User talk:Algrif

Hi

Bye Bye -- ALGRIF talk 20:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks Al

Also available on http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/User_talk:Algrif and http://simple.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/User_talk:Algrif

I hope you enjoy your time here. I too was drawn to Wikt from 'pedia and for similar reasons. I see you haven't been officially welcomed yet, so since you are fairly new at 'pedia, I will give you the benefit of both our "normal" welcome and the welcome for established 'pedia people.

One thing which isn't clearly mentioned in the "welcomes" is that, because of the larger (per contributor) number of shorter articles, we rarely use the article Talk pages, except for archiving past discussions. Most of the discussion takes place at WT:BP, WT:TR, WT:GP, WT:ID, WT:RFC, WT:RFV, WT:RFD & WT:RFDO, and (although deprecated for general discussion) on Users' Talk pages.

You will find the answers (or at least hints) to many of the questions you've asked at WT:ELE, WT:CFI and their daughter pages. Thank you for the efforts you have made already to keep to our format. Enjoy. --Enginear 16:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

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!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary!

If you have edited Wikipedia, you probably already know some basics, but Wiktionary does have a few conventions of its own. Please take a moment to learn our basics before jumping in.

First, all articles should be in our standard format, even if they are not yet complete. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with it. You can use one of our pre-defined article templates by typing the name of a non-existent article into the search box and hitting 'Go'. You can link Wikipedia pages, including your user page, using ], {{pedia}}, or {{wikipedia}}.

Notice that article titles are case-sensitive and are not capitalized unless, like proper nouns, they are ordinarily capitalized (Poland or January). Also, take a moment to familiarize yourself with our criteria for inclusion, since Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. Don't go looking for a Village pump – we have a Beer parlour. Note that while Wikipedia likes redirects, Wiktionary deletes most redirects (especially spelling variations), in favor of short entries. Please do not copy entries here from Wikipedia if they are in wikipedia:Category:Copy to Wiktionary; they are moved by bot, and will appear presently in the Transwiki: namespace.

A further major caveat is that a "Citation" on Wiktionary is synonymous with a "Quotation", we use these primary sources to construct dictionary definitions from evidence of the word being used. "References" (aka "Citations" on Wikipedia) are used predominantly for verifying Etymologies and usage notes, not the definitions themselves. This is partly to avoid copyright violation, and partly to ensure that we don't fall into the trap of adding "list words", or words that while often defined are never used in practice.

Note for experienced Wikipedians:

Wiktionary is run in a very different manner from Wikipedia and you will have a better experience if you do not assume the two are similar in culture. Please remember that despite your experience on Wikipedia, that experience may not always be applicable here. While you do not need to be an expert, or anything close to one, to contribute, please be as respectful of local policies and community practices as you can. Be aware that well-meaning Wikipedians have unfortunately found themselves blocked in the past for perceived disruption due to misunderstandings. To prevent a similar outcome, remember the maxim: be bold, but don't be reckless!

Having said that, we welcome Wikipedians, who have useful skills and experience to offer. The following are a couple of the most jarring differences between our projects that Wikipedians may want to learn up front, so things go smoothly for everyone. Changing policy pages on Wiktionary is very strongly discouraged. If you think something needs changing, please discuss it at the beer parlour, after which we may formally vote on the issue. You should also note that Wiktionary has very different user-space policies, we are here to build a dictionary and your user-page exists only to facilitate that. In particular we have voted to explicitly ban all userboxes with the exception of {{Babel}}; please do not create or use them.

We hope you enjoy editing Wiktionary and being a Wiktionarian.

• My stuff

• My sandbox

thiotimoline (uncountable)

1. a chemical substance

   A crate of thiotimoline arrived today.

   • 1948, I. Asimov, The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline, p42

     Observation of the sample of thiotimoline was etc etc

• 2004 November 22, Valerie Elliott, “Two-dog plan to keep law at bay”, in The Times,

  Instead of mounted riders following a pack of hounds, it is envisaged that just two dogs will be used to locate a stag and hold it at bay.

The Guardian

Hi there. See hallebarde and hallebardes for a better way of formatting these entries. SemperBlotto 11:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip. Algrif.

Hi. You have been very helpful in the BP and TR. So I would like to say thankyou. There is one outstanding item I raised and you made an apparently acceptable suggestion. An appendix for make and do collocations. Is an appendix something I can set up, or is it admin priviledge only? Algrif 17:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Anyone can start an Appendix. It's just the same as any other content page, only with fewer existing guidelines for format. --EncycloPetey 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've responded, but be awar that very few regular users patrol entry talk pages. When a serious discussion about senses and meanings is needed, most people post the issue in the Tea Room. That forum is principally for the discussion of etymologies and senses of words. --EncycloPetey 21:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your suggestions. I think you're right, and I've modified the second definition of at a time accordingly. Tell me what you think.

As for "one at a time", you could be right, but I think this might be a special case. I'll mark it for deletion so that it can be discussed more widely. — Paul G 09:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why not move the appendix, preserving all the history?

Much easier.

If you leave it alone for a few moments, I will fix it. Robert Ullmann 18:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if I've done it wrongly. (Newbies!!!!)Algrif 18:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's okay ;-) It is easier if you just use the "move" tab on the article, and let it move the talk page as well, it preserves all the history and leaves the proper redirects. Any user can do it, unless the page is move-protected. Robert Ullmann 18:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Learn something new every day ;-)Algrif 19:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

How about take down? Which isn't described at down/Adverb. We do have the noun takedown. Robert Ullmann 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC) What I mean is, you might want to add this to the "Collocations of ..." page? Robert Ullmann 16:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

When I get a round tuit I will add it as a phrasal verb. But not as a collocation. I think it is important to keep these two ideas separate. If to take down meant to do the activity of downing, then it would fit. Thanks for the suggestion. Keep them coming. (I have a list here of about 50 more to add. Phew!!). Algrif 17:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

He doesn't maintain a separate list that I am aware of, but does add them to the dynamic list at Wiktionary:Requested articles:Spanish, which of course is constantly gaining new red links and having blue ones removed. However, when he adds them, he generally notes tham with "not in RAE". --EncycloPetey 20:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That's the list I wanted, in fact. Algrif 10:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please don't use full inflection for verb phrases. For all multi-word entries, the component terms only are supposed to have inflection. Please take a look at how I split jack it in from jack in. Thanks for your neat contributions! --Connel MacKenzie 17:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. You've cleared up two of my doubts, but raised a new one. 1) Now I know NOT to put the full inflections on phrasal verbs. I'll probably have to back-track and clean up my earlier entries! 2) I wasn't sure what to do with jack it in. Now I know for any future similar items. 3) New doubt.... Why did you remove the category English phrasal verbs? Was it just an oversight, or is there a new policy on this? Algrif 17:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, that removal of mine was purely an error. I probably thought it was redundant with the {{en-verb}} (before removing/changing that.) --Connel MacKenzie 07:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

copying my reply:

Hi. I put this to Ruakh. His reply is below, and he suggested I ask you.

You are good at this sort of question: Is there a special term for those verbs that can be followed directly by another verb in either infinitive or gerund form. E.g. want like afford promise try etc. The reason I ask is that I would like to set up an appendix table showing which are followed by to infinitive and which by -ing, as well as those few that can take both and the three(?) that take the bare infinitive. This kind of stuff is useful for en-L2 users, and wikt is just the ideal place for it. Algrif 11:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The general term is auxiliary verb. There are two contrasting interpretations of how they function. One point of view is that they are secondary to the "main verb", another verb is that they are the primary verb, and what has traditionally been called the "main verb" is part of a compound complement. The term "catenative-auxiliary" is used to describe the latter viewpoint. In other words, "catenative" assumes a particular interpretation of how auxiliary verbs function. Because of this, I would only recommend using the term "catenative" within a page (not in the page name), and only if you mean to interpret auxiliary verbs that way.

I'm not sure that the group of verbs you've listed are considered special by linguists. Yes, all of them can take an infinitive as a complement, but that is because the infinitive in English (and a number of other European languages) may function grammatically as part of a noun phrase. Likewiese the -ing form of a verb can become a gerund, and again it then functions as if it were a noun. So it's the complement of the verb that is doing an act, not the preceding verb. The CGEL doesn't consider any of the verbs you've given above to be auxiliary, per se, though a couple of them are used as examples of modal verbs. I think for what you're trying to do, the term "modal verb" fits best. However, I'd need to know more about your intended list and examples to be certain; "catenative" may be correct. --EncycloPetey 20:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've not looked it over thoroughly yet, but offhand (1) it looks like catenative is the right term, and (2) I recommend moving the page to the name Appendix:English catenative verbs, unless the page is intended to cover this phenomenon in multiple languages. --EncycloPetey 07:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Is it necessary for this usage note to explicitly address the reader? Also, the usage note says that ought without to is not always correct; can you elaborate on this?

Thanks,
—Ruakh_TALK 15:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you think it is better phrased impersonally, fine. I find it mealy-mouthed to say If one is not sure whether to use to or not... But as I say, fine by me if it is policy.

I think the Tea Room discussion shows up the point that ought without to is not always correct. You ought know that :-) -- Algrif 17:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think it's better phrased other than as an instruction; we can present the reader with information, and (s)he can make his/her own judgments about how to speak and write. (Granted, some of this information might take a semi-instructional form, like "Some authorities consider this usage non-standard.<ref>…</ref>, but in no case do I think we ourselves should just come out and explicitly advise people how to speak.)

And I didn't see anything in the tea-room discussion to suggest that the to-less forms are not always correct (unless by "not always correct" is meant "not correct in all dialects", in which case I'm not sure the corresponding claim, "ought to is never wrong", is something we can be sure of).

—Ruakh_TALK 18:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK. Removed. It is a good example of why I wish to produce an appendix about usage of English modal verbs. Perhaps I will save the comment for there. -- Algrif 15:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

See my talk page for a reply to your comment. Thryduulf 22:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi ... I created {{biblical}} and {{biblical character}} as context labels. They both display the label as "Biblical". If you think the label should be just "Bible", just change the label= parameter. Note that in cases like this we usually use the same label for sub-categories, and let the template categorize correctly.

Template {{Bible}} was unfortunately named, it ought to be moved to "Bible books table" or some such (and, as observed previously, needs some serious work because there are different Bibles with differing sets and names and orders of books!). Robert Ullmann 18:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Robert. Thanks. That's what I needed to know. Algrif 09:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Pasted from EP: The informal decision made was to place reflexive forms of verbs under the lemma for the non-reflexive form. So, all the definitions and inflections for taparse should be at tapar, and the reflexive deinition should be marked with {{reflexive}} at the start of the definition line. The entry for taparse should exist, but only as a "form of" page, linking to tapar for the full information. All the information that's been collected and written up would be at Wiktionary:About Spanish, but that doesn't mean there isn't additional information that should be on that page.

Now deleted. --Jeffqyzt 18:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is the deleted contents. . .

WATER FESTIVALS ANY FESTIVALS THAT OCCUR ON OR AROUND WATER TO PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• No problems with the current entry. SemperBlotto 09:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks. -- Algrif 09:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, again. Could you please tell me the correct way to deal with Spanish alternative spellings? I was about to make an entry for estanquidad when I realised that estanqueidad is also valid. Thx in advance. -- Algrif 14:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's the same as for any other alternative spellings situation. You have two choices for basic setup:

1. Set up two parallel entries (ex: alphabetise / alphabetize). We use this option when each spelling is valid and each one is standard for a significant geographic region.
2. Set up one main entry with the other marked as a variant. (ex: aardvark / aard-vark). We use this option when one spelling is standard, and the other is far less common or somewhat unusual.

--EncycloPetey 23:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I came across a link to this site and thought it might interest you. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 06:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

FYI, I'm no longer involved in {{es-verb form of}}, so I don't know when it will be ready; Dmcdevit might know more. (You probably won't need to worry about it, though; once it's ready, his bot will start adding missing forms.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Template talk:delete

Thanks for those -en derived terms you added. A lot of -en derived terms are ergative verbs, so you helped me to add a bunch of them (all except deafen) to the list of ergative verbs. To add a verb to the list of ergative verbs, tag it with Category:English ergative verbs. Keep up the good work... :) Language Lover 14:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

*Spanish: {{t-|es|palabra}} {{f}}

— This unsigned comment was added by Algrif (talk • contribs).

Except that es:palabra does exist, so {{t-}} is inappropriate. In general, you're best off just using {{t|es|foo}}, and letting bots (notably Tbot, run by Robert Ullmann) handle the conversions to {{t-}} or {{t+}} if appropriate. Less work for us humanfolk. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 18:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

If it's good enough for w:Robert Benchley and w:William Carlos Williams, it's good enough to be an alternate spelling, IMHO. There were evidently fashions in how Life of R. was spelled. Early Riley, then, with the publication of a play L. of Reilly, that spelling became popular. The TV show made the Riley spelling popular again. OTOH Life of Riley is the main spelling. I couldn't quite follow Connell's reasoning, but it isn't good to be on his bad side. DCDuring 00:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please don't get scared about my mentioning memes. I really just like evolutionary thinking. I haven't seen much good work coming from people who use the word much. But the evolution of units of language is interesting and always seemed a great application of evolution-styled thinking. Having finally read your user page, I understand where you are comming from about phrasal verbs and idioms. My own inclination is to make sure that we have all the components from which the larger units assembled themselves. It gives the advantage of a little flexibility to make some useful novel constructions from some older building blocks, not that a lack of a Wiktionary entry is likely to prevent that from happening very much.

One thing I am noting is that there seem to be some larger idioms that can be viewed as having been contructed from units in more than one way. I suspect that such multi-path origins may make the result more durable. A simple case, I think, is "to keep out of". Multiple senses of keep, esp. transitive and intransitive. Two levels of object. Keep (1) him out of (2) trouble. Keep out of (2) trouble. Keep (1) him out . Keep out . Keep + out; Keep + out of OR Keep out + of? The inclusion or exclusion of the explicit object of the verb confuses things for the ordinary language user, especially when variants inflections or parallel constructions (like "away" for "out") arise. "Keep him out from under the wheels of the dump truck". Keep him + out from under OR Keep him out + from under OR Keep him out from + under? The Wiki way would make sure that we eventually had all documentable "paths" for building the phrase documented, as I understand it.

Anyway, what do you have for me to read (entry level) about chunks? Also, what authors take the most evolutionary perspective of language at the level of these word and phrase (memetic?) units? DCDuring

Take your time. DCDuring 15:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's easy to accept the premise of "chunking". The question is only whether it leads to economy of thought or to the formulation of good hypotheses. I've just started Pinker's new book. I'll be looking for whether chunking fits into his schemes. The general notion of analyzing units of language (syllables, words, spellings, pronunciations, phrases, clauses, chunks, sentences over time viewing the speaking and writing processes as imperfect replication and selection is a handy framework, but also may turn out not to generate useful hypotheses or any economy of thought. Although I have enjoyed some of Dawkins' early writings, he has become a mere polemicist, IMHO: Linus Pauling without the Nobel. DCDuring 22:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Laboratory equipment is on my list of future projects - but you will have done them all by the time I have finished with common Italian words! I have used all the one's that you have added so far (a long time ago). What about rotary evaporator soon. SemperBlotto 11:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. That's what happens when I have just finished a technical translation. I check a lot of spelling in Wkt, only to discover missing words. These go on a to-do list, which I am now doing. Hope you don't mind! I'll see if I can describe a rotary evaporator in a succinct way. BTW, I was humming and hawing over clamp stand or perhaps ring stand or maybe retort stand. Oe none of the above ;-) what do you think? Algrif 11:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, all of those and more. There is a good list of lab things at SemperBlotto 17:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Phew!!!!! That lot will keep me out of the discussion rooms for a while ;-) Algrif 18:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think folks were a bit nervous about it. I, too, think it merits caution. We just don't know where the author is coming from. Is it simple vandalism? Is it a provocation? If so, from a racist of some stripe, a journalist, some kind of activist? It has to be played by the book and carefully, IMHO.

Verification will be tedious. Many uses of the phrase reminded me of a Wall Street usage, said by clients about investment bankers, "He may be an ass-hole, but he's MY ass-hole." There are a lot of mentions of "my nigger" that are almost exactly in the same spirit: "My nigger can beat your nigger." I wonder whether we should have deleted because it is really SoP. "My" can be used in that affectionate way with many nouns, including ones that have negative meanings: "rascal", "whore", "terror". "ragamuffin", "mutt", "jalopy", though usually with a diminutive or some other word like "old" or "holy". DCDuring 18:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if it seemed like I was jumping on you for your speedy request. I very much appreciate your vigilance. If I made any particular comment that seemed harsh, please let me know so I can avoid future offense. Rod (A. Smith) 20:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Apology accepted, but not actually necessary.
The whole manner in which this was dealt with... (not you, nor any one person in particular) left me feeling persecuted, particularly as the entry was unknown to me and looked like vandalism because 1. the subject matter was delicate, 2. the contrib was (and still is) anon. (something I consider VERY suspicious in a questionable entry) 3.The same contrib showed other questionable entries which had already been speedied. 4. the anon, rather than following correct procedure, simple removed the tag and attacked me in my personal page (garbage which I have since deleted). 5. another known contrib immediately speedied it again, demonstrating that I was not the only one to think this item more than simply questionable. Algrif 10:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I came back online just now only to find I was a bit too late... Setting that vandalism aside, I just wanted to say thank you for those appendices you've been working on. As an ESL learner I really appreciate them! ―Tohru 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that. I, and many others, feel WikT is much more than just a dictionary, but is not a grammar book. Grammar comes after normal usage, not before. Putting grammar before is an error that is fortified by the emphasis placed on exam English grammar. The appendices etc are an attempt to fill this hole by providing real examples of how the language is put together in real life, while trying not offend the many supporters of grammar rules OK. Algrif 10:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is English your native language? (You don't indicate your language proficiency on your userpage.) --Connel MacKenzie 00:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes.Done. - Algrif 21:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

By the way. Would you like to be an admin? You seem more than capable. Widsith 10:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow! Unexpected to say the least. Thanks. I don't have a lot of time and cannot guarantee time commitments, but if this would help me to be of more use to the team, then I would certainly be interested. I will watch this space. Algrif 16:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done. You just need to go to WT:VOTE and accept. Widsith 18:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you please elaborate on your chunks theory? I may have misunderstood it because English is not my native language. Does it also include the fact that people can read words even though most of the letters are not in the right order? Mallerd 14:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not my chunks theory, although neither is it widely accepted as a language theory. Chunk theory is about pattern recognition. The theory is often applied to computer programming. However, this is because it is an offshoot of studying how the brain works so quickly. So, to come full circle, it is reasonable to think that the brain recognises and uses language so rapidly because it is working on patterns, or chunks of meaning, more than on the level of individual words and grammar. It is why we use so many multi-word expressions; why there are so many idiomatic forms, but it also explains why there are grammar rules (that aren't really rules at all, merely expressions of general patterns which have many exceptions to the rule). It also helps to explain how a child in a bi-lingual family manages to recognise and separate the two (or more!) languages being used.
So, to answer your exact question, it does include an explanation for why there are so many common mis-spellings, and why we can understand a text even though it may well include a number of spelling errors and words we have never even seen before. You might find some more information from experts in the field. These are mostly people who are developing Task Based Learning (TBL) techniques in universities. Not much available at the moment I'm afraid. - Algrif 14:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

We were thinking of an issue concerning the use of language to express the things you mean. Perhaps you find it interesting, it seemed to us that language itself is not an entirely reliabely medium to express yourself in the sense that a person the speaker is talking to never can know for sure that when you say tree you mean a wooden object with bark, often with leaves and birds on their branches etc. Perhaps the speaker means only the bark on the tree, but the listener assumes it is about the accumulation of all those things you see on a tree.

There are many misconceptions on language I think, these 2 theories being a few of them. Mallerd 17:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. The definition of penultimate looks like that of a noun to me, and that of penultimately looks like that of an adjective. SemperBlotto 18:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't write the defn. of penultimate. I think it just needs to be tweaked. It currently reads ...the penultimate event... which is an adjectival use, isn't it?
But I think penultimately is fine as an adverb. It is being used in the quote the same as ultimately; as an adverb. - Algrif 18:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to sysophood (and Merry Christmas). SemperBlotto 16:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Muchas thankyous. I'll try to use them with care. - Algrif 18:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Now that you've got it, could you please use "rollback" instead of "undo" when clearing vandalism. It undoes multiple edits at once, and also marks everything as patrolled. Ta. SemperBlotto 15:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK. I wasn't too clear about the difference and preference of these two options, I tended to use rollback when there were multiple entries. -- Algrif 15:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a copy of the RAE Diccionario de la Lengua Española? It includes all the etymologies, and is one of the first places I go when verifying etymologies, though sometimes I do have to do additional research in Latin dictionaries. --EncycloPetey 17:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just use the online version, which is a bit short on this type of info. Which is why I came to you with the reo question. I need to get myself better organised I guess. - Algrif 17:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

FYI, I bought the RAE for about $50 from Barnes & Noble. --EncycloPetey 17:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

It will be a long and thankless task, trying to delete WF stuff. Many users have attempted it in the past, but there's too much for a single user to trawl through (bear in mind that there's about 200 (and rising) accounts (s)he's been using, a few administrators who are Wonderfool and a complex system of trust behind the enigma). Looking at the stats, if all of Wonderfool's edits over all her/his accounts were added together, (s)he would be about the 5th or 6th most prolific user. However, you might learn something by trawling the edits. --I need more ketchup in these pyjamas 18:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

In addition to the excessive use of uncountability, the lack of clarity of plurale and singulare tantum, probably erroneous plural formation by the template, there are some constructive things to do with "pairs of" type words. I'd love to develop a proposal for squaring English plurals away. Let me know your thoughts. DCDuring 19:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

How do you propose to identify and mark the entries that need their "uncountability" claims reviewed? There is a category for adjectives that have claims of non-comparability. There is a page that lists all uncategorized pages. Either approach (custom page listing or category listing) would be fine with me. I assume that there will be manual review required. If you intend to do all of this by yourself, please let me know. DCDuring 23:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. If anyone thinks I left off in the middle of an interesting discussion anywhere, my apologies and please direct my attention to the spot. I'm afraid the hospital had the pleasure of my unexpected visit. I got off early with a remission and a reprimand. But I'm confined to house (ar)rest for a couple of weeks. - Algrif 20:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't mind your changes to the definition, but the use of the crappy {{infl}} template has thrown away the various forms of the verb. SemperBlotto 16:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Roll it back. if you don't like it. (I hit an edit conflict with you btw.) But what exactly IS the policy here. Some tell me NOT to use the inflected forms in the header for phrasal verbs, as the base forms are already in the verb link. (Is it really that crappy?) -- Algrif 16:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I took another look at the phrasal verb category preamble and noted that you added adverbs to prepositions in an important bit of the wording. It thought that, though not all verb-preposition collocations were phrasal verbs, all phrasal verbs were verb-preposition collocations. I was having plenty of trouble with distinguishing those v-prep collocations that were deemed phrasal from those that were not. Please help me understand how I could distinguish between a verb-abverb collocation that was a phrasal verb and one that was not. DCDuring TALK 02:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Generally, the word(s) following the verb are called particles because it is almost impossible to say whether they are prepositions or adverbs. Most of the really idiomatic phrasala are taking adverbs rather than preps, but that is a generalisation. Example; look after has almost zilch to do with look. The word after in this phrasal is generally considered to be an adverb, nevertheless, it is called a "particle" to remove ambiguity from any discussion.
Being an inclusionist, I try not to throw any possible phrasal verb out. Let's see why. Take fill up. There is almost no difference between it and fill. Could you fill (up)) the tank, please? So why is it much more common to hear the phrasal form used? Because it is often clearer. One of the important points about a phrasal verb is it's accuracy. Why do we say write down in preference to write? Write it down, please or Write it, please The first implies on a piece of paper that you are not going to lose, whereas the second more or less requires that clause to be added, to be clear. Back to fill up. Fill her up or Fill her. Which is more accurate?
The particles add a lot of meaning. Look at cut up. Cut the paper or cut up the paper? Depends if you want to make a single incision or if you want lots of small pieces.
It also helps to think of what is the meaning encased in the particle. Up for instance often means completely, but it has many other meanings, too. Away carries the idea of separation, and elimination in most examples, eg. run away, throw away, etc.
If you concentrate on the subtle differences, what does this verb mean without the particle, what does the particle add to the sense, etc. you can determine more or less if it is a real phrasal verb, although there will often be differences of opinion.
I hope this helps a bit. -- Algrif 13:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the fairly clear explanation. So what kind of verb-particle collocation would an inclusionist exclude from the category of phrasal verbs? Any examples? DCDuring TALK 13:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

If it's a collocation then it is almost certain to be a phrasal verb as well. The problem is not the collocation itself, but the context. Consider go out. I'm going out tonight is phrasal verb. I'm going out that door and I'm never coming back. is literal. If you say them out loud, you will hear yourself link the "going" to the "out" making it sound like one word in the first example, but not the second. It's a subjective test that usually works well for native speakers. Choose your examples carefully for the entries. -- Algrif 17:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps some or all of this or an hereof could go in the talk page for the category? DCDuring TALK 18:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Copy-paste it if you like, if you think it is clear enough. -- Algrif 18:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You say, "If it's a collocation then it is almost certain to be a phrasal verb as well." There is a grammatical difference. Given a particle and a pronoun, the pronoun needs to go first. With a preposition, it has to go after (baring a few oddities like notwithstanding). Consider: "I listened to it all day" vs. "*I picked up it."--Brett 15:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Thanks for the quick action. The POV question was why I didn't just delete it as you have done, although I was sorely tempted. I just wanted to clear up that there could be a case for the category, if there were enough entries (which there aren't) such as the Holy Grail. This is NOT Biblical and is pure mythology. But the rest are entries which anyone might come across in a copy of the Bible, and so are NOT myths, unless one is pushing POV. Cheers -- Algrif 22:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, I guess my point about POV was that we do have a Category:Greek mythology and Category:Norse mythology. By putting items from one worldview in a mythology section and one in a religion section, we are participating in a POV which implies that the former are obviously untrue stories, while the others are sacred. However, it's a fact that there are many people who regard Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. as sacred, and the majority of people consider Greek mythology to be patently fictitious. Being an atheist myself, it's ultimately all the same to me (simply modern vs ancient folklore). However, I think that Wiktionary would be wise to recognize the importance of religion to many, many people and show the appropriate sensitivity. And making the distinction you speak of (biblical vs mythical, i.e. Jesus vs Holy Grail) is absolutely untenable, and I would plead with you not to pursue it. Most Protestants would consider the entire Catholic hagiology to be mythology (speaking as one who was raised Protestant). Catholics just might disagree on that. Atelaes 22:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are a couple subtle differences between (undo) and (rollback). Rollback will mark the edits as "patrolled" so that others patrolling Special:Recentchanges don't see it (as it has already been taken care of.) Also, it rolls back all revisions from that user, not just the last revision...as a series of minor "JOSH IS GAY" edits tend to come in flurries. --Connel MacKenzie 18:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the rfc bin for non-standard-headers I found about 7-8 entries beginning with "get". I did a little cleanup for some of them and labelled them as phrasal verbs, but really just for your review. I would have to really wade into phrasals to do something with these. I may get to them once I've worked the English transitive/intransitive verb headers down to nothing. DCDuring TALK 22:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The 7 entries are get away, get after, get around, get around to, get out, get out of, get rid of. The had used non-standard headings, like "Verb with preposition". You may want to revert my modest clean-up efforts to see what the earlier contributors had in mind. Some may turn into multiple entries. And not all of them are necessarily phrasal verbs. I'd be interested in learning which of them you determine are not phrasal verbs, when you get around to working on them. Enjoy. DCDuring TALK 00:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yep, those all are ways in which the word is actually used, and they are quite adequately labeled as "vulgar". You wouldn't use them, if your mother is around! Hekaheka 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK thanks. Just thought it was worth checking, as it was an IP contrib. -- Algrif 19:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Per your comment, "as much sinning as sinned against", I'm not sure I understand you. Do you mean to say, at least metaphorically, that User:Kitty53 sinned? DAVilla 20:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that there is a case here to say one side is good and the other is bad. Mistakes and misunderstandings and egoism on all sides caused the situation to escalate out of hand. So what's to do? Select one of the combatants and punish him? Connel can be supremely tactless and egoistic, as he admits himself. But I would say, from what I can see (which I'm certain is far from the complete picture BTW) that the same charges could well be levied at Kitty53 (who is not as green as (s)he makes out) and Anetode (what is he doing sticking his oar in?) As for a reprimand. Connel; consider yourself reprimanded. Try not to do it again. -- Algrif 12:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Having looked into this extensively: Kitty53 is not green on Wikipedia, but has only done a few things here. Most did need correcting, but no-one ever took the time to add {pediawelcome} or ever point out that things are different here. People from the pedia automatically assume—without even realizing that it is an assumption—that the rules are identical to the pedia. Having been blocked out of nowhere (which never happens on the pedia) without a word of explanation was very upsetting; she asked an admin there to investigate. What he found—again assuming the rules must be identical to the pedia—was an entirely out-of-process block. Connel then snapped, instead of explaining to Kitty53 what the problem was, and to both that the way the pedia does something does not necessarily apply here. Robert Ullmann 13:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's where the problem starts. The tinder; "no-one ever took the time to add {pediawelcome} or ever point out that things are different here." This is the problem that needs to be addressed, rather than whether to chastise Connel or not. Along with some serious control of IPs.
I have patrolled when I can, and sometimes it can be a difficult task, as I'm sure you are aware. Just look at what happened when I blocked and deleted "my nigger". Attacks can come from inside as well as out. And as a result of being more careful because of the "my nigger" case, I have put several dubious entries into RFV and RFD, only to be told rather abruptly that I shouldn't waste peoples time and should shoot on sight. This is something I also see happening to Connel BTW. Patrollers need some guidelines, sure. But I'm afraid that many entries will never fit into WT "caselaw". Mistakes will continue to happen. Meanwhile, I like the initiative to provide help guidelines to new users. It was something I could have done with when I started here. -- Algrif 14:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

In adding "Get out!" to get out I noted that you have an "alternate forms" heading instead of an inflection template and line. Isn't that a non-standard heading in English? I've been using the infl template, but would go for en-verb if we wanted to show them. Do you think that the placement of probable redlinks is less distracting farther down the page? Is searchability your concern? Phrasals do have their own display and search considerations. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Basing the format on Connel's statement "While I acknowledge that most phase and idiom entries fall short, there is a way to do this correctly, now. Using "===Alternative forms===" in WT:BP#Phrasal_verbs_template -- Algrif 18:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

See tea room discussion, please, in your copious free time. DCDuring TALK 22:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I don't seem to be able to make this entry correctly. When you get a chance, could you tidy it up please? Thx -- Algrif 16:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that the {{es-adj}} template can't handle plurale tantum situations. I've substituted the {{infl}} template. --EncycloPetey 17:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Muchas thankyous. I was also not entirely sure that it was an adj in the first place !! :-/ -- Algrif 17:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

My pleasure :)

For future reference it is ] - DaveRoss 17:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Was there a reason that you created a redirect for this case, I have replaced it with the {{mispelling of}} template for now. Conrad.Irwin 14:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC) I hesitated on the choice of redirect or alternative spelling. But mispelling? If you think so. Let's have a quick look at bgc hits, or something. -- Algrif 14:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

misfire 1193 raw hits. And miss-fire / miss fire 791 raw hits. How about alternative spelling as the correct solution? -- Algrif 14:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think alternative spelling sounds best, I am curious as to why you would use a redirect - Wiktionary policy is strongly against them for alternative spellings. Conrad.Irwin 14:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I should have checked. Relied on my personal (imperfect) brain storehouse. I thought it was always one word. :-/ -- Algrif 14:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Adverb? Looks like a verb to me. SemperBlotto 16:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

You could be right. I have trouble with some of these phrases, and other dictionaries quickly sidestep the issue by not saying. I was hit for six Hmmmm Passive form of ? Or perhaps, always with to be, it's an adjective?. But it answers a typical adverbial question. The second meaning is probably a verb, yes. I hit him for six. I'll change that one, but I still question the first idiomatic entry. I'll put it up for TR review. -- Algrif 17:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not thinking clearly today, am I. :-P You are, as usual, absolutely right. -- Algrif 17:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

For us who know nothing of cricket, it wouldn't hurt to actually include the cricket sense. I wish I could do it without embarassing myself. I can't even find a clear statement on the Web. DCDuring TALK 17:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Problem is that that is not correct in a headword phrase that includes the word someone. If I enter hit a six it will probably be SOP'ed out of existence in about 3 minutes. For that reason, I put a brief explanation in the etymology. What the heck? I'll put it in and see what happens. -- Algrif 17:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well....yeah. I don't think it does either. It comes from the personal name Martín (as in St Martin, I think), so maybe we should link it up as sg=] ]. Widsith 14:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well I think it gives that impression anyway, that's just a bit unfortunate. But if you would rather it all went in an Etymology section that's fine by me. Widsith 14:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am hesitant to tackle this without a consult. I 'can't help but ask' you whether the (slightly dated?) construction I just used is not excluded from can't help, which only refers to the 'can't help asking' construction. Should that be a derived phrase from can't help with its own entry or just one or more usage examples within "can't help"? DCDuring TALK 23:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I was about to make some sort of entry for this (as we havent got one yet) But I am now confused as to the best way, having just read in vacuum usage notes: in the sense of in a vacuum; in free space the Latin in vacuo is used. So I thought it might be a good idea to consult with your good self first. Also, having looked at the mess in in vitro hoping for some enlightenment, I feel even more at a loss. Thx in advance. Algrif 09:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think I would call in vacuo a "Latin" entry, because I doubt it's ever been a set phrase in Latin. If it deserves an entry, then it should be either English or Translingual. You might ask in the Beer Parlour whether our non-English editors have come across the phrase in texts for other languages to make that call. --EncycloPetey 13:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. While checking potter about I came across the following:- potter to move with little energy or direction. I saw him pottering off to see to his canaries Is this correct? If so, we could expand the entry at potter. -- Algrif 16:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes and no. There is an OE verb potian menaing "thrust", but its descendant in modE is the verb pote (now only used in dialects). Potter is a later development of pote – an extension with reduplicative effect, so that the original meaning (in the 17th-18th century) was "poke repeatedly". Widsith 16:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi There Please note that characters etc from a TV show are NOT dictionary material, except in a very few exceptional cases. Please see WT:CFI -- Algrif 12:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, is that so? I'm really sorry. I edited that because I like HTF a lot. Still, the edit I made on the HTF article is right, isn't it? By the way, I'm still 12 years old ;-D.--124.104.47.5 12:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Too bad...--124.104.47.5 12:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I can't imagine any other than the simple plural achieving significant usage, given the high profile of Americans in "chaos theory". The French wasted their efforts on the names "Catastrophe theory" and "fractal geometry" (though Mandelbrot worked at IBM). I'm not sure whether the Greeks ever used chaos in the plural, though it could refer to a chasm. That plural might have been "chaotes". "Chaotes" would be a bad choice because it is used to refer to "w:Chaos magicians". bgc doesn't report any usage of "controlled chaoses", though nearly 700 hits for "chaoses", mostly technical. I don't like to prejudice the case against plural by saying it is uncountable, so I'll use {{infl}}. Feel free to revert or edit as you please. DCDuring TALK 15:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Indeed you are right and I've changed the link - Wikipedia has a different system for naming animals (always capitals there, not so much here). I've fized the link. --Jackofclubs 15:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I thought it was topspin. SemperBlotto 11:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC) It is. I'm redirecting it now -- ALGRIF talk 11:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I like the work you've done with the es-verb template. Well done!. I'm having trouble getting the conjugation table to work properly for the above entry. Why doesn't it show correctly as the reflexive form? What am I doing wrong? Thanks in advance for your advice. -- ALGRIF talk 13:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

You needed to include the parameter "ref_stem=arrodill". I've added this. --EncycloPetey 15:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Muchas thankyous. Algrif

en-verb creates links, creating an entry for each inflected form turns them blue. Also, it helps people (mainly ones who are not native english speakers) search for a word when they read the inflected form somewhere and don't realize to convert to the lemma form (e.g. see fained and look up fained rather than fain). Finally, I'm working through a list of words that includes inflected forms and this marks off the inflection. I'm sometimes a little unsure about adding inflected forms for words like fain that are obsolete but in this case I went ahead and expanded it. RJFJR 15:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I didn't mean to be rude in my edit summary (sorry if that's what it sounded like), the deal is just that our definitions are really written in informal writing (so you would not say "you". but rather "one"). It is also often discouraged to use multiple sentences in one definition. I suppose if reworded your part could be added, I was just trying to patrol quickly. Teh Rote 00:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

• np. I was working too quickly myself. Thanks for the reply. Cheers. -- ALGRIF talk 10:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your Game 3 entry of "chiacchiererebbe (B-bender) endereza" violates the rules, since the thisrt "e" in B-bender is used in both the preceding and following word. This can be fixed by choosing a different following word with no overlap of the preceding word. --EncycloPetey 16:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't need two language sections, and I'm pretty sure it's a misspelling of the "s" version rather than of the "z" version. SemperBlotto 12:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. I come to tap your seemingly bottomless well of linguistic knowledge. Reading a bit of Mallory, I came across this. Sir Launcelot put his shield afore him, and put the stroke away of the one giant, and with his sword he clave his head asunder. Is this yet another past form of cleave do you think?. -- ALGRIF talk 13:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Yes that pops up in the KJV as well I think. It's weird, because in OE (see cleofian...oh you can't) the preterite form was cleaf which gave regular ME clef. But apparently what seems to have happened is that the past form became assimilated to the past participle (cloven), making a new form clove. I don't really udnerstand where clave itself came from. The OED says this: "A pa. tense clave occurs in northern writers in 14th c., passed into general use, and was very common down to c 1600; it survives as a Bible archaism." Although Malory was from Warwickshire, so he wasn't really that Northern... Ƿidsiþ 17:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh hell, did I really phrase it so poorly that it looked like I advocated deletion? I meant to say don't give a particular definition at sail but do keep by sail as a separate entry (with a link from sail of course)... --Duncan 17:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

• It was a bit ambiguous. I had to read it twice before deciding that you were voting delete. Never mind. I've made worse errors myself ;-) -- ALGRIF talk 17:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your opinion at Wiktionary:Tea room#drift_off would be valued.—msh210℠ 18:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

This edit did a lot more than just remove the rft. If you're removing senses from an entry, please say so in your edit summary. -- WikiPedant 18:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. Thought I had done. But I only mentioned it in the discussion page (which is where all the removed content is, BTW) -- ALGRIF talk 19:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, no problem. :) In that case, the sense "to disapprove of" must be mentioned only on frown on, not on both entries. -- Frous 12:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

• OK Done. Cheers.

Al, I don't care if the definition of T, as in "to a t," is listed as a derived term. Merriam-Webster lists T in this context as an abbreviated form of "tittle." I just want to make sure it is included as one of the definitions of T so that others who search for confirmation of how this phase is spelled can find it. Rrenner 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

There have been entries on my favourite star, Proxima Centauri and Alpha Centauri for some time. how is Beta Centauri different? Proxima Centauri 16:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Progress on Simple English Wikt is quite slow at the moment, and I was wondering if you and a few other thoughtful editors here would consider visiting for a few weeks. I know there's tons of stuff to do here, but it would be nice to have some interesting company at home for a spell.--Brett 01:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Are you using the new beta version? If so the "delete" option is in the drop down list to the right of "view history" at the top. Jonathan Webley 14:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Ahh! Yes. Silly me! Thanks. Al.Reply

Just a note. For personal attack pages and promotional material, you should always (well, I think so) clear the automatic summary, otherwise the material is visible in the recent changes. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I flagged it rare because the generic term is barely (or not?) attestable per CFI. There are plenty of uses referring to a specific trademarked system ("IES Cyberlocker", I think), but few generic ones. Equinox ◑ 13:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Have you checked the newspapers recently? There's plenty of current usage with the stated meaning, particularly in the plural form. -- ALGRIF talk 09:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why not cite them? Equinox ◑ 13:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you please comment at WT:TR#make with your opinion on whether make into is a phrasal verb? (Discussion at the now-bottom of that section concerns that question.) Thanks so much.​—msh210℠ 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you.​—msh210℠ 17:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I'm not sure how to work with sin agua. It means waterless or without water, which makes it an adjective, but I am not sure about the different forms of the word. Help would be appreciated. Thanks, Razorflame 13:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Hi. I'm not sure it merits an entry, to be honest. It is the same as putting "sin aire", "sin dinero", etc. "sin" + noun with no specific merit. Even recent my entry sin demora could be called into question, but I think it is borderline acceptable. However, I would not include without delay. I think that as a translation of waterless it could be entered and left as a red link. But árido should be sufficient. -- Algrif
  • Ok, thanks for the help and the information :). Cheers, Razorflame 16:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

SIL just retired the language code for "Caló" . They split it into "Erromintxela" ("Basque Romany") and made a new "Caló" identifier. Would you be able to update your edits involving Caló (chungo) to one of these new identifiers (probably )? Thanks. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 22:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Algrif,

A question about birds. I see that you added at least one species name and have done so in lower case. Wikipedia uses upper case for species, like Common Loon, Crested Flycatcher etc. and that is also what I see in the various bird guides that I own. (Yes I bird). So at nl.wikt -where I work most- I had entered translations in upper case, but we have a bit of a debate about that now because here at wikt they are all in lower. Some of those were entered by Vildricianus who is a Dutch speaker like me and so I wonder about the status of that. Has there been any discussion about that? Jcwf 03:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Yes, there has been some discussion. Bird names should be in lower case. They are not proper nouns. I know that most birding books etc like to use upper case, but this is not correct for a dictionary. A blackbird, or robin does not normally use upper case, so why should crested tit, or crested flycatcher? On the other hand, there are certain birds, such as the Bewick's swan which need a capital letter for the proper name. Wikipedia uses upper case for everything, and so it is not a reliable guide. -- ALGRIF talk 12:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Audubon differentiates between referring to a bird type in general like heron or gull and the actual species name like Common Loon of Crested Flycatcher. One reason for this is that not everything that looks like a black rail is actually a Black Rail. This usage has been adopted in government publications, e.g. in Alaska and in Massachusetts for the Common Loon (and that is all I googled for). Jcwf 17:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

The issue is not specific to birds; you may be interested in the current discussion re puli/Puli, where consensus seems to be that we include both spellings. That's also what I recall as having been agreed upon in the past.​—msh210℠ 18:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why capitalise a word that is not a proper noun? No. This is not correct. -- ALGRIF talk 10:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

You could make the same argument about French of English. Those are "proper nouns" because they identify a group of beings uniquely. In this case human beings, but why should that only hold for human beings? Jcwf 16:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you want to change the rules, (although they are simply guidelines in fact) please go to the new discussion at BP Capitals for pets -- Algrif

Hi. Isn't this simply SoP "total" + "false friend" ? -- ALGRIF talk 18:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

For me it's idiomatic like false friend, the French WP has a great article about it. I consider that it's not a SoP also because anyone can understand "total false friend" by the "false friend of the total", or "false friend totally exact in their meanings" (which is called transparent words), etc. JackPotte 19:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am having trouble distinguishing phrasal verb senses from other senses for this collocation. The "met with opposition" ("encountered opposition") sense seems clear cut. The others do not, though they appear in Spears (McGraw-Hill). I find insufficient help at w:Phrasal verb and w:Appendix:English phrasal verbs and no help at CGEL. DCDuring TALK 12:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have replied on my talkpage regarding the earliest attestations of Iehoua, Iehouah, Jehovah, Jahweh, Yahweh etc.

As for the use in 20th century bibles, I suggest we collect information at Talk:Yahweh. --Dbachmann 12:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

You nominated this for WOTD. It's a great choice IMO except that its etymology is unclear. (What language is endeveren? Does our word come from that or from Middle English endevour? Can you clean it up, by any chance?​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not my strong point, I'm afraid. (I teach EFL, which is why I can recognise many good WOTD candidates) Perhaps Widsith could help out? Thanks for the interest. -- ALGRIF talk 12:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

That word is actually the accusative form of Kinija. --Lo Ximiendo 12:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Perhaps you could re-enter correctly formatted please? -- ALGRIF talk 12:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see you added etymological information to this entry. But I'm still confused so I've started a discussion on it. Your contribution would be most welcome. — User:Smjg (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

You probably mean the (deprecated template usage) East End - which is quite near the middle of modern London. Cheers. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm. Not sure. There are pearly guilds in many London boroughs, including Finchley (!!) I think East End would be too limiting. -- ALGRIF talk 15:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This is a message to inform you that the options in this vote were modified after you cast your vote, and your vote is not currently valid. Please revote, and note that you may vote in support or opposition of either (or both) favicons. Your input is welcome in my honest attempts to have this vote best convey the community's wishes and, of course, to avoid allegations of holding a fraudulent vote. Thanks —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am still trying hard to battle with phrasal verbs, perhaps a little better armed than before, especially with humility. I have been reading up on aspect and have reread some of the pertinent CGEL. I have been wondering at the profusion of ESL books that specialize in phrasal verbs.

Which brings me to this entry. For the life of me I do not see idiomaticity (in the sense relevant for inclusion. Admittedly get is a relatively lightweight verb, but it is not completely devoid of meaning. All of the usage examples look like sentences that only have the definitions assigned if there are contexts that have defined some elided object. Can you help me see the idiomaticity of these? DCDuring TALK 16:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I would baulk at the "enter a place" senses as being rather obvious and probably SoP. However, The Conservative candidate for Finchley West got in without any trouble. is clearly idiomatic meaning to be elected. (As so often, "get" involves a passive sense here, as well). We could maybe add some missing definitions, too. "To arrive" -- The plane got in late. And maybe something about "fitting things into a tight place" as in "I could hardly get a word in" or "I'm very busy on Tuesday, but I might get you in". The entry certainly needs work, but it is also certainly valid headword imho. -- ALGRIF talk 17:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

  I have no trouble with "arrive" as not SoP. I have trouble with the election sense. The purely locative ones seem purely SoP. They omit objects of prepositional in that would be understood anaphorically or otherwise from context. The ability to insert measure modifiers seems somewhat promising to me as a way of objectively distinguishing (arguably) SoP locative senses. By that test, many uses of the "fit in" sense seem SoP: "I managed to get it another two inches in."

  When I contrast our entry with MWOnline's, it looks to me that the existence of our entry, chock full of SoP and nearly SoP definitions, has prevented us from having the numerous senses that a relatively exclusionist dictionary like MW has. DCDuring TALK 17:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary is a great resource for some purposes, while lacking in many areas. I am sorry to see you go, as, from what I have seen, you are an editor who helps make Wiktionary better. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

-- ]] : -- ALGRIF talk

to

-- ]] : -- ALGRIF talk

—Anomalocaris (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Algrif,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email [email protected].

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. Not interested. (See my user page for reasons why I don't really care much about this community any more.) But thanks anyway for the courtesy. -- ALGRIF talk 12:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Alan. I'm absolutely not a role model on this site, but I think if people like you leave or keep participation at a minimum, how will there ever be enough of us who think similarly? I know it's easier for the folks who enjoy deleting and taking away to recruit into their way of thinking. It's always easier to destroy than to create. From what I've seen it's damn near impossible for those of us who want to see lots of multiword entries to contribute in the way we'd like to. I too think that more chunks, common collocations, and phrases need to be here. Very few here agree. They can hide behind the CFI to justify their position. Is there anything that can be done? Or is this "Tower of Babel" doomed to collapse? — Dentonius 10:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Dentonius. Thank you for your vote of confidence. I was once really motivated by this project. I think there were only about one million entries when I started. As you rightly say, my interest has mainly been in chunks, phrasal verbs, idioms and such like. I am very pleased to have established the category Phrasal Verbs and - with a huge amount of thanks to SemperBlotto - categorised them by particle. It was a fight at first, but successful now with over 3,000 entries (even though some of them are not phrasal verbs, but I have lost interest in cleaning that house now!). I also enjoyed setting up Appendices about tag questions, irregular verbs, catenative verbs, and some other grammatical and lexical structures that interest me. As my entries increased, I had more and more time-wasting discussions over points of order. Some were valid, but not many, imho! I grew weary. My motivation has waned. I come here now and then to check my appendices have not been mauled in my absence. Also to fill a few red links, as well as new words on some specific topic that catches my fancy. (Currently the vocabulary of knots. Bit by bit.) There are sooo many words and phrases that could be added, but there are sooo many contributors who just spend their time destroying rather than building. I make the "mistake" of glancing through the forums and getting involved in some daft argument or other. -- Anyway. It is always good to make a new acquaintance. I see you were born in Jamaica. Did you leave by your own choice? or was it a family move? A fascinating country that I would like to visit someday. However, at my age and situation this is unlikely now. My loss. Take care in the Tower. Don't let anyone grind you down. -- ALGRIF talk 21:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you, Al (and SemperBlotto), for the foundation you laid. I appreciate the history as well. In time, I suppose I'll learn more. Keeping upbeat is hard, I admit. But this project has so much to offer. It's given me a chance to document my dialect/language/creole somewhere that matters. I left Jamaica by choice but I miss it every day. My wife's from Europe (living in Germany). I was in Jamaica. We had to make a choice about where to raise our child. We settled on Germany. Don't hesitate to give me advice. I'm always open to ideas. All the best ;-) — Dentonius 21:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Alan. Just checking up on you. How have you been? — Dentonius 10:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I recently paid $200 to get a (female) attorney to replace executor with executrix and make other corresponding gender changes in my will. It has a fustiness to it. DCDuring (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi DCD. Hope you are well. -- It only seems fusty if the fake woke / anti-woke culture war is sucking you in slowly like quicksand, -- as it seems to be doing to about 95% of the population right now. (Playing into the hands of politicos with a bribe donations agenda to protect, more often than not.). Otherwise it is simply making sure that a legal document is stating it's purpose as clearly as possible, which is what a legal doc is supposed to do. Right? Any other perspective is just fluff. -- ALGRIF talk 05:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

As I live in New York, were I to live another 20 years or more, I can imagine some people being frightened by the term executrix and my estate being compelled to rewrite the will using executor (and eliminating use of she and her) and to pay for some kind of certification that the rewritten will was otherwise the same.

As Bob Dylan reminded us decades ago, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. DCDuring (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

The times are always a-changin', aren't they?! ALGRIF talk 22:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have removed your admin rights due to our policy on admin inactivity, as you have not used any admin tools in the past five years. This removal is without prejudice and you can request your admin rights to be restored at any time. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply