Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word
User talk:Dan Pelleg. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
User talk:Dan Pelleg, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
User talk:Dan Pelleg in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
User talk:Dan Pelleg you have here. The definition of the word
User talk:Dan Pelleg will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
User talk:Dan Pelleg, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
—RuakhTALK 19:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
P.S. By the way, we put pronunciation information in a separate pronunciation section, as explained at ] and ]. —RuakhTALK 19:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
With alt=.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
- ok, and how can the form without nikud be seen? Dan Pelleg 20:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
- It can't then. (The link is to it, though.) Why would it need to be?—msh210℠ (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Without nikud is the form almost always used. The complete nikud of a word is used for poetry and some other contexts, the particular nikud sign representing any vowel is mostly a matter of standard language (e.g. הַאֲלָהָה is correct whereas הָאָלָהָה or any other nikud denoting /haʔalaˈha/ is wrong) and sometimes even disambiguating, e.g. חָלָב = "milk" (noun) – חָלַב = "he milked". So both are relevant. Dan Pelleg 22:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
- But the form without nikud is easily discernable from the vowelized form at a glance. There's really no reason to display it. (The exception is a word like (deprecated template usage) Lua error in Module:links/templates at line 56: Parameter 4 is not used by this template., which spelling only exists unvowelized: the vowelized form is (deprecated template usage) בִּשֵּׁל, with no (deprecated template usage) י (yod). If you wanted to link to בישל or discuss it, then you might want to display just בישל and not בִּשֵּׁל, or both. But for a word like הַאֲלָהָה, there's really no reason I can think of to display the unvowelized form.) Plus, displaying vowels adds useful info, of course, so it's worth vowelizing rather than displaying only the unvowelized form.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
- True, for האלהה or the like there's no need to add the form without nikud, but for words whose two ways of spelling differ, both should be given, and also for words whose form without nikud is the same as with it, but which could be misspelled, e.g. you'd want to list both אִשֵּׁר and אישר, but also both אִשְׁרֵר and אשרר, to inform that אישרר is wrong (or at least non standard). Dan Pelleg 18:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Okay. That last point makes a lot of sense IMO for inflection lines, though not for translation tables (or, say, etymology sections of other entries), where only minimal information is given and we don't IMO need to specify the unvowelized form just to make sure people know it's not spelled אישרר. But for inflection lines, as I said, including אשרר alongside אִשְׁרֵר makes a good deal of sense. It can be specified by use of dwv= instead of wv= in some of the inflection-line templates. (Maybe all of them by now.) It doesn't seem to be the way we do things, though, so you might want to seek broader input at ] (also re the inclusion of אשרר in translation tables, which we seem to disagree on (?)).—msh210℠ (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
- No, I agree, having the information somewhere in the word's entry itself is enough. I'll bring it up in the about Hebrew talk sometime. Thanx Dan Pelleg 13:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply