. 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
Welcome!
Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.
If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:
- Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
- Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
- If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide to Wikipedia users useful.
- The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
- A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
- If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.
You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.
Again, welcome!
This user has been adding incorrect Germanic-related material for a very long time now, and they won't listen to any discussion at all. They've been blocked many times but they keep coming back with another IP address. Supposedly they come from the French Wiktionary where they've had the same kind of trouble with this person. If you see any edits that look like this user, feel free to revert without question. You can recognise them by at least the following: adding empty links (like in the edit you reverted), adding (links to) Gothic words that are not attested, and also on that Proto-Slavic page. Look at the history of that last... they just don't get it... but at least you can look at the edits the other IPs have made. —CodeCat 12:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
- I'll keep an eye out. Hyarmendacil (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi, please don't make formatting edits until you've actually learned Wiktionary formatting :) For example, at jobbies the {{plural of}}s in the Scots section need lang=sco. Cheers! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Sorry about that. It was a mess so I just tried to make it look okay. Hyarmendacil (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for the very delayed response - I've been inactive for a little while due to other commitments. There's really no standard transliteration in Egyptological literature, since each new grammar seems to reinvent the wheel, but I feel that the tendency is towards "j" in recent works. One example that I have to hand is this (really cool) interlinear transliteration and translation of the Westcar papyrus .
Regarding standardising it on this wiki, my standard approach was to shift other transliterations to the one system (leaving soft redirects behind) and to fix the articles up at the same time. This, as it turned out, took a very long time and was nowhere near finished (as you note). I see that you have been doing the same with much greater speed, which is absolutely fantastic!
Re: HeliosX, I have been consistently unable to communicate with him due to the language barrier. At any rate, he seems to have moved on to Punic. Furius (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
- No need to apologise - there's more to life than Wiktionary! I've had a look through some of that St. Andrew's corpus site. Another useful one is - there's fewer texts but you get visual heiroglyphs and a sometimes a vocab list + commentary. About standardising; there's really a whole lot of issues to be considered - I'm glad you're around. I noticed (somewhere) that you disaprove of the Unicode glyphs - so do I, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to go changing them... And for the B-G transliterations the other editors don't like redirects, so maybe we use 'Alternative form' or make a 'B-G form of' template? I'm slowly trying to clean up the entries, but I'm not at the stage at which I can add the full verb conjugation tables. Hyarmendacil (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Yes. I tried to deal with the unicode glyphs but no consensus was reached- I have a suspicion that the letter of the law is actually on the side of unicode (because no one's bothered to push through a vote), so I'm nervous about, say, submitting the unicode Egyptian to rfd. I think an alternative transliteration template would be amazing, but I have been convinced that they should be soft redirects of that sort rather than hard (i.e. automatic) redirects. If nothing else, the non-standard transliterations might well prove to be words in other languages (Berber was raised as a possibility at one point). I've got a set of (manual) verb tables for the various conjugations as a subpage of my user-page, if you're interested User talk:Furius/Egyptian Conjugations. Furius (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
- I just wrote
{{egy-alt}} for this purpose. Try it out and tell me what you think. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
This descendant actually belongs at ἱερός. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Ah, I see. Sorry. Hyarmendacil (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi, in response to your comment on my talk page:
-
We generally avoid duplicating definitions; it's best to use {{alternative form of}} or a related template. The main entry (micaceous) covers all the meanings - otherwise the entries end up getting out of synch. You could see Wiktionary:Spelling variants in entry names for details. Cheers.
-
I created the new entry for micacious as the etymology appears to be separate to micaceous, with the similarities being coincidental. I gave an explanation of this on the discussion page for micacious. I won't revert the changes back as I'm not too familiar or experienced with wiktionary editing rules, although would appreciate your response/thoughts on Talk:micacious.
Regards Toby.e.hawkins (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Actually, on looking into it, you appear to be right (at least, going by the OED). Apologies for my hastiness. I'll add etymologies to them both and rework them. Hyarmendacil (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
A lot of the entries you created are now showing script errors. From what I can tell, all of the entries use the template {{l}} to link to a word, but then don't specify an entry to link to. Can you have a look? —CodeCat 14:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
- I'm fixing them, but you can check if I missed any here. Hyarmendacil, for future reference you probably should never use hiero tags in
{{l}}. Example of the fixes I'm making: . —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Ok, thanks for correcting that. I presume it's just a result of
{{l}} wanting a link and not getting one, and not actually an incompatibility of {{l}} and <heiro> (misspelling it purposefully)? This code seems to be ok: {{l|egy|sp(j)|<heiro>s-p:V1</hiero>}}. But it doesn't seem to be possible to get the glyphs to link anywhere - not there would be much use for linking glyphs anyway. Hyarmendacil (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Congratulations, you're a rollbacker now! This means you will find that you have new tools to fight vandalism with a single click, which should hopefully be of use to you. Enjoy, and happy vandal-whacking! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Coolio! Does this supersede the undo/FastRevert tools, or should I only use it selectively? Hyarmendacil (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Personally, I use whatever's fastest and most efficient at the moment. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Use undo when you must explain why you are undoing the edit, and rollback for obvious vandalism and nonsense. — Ungoliant (Falai) 09:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hey, are you interested in this? The guy who had applied didn’t remain active. — Ungoliant (Falai) 09:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Yeah, I thought I might go for that - however, due to study I won't be able to commit to being available everyday, and I'm not much good with IPA. But I can at probably do something if you're looking for someone. Count me in then. Hyarmendacil (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you! To be honest, study is precisely the reason why I’m in need of help.
- Here is the explanation of what needs to be done (you probably only need to skim over it.) — Ungoliant (Falai) 10:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
September 18 will be the one-year anniversary of FWOTD. Let’s brainstorm for something cool. — Ungoliant (Falai) 19:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Ah ok, I wasn't aware of that. I will have a look around. Hyarmendacil (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
How can I express my disagreement with your corrections regarding Belarusian? Sorry if it is the wrong page for this matter.
Yogi555 (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Hi; this is the right spot. I reverted your edit not because I thought that you were incorrect per se, but firstly because the information was in the wrong place (you just dumped it up the top; it should be in a
{{gloss}} or under a 'Usage notes'), and secondly because the information you're adding contradicts with other pages (Belarusian, Belorussia, etc.); and so if you are correct you'll need to change the whole lot. As to the actual matter, what you're basically saying is that Belorussia ≠ Belarus, right? Whereas wiktionary currently says that the former is an obsolete/historical term for the latter. While it does seem that there is a historical distinction, is it more than an obsolete alternate term? Wikipedia tells me that Belorussia is used as a political term for those who support Russian reunification. I don't know much about Slavic history myself, but if you are sure of yourself then it might be a good idea to raise the issue at the Wiktionary:Tea room. Cheers. Hyarmendacil (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Hi,
- I should point out that this entry is about the adjective, not the noun Belarus. Let’s have a look at the Russian and Belorussian forms pertaining to Belarus:
- белорусский (Rus)
- беларускi (Bel)
- The most amazing thing about this is that after 1991, the spelling of the adjective did not change either in Russian or in Belorussian (both of them are official in Belarus today). Not a single letter has been changed.
- Though the Russian form белорусский derives from Белоруссия или Белорусь (here the letter "o" is linking two words "bel" and "rus" due to the Russian grammar) still it is a mistake in our country to write беларусский, diriving from Belarus. Why? Because the legislator of the Russian language is not the Belarusian parliament, but Russia’s scholars who follow the principal of historic consistency.
- Why the British scholars don’t want to follow their example? The English language now ignors the traditional dictionary form "Belorussian" as obsolete, replacing it by a new form "belarusain". My belief is that even signaling “obsolete” for "belorusian" the reader must know the history of the changes and the exact year of 1991.
- In this deadlock I see only one solution: parallel forms of the adjective be used like in Latvia -"Lettish" (pertaining to historic name of the nation, language and culture) and "Latvian" (pertaining to citizens, the territory and state like Americans in the USA). The explanation is simple: any change of statehood, names cannot crisscross at a time historically based adjectives in English and in other foreign languages, because the Belarusian jurisdiction is absolutely not acute outside Belarus, and the Belarusian law of 1991, decreeing the transliteration of the noun (not the adjective) "Belarus" from the Belorussian spelling is not for the English language.
- Thus, I suggest the traditional English adjective must be still used in relation to language, culture etc and Belarusian – to the Republic of Belarus and its state and citizens.
- I hope, the following sentence put it in a simple way: “Among Belarusians there are Belorussians, Russians, Poles etc”.
- Yogi555 (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
- I follow your point; but you must bear in mind that wiktionary is descriptivist and not prescriptivist - we record actual usage, regardless of whether it's techninally or etymologically incorrect. Does the usage of the terms support your distinction? I've opened a discussion at the Tea Room (Wiktionary:Tea_room#Belarusian_vs._Belorussian) where other editors more knowledgeable than I on this subject can make a decision. Hyarmendacil (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
thanks for yor reply and desire to understand my point.
Yogi555 (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hello, see further discussion here: Wiktionary:Tea_room#Belarusian_vs._Belorussian. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I recently made a change to the Antonym part of diestro entry on the English Wiktionary which you rolled back. I believe this to be a mistake. Under the Antonym part it says:
The word "zurdo" in spanish is used to mean someone who is left handed. Izquierdo and siniestro both mean left side.
The same thing occurs in the Antonym part of siniestro which says:
Once again "derecho" means right-hand or right side in spanish.
You can also also see that Antonym part of both these entries don't agree with the Synonym parts which are right.
It's basically saying that the antonym of right-hand is right-hand instead of left-hand.
Thank you for your time. (IranEG (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC))Reply
- Welcome to Wiktionary, User:IranEG. The sense labels are supposed to be read as "to the sense of" — i.e. "siniestro is antonymous to the 'right-hand' sense of diestro". Though personally, I agree that this is somewhat confusing. This has been brought before at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2012/May#Use of "sense" template in antonyms section., but came to no conclusion. (Myself, I like the idea of changing the
{{sense}} template.) Feel free to restart the discussion at WT:BP. Keφr 08:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much for clearing that up for me. I apologize for the inconvenience, it just seems very odd and confusing. Thanks. IranEG (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
— Ungoliant (falai) 03:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Regarding your edit to tick mark, links in an entry do not replace an etymology. Although they link to the component words, they don’t explicitly state that the term’s etymology is them (and it may not be), they don’t state that the method of word creation is compounding, and they omit other information like the date of attestation, influences, etc. —Michael Z. 2014-01-08 04:18 z
- True. But for this word I do disagree with you here - there is no "relevant date of attestation, influences, etc."; it is just apposition and I think the header conveys that. Adding an etymology like that just adds clutter, which is a chronic problem in our entries. Are you suggesting that all 'basic' (without any influences, etc.) multiword entries should have such etymologies? I'm not sure what the official position is on this, but if it is 'yes' then the overwhelming number of such multiword entries do not conform. Cheers. Hyarmendacil (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply