User talk:Jcwf

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:

• Wiktionary Tutorial
• Community Portal
• Entry layout explained
• How to edit a page
• How to start a page
• Wiktionary Sandbox (a safe place for testing syntax)

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!

As SemperBlotto started pointing out on your anon IP page, please try to use the proper headers here. If not, someone will certainly clean them up, but it is much nicer if you can get the formatting conventions here done yourself. We avoid language code templates (and many others) for clarity and arrangement; language codes are not easily alphabetized. --Connel MacKenzie 15:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert a perfectly legitimate interwiki? nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf 75.178.190.190 20:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I reverted it because when it was entered, it was not a legitimate interwiki. I tried the interwiki, it led me to a non-existent entry, and so I reverted it. In the future, it would be better if you created the foreign entry before interwiki-linking to it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Maybe in mythology:

"Nor!" dixit deus Rhenus. "Et tu, amice?" respondit Oceanus'

Or have the dictionaries all been swum? Or is this just paradigms gone wild? Jcwf 03:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. Pardon my very stale LatinReply

Sorry, but your original request looked to be doubting the verb nō itself. After you posted on WT:RFV, I understood you were doubting only the supine forms, which is valid as I commented there. I have corrected the entry. The page is one of the older ones that had not been updated, and like many of the early Latin contributions was initiated by an individual not well schooled in Latin grammar, and without checking against major sources.

Not "gone wrong" exactly, it's just that we didn't have a "no passive" template for 1st conjugation yet, so I had to write one. It's done now. --EncycloPetey 03:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please refrain from using «» around translations of example sentences. It is not our convention. See WT:ELE#Example sentences. H. (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

En over het algemeen, kijk even na hoe ik je bijdragen verbeter; het zou aangenaam zijn moest dit niet nodig zijn. H. (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

see my talk page

it certainly is not your problem!

that user has issues we cannot, and will not, handle in the wikt/wikis! Robert Ullmann 00:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

They are all the same person, I have gone through all contribs for Matricularius and Arcarius, not Fastifex. I have only removed examples which were questionable, I am unable to read Dutch so I couldn't tell if what he added was correct, and I RFVed a few that I thought were strange. Thanks for helping out! - DaveRoss 04:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fastifex is done now too, thanks for the help. - DaveRoss 20:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but there's a rather large scale operation underway to try and categorize every entry on Wiktionary. In support of this I'm trying to get folks to keep all new entries categorized. I've categorized your last two words, but it would be greatly appreciated if you could use {{infl}} or just put the category in manually on new creations from now on. If the category does not exist (as it didn't for the last two words you created) and you don't feel comfortable creating it, feel free to drop a note on my talk page and I'd be happy to do it for you. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I knew there was nothing on this strange tongue and would rather not mess up categories. I did create two new ones on subah. Please check Jcwf 00:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Those categories look just fine. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you RFVed secondje, since Tbot made that entry you can feel free to delete it on sight if it is probably wrong, the RFV should be added at the source page's translation section. - DaveRoss 16:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Particularly if it is November 2007; those were not cross-checked with the FL wikt. Just add {{delete}} and look at the source translation table. Robert Ullmann 16:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hoi, zou jij misschien even die quote/reference willen verwikifyen? Deze entry is al eens eerder verwijderd, ook al was er in ieder geval één goede bron (die nu ook vermeld is). Ik zag dat je zelf op de nl:wiktionary wat aan ouder Nederlands deed, vandaar dat ik hiermee naar jou toe kom :) User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 19:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Jcwf,

ik heb een vraag. Ik weet niet zeker of je er echt in thuis bent, maar je weet maar nooit. Klopt deze zin: Het zou verklaren waarom hij zo geliefd is bij veel Italianen waardoor hij zo lang aan de macht is.? Of moet het "Italianen door welke" zijn? Dankjewel, Mallerd

Hij is aan de macht door het feit dat hij zo geliefd is, dus zou ik zeggen:

Het zou verklaren waarom hij zo geliefd is bij veel Italianen en waardoor hij zo lang aan de macht is.?

Zo klopt de zin. GRUNNEN ^OVERLEG 14 sep 2009 19:51 (CEST)

Dankje. Ik weet trouwens niet eens of het wel grammatica was..ciao! Mallerd 14 sep 2009 19:52 (CEST)

Thanks for your comment on my discussions page. I simply moved the definition for the dancestyle from the Verb section to Noun section where it is more appropriate. The plural definition (hak->hakken) was there before my change. Now that you've mentioned it, i looked up the word 'hak' on Van Dale (www.vandale.nl). The plural of this word is indeed hakken (see here). Jamesjiao 07:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I apologize for having misunderstood you. My brain sometimes decides to go on strike. Yes, I see the predicament. What I will do is to separate these terms into different etymologies as I can't find any guidelines for this - this will not only resolve the situation, it also makes much more sense. (An example of this can be found with the word forte) Jamesjiao 20:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC) - DoneReply

I wasn't 100% certain about it to start with. Thanks for putting the rest of the stuff in. Also are you able to create a page for 'lippen' as a verb? I have never encountered it before (verb), and have not been able to locate an accurate definition for it on the web. Your effort is so appreciated!

Interesting definitions. Would it be OK for you to tell me where you found them? I looked around a bit and found this: lippen . I am not sure what the second definition means. Something to do with using one's embarrassment to your own advantage. Jamesjiao 06:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Should there be a category Category:Dutch nouns with three plurals for words such as staatsman, or should such words just stay in Category:Dutch nouns with two plurals (which would implicitly mean "Dutch nouns with two or more plurals")?   AugPi 04:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'd go with two or more plurals. Jamesjiao 02:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see you using {{delete}} on lots of pages, would you like me to nominate you as an administrator? Regards, L☺g☺maniac ☃ 19:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. See User talk:Daniel.#posboiler for ergatives. --Daniel. 14:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would like to know your preference as regards the use of "<" vs "from" in the formatting of etymologies in Wiktionary, whatever that preference is. Even explicit statement of indifference would be nice. You can state your preference in the currently running poll: WT:BP#Poll: Etymology and the use of less-than symbol. I am sending you this notification, as you took part on some of the recent votes, so chances are you could be interested in the poll. The poll benefits from having as many participants as possible, to be as representative as possible. Feel free to ignore this notification. --Dan Polansky 10:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is the vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Deprecating less-than symbol in etymologies, which would benefit from your participation, even if only in the role of an abstainer. Right now, the results of the vote do not quite mirror the results of the poll that has preceded the vote. There is a chance that the vote will not pass. The vote, which I thought would be a mere formality, has turned out to be a real issue. You have taken part on the poll that preceded the vote, which is why I have sent you this notification. --Dan Polansky 08:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jcwf,

You said that the Ditidaht (Diitidaht) speaker could enter the words on the Dutch site and you would translate. I'm not sure how that would work exactly, but I have entered the first Diitidaht word at diitiidʔaaʔtx̣. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jcwf. We have a new vote to allow words into English Wiktionary if they are found in extinct languages in "mentions" rather than actual uses. I hope you will consider voting: Wiktionary:Votes/2012-08/Extinct_Languages_-_Criteria_for_Inclusion. --BB12 (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Is a form that translates into English as "be (word)" a predicative or copulative form? I see you've called it predicative, but some sources call it a copulative instead. Do you know if there is any difference between those forms? —CodeCat 13:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think my old Xhosa text book called it predicative, but I no longer have it. I don't think there is any difference and if you prefer to call it copulative that is fine by me. Although "negative copulative" sounds a bit like being rejected by a lady to me to be quite honest. Jcwf (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've created Appendix:Zulu copulatives, as a way to explain it in more detail. I hope I haven't missed anything. —CodeCat 16:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I reverted back to your terminology to retain consistency. I don't know much about Zulu. In Xhosa the copulative is also used for the agent of a passive verb (in -wa). (Interestingly Russian would use the instrumental case for both things as well..). I don't know if Zulu has the same, but I suspect it does. Jcwf (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's interesting to see how much of it is the same, there are just minor differences like repeating the plosive, which Zulu doesn't seem to do; and Zulu keeps the umu- prefix intact for single-syllable words. I'm still a bit mystified by how to form a copula in anything other than the present indicative. How do you say for example "would be" or "was" in Xhosa? —CodeCat 16:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

You put the appropriate form of the verb ukuba in front of the coplulative. Ndingumfundi. present Ndiza kuba ngumfundi. future Bendingumfundi. past Ndandingumfundi.remote etc. There is a bunch of tenses that I have always found very confusing Jcwf (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes they are confusing because some are originally formed from compounds, while others seem more 'basic'. It's hard to place them in a certain scheme relative to each other, because if you divide them by mood, tense etc. then the endings and prefixes don't seem to have any similarities. It is like all the different forms have just been haphazardly added over time, without any kind of system. But anyway, concerning verbs, our Zulu verbs so far have all been added as bare stems, like adjectives and relatives are, without the uku- prefix. I don't know if the same should be done for Xhosa but I thought I would mention that. —CodeCat 17:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, that is kind of strange for a language that is so centered around a system of concorded nouns. All verbs are nouns of class 15 and many of them are regularly used as such, including their 'cases'. E.g. "ekubeni" means something like "in that being so", "this being as it is" but it is simply the locative of (the verb=noun) ukuba. I think there is more reason to give nouns by their base, because the same base can often occur in quite a few classes, like -ntu: umntu(1),abantu(2),isintu(6),uluntu(11),ubuntu(14); a fact obfuscated if you impose our singular/plural dichotomy onto it. For verbs you don't really have this problem: they are all class 15 nouns. If you give them by their base, you'd have to create a separate page for their usage as nouns: again an imposed dichotomy. Jcwf (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't really understand. We already include nouns with their prefix, for pretty much the reason you stated. What is stranger is treating the verbal noun as the lemma of the verb, because of all forms, it's the only one that actually isn't a verb. Besides, the online Zulu dictionary isiZulu.net also lists verbs by their stems, as does Zulu Wiktionary. —CodeCat 01:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

The 'verbal noun' is also the infinitive: Ndiyafuna ukutya. - I want to eat. Musani ukuthetha. - Don't speak! etc. It even has a negative ukungafuni - not to want. It can have object concords like "Ndiyazama ukusithetha" - I'll try to speak it. How do you mean an infinitive is not a verb? Then Dutch infinitives like (het) spreken should also be given as nouns only...

Yes, as in Dutch, it is also a noun -the whole language is noun centered- and it has e.g. locatives like ekubeni or ekungabeni (from the negative ukungaba). If you insist to split off its verbal function under its stem, then at least put it under -thetha, not thetha. That is the affirmative imperative, a verb form.

As for the nouns: the fact that you put e.g. umntu and uluntu on two different pages (rather than on one page under e.g. -ntu) suggest that they are different nouns rather than two different forms of the same noun. Only the relationship with abantu is done justice this way. The relationship to isintu, uluntu etc. is lost, even more so because of how we alphabetize words. Jcwf (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've created a list of what I think may be possible forms of a noun in Zulu: User:CodeCat/Zulu noun forms. You could probably use that to make inflection tables for Xhosa nouns too. But I don't really know if all of them make sense, so could you have a look? —CodeCat 13:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Since you participated in the the 2012 vote to de-sysop and de-checkuser Connel MacKenzie, you may wish to participate in the current discussion of this proposal. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply