User talk:EncycloPetey/Archive 5

Hello, do you know if the word arch is figuratively from the meaning of -archy in for example "oligarchy". As there -archy means rule, and if you see an arch, you see it is over your head. Like a government. Thanks if you know. Mallerd 13:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

No. The arch- / -arch component comes from a Latin word borrowed from Greek. meaning "beginning, start, source", and is the same root used in archangel, archaeology, oligarch]], etc. The word arch (building structure) comes from Latin arcus "a bent shape, arc, rainbow". Although they are pronounced the same in English, they were pronounced differently in Classical Latin. The similarity is coincidence. --EncycloPetey 19:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I quoted you, most favorably. Please comment. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I had noticed! I will be commenting, but want to allow others a chance to say their part first. --EncycloPetey 23:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am definitely going over all of his edits (thankfully he hasn't done too much damage) and am fixing and adding on as I go. Thanks for the notice. --Dijan 06:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have rewritten and restarted the vote, having attempted to reword the proposal to address the issues that people have raised. You may want to reread the proposal and reconsider your vote. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about the language templates, i did not know they were deprcated. People used to contribute in theother language wiktionaries are likely to employ them so you should realy think about switching them. On the other hand i personally find find them quite usefull because they are quicker to type and avoid typos and there seems to be an User:AutoFormat bot going arround who replaces those templates. The german translations of the EU language matrix seem to be OK, should i run a spell-check on them? With respect to the related terms, what is the corresponding heading for terms with related meaning suposed to be? Could they be added under the See also header?Matthias Buchmeier 09:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I personally dislike synonyms, because they might imply the same meaning while in most cases synonyms are only closely related and have some clearly different in meaning.Matthias Buchmeier 09:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

What is the reason for commenting the Spanish translations for pancake? I think hot cake is quite unknown among Spanish speakers and does not even have a RAE entry, neither a wiktionary yet.Matthias Buchmeier 09:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The translations and pronunciations belong on the entry pages for the translations, not in the Translations section for the page pancake. The Translations section is only for translations, with gender and transliteration when necessary. It is not for a complete explanation. See Entry Layout Explained for more information. --EncycloPetey 16:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

How should I cite the source?Barbara Shack 10:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That's the list I wanted, in fact. Algrif 10:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm so sorry for my mistake. I'll be careful. Oda Mari 15:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've started a policy vote at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-07/Brand names of products. Since you participated in the Beer Parlor discussion, you may wish to vote on the proposal. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is currently an active vote at ] regarding whether regular possessive forms of modern English nouns should have their own entries or not. As part of this it has been suggested that the {{en-noun}} template might be modified to show the possessive forms in the inflection line of modern English noun entries (irrespective of the outcome of the vote). Your comments and/or votes are welcome until the end of the vote on 5th August 2007. You are receiving this note as you have edited template:en-noun and/or template talk:en-noun Thryduulf 17:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Looks like this is going to be a fun one, and I really don't think I ought to be making the call on my own. It was not my intention to get into adjectives any time soon, but I somehow got my self tangled up in this one. I had always assumed that dexter was a standard -ER adjective in the vein of pulcher; Bennett, unfortunately, lists dexter as "sometimes" being declined similarly to līber. The entry would confirm this (to an extent) by giving the f/n nominatives as dextra/dextera and dextrum/dexterum. Template:la-decl-1&2-ER appears to work for adjectives such as līber (or perhaps it's broken? I have the m. nom. pl. form displaying as "dexterī"), so clearly a second declension table needs to be produced. In short, ought we regard dexter as irregular and draw up a particular inflection chart for it alone (such that, for instance, the fem. gen. pl. box would say "dextrārum/dexterārum") or rather ought there be two inflection charts on that page? I can't seem to find a reasonable explanation for the word's reluctance to conform to one pattern or the other. Some part of me feels that dexter, dextra, dextrum should be given preference, if for no other reason than to keep it in line with sinister! Medellia 07:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I really need to remind myself to keep from editing when I get tired. I've determined how to go about fixing Template:la-decl-1&2-ER that it functions for both types of -ER adjectives. I'm still not sure how I want to present inflection on dexter; if you could offer any guidance in that regard, I would appreciate it. Medellia 15:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to look into the inflection of dexter, but I should say one thing up front. We can't use the templates for "nom", "gen", etc, becuase 3-letter templates are reserved for ISO language codes. Those template calls in the declension tables will have to be changed. --EncycloPetey 17:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It seems that Template:nom is merely a redirect to Template:nominative, so I'll start amending any uses of {{nom}}. Medellia 17:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, Template:accusative is used for another purpose... To be honest, I'm not sure why a template really needed to be used in the first place. Medellia 17:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Some people are just template-happy. --EncycloPetey 17:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, so a quick look around shows the "dextr-" stem seems far more common (and you and I both would have expected). I can find Spanish, French, Italian, and Romanian descendants that all favor this stem; I can't find adjective descendants in those languages that descend from the "-ter" form. I did find one medieval usage of "ad dextera sua", but that seems to be a substantive use, isn't it? My Latin textbooks don't mention the "-ter-" declension patern, but both patterns are given in the Facciolati Lexicon. I think I would set up the inflection table with the standard declension pattern only, and relegate the "-ter-" forms to Usage notes explaining that there is an additional set of inflection forms occasionally found. Modifying the declension template for this one oddball case seems overkill. I think they ought to be listed somehow in the Inflection line as well, and we have have to just hard-code that one since it's weird. --EncycloPetey 17:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm nearly certain that's a word (and wasn't a test). Medellia 06:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't see any content, it was a red-link template mess about goats. For disbuded, the contents were "disbuded", etc. These were not entries. There is a botanical sense of the word in the OED though. --EncycloPetey 06:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see. I'll go ahead and make a real entry then. Thanks! Medellia 06:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I seem to be posting on your talk page quite a bit. At any rate, it's fairly simple to fix. Template:la-decl-1&2-ER now is completely functional (as far as I've tested; I'm unfortunately all out of adjectives and don't want much to do a dictionary crawl). I think taking a look at it may help clear up any problems and how to go about fixing them. (What I've done is basically have an optional second parameter for stems with macrons such that pages with macron-less stems don't have to be edited.) Hope that helps. Medellia 06:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete "workshy"?

See:

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/30/nhutton130.xml
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/449797.stm
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=442348&in_page_id=1811&in_page_id=1811&expand=true
• http://www.google.co.uk/books?q=workshy

etc.

Matt 00:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

It looked like more anonymous garbage to me. I've restored it and marked it as "UK". This term does not exist in the US. --EncycloPetey 04:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, fair enough, but might I suggest that in future you check before deleting, rather than just deleting a word because you are not personally familiar with it. Even the most perfunctory of Google searches would have indicated that this is a genuine word. Anyway, thanks for restoring it, so no harm done in the end. Matt 10:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

A Google search can turn up lots of things that do not meet our criteria for inclusion. I did check the OED; it wasn't listed. --EncycloPetey 11:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't it be better to use this (Template:Latin-decl) to add the changes, and then add all the existing Latin-declension tables to that one? --BiT 01:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Huh? What do you mean? That template isn't used anywhere. It also won't work for Latin because it doesn't allow for macrons. It is too cumbersome to enter all the various inflected forms for each table. In any case, it can't apply to adjective declensions because it doesn't permit the different genders or gender patterns. --EncycloPetey 04:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

True for that, but it is possible to add macron-support to it. I have just been thinking how needlessly bothersome it is to have a different template for each and every declension template. --BiT 04:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is no language code for ba that I am aware of. The ISO code for Bosnian is bs. --EncycloPetey 23:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bugger!, I made a slight error there! Thanks for fixing it for me. :-) --Williamsayers79 07:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are you designing this to be an inflection line template for English pronouns? If so, let me know when it's nearing completion. I had intended to do a major overhaul of English pronouns this summer, for which I collected copious notes. However, I doubt now that I will have the time to do so myself, given the activity that has begun happening with Latin this summer. I do still intend to start an Appendix:English pronouns before too much longer, I hope. --EncycloPetey 08:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm trying to make it as easy as possible in the flavour of {{infl}}, its nearly done!--Williamsayers79 08:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The template has now been revamped, documentation is on the talk page of {{en-pron}} --Williamsayers79 09:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's a subheading, not a heading, and a proper one at that. See 廣 again and you'll see subheadings above such as "Kanji," "Hanja," etc. 24.93.190.134 07:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, it's kind of you to explain all of this, but why threaten a block right off the bat? I take that as exceedingly unfriendly. I am a longtime and sincere contributor and do take strong offense to your tone. 24.93.190.134 08:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Somehow, I see that you've removed all mention of Han Tu in the entry; that's really no good because, as I have mentioned to you just a few minutes ago, the Chinese characters are no longer used in Vietnam so it does need to be specified what those characters are. Further, there are two sets of Sino-Vietnamese characters and Han Tu are one of them. I'm really not confused about this at all and I'm not convinced that you are yourself. You're explaining something to me and helping me to understand and I'm doing the same for you. Interesting that you believe "hanja" is an English word. "Kanji" probably is by now but I don't believe "hanja" is--at least any more than Han Tu is. 24.93.190.134 08:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the threat really was extremely rude. I'm over it, though, and glad to be one of the editors knowledgeable in Vietnamese. Apparently there weren't many before, because there was not even any entry on Hán tự (there is now). See Hán tự for an example of how the term might be used in an entry--in this case giving the "old" Sino-Vietnamese characters (called Hán tự) along with the quốc ngữ (Latin-based script). Perhaps you'll wish to integrate these things into the various policies and procedures which you helped to draft (that's great that you did that). 24.93.190.134 08:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks; I did not know about those pages. But I don't see one for Vietnamese. Perhaps MXQ (or some other bilingual Wiktionarian; there is a fairly good Vietnamese Wiktionary) could be convinced to draft similar pages for the Vietnamese language. In this case, the three writing systems could be codified in such a way that our conversation this evening/morning wouldn't even have been necessary. It's a continual building process. 24.93.190.134 08:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It took a loong time figuring it out, but what do you think? --BiT 01:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's a nice start. One problem I forsee is that sometimes there will need to be only 2 arguments passed to the template, but sometimes 4 arguments (some nouns modify the stem, and some don't). The second problem I forsee is that this may increase the total number of templates needed, if we're going to specify the gender each time. I can't explore more right now, since I'm not at home and need to get going. --EncycloPetey 02:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Aye, I think I could handle figuring out other alterations on other declensions (your talking about ager and puer right? that won't be a problem). I'm thinking about trying to continue, personally I think it looks pretty nice like this- we could change the colour scheme, but that of course won't be hard to do just changing one template. --BiT 07:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the welcome, and the information on references headers. As you can probably tell from looking at my contribs, I'm a Wikipedian without prior experience of Wiktionary (though not editing here under my Wikipedia user name). So I'll remember to use the correct level 3 header for references in future. Eric the Gnome 19:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear EncycloPetey , Sorry for delay in my side in answering your message on my talk page. We Marathi Wikipedians our goal is very much to translate and support as many language wiktionaries as possible and few of us are charting that path too, although Marathi language wikipedia is growing at considerable rate , marathi wiktionary is sort of behind because of lesser membership and those of us who are there remain busy in maitaining minimum administrative and work level at marathi wiktionary it self. Still hope to catch up soon.Please do keep in touch such messages do inspire us and I feel I am not alone in carrying out this work.

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar 16:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

from mr:Wiktionary:Embassy

thanks, I will have a close look at {{inflection of}} ! ArielGlenn 06:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I speak neither Yiddish nor Lower Sorbian - I take translations from dictionaries. We have very well-made Yiddish on Polish Wiktionary and when it comes to Lower Sorbian, I use German-Lower Sorbian dictionary and limit myself only to words which are similar to Polish ones. --Derbeth ^talk 09:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you right something up on how to recognize proper nouns, I'll read it. In the interim, is Greek fire a proper noun? RJFJR 16:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

This section is used only for terms derived from an entry that are in the same language. So, on the García page, any derived terms would have to be in Spanish. Persoanlly, I have never heard "letter to García" used in English and do not find it in any dictionaries. If it does not meet CFI, then it should not be included. --EncycloPetey 19:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. —msh210 13:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've added carry the message to Garcia as an entry, as imo it satisfies the CFI. It is usually message though, not letter: you're right. (There may be enough references with letter to warrant an entry, but I'm not sure, and haven't time now to check.) Note, though, that the phrase "carry the message to Garcia", in its original use, referred to a fellow whose name was properly spelled García. So it really is a derived term of García. But if policy or custom prevents me from listing it as a derived term there because it's in a foreign language, then I guess I won't. —msh210 14:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Copying to your talk page. —msh210 06:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)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

I think they're sometimes called "semi-auxiliaries", but I'm not sure if that term has a standard meaning. Sorry. :-/ —Ruakh 16:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would be glad of any help. Algrif 15:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure that you describing a "catenative verb." I believe a semi-auxiliary is actually phrase that acts as an auxiliary verb but with non-auxiliary verb components (in "I am about to eat" "am about to" is the semi-auxiliary, whereas the auxiliary verb is just the "am."). Dmcdevit·t 15:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Great!! Thanks! That's the one I was looking for.Algrif 17:49, 23 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 20:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your (as always) informative answer. I will be bold and set up an appendix of catenative verbs today / tomorrow. and let you know when it is done. You will then see what I am trying to do. I would appreciate your opinion when it is done, to see if you agree to me placing a see appendix usage note in the approx 80 or so verbs involved. Algrif 11:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Appendix:Catenative verbs Please take a look. I'm convinced that the layout can be much improved, but I'm still learning how the templates etc work. Please tell me what you think in general about the content. Algrif 18:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reminding me of the international nature of Wikt. I've moved it as suggested. Any advice on layout would be greatly appreciated. Algrif 15:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I hate to do this, but — Connel and I are having a huge argument over at my talk-page, and while this isn't exactly the main topic of the argument, I'm contending that your comment at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#idiosyncracy characterizes idiosyncracy as a misspelling of idiosyncrasy, while Connel contends that it characterizes it as an alternative spelling. I don't suppose you could weigh in on what you meant? (You don't have to get involved in the rest of the discussion if you don't want to. Personally, I'm starting to wish I hadn't gotten involved myself.)

Thanks in advance,
—Ruakh_TALK 19:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

IMHO, whether something is a misspelling or alternative spelling depends upon whether that particular spelling becomes publicly acceptable. I don't have a strong opinion in the matter. My comment was merely a note that I would likely have spelled the word with a -cy instead of an -sy. Since I am only one person, I don't think my opinion carries enough weight to make a decision about public usage in general. --EncycloPetey 20:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note; it's been corrected. SonPraises 02:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, I noticed some changes you made to the plain language templates. I know originally they were suposed to be used to provide a link tothe language article on Wikipedia but that seems to have changed to an internal link some months ago. this is not a problem, but the {{infl}} uses these plain language templates to autocategorise articles and this does not seem to work at current if these language templates contain links. Do you know of a way to modify {{infl}} to use the templates regardless of there being links in them?--Williamsayers79 08:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There isn't any way to unlink a string or expression. So the templates are much more useful if they don't link. I know the original reason was so that people could subst: them in translations tables, but no-one does that. (!) I really think it is time to just unlink them all. (Cue screaming that that isn't the purpose, ignoring that they aren't used for that purpose any more ;-) They can always be linked on a call if wanted {{wlink|{{xx}}}}. Robert Ullmann 09:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the templates are substed. There is a bot that does do, and I have done so myself several times in the past week. The choice was to allow all but the TOP40 to be linked, which is the standing practice for both users and AutoFormat. If you want to propose a change in the way the templates are set up and used, that sounds like a BP discussion. --EncycloPetey 09:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. I know it wasn't you that added the actual etymology, but is it really true? The OED doesn't think so and shows that the earliest cites all use "dogge-wood". So is there any evidence of its being "modernized" from *dagwood? Widsith 09:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

No idea. My botanical sources don't add anything to what the OED says. --EncycloPetey 09:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh well, I guess I'll leave it for now. I'm not exactly a botany expert, and personally wouldn't know dogwood if I was beaten to death with it. Widsith 15:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh sorry Mallerd 14:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello EncycloPetey. I am RS. I created my account on July 24, 2007. Can you tell me something about Wiktionary? I need some help. Thank you. RS2007 03:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

See User:Robert Ullmann/Trans languages. Still a work in progess. Robert Ullmann 15:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I just stumbled upon this German entry created by you. This is not an alternative spelling, but a common mispelling (compare the German Wikipedia). Also, I do not believe the etymololgy, do you have any references? I don't believe that the suffix -nam in Leichnam means name, that doesn't make any sense. I am not a linguist and I cannot verify questions about etymology, but I have seen quite a few questionable German etymologies here and I am wondering who puts them in there and if they are based on reliable sources. --Zeitlupe 23:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Goodness, it's been over a year since I created that entry and I barely remember it. The spelling came from the Corpus Christi page. That was the spelling another contributor entered. As for the etymology, it probably came from an on-line reference. My copy of Kluge certainly doesn't support that etymology. It should be changed. --EncycloPetey 00:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

ok, then I'll change the page and remove the etymology section. --Zeitlupe 01:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the welcome message. I have added the Malayalam Script for parrot and listen :-) --Sadik Khalid 09:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for removing Latin Script. Can u show me few words in wiktionary to make as a sample in malayalam wiktionary. --Sadik Khalid 09:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

at present I am working on ml.wiktionary.org (we have very few entries only) I need sample words as a model like parrot.This word have Etymology, Pronunciation, Noun, Verb, etc. So that I can make an entry for തത്ത (Tha-Tha) in ml.wiktionary --Sadik Khalid 09:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much --Sadik Khalid 09:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have been talking about this archaised form of modern Greek with ArielGlenn at Wiktionary talk:About Greek#Katharevousa - you may have some thoughts on the subject, your contributions would be welcome! —Saltmarsh 11:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that. Like I said, I don't edit here very often, and I'm doing my best. Walton One 20:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. To be honest, I should probably have read WT:ELE properly before churning out tons of entries. :-) I only really started editing here when I realised how few entries there were on specific military ranks - these are mostly things that I've seen in paper dictionaries, so I felt Wiktionary needed them. In fact, I wanted to ask advice on something else. At present, in my entries, I'm generally covering the different UK and US usages of military ranks (Australian/Commonwealth ranks tend to follow the British model). The relevant Wikipedia articles, however, tend to also cover the use of equivalent ranks in non-English-speaking countries, e.g. Singapore (see w:Lance Corporal) for an example), without stating the equivalent term used in those languages. How should this be dealt with in a Wiktionary entry? Walton One 20:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for doing this. I'm not sure how well it will turn out, but it's worth a shot. —Ruakh_TALK 03:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You may have missed comments that point out the way the English possessive suffix functions. Although it may appear to modify the word to which it is attached, it actually modifies the noun phrase to which it is attached. That's why w:Clitic points out that "the girl next door’s cat" does not include the possessive sense of the word "door", but the possessive sense of "girl" from the noun phrase "the girl next door". So, any word that can appear at the end of a noun phrase can have "'s" attached to it. Rod (A. Smith) 18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, I didn't miss that. In fact I poiinted that very thing out to Connel on the IRC yesterday. --EncycloPetey 20:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

We have νανος (AGr) which should really be at νᾶνος. But the page at νᾶνος already exists and is a redirect to the first one (with the wrong spelling). Can you make some magic happen here? Thanks! ArielGlenn 01:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Note that if X is a redirect to Y and has no edit history, you can move Y to X. (This is intended for the case that you accidentally move X to Y and want to undo it; but it works even if that's not the case.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. We actually got this sorted out on the IRC, but the additional explanation is welcome. I didn't know about the "no edit history" issue. --EncycloPetey 01:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I was just wondering if y'all have reached a decision between Category:Latin comparative adjectives and Category:Latin adjective comparatives? (If y'all haven't reached one yet, I'll also take this opportunity to state my preference for the former, if only because google:"comparative adjectives" gets more than 371 times the hits that google:"adjective comparatives" does.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's my preference, but there will be an issue with getting the cross-language categories to pair up (assuming we want that). We haven't reached a decision yet. --EncycloPetey 01:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Try these: User:ArielGlenn/storage (warning, it's more than you'd like.) ArielGlenn 03:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That's exactly what I needed. --EncycloPetey 04:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'll avoid redirects, but can you tell me how we account for variations of an idiomatic phrase? To quote Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Idiomatic phrases, "When present, minor variants should simply redirect to the main entry." I would interpret this to mean, using the example on that page, that we should have a redirect page for things like "feel his oats," "her oats", "your oats" etc. that all simply redirect to feel one's oats. To me this is useful, because an inquiring user is more likely to type in "feel his oats" as something he didn't understand from a novel he is reading, and currently the search returns him nothing. This, to me is the usefulness of some redirects, as explained in my quote from the CFI page. A hypothetical user is less likely to deconstruct first and type in "feel one's oats;" he will give up the search after his first results are nil. But we do have the information he seeks! It's just hidden from him. We should provide as many avenues as possible to get him there. In the case of my redirect you deleted, one is more likely to search for "Beam me up" than the deconstructed "beam up." I just thought I would get that guy to the right page too. What is the correct Wiktionarian way to accomplish this usefulness while not doing it the way Wikipedia has?

The difference is that the main entry for feel one's oats is a phrase with a pronoun included in the page name. Alternate forms with specific pronouns do get redirected to the main entry. Likewise, we do this in the English Phrasebook. In the case of beam up, this is a verb compounded with a preposition. It is expected that many csuch ompound verbs have the possibility of being split by an additional word, so we do not redirect for those.

One more formatting question. Take a look at Vulcan, I added the second Wikipedia template for the Star Trek sense, but it's pushing the "Contents" box down. How do I get them both to take up the space next to the Contents box? THANK YOU. -- Thisis0 09:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll edit the page to show you what we do in this case. --EncycloPetey 09:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help. I will apply the knowledge.
As far as the redirects for variants, I'm not sure I get the way it's supposed to work. Take my first contribution, the dual creation of "for all intents and purposes" and "to all intents and purposes." I wrote each with nearly identical content, save more accurate quotations that I prepared separately for each entry. Soon thereafter, you yourself redirected my "to all intents and purposes," consolidating to the entry at "for all intents and purposes." I don't understand when there should be a redirect, a simple definition that itself redirects, or when the variant should have no entry whatsoever. -- Thisis0 11:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's based mainly on three things: (1) Is the entry a Phrase? (as its part of speech or in its overall appearance) (2) Is it part of the English Phrasebook? (a specific set of useful beginner phrases) (3) Does the entry have an included generic pronoun? The first two are often a matter of length; consider that really long expressions become much harder to search for when it's possible to have variation, so the redirects become beneficial. In some of these cases, however, the entry is moved to the core portion, so for all intents and purposes and to all intents and purposes might have been moved to all intents and purposes since that portion does not change. Not to say that it's likely for that particular case, since a preposition is really necessary, but I can't recall a better example offhand. But, unless the answer to one of those three questions is "yes", we tend to avoid redirects in English. If you get involved in a language like Arabic or Hebrew, there are additional situations where redirects are used, but they don't apply to English. The general rule though is to avoid redirects. --EncycloPetey 17:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. I can't say I'm totally clear on the subject of redirects, but for that reason I'll try to stay clear of them. :)
I noticed that (a year ago) you added the second sense at the entry for mondegreen. I was wondering if you have any citation, source, example, or specific reason for that (tagged rare) second sense. Thanks. -- Thisis0 22:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's a sense given in the original article in which the word was coined, with examples. It is not the usual usage. --EncycloPetey 22:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do we know whether that sense ever got past the protologism stage? (I don't think Harper's Magazine can be considered a "refereed academic journal". ) —Ruakh_TALK 22:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't have to be; the CFI list you've linked has four possible criteria separated by the conjunction "or". Only one criterion must be met, not all four. --EncycloPetey 19:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I understand that. What I'm saying is, since her original article wasn't in a refereed academic journal, we should only include the sense if it got used elsewhere. —Ruakh_TALK 20:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

So, '"Harper's Magazine" is not a well-known work?? --EncycloPetey 20:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think so, no: I don't think it's a "work" at all. —Ruakh_TALK 21:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

If the second sense of mondegreen (as you interpreted it to be unique from the first sense) was never ever picked up after the original article, should it be included at all here? I cannot find the text of that original article anywhere, though Harper's archives will give it for a price. Can you provide the original article? Can you provide any use of this sense outside of the original author's thoughts while coining the term? Is it really a different sense, or isn't it basically included in the first sense? My opinion is that we should remove the second sense, and then refine the first definition to be clearer that it is an error arising specifically from mishearing a song lyric, poem, recitation, or similar performance. Because of the current ambiguity in our definition, there was some confusion earlier. Her are my sources for refining the definition. -- Thisis0 20:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

These are two different senses, not the same thing. The two senses arise from completely separate processes. The second sense hasnothing to do with "song lyric or preformance", it is a misunderstanding because the possibility of multiple definitions exists in the actual words used. The actual wording used is heard or read as given, but is interprested in a way other than that intended by the performer/writer. By contrast, the first sense is a mis-hearing in which the actual words are mentally replaced with a different set of words, as misunderstood by the hearer. Combining the two senses into a single definition will result in a definition that is misleading. Yes, I can provide the original article, but only in hard copy. I went to the library at got it. You can do that too, you know. --EncycloPetey 21:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, understood. If I can get my hands on the article, I will. I just thought I'd ask if you had it. I hope I've shown I'm more than willing to do research. I think I understand the second sense (an error in mis-reading something written), but I can't think of a single potential example in English. (Possibly with lead, entrance, minute or other heteronyms?]

I still think if the author was musing about another potential use of her new "word," but it never was used that way, including it here might not be right. As far as the first sense, do you agree that this refers exclusively to misheard lyrics, poems, psalms, recitations, and possibly famous orations? -- Thisis0 02:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be fair to say that the first sense applies to "...misheard lyrics, recitations, or other orations." (shortening the list a bit for ease of use). In her article, the author wasn't musing over the word; the article concerns both kinds of phenomena with numerous examples. The creation of a name for the phenomena is a secondary point of the article. Also, the second sense does not require heteronyms to occur, merely a misunderstanding of grammar. The Abbot & Costello sketch "Who's on first?" relies on exactly this sort of misunderstanding. There are also perception-linguistics tests that use sentences deliberately constructed with ambiguous meaning. A not-quite-example: "My daughter is into everything." Does this mean that the daughter "is into" (likes) many things or "is into" (gains access with hands) places she shouldn't be? I can't think of a better example off the top of my head, and my psychology book doesn't seem to have examples of this sort. --EncycloPetey 02:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

plastic cat food can cover

1. plastic cover for a cat food can
2. cover for a plastic can of cat food
3. cover for a can of plastic food for cats
4. cover for a can of food for plastic cats
5. food for plastic cats that can cover (something)
6. plastic cat food (that) can cover (something)

I learned this one while talking to one of the inventors of Lojban (think it was Bob LeChevalier), who was pointing out that a phrase like that is difficult (not impossible) because the relationship between the terms is always explicit. Of course the only individual word here that is ambiguous is "cover". (as in "time flies like an arrow", the only variant sense is the entomological "fly" ;-) I did learn that "plastic" is slasi Robert Ullmann 12:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes thanks, that's a better example of the problem. As Groucho Marx says, "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." This gives you two or three additional interpretations to work through. ;) --EncycloPetey 18:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd forgotten this one, but ran across it again in the pedia:

Q: How many Lojbanists does it take to change a broken light bulb?

A: Two: one to decide what to change it into, and one to figure out what kind of bulb emits broken light.

;-) Robert Ullmann 10:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I definitely agree this "error from mixed meanings of written words" is categorical, and needs a name of its own. Many other types errors have no name -- leading for example to confusion when one of our colleagues was trying to compose an etymology for the erroneous phrase "for all intensive purposes". Whether malapropism, eggcorn, folk etymology, or mondegreen, the names for each of these categories seem to be in demand, and by their nature require specificity. For this reason, I think we should remove the second sense currently at mondegreen. The name has never been applied to this written brand of error, and has been (as it should be) entirely identified with "song lyrics, recitations and other similar public performances". You said that coining the term was a secondary point of the original article. Perhaps we should retain clarity and ignore this (never used) second sense. -- Thisis0 18:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

No. We don;t ignore information on Wiktionary; and it is used. Please pause, take a few days to think about it. You're still not getting it; it is not specific to written words! --EncycloPetey 18:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I will ponder further at your request. I want to remind you that the definition I am questioning is in fact specific to written words: "A misunderstanding of a written phrase as a result of multiple definitions." If this sense is indeed "not specific to written words", would you like to amend it then? -- Thisis0 19:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

;-) Even better is to do your homework yourself, rather than asking other people to just tell you the answer. You'll learn more by the process of discovery. -- Algrif 14:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's not from Turkish but cognate with it, both coming from a Turkic or Turki language (sources don't seem to say which one). Widsith 19:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Then that's what the Etymology should say explicitly; The listing as "from Turki " which was there both (1) looks like a typo and (2) seems to identify orda as coming from a specific language. --EncycloPetey 19:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nice job on the "-omical" rhymes. Just a small point: In the "Words must be stressed on the ... syllable" comments, I prefer to use "final", "penultimate", "antepenultimate", etc, as then it is the same for each section. This is also quicker for the reader to understand than having to count syllables from the front end of the word.

If you have a look at the revision I've made to the entry (I've added quite a lot more words found using a wildcard search on *omical in onelook.com and rejecting those which have no pronunciation given) you'll see why this makes things simpler for the person entering the words - there are one or two more sections now... — Paul G 14:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

On the one hand, I agree with you about the stress, but having taught grade schooll in America I'm also aware that most Americans don't know the words penultimate, antepenultimate, ...and then you start get get even more obscure. So, in cases where the stress pattern is already thre syllables long, I tend to mark then from the front. Either way will then involve the same effort in counting, and I really think it's easier to count syllables from the front of a word than in reverse. However, I have followed the norm of counting from the end most of the time anyway. --EncycloPetey 18:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello EncycloPetey. How are you? I created two new pages - Wikimedia Foundation and Wikiversity. I am new to Wiktionary. Can you improve the pages? Thank you. RS2007 08:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you please shed some light on this (or the "grammer" subsequent edit?) This contributor seems to have a bone to pick; other very obviously incorrect edits I also rolled back, but there is no clear context as to why s/he wants to start revert-warring. I'll look more closely at the P-I-E nonsense added. I've given a one day block for now - feel free to extend that if there is some history I've missed. --Connel MacKenzie 18:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Another user has been making similar edits under various names to push an unsupported POV. He/She is strongly opinionated without support for the POV being pushed, and keeps returning around each block. The edits are poor format and poor content. The user you are asking about was not apprised of the edit history of the page or the user. --EncycloPetey 18:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK thanks for clearing that up. --Connel MacKenzie 18:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please read Page 3 of German English Words., and see the w:Etymonline article, and then please just stop harassing me. R9tgokunks 19:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have done so, and neither of these sources supports your changes to the article. If you see reversion of bad edits as harassment, then you may wish to avoid Wikimedia altogether. Maintaining the quality and credibility of Wiktionary through the exclusion of dubious and incorrect information is a responsibility of all contributors here. If you see responding to your comments as harassment, then please do not address comments to me. --EncycloPetey 20:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

There seems to be a minor problem with parochial's WOTD entry. Because the RSS feed still returns only the first line, the WOTD by-e-mail is sure to be misleading. I was thinking of switching the order of the senses in the WOTD template, but that would leave the second (old) sense not making very much sense. Any suggestions? (Erm, besides, "fix the damn RSS feed, in the next 2.5 hours."  :-)

--Connel MacKenzie 20:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Suggestions? Not really. The first definition of parochial is not "old", it simply has been in use longer. It still is a current definition in use, such as in "parochial school". The confusion lies in the fact that the second definition (ironically) has wider usage. The problem with the RSS feed will affect most of the entries for this month, since most of them have more than a single definition. --EncycloPetey 20:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Um. Right. Shouldn't the sense being emphasized actually appear, though? By listing it second, the "old" sense (only) is reported.

I think you should seriously consider (or reconsider) numbering the senses manually, separated by ":   " within the WOTD templates, so there is only one full definition "line" for each WOTD. --Connel MacKenzie 01:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the help on that. I'm sorry if it causes you any trouble. What exactly should I do... not include the etymology or make a note that it might not be accurate? Thank you Jakeybean 00:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

...comment here: User talk:DAVilla#Template:vote-sysop. I'm trying to figure out why our new-sysop torture nomination process is now so long, instead of the usual seven days. --Connel MacKenzie 02:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's been a few days of dormancy at Wiktionary:Tea room#out_of_bounds_.28noun.29 so I thought I'd let you know I've now commented there. I'm not checking this your talk page for a response.—msh210 01:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please enter your vote again; it was invalidated by improper edits by DAVilla. Tx, Robert Ullmann 23:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Have you written out somewhere your best case scenario? I'm curious because after writing down a bunch of sample entries, I went to vote and found your votes lined up with mine. I've tried hopelessly to follow the BP dicussion(s) but it's just too convoluted. ArielGlenn 02:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's not a simple issue. I can't recall whether I've committed my ideas anywhere in writing. If I have, it would be on my talk page or Robert Ulmann's talkpage, but I don't see anything complete. Given the demands of my current off-line ("real") life, I'm unable to do a good job of writing them down at this time. --EncycloPetey 19:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

See above User talk:EncycloPetey#vote on headers. Robert Ullmann 19:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks; I'd forgotten that I'd put in that level of detail. --EncycloPetey 19:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. As you know, I sometimes add Spanish translations, and the ocasional entry. But I would be interested in some guidelines on this, so that I can be more productive in this field. One question, for instance, is where do we draw the line on reflexive forms? Example taparse does not show, only tapar. Do we actually need / want taparse? Any other advice or pointers to info pages would be most welcome. As usual, thanks in advance. -- Algrif 16:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

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. --EncycloPetey 19:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Charles Dickens walks into a bar, asks for a martini. The barman asks: "Olive or Twist?" Robert Ullmann 14:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done! except for puffin, I will have to ask my dad for these difficult terms. Gbeebani 23:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)_TalkReply

I only speak basic Spanish and English- I usually just use the 'random page' button, do a google search for interwikis, make sure it has the right templates, and if it is specific enough, add the translations to the appropriate page. Thanks for the babel tip though. Nadando 01:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you said you had a conversation with someone about this? I've just reverted and blocked a user who was doing the same thing, and would not respond on his talk page. Who is it? Robert Ullmann 02:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

And had obscenities in all capital letters added to my talk page on meta by an IP user who made two of these edits. Robert Ullmann 07:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't sound like the same person. On looking through my talk page, I see that it was user 24.93.190.134, and it was in regard to Han Tu, not Chu nom. I don't understand all the politics and history behind these terms, but I understand there are strong cultural and personal opinions attached. You might look for someone at Wikipedia who has a vi User box and has edited a Vietnamese language article for guidance. That's the kind of approach I usually take in a situation like this, when I can't find someone local who speaks the language under consideration. --EncycloPetey 23:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh yes, I know about the issues; I've read screeds by Korean authors saying that suggestions that Korean was ever written with Chinese characters was akin to the idea that Hitler murdered Jews. (or maybe they meant the other way 'round?) Never mind that Korean is written with Han characters and in Romaja today. The absolute resolve to deny that "Chinese" characters were ever used except as utterly foreign and non-(Korean, Vietnamese) language scripts is intense. And very understandable. Except that we are about documenting reality. Robert Ullmann 00:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have added American Sign Language translations to one and two and have written a rough draft of Wiktionary:About sign languages; please comment at its talk page with any comments. Thanks!—msh210 22:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Writer's block? --Connel MacKenzie 13:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Whoa, I thought you said you got caught up on these? Fortunately, last year's WOTDs are also good, but was that intended? Is this a call for help? --Connel MacKenzie 17:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, I seem to be falling into the groove now. After today, I should be able to plunk the rest of the month into place. (That is a LOT of words to pick from.) --Connel MacKenzie 16:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello EncycloPetey! I want to leave Wiktionary. Please deleted my user page. Thank you. RS2007 11:51, 2 September 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

Hi. Help please. Do I just "move" Category:Prepositional phrases:English to the new Category? Do I then have to edit all the current entries one by one? Or is there an easier way? -- Algrif 15:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

You can't move a category. Create the new category, (copy the text), and then all of the entries need to be changed. Don't bother doing that manually, someone can automate it. Robert Ullmann 16:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. -- Algrif 16:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm moving the entries manually, as it also allows me to tidy up some of the rather messy entries while I'm about it. There's only 40 odd. I'm also copying this exchange into the RFDO, and leave EP's personal page in peace !! :-) -- Algrif 12:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I created a bit of code to sort out where we are; in part because I didn't want to rewrite Wiktionary:Index to templates/languages by hand. See User:Robert Ullmann/Language templates. I'll be updating it again in a day or so when we get the new XML. It tries to catch them all, but if a template isn't in the cat, and there aren't any L2 sections in the wikt, it can't identify it as a language name. (It doesn't look at the trans sections.) Robert Ullmann 10:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cool. Are there specific ways that I can help you on this? I won't have time until Friday to help much, though. --EncycloPetey 14:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I believe you are still following this conversation, but in case you've grown weary, note that your opinion (or even a brief reiteration thereof) would be appreciated at the bottom of WT:BP#Consistent format for mentioned terms. Rod (A. Smith) 07:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

hi, can you tell me the correct category about the Japanese derivations? I can't find it. Mallerd 20:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's just Category:Japanese derivations; we don't add the prfix en to any categories since this is the English Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey 23:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, the homepage states

we currently have 534,024 entries in 389 languages.

to me that sounds like 389 different language dictionaries, not one English-dictionary. WritersCramp 09:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

None of the Wiktionary projects are mono-lingual except for the Hebrew one. All the others are multi-lingual. So the English Wiktionary is a single multi-lingual dictionary, but with all the definitions and explanation in English. --EncycloPetey 16:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, EncycloPetey. I picked up on the alternative format you introduced for brief translations of example sentences (i.e., to place the non-English example sentence in italics, followed by an em dash, followed by the English translation). I deviate from your abbreviated style a bit by wrapping the English translation in dictional double quote marks, but otherwise my format is identical to yours. The abbreviated format is not standard, though, so editors may feel compelled to correct entries using it to the community endorced format from the recent example format vote (e.g. this correction). I rather like the abbreviated format and so would like to mention it on BP with the intent to seek refinement and promote it as a documented alternative for short examples. Before I begin that discussion, do you have any comments to consider? Rod (A. Smith) 20:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

My work IP is blocked, and my home PC is currently down, and even then, it's a shared proxy server. How can I make a Wikipedia account? Bakura 05:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but that's out of my area of expertise. You might ask a techically-savvy admin like Versageek or Connel MacKenzie. --EncycloPetey 06:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, EncycloPetey. FYI, I changed the entry for (deprecated template usage) surfeit to show that it has both countable and uncountable senses. If you really intended all senses to be marked uncountable in this edit, let me know and I'll dig up citations. Rod (A. Smith) 01:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this; I'll use that order. But, I wonder, why is that? In all other dictionaries I've ever used, the definition comes first (after the part of speech), then etymology is given as an afterthought, explaining where the word came from. Wouldn't it be most logical, then, to put the etymology after the definition? Thanks in advance for your explanation. 24.93.190.134 21:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just looked in my huge Webster's and find that you are right. I must have been thinking of the OED's examples (like examples from Chaucer, Shakespeare, et al.), which come later. Appreciate your help again. 24.93.190.134 21:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you look at w:hsien it says: hsien: the basic unit of local government in China. The word hsien may be roughly translated as “county,” or “district.” I'd add it here but what langauge is it? Transliterated Chniese? RJFJR 16:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. Here is the quote I get from the Britannica article: 'the basic unit of local government in China. The word hsien may be roughly translated as “county,” or “district.” ' It looks as though the definition was lifted verbatim from Britannica.

I find enough citations on Google to lead me to believe this has been adopted into English as an English word, including some articles on JSTOR, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and the Cambridge History of China. Call it English. --EncycloPetey 03:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I created the clostrum (and clostra) entries, and have adjusted claustration accordingly. This is one case where the plural is the lemma. --EncycloPetey 03:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. That was fast! I found it as a redlink and listed it to be cleaned up. RJFJR 03:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure it's a good idea to list an entry so hotly disputed? (And why is it listed as a "US" term, when it is not used here? Because it was coined, then ignored, here?) --Connel MacKenzie 04:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

All information in the WOTD format came directly from the article. The word appears in the AHD. --EncycloPetey 12:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done with the Romanian part, trying (with no luck so far) to get more information on the Slovenian word. — — 04:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! Just wondering if there were any developments in Latin since mid-August. I've decided to start sifting the disaster area that is category:Latin verbs and would hope not to muck it up more. Medellia 10:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

In terms of verbs, no progress. Once mid-August rolls around, I'm usually too busy to contribute to Wiktionary to the degree that I have done during the summer months. My contributions for the past two months have been largely WOTD, various discussions, and old template cleanup.

I have done some work on verbs beginning with L, but mostly because I began trying to fill in all the Lewis words beginning with L. There was some progress on revising the 1st-conjugation paradigm template, so that it now looks nice and is collapsible (see amō), but I don't think the other such tables have been edited to do that yet. Neither have we yet set up a "form of" template akin to {{inflection of}} which we developed for nouns and adjectives. My own feeling is that we should get the lemma pages done, pare back any infinitives set up as lemmas, then see about getting bot help for entering the conjugated forms.

Participles will still be a mess, and I still haven't decided how I feel about the various options.

On the plus side, adjectives are now easy to do. Also, an anonymous user added the locative to the various declension page Appendices. If that wasn't you, you might take a look at them, since my reasources are scanty on the correct forms of the locative.

You might also wish to take a look at the model pages listen and parrot to see some of the recently adopted templates used in the etymology section of entries. --EncycloPetey 11:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, you made an uncommented revert of gerrymander a while back. I can't see anything wrong with the secondary definition I added, so I've rereverted. --Scott Ritchie 18:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that this sense does not appear in dictionaries and is unsupported by reference quotations. The only sense I can find for the verb is based on voting districts. --EncycloPetey 23:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Check Talk:gerrymander, I have provided some examples. Thanks! Scott Ritchie 23:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I added Ukrainian translations to those articles. Regards. —Mzajac 02:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, can you improve this article please? Perhaps you know the etymology better for example :) Mallerd 19:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Petey, how's things over here? What have I missed in the last three months? Any big regime changes or policy changes? I may well be back on this site more now, as I actually have access to fast Internet connection now - been holidaying/working in relatively remote places for the last few months--Keene 07:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

That quote with "thoroughly" had more hits than "throughly" (which I think had 1.) By that, I figured it was a safe change. — — 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I forget entirely, the circumstances that caused this template. Could you explain what the consensus was, briefly, please? TIA. --Connel MacKenzie 03:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

There was no consensus and didn't look like there would ever be given the wide separation of viewpoints. We couldn't agree on what to call the part of speech or what categories to use. There are therefore multiple different ways they are labelled and categorized. The POS header is often given as Numeral or Number, but sometimes as Cardinal number, Cardinal numeral, or Cardinal (same for ordinals). I prefer "Numeral" with (cardinal) on the definiiton line. The category for cardinals may be in any of several permutations, but I've been intermittently trying to standardize to ones like Category:es:Cardinal numbers within a POS supercategory Category:Spanish numerals, but only when this doesn't involve a major change because of the no consensus thing. Any major changes would lead to another knock-down argument. --EncycloPetey 13:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ency, you are cordially invited to discuss the Transwiki merge conversation that I started at Help_talk:Transwiki to bring a consensus on the procedure. Goldenrowley 23:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Other new Serbian editor. Edits look reasonable, but I'm not familiar enough with the language. --EncycloPetey 15:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know. I believe this is the same user as 202.182.138.114 and 202.182.138.82 and 202.182.138.34. I've been following actions regarding Serbian entries of similar IPs for a while. There are several problems that I've seen with this user. I'll only name two major ones. First, s/he is often removing standard terms and replacing them with colloquialisms (sometimes not removing the standard, but just adding on). The other problem is that this user also keeps removing etymological information from Turkish, Persian and Arabic (we call them Oriental) derivations....sometimes even providing false etymologies. I think this is a huge violation (and I have warned the user for such actions in the past...but it continues). As for this particular IP, there was only one change regarding etymology and Ivan already reverted that...so there's no problem. All the other edits made by the user are additions of colloquialisms, but that can be standardized later on. Please do let me know if other edits come up (with Serbian and Bosnian entries) regarding this or similar IP. Thanks again. :) --Dijan 21:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

My intention was to point out that there are real problems with both the definition and the translations of this word. That is already true between American and British english. In US English the word can refer to three different animals, in UK English generally to two and in either case it is kind of a general term for any heavy bovid with drooping horns. I don't think that with the definitions now given it is possible to give proper translations. E.g. the Afrikaans buffel does not cover the asian species.

I am rather amazed that my attempt to even try and have a sensible discussion about this gets censored by you. What exactly is wrong with trying to get people to pay attention to a problem? 152.1.193.137 22:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC) nl:Gebruiker:JcwfReply

Sorry, I misunderstood what I was reverting; and was not intending to revert the entire set of edits. My apologies. --EncycloPetey 23:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Quote found . Have you tried using the advanced Google search, restricting the search to en.wikisource.org? I've found it extremely useful. --EncycloPetey 02:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. Useful. I’ll keep that in mind for the future. Thanks! † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not that I mind, but what’s the point in listing something as an alternative spelling of a word when the definition for that word already states that it is an alternative spelling of that something? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Because that's what the section is for. It is incorrect to list them as synonyms, because they're not separate words with the same meaning, just a different spelling of the same word. We use the {{alternative spelling of}} template to point to the lemma, or standard spelling. --EncycloPetey 22:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. It just seems a little redundant. I tended to list them as synonyms because their definitions are indeed synonymous — namely “lternative spelling of …”. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure that is a very good generalization to assert. Different spellings usually have very different connotations. --Connel MacKenzie 06:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

....and I was just wondering if you had come up with a clever idea for the Christmas competition. I know I've been wholly absent for some time now, but I was thinking of flexing my lexicacity once I get a break from my studies. Atelaes 06:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, I haven't and have been sick lately. Usually in the past SemperBlotto has devised and run the contests for Easter and Christmas. I ran that particular contest because I had an idea and therefore volunteered to run it. I haven't had such an inspiration this year, so I presume Semper will be setting up the contest. --EncycloPetey 15:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

splendiferousness I was going to "speedy" this but I saw that the word exists in other dictionaries. But I didn't see the entry content. Was that the problem? Algrif 00:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what happened there. I may have deleted it by mistake. I can confirm it appears in both Webster's and the Random House Dictionary, though neither gives it a full entry or definition. I'll recreate it and RfV it. --EncycloPetey 00:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Widsith, I'm planning to feature hello as WOTD on the 19th. While doing some research, I've discovered that there are several different and incompatible etymologies given in some of the major dictionaries. Some have it from a Germanic origin, and some from a corruption of Latin (deprecated template usage) illāc. Could you have a look round and (1) determine if one of these etymologies is considered "correct", or (2) provide a summary on the page of the different possibilities? --EncycloPetey 23:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC) PS - The RAE was no help, since Spanish hola apparently derives from the English!Reply

Oh, I'd I've found a Mark Twain quote using the word in 1876, which predates the 1884 currently given in the etymology. See the citations page I've started for the word. --EncycloPetey 01:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

And now an 1870 citation, so the accreditation to Edison and the use of the telephone is clearly not true. --EncycloPetey 01:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow, you seem to be having a whole conversation on your own here! The history of hello gets discussed a lot; the Edison story is definitely just a myth but beyond that people disagree. Sticking with what's known, it seems like it's a variant of hallo (or halloa) which is attested much earlier and was used as a kind of exclamation of surprise, as well as a hunting call and in various other circumstances. The OED link hallo to OHG halon ‘to fetch’, but that is by no means usiversally accepted. Widsith 10:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll get pădure fixed up now. On the other note, I don't even know what admins do, really. :o — — 14:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll take you up on that offer. And any helpful hints/info you'd care to throw my way in User:ArielGlenn/administration notes would be awesome too :-) Not that I expect to do everything at once; frankly, I figure pitching in on patrol here and there will be plenty for the short-to-mid term! ArielGlenn 21:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Goodday!Well,thanks for the deletion of my entries,that were ,'kiteful',and 'pseudocaring'.I want to do some experimentaion,but it's good that it has been made clear that it's not the right place for doing that.No more such entries will be there again.And in other case,i'll try to provide firm citations.Anyhow,rest of my contribution will be there for betterment of wikitionary.Is there any place to talk about new words formation and their acceptance by the original lingo-speakers?Forward me on my talk page.cheers,--Etymologist 13:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

sorry for caps on rabid wolf spider and locust borer. --66.152.205.254 23:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

you rule petey. you make the etmology and everything. --66.152.205.254 23:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

thats cool petey a category for beetles do you have one for spiders? --66.152.205.254 23:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

spanish terms also thats cool how about some more entries by me call me the raccoon lol --66.152.205.254 23:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

thank you for the suggestion. --TheRaccoon 23:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

petey i added more enteries check them out. --TheRaccoon 23:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for setting me straight re: foreign language notes! New to wiktionary, it helps! --76.14.36.166 03:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip :-) I'm new to wiktionary, hence the lack of an account. WT:ELE is a great help! One thing puzzles me though, why do you consider maize (corn) to be something other than a cereal grown for its grain? Merriam-Webster doesn't. What is it then?

The point is that in the US, it means exclusively maize. In the US it never means any other grain, so it's a US-specific sense. --EncycloPetey 01:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Of course it does! I'm a US citizen and live in California and I have heard "corn" used for other purposes... the patches of tough skin on the feet, corny humor and (rarely) grain. It is certainly usually applied to maize but absolutely not exclusively.

This is how Merriam-Webster Online defines the noun in its cereal connotation:

1: chiefly dialect : a small hard particle : grain

2: a small hard seed

3 a: the seeds of a cereal grass and especially of the important cereal crop of a particular region (as wheat in Britain, oats in Scotland and Ireland, and Indian corn in the New World and Australia)

b: the kernels of sweet corn served as a vegetable while still soft and milky

4: a plant that produces corn; especially : Indian corn

5: corn whiskey

6 a: something (as writing, music, or acting) that is corny

b: the quality or state of being corny : corniness

7: corn snow

I can only think you are referring to 3b - the vegetable dish - but this is already defined in wiktionary's definition of corn. I've always found Merriam-Webster to be a very good reference for American English, could you explain to me precisely the way in which you disagree?

Yes. If a friend siad they drove through Iowa and saw "a field of corn", would it even occur to you to think of something other than maize plants? In my experience, "corn" in the United States refers exclusively to maize. I am also in California, though I've lived in Texas, North Carolina, and Arkansas. Note that older versions and other editions of M-W have a separate definition for corn as "maize, Indian corn". M-W is a fine reference, but it does contain errors and simplifications just like any other reference. We are not here to duplicate the definitions of M-W, but to judge definitions based primarily on actual usage of the words in the language as evidenced from citations. --EncycloPetey 02:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Of course, but if they were driving through somewhere like North Dakota for example, then I'd certainly have cause to wonder. In my experience "corn" in the United States refers almost exclusively to maize, but is also (quite correctly) applied to grain generally, just as the word is used in every other English speaking country I have lived in (several). It simply happens that maize is the predominant corn grown in large tracts of the US and therefore it happens to be maize which is (also perfectly correctly) known colloquially as "corn" in those particular areas of the country. This is simply a cereal being grown for its grain (3a and 4 as defined by Merriam-Webster, above). While I agree completely that Wiktionary shouldn't be an attempt to re-create M-W's dictionary, I don't thing Wiktionary should be attempting to re-invent the English language either. As far as I can see the example you gave fits perfectly with the usual definition of corn: "a cereal crop grown for its grain", "the grain obtained from cereals" with the standard caveat that it is often applied to "the particular corn which predominates in an area" as given in every dictionary I have seen.

Sorry, but the word doesn't work like that. There are large areas of the US where rice is the predominant grain, but it isn't called "corn". Actual usage is more important on Wiktionary than fitting predetermined notions from books. You can always post this question to the Tea Room, which exists for discussions about usage like this. --EncycloPetey 03:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what you mean by "the word doesn't work like that", especially when the example you have given is exactly that - whatever grain the speaker happens to be familiar with. You can't get more "actual usage" than that!

The fact that you can interpret one example one way does not mean it is that way. Re-read the example I provided immediately above; it's a counterexample based on actual usage. --EncycloPetey 03:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see what you're saying. I have never heard rice called corn either. I don't think anyone, Merriam-Webster, Oxford University Press, or I, have ever said that corn is any or every cereal, simply that it is a cereal. Naturally applied colloquially to the local variety... i.e. wheat, barley, oats etc in cooler northern climes where they are cultivated and maize further south where the summers are long and warm enough to suit it. This seems to me to be exactly what you are arguing too.

And in some areas rice is the dominant cereal crop, but corn isn't used to name the crop. So corn only applies to certain cereal crops selectively. It is incorrect to define as applying to whatever the local dominant cereal is, because rice is a dominant cereal that "corn" never applies to. Additionally, I would be very surprised if an American travelling in English didn't get confused by the application of "corn" to wheat or oats. It would not fit with the American's concept of what "corn" means precisely because Americans appy the term to maize. If the term really were as adaptable as M-W seems to imply, then that sort of cognitive dissonance wouldn't happen. --EncycloPetey 04:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Whether or not someone is surprised would, I suppose, depend on how well educated / traveled that individual was. If they have never left a maize growing area then they may well be every bit as perplexed at hearing "corn" applied to wheat as someone from an oat growing village who has never ventured outside his hut. That doesn't however make the application of the word "corn" to maize any more correct than its application to any other cereal for which it is commonly used... wheat, oats, barley, rye, etc.

Corn is a word for a cereal grown for its grain or the crop it produces. That is how the dictionaries define the word. It is the definition I am advocating to you and it is the example and usage you are using here.

Obviously you are interrested in a particular POV, since in the face of evidence you fall back on "I'm saying what I'm saying and it's fact." Please rant somewhere other than my talk page. --EncycloPetey 04:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

lol What I am interested in is language. I was just curious, and trying to get to the bottom of, how your definition of corn differs from everyone else's. I haven't "fallen back" on anything - I simply still can't see it. Corn as maize seems to me to fit perfectly with the standard definition of corn as a cereal, after all corn is a cereal.

I will ask you only once more. Please rant somewhere other than my talk page. --EncycloPetey 04:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see.

We were having a discussion of how to format entries for verbs that can be both reflexive and non-reflexive over at Wiktionary talk:About Spanish#Reflexive verb formatting. The consensus had been to have all senses in the same entry. We mentioned having 1 POS verb header and 2 separate inflection lines, as well as having 2 separate POS verb headers. You and User:Connel MacKenzie were mentioned and I'm sure we'd appreciate your comments there. Thanks --Bequw 18:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry that it has taken until now for me to notice that you had been offended by a remark of mine. I did not in any way intend to offend you or anyone, although, in retrospect, I was certainly guilty of making a scattershot statement that could easily be taken as an insult. I'm sorry for the statement itself as well. That I often find myself guilty of and acknowledge various stupidities and misunderstandings on these pages will I hope suggest that I am not holding myself out as superior. If you think it appropriate, I will apologize on the tea room entry for incomparable as well. DCDuring 23:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the gracious apology. --EncycloPetey 04:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Delete it if you don't like it, it's your own entry =P Thanx for calling attention to adverbs. Let's make January be the month of ergative verbs. Language Lover 05:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would guess that the same principle applies to verb inflections and comparatives of adverbs and adjectives, right? DCDuring 04:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I replied on Dvortygirl's talk page that I should be able to get the audio for December WoTD done tomorrow. I would do them tonight but I haven't a voice right now, been under the weather. Cheers. --Neskaya ^talk 02:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Re the other words which I said I'd get to -- it would probably be a good idea if you can find someone else to do these (hopefully Dvortygirl can), because waiting didn't in fact restore my voice. Cheers. --Neskaya ^talk 01:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

You were right about Johnny, I already fixed that. But regarding yankee, my source was http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=yankee&i=0&h=0000#c. It says "especially during the American Civil War". That doesn't mean it's specific to war. --PeterCantropus 21:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

The name is still applied to Northerners today by Southerners, so while the term shifted in meaning at that time (at least for Southerners), it isn't specific or especially then. --EncycloPetey 21:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why shouldn't the Latin inflected forms have definitions? Someone looking them up should be able to find a definition easily--for that particular form--without having to hunt thru several links. --RSvK

This discussion comes up about every week. Why not read those discussions? Why not read the answer on your user talk page? --EncycloPetey 13:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

In Template talk:plural of#English translations of plurals in other languages, you mention "our practices on formatting non-lemma pages". As you probably recall, I recently tried and failed to codify what I thought was a community-endorsed practice of keeping detailed definitions and translations of each lexeme in its lemma entry only. Wiktionary:Votes/2007-10/Lemma entries received significant opposition, though, and I now realize that several contributors feel that non-lemma entries should have everything that lemma entries have, including definitions and translations. It seems like a mistake to duplicate lexeme details across all of its inflections, so this seems like an important issue to resolve. Unfortunately, I don't know how to make any further headway in the matter. Since you seem to share my view (that that lexical details that apply to an entire lexeme belong only in the lexeme's lemma entry, and that non-lemma entries should direct the reader to the lemma entry for lexeme details), can you suggest an approach to evangelizing that point of view? Rod (A. Smith) 02:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think we could start with a collection of specific cases that show the absurdity of the alternative viewpoint, such as adding translations and definitions to all the conjugated forms of Spanish (deprecated template usage) ser, or adding them to all the inflected forms of Latin (deprecated template usage) albus. Crafting a careful argument with specific cases showing why it isn't practical and is a headache to maintain would go a long way. I know that some editors here just don't have the breadth of language experience to appreciate the difficulties without a proper explanation, while I understand that other editors do and still feel that they could personally keep up with all the necessary edits. --EncycloPetey 02:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanx, I was the one who put it on the requested list, you did a good definition. Keep up the good work my good man =) Language Lover 05:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I tried to created this, however I see that you have previously deleted this category. With only the category for nationalities I feel that we are lacking a proper topical category for the names of peoples not considered nationalities, such as the Sami, and we also don't seem to have any suitable category for such items as Londoner. Since ctrl-j from the category page doesn't provide any links to any enlightening discussions, could you elaborate on the reasons for the present situation? __meco 11:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sami should be categorized under Category:Ethnicity. A Category:Demonyms would not fit into the existing category structure. --EncycloPetey 13:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

As you can see in the following link "Serbia" is misspelled, but I can't edit it. So I ask for your help.

http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=0954682807#erbia

thanks Mallerd 15:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fixed: by #wikimedia-tech. --Connel MacKenzie 08:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear EncycloPetey! Please see template talk:IPA#template:style/IPA T. Best regards
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 03:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for my atrocious formatting with regards to Latin inflection table :-). I've cleaned up some of the articles (looks like you got the rest). Hope this is okay. Thanks! Mercator 04:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry to bother you again, but what is the convention for setting up superlative and comparative forms of Latin adjectives and adverbs on Wiktionary? Are there any specific pages you can point me to? Thanks! Mercator 04:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Talk:decussate. --Connel MacKenzie 07:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Petey, I've added what you had told me about time and escotar in Occitan, well, you had done a great job and I've just added a few details. Have great holidays and a Happy New Year! See you! Capsot 21:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

about removing Sport from the main topic categories. However, I am keen to know why it is considered more important than categories like Games and Hobbies. Also, why is Category:Containers in Category:*Topics. It makes it seem as important as Category:Sciences and Category:History? Thanks DaGizza 04:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for telling me what the standard conventions are for numbers in other languages. At the moment 1-46 in Hindi have been created and all of these mention cardinal in the heading. I will use the standard agreed upon my most people from 47 onwards (up to 100) and will fix the already created articles afterwards. DaGizza 23:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you get a mo, could you please check and amplify or correct the 2nd etymology I have placed in Spanish reo? Thanks in advance. - Algrif 12:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK. I've done some formatting, but the only thing actually missing was a macron (which I added) and a definition for the Latin term. Unfortunately, this term does not seem to be in any of the Classical Latin dictionaries I have, and I don't have really good sources for later Latin. --EncycloPetey 16:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fine. Thanks. Anything is better than leaving something I was not too sure about. - Algrif 16:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

why is that we cannot add interwiki project links which dont spell or pronounce same as in english?

what is the motive behind that ?

as per my knowledge users should be able to see how it is meant in other language

there might be users who are know both english and other language but he or she might not recollect a equivalent english word this way we can assist that user

please reply

सुभाष राऊत 21:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply