. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
you have here. The definition of the word
will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Welcome!
Hello, 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 the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --EncycloPetey 06:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Note on pursuance: What you've added is not a Reference, but a Quotation; I'll set the standard format so you can use the entry as a style guide in future. --EncycloPetey 06:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Ah, thank you. Much appreciated. Grendelkhan 06:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
We use ---- between languages. Robert Ullmann 00:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Darn. How'd I miss that? The style guide does say to put that line there. Grendelkhan 01:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
You can save yourself a bit of typing if you use the Rhymes template, like this
*{{Rhymes|iːp}}
--EncycloPetey 06:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks! Grendelkhan 07:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Just noticed your addition of one of the few missing Shakespeare quotation templates, thanks! JesseW 20:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you! I'm pleased that you noticed! grendel|khan 18:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I see that you have added some quotations. Please continue. In addition to all the pages with missing quotations from authors indicated only by their last name (marked by use of {{rfquotek}}), we also have many with quotations, but no full name of author and no date of authorship/publication (marked by use of {{rfdatek}}). There are more than 10,000 pages with missing quotations and perhaps 5,000 with undated, untitled quotations.
I am coming to believe that we should be making a greater effort to include links to good online editions of the works involved, rather than spend too much time on actually including publication details in our citations. Also, it is really necessary to try to find out who translated works from other languages and when. The translators (Chapman, Pope, Dryden, Heaney, Eleanor Marx!) are the English wordsmiths, not Homer, Virgil, etc. I get discouraged looking at the poor quality of our citations, but with such a low bar, it is easy to make improvements. DCDuring (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I reverted your edit to bandying because of an invisible module error that seems to have been caused by improper use of the {{sc}} template, which is an alias for {{script}} on Wiktionary, not a "small caps" formatting template as it is on Wikipedia. I suspect that the parameter in question is fed into a parser function somewhere, and parser functions are designed to fail without displaying anything. Please make sure that you get the correct output and that there are no categories indicating errors (you can check for hidden categories at the bottom of the page when you preview your edit).
Feel free to redo the edit once you get rid of the errors. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Ah, thank you; that should have been
{{smc}}! (And I'd also written article instead of title for one of the parameters.) Fixed! grendel|khan 07:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I believe you can request for the template editor right at "Wiktionary:Beer parlour". Provide some information about how you intend to use the right, and what experience you have with templates and what work you have been doing with them thus far. — SGconlaw (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks for the heads-up; I've requested them. grendel|khan 23:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hey. There's a quote at revolt from Milton's sonnets that I couldn't figure out how to put into a template. Can you help? --Vitoscots (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- @Vitoscots: Ah, that template links to/refers to Milton's 1645 book of poems, which contains only sonnets 1-10; that's Sonnet 12, so it's not in that book at all. It is in Milton's 1673 Poems, which there's no template for yet. (This is in part why I'm so nitpicky about finding the quote inside the book, to avoid this kind of error, which I imagine can be very difficult to detect after the fact.) I'll add the template and try to clarify things as best I can. grendel|khan 17:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, it can be difficult to spot those errors. I probably made a couple of mistakes with my initial Paradise Lost quotes, because I didn't realise that the 1667 version only had 10 books, while the later ones had 12. It's bound to happen really, when editing so productively. Also, I am always tempted to cut corners, by for example not even mentioning which book of PL a quote was in, but I haven't done that yet. If I do cut those corners, I'll claim it is better to have just a year and a book than just an author. this is an improvement, but yes, this is even more improvey. --Vitoscots (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- @Vitoscots: Okay, that's fixed. I can understand having just a link to the year and title, but I do worry about linking to the wrong year and title, which is possible and even likely in the case of shorter works with no consistent titles and no tables of contents. I understand that there's a tremendous amount of unfinished work, and that there's a tension between being meticulous and being efficient. Whether you're moving a lot of bits a little ways, or a few a long ways, as long as it's in the right direction, I'm happy. grendel|khan 19:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Very wise words. We should remember that there's no clause in our wikicontract that we have to be perfect. --Vitoscots (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I have doubts about the Milton quotes for clothing, near and peddlery. I couldn't track them down, or they might not even be by Milton. Possibly a little spelling change is necessary, which often happens as Webster made a few mistakes when originally compiling. Anyway, I thought I'd mention it to you so I'd vaguely keep track of things. --Vitoscots (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- @Vitoscots: Ah, those are tricky, and you're right that sometimes the attributions in the original are wrong (which is why I appreciate being able to link directly to source materials!). clothing had a variant spelling in the original, near I found what looked like a use of the phrase in the correct sense (though I suppose we can't be certain that was the original), and peddlery was spelled archaically and was in a tract that I haven't been able to find an original scan of, so I've linked to the best reprint I could find. Thanks for bringing these up, and let me know if you get stuck on any others! grendel|khan 17:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Yeah, I got stuck on all of these guys. Just 37 in there. --Vitoscots (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- endazzle is another one - the "endazzled eyes" quote is apparently Milton's, and is referenced to him in other books, but I can't track down the original source. "endazzl'd eyes" and "endazzld eyes" don't give anything either. --Vitoscots (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- And plight. The quote seems to be "A plaited garment of divers colors." from his History book, so the quote should probably go at plait and the section for "plight" might want to be deleted. --Vitoscots (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- And the quote at decent might be from Spenser --Vitoscots (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- And a date is needed on Template:RQ:Milton Fairfax. Probably from his 1673 poems, not sure --Vitoscots (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- @Vitoscots: These are fun! So, endazzled eyes is from Areopagitica; you can see it in reprints, but the original spells it undazl'd, of all things. I've sent it to the Tea Room for opinions. (I'll come back to the others as I figure them out.) grendel|khan 16:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- I haven't updated
{{RQ:Milton History}} to point to the original text yet, but it does say "plighted", not "plaited"; later printings likely updated the spelling. The bit at decent is quoted in a footnote to some editions to Spenser, but it's from Il Penseroso; I've added it. "To My Lord Fairfax" is not (I think) in either of the poetry collections; it was printed posthumously in 1694, it seems. There's a copy of Letters of state written by Mr. John Milton, but it's not scans of the text, and there's no such scans on Google Book Search, HathiTrust, or the Internet Archive. I found a 1698 printing in a biography, which notes that it's not collected among his other works, and updated the template. grendel|khan 17:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Another tricky one is for swainish - I'm not sure if Milton was talking about a breast or a beast. --Vitoscots (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- So, Grendel, Category:Requests for date/John Milton and Category:Requests for date/Milton have been whittled down to just 4 entries. I herebie state that my Mission to date all Miltons workes be complete, and I proclaim meself as the literate Person a-live to have read the most Milton in thir Life without having ever read a single Book by him, or having any Idea of what they are actually about. I thanke thee for thy accompagniment upon the aforesayed taske, and bid thee farewelle. --Vitoscots (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I made Template:RQ:Addison Spectator, and wanted to mention which number it is. I probably broke it, however. How would I do it properly --Vitoscots (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Ah, I think you'll want to use
{{RQ:Spectator}}. I've made the edit; note that specifying the date is slightly tricky (where the original specifies two years, just put in the second). I'd suggest that you RfD {{RQ:Addison Spectator}}, or make it a redirect. grendel|khan 05:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Why are these templates so verbose? They also reek of mould, likely to scare off users. Why do they not have links to the WP article of the works involved? Why do they have arcana such as locations of the publishers? Why do they not have a link to an online edition to allow one to confirm the meaning in full context? DCDuring (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- @DCDuring: I'm sorry, I don't follow. In that citation, the text "The Spectator" links to the Wikipedia article, and the text "page 141" at the end of the citation links to the online edition. It is verbose, but it's an odd case in that it's a reprint (so it's a cite for the original and for the reprinted edition), and it's customary to specify enough information to find the item later on, which traditionally includes the name and location of the publisher. If we had an online edition of the original, I think it would be a bit shorter. At least the use of the template is pretty straightforward? grendel|khan 06:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Nah, Addison sucks. It's all about Macaulay. Look after the website, dude. Maybe see you again one day --Vitoscots (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- I've dated almost all of Macaulay's quotes, except desperate and master, which I couldn't track down. --Undurbjáni (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Okay, master was in an uncredited-at-the-time book review in The Edinburgh Review, and desperate was an entry in the 8th (reprinted in the much more popular 9th) edition Britannica; I've created
{{RQ:Britannica 9th}}, though I still have to write documentation. Also, {{RQ:Macaulay Goldsmith}} incorrectly refers to the 11th edition; I'll fix its referents and link to the correct edition (along with {{RQ:Macaulay Bunyan}}, {{RQ:Macaulay Atterbury}}, and {{RQ:Macaulay Johnson}}, though those are lower priority) as I go. After I finish cleaning up the John Milton templates. grendel|khan 23:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to give you a medal for your hard work with dates of quotations...speaking of which, can you track down a year which Addison's Medals book was published. It was after his death, but that's the best I can do. The information should go at Template:RQ:Addison Medals. --Undurbjáni (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
- There's only four incoming links as of right now, but I can spiff up the template to point to this copy on Google Books, published in 1726. (Also, wow did I ever not notice this for a while. Well, it's still an active issue.) grendel|khan 01:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
- And that's done! grendel|khan 20:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello Grendelkhan,
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