

You removed mention of the novel. If the clubhouse was named after the novel, we should still mention the novel, as it's not otherwise clear to a reader where the "Slan" part came from. Equinox ◑ 13:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

 Fixed - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Equinox ◑ 23:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that in the IPA, the stress marker ˈ goes before the stressed syllable, unlike in American phonetic systems. Ultimateria (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Ultimateria If it's something I've done today, I've been trying to copy pronunciations from The English Dialect Dictionary (c. 1900). It's possible the system has changed (and also, I've just noticed I should be using square brackets anyway). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Actually the slashes were correct. Here's an explanation and an example. Ultimateria (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Should be archaic. I'm fixing the existing entries. Equinox ◑ 18:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Let me thank you for your long-term Wikisaurus contribution. It is great to see someone who gets it. Keep it up. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

: Most interesting! I only knew it as Jazz-era slang.--Father Goose (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I suggest moving WS:term of endearment to something like WS:sweetheart.

Words like "sweetheart", "honeypie", "darling" are listed as synonyms of "term of endearment", but they are actually instances of terms of endearment. Compare how WS:game has synonyms, hyponyms, and instances. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree. The listed hypernyms will need rethinking, though. Equinox ◑ 20:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I saw you had created this entry. Just wondering if you had any thoughts on whether the expression derives from the 1974 book or the 1993 sequel (which was published the year before the earliest citation given). --Pi zero (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Pi zero: Hi. My reasoning was that The Mote in God's Eye was the ultimate origin of the phrase because I believed that was its first use (whether that book popularised it or not). However, I can't verify that at the moment. The Gripping Hand definitely uses the phrase, so I have no objection to the etymology listing that book instead, at least until better information is available. (That said, Stack Exchange has a 1986 citation, possibly also by Jerry Pournelle. Unfortunately I don't think there is enough information available to add it to the definition at the moment.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough; thanks. (And next time I reread Mote, I'll know to keep an eye out for the phrase. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the old slang, I find those entries quite interesting. Yiddish is written with Hebrew script; please tell me if you need any help with it. I also wonder whether gelt has ever been used as slang for "money" by non-Jews. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Thanks, I just remembered the Hebrew script and was trying to look up the correct terms when I got this message. FYI, gelt is listed as English thieves' cant for money in a few sources, although some say it's from Yiddish and some from German (also rum-gelt (“new money”) and smear-gelt (“bribe”)). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Remember that "unhappy" can mean lamentable, e.g. "their unhappy fate". It doesn't just mean "sad" in the sense of a person who feels bad. Equinox ◑ 19:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Noted. I'll go back through the links I changed with Wikisaurus:lamentable too. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

This label is deprecated, please don't use it and remove it from entries that do. —Rua (mew) 18:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

That was a masterstroke. Equinox ◑ 00:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I've seen you've added a few of these to this category; thanks for that. A remark, and a question:

• I think it's a mistake to add borrowings from French such as chasse-café to the category. They are verb-noun compounds in French, but I'm not sure it's valid in English as well.
• This document has a few words of that type, apparently all obsolete: quakebreech (“coward”), squeeze-grape (“drunkard”), ticklebrain, etc. Would you be interested in creating them?

In any case, thanks, and keep up the good work! --Per utramque cavernam 12:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Noted and yes, sure. I've started with a few of the alcohol terms. I'll look at the others when I have some spare time. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

You're doing an awesome job. I didn't know there were so many of them! --Per utramque cavernam 19:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'm cheating a little though — there are already a few lists around the internet, which gives me something to start with. That said, some, like split-fig and mix-metal from the PDF you linked, are being a problem because they are too common in non-compound use. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Adam. Some months back, a certain Equinox recommended I come to you if I wanted to help out with the thesaurus. I'm still pretty new to Wiktionary, but I have a lot of experience on the English Wikipedia, and I'm a native English speaker. Is there any way I could help out with the project? TheTechnician27 (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, @TheTechnician27. Sorry, I've been offline with real life for a while. There's lots of the thesaurus still to be built and you're welcome to work on it, whether you want to create new entries or build on the existing ones. There's useful information and guidelines on Wiktionary:Thesaurus. I'm not sure where the best place to start would be. It depends what you would prefer to do.

If you want to try expanding a page, try looking through Category:Thesaurus. Some of them could have more synonyms and many lack antonyms, hyponyms, etc. The latter can also be the start of a new page if there are enough entries.

If you want to try creating a page, there's a standard format for them. I think a basic, neutral and common headword is best (although it can help to pick one that's somewhat unique, to avoid taking a headword that might be better used for another sense and to limit possible confusion for future searchers). More specific terms can be listed as hyponyms. To start with, I find nouns and adjectives are easier, if that helps.

Personally, I've most recently been working through Roget's Thesaurus (the 1911 edition of which is in the public domain) to use it as guideline to make sure there's a broad, basic coverage on Wiktionary. Roget's has a different approach, however, and a single Roget's entry is equivalent to several Wiktionary pages. A lot of the Words Relating to Space don't have pages yet. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply