User talk:Lambiam

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page 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.
• 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 do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
• Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
• The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
• We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

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! -- Cirt (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Could you add {{Babel}} to your user page? I'd appreciate it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

What's your L1? So coy with the Babel box. Equinox ◑ 02:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

you don't have to answer that question ;P --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

We also wish to welcome you to User:PseudoSkull/Etymologies_of_usernames. Haha! Equinox ◑ 04:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, what were they licking? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please tell us, it's killing me not to know. Chignon – Пучок 19:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The 'i' in 'die' does not look like a 't'. If you read a lot of Fraktur, it is unmistakeably an 'i'. The dot over the 'i' is missing, but it is an 'i'. There are several reasons why the dot could be missing, including a defect in the paper, a damaged sort (piece of cast metal type), incomplete inking. It's a printing error, definitely not a typographic error. —Stephen ^(Talk) 13:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Stephen: I agree that the middle letter in 'd?e' is not a 't' but an 'i' whose dot has gone awol, which is why I added an alternative explanation to the comment in this edit. Still, the damaged 'i' might easily be misread for a 't', so I thought the comment had a function, namely to alert further editors they should refrain from modifying the quotation in the article text to something like "dte ". Your edit transformed the HTML comment into something I wasn't sure was sufficiently clear to serve that function; to me it seemed more like a meta-comment on the earlier comment it replaced. I have now made clear that of the two competing theories – typo versus damaged 'i' – only the latter has validity.  --Lambiam 18:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lambiam, thanks for your edit on my draft for the term autoplagiarism on my user page (User:Zumley/autoplagiarism). Please feel free to add that edit to the actual entry. Else I could do it for you. Cheers! Zumley (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your research and help, at entries devil's triangle and Devil's Triangle. Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure it is a univerbation of an earlier phrase rather than a verb-object compound? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Of course it is a verb-object compound, but that does not imply it is not a univerbation. While there is a regular process for forming Dutch noun-noun compounds, verb-object compounds are few and far between. Other examples are bemoeial, brekebeen, durfal, stokebrand, and waaghals. An English example involving a verb – although not a verb-object compound – is ne’er-do-well, explicitly given as an example of univerbation in Laurel J. Brinton, Elizabeth Closs Traugott (2005), Lexicalization and Language Change, Cambridge University Press, p. 49.  --Lambiam 18:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

There wasn't much need to add those examples as I, being an instance of example 1, had edited at most of them. :P Anyway, those aren't specific reasons for classing it as a univerbation in this specific instance. The initial stress also strikes me as a little strange for a univerbation of weet (“knows”) al (“all, everything”); I'd expect ultimate stress there, but it is an old word so perhaps the pronunciation of either the word or the phrase changed. In any case, I don't doubt that verbs can end up in univerbation. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

In Dutch compounds the stress generally shifts to the first component. For example, in the imperative hou vast, the stress is on vast, but in its univerbated form houvast we find the stress on hou.  --Lambiam 16:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

True, though there are also many univerbations that keep their old stress pattern, like jongedame, which seems more common. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Language levels on Wiktionary are all self-assessed, and Lambiam claims Level 4 near-native competency in English. I am a native speaker and can confidently state that Lambiam is no such thing. He posts drivel, almost exclusively, on the Wiktionary Tea room page, in way that reduces its usefulness. I noted under comitative that he was making it up when he said he had heard a pronunciation with /eɪ/. I'm pretty sure he has never heard this word pronounced ever - with any pronunciation at all.

Presumably the people at Collins, The American Heritage Dictionary, Merriam–Webster and Random House also all made up this pronunciation. If you are dabbling in linguistics, you are quite likely to have heard this word pronounced, like in discussions on the roles of the Turkish postpositional particle ile, which, like the English preposition with, can assume both a comitative and an instrumental function.  --Lambiam 09:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@IP: not only do I find you quite rude, I think you're wrong in your assessment. Of course, I'm only en-2 so that can't mean that much. Per utramque cavernam 10:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

You are right ;) Equinox ◑ 10:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

For the record, I said no such thing as that I have heard the word without /eɪ/. I only stated that I think the pronunciations coexist. This belief is based on the observation that for almost any rare word, such as people may only know from reading the literature, you will find basically any plausible pronunciation (plausible by analogy with other words) when people have to pronounce it. An example are two common pronunciations of commutative, one with a stressed second syllable and one with stress on the first and third syllables. I may actually have heard all these pronunciations, but my memory is not so good that I remember all different pronunciations I have heard in my lifetime.  --Lambiam 06:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Er... it is odd that you require Metaknowledge's help to come and delete my comments here. This is not a published entry on Wiktionary, but a discussion page on your User feed. It is beyond silly to delete entries here. But then I'm probably speaking to heavily pro-censorship SJWs and so bashing my head against a brick wall with the pair of you....

If you insist on making a fool of yourself, by all means be my guest.  --Lambiam 09:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, apparently I can't, because Metaknowledge will be along to delete my posts. I want the right to make a fool of myself without the Wiki censor brigade.

You already have that right, cutie. Scream at the sky or create a free blog on the Internet. You can say what you want, but we don't have to respect it. Equinox ◑ 06:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

First of all happy new year. I am bothering you about the meaning of "SOP" entries which seems I am a master of such entries. In particular when a wikipedia administrator (SURJECTION) asked for deletion (SOP delete!) of my entry "salto di qualità" you were the only one to understand its real meaning. Anyway in that occasion I asked what the hell was a "SOP" (sum of parts) and even if you tried to explain with your google translation what it was I still cannot figure it out. What I would like to know if it has anything to do with the "Principle of compositionality" and if I am in the right direction. Thank you angelucci Maurizio

The concept is introduced and explained in our criteria for inclusion, specifically in the section Idiomaticity. (Note that the word idiomatic refers to the third sense of the English term idiom, a sense that is absent in Italian idioma.) You are on the right track: this has indeed much to do with the principle of compositionality. Saying that a phrase is SOP is the same as saying that it obeys the principle of compositionality. In other words, its meaning can be understood as the combination of the meanings of its parts. For example, take the Italian phrase minestra deliziosa. If you know the meanings of minestra and deliziosa, you also know the meaning of the combination. A phrase like that should not have a Wiktionary entry; if it is added, it will be deleted. The phrase minestra riscaldata, on the other hand, often has a specific, non-literal meaning. If you know the meanings of minestra and riscaldata, you might think this is something that is served to be eaten. But it is not. It is an exception to the principle of compositionality. We call this an idiomatic expression, and it deserves an entry. I hope this is clear, but do not hesitate to ask further questions if needed.  --Lambiam 19:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Aristo- entries need to be updated to reflect the definition you found in the Greek. -2601:644:4400:3CF8:98F1:C265:2C28:2BBF 05:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is it just me, or is this not a pronunciation of Huhn? It sounds almost as if it were meant for Händel or Pennsylvania German Hendel.

I would have removed it myself, but I didn't know if I was somehow missing something. Tharthan (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

It does not work for me in the heading (I hear

German Huhn:

(file)

), but it works here (for me):

Audio (Bavarian Héndl):

(file)

And now it also works in the heading! It is apparently a software bug (cache issue?) rather than a bug in the audio file.  --Lambiam 20:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Now I think I got confused. In any case, this is totally misplaced at the entry German Huhn. It belongs at Bavarian Héndl (for which we have no entry). Both mean “hen”.  --Lambiam 20:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the confirmation. I was not aware of the Bavarian word. I have removed it from the Huhn entry. Tharthan (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Note that a non-final t is (almost?) never lost: rustende, not *russende. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I know that you only rate yourself as grc-1, but perhaps you know the answer to this question.

If "γ" can be used to represent /h/ for foreign words, then how can something like γου or γουε represent /wu/ or /wɛː/ (or similar)? Wouldn't the latter be more akin to /ʍu/ or /ʍɛː/, if the former is also true?

I was under the impression that "γ" would be /ɣ/ in these situations. Which makes me wonder why one wouldn't simply use "χ" for the representation of /h/ (aside from, say, before /i/ or something).

I must be missing something. Tharthan (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Where on earth are you getting your claims? Gamma isn't used in Modern Greek to represent English /h/; chi is (see w:el:Αλεξάντερ Χάμιλτον). And /w/ is a (marginal) phoneme in Modern Greek, represented in borrowings as it normally is (see w:el:Ουαϊόμινγκ). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I was sure that I had seen "γ" used for /h/ in (uncommon?) loans. I can't point to any in particular right now. With regard to the latter statement, "Reynolds Woodcock" is transliterated into Greek as Ρεϊνολντς Γουντκοκ, for instance (from what I understand). Tharthan (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

As Meta said, χ is normally used to represent /h/ in transliterations. I see γουε being used to transliterate joué, like Γουε-συρ-Ερδρε for Joué-sur-Erdre. So there it should represent /ʒ/, a phoneme that is absent in Greek phonology, with /z/ coming closest. However, in Greek orthography this corresponds to the letter ζ, so the use of γ is puzzling here. Conversely, I see Ζουε used here to transliterate Gouex. It would seem that the Greek transliterators have their wires crossed. That also seems the most likely explanation of Νάταλι Γουντ and such. Βουντ would come much closer. Perhaps the Greek did not want to sound like Germans, but then they should have gone with Ουβούντ.  --Lambiam 03:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Could it be that you got confused with the use of Russian г to transliterate /h/, as in Александр Гамильтон?  --Lambiam 03:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps I, indeed, glanced at something, and that is precisely what took place. I'm surprised that I wouldn't have noticed, however, as I understand both alphabets. But with no evidence to the contrary, I will suppose that that is the most likely explanation. Tharthan (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for messing up my work on making sure cites are under the correct definition... AnonMoos (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for your work on the 'round and round' page. I was wondering though- why do you add spaces in front of semicolons in the quotations you added? Is this some rule of old English or modern English that I am unaware of? Thanks for any guidance. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I like to copy the original typography, both orthography and punctuation, of quotations, such as long s’s (as in ſeamleſsneſs) and smallcaps. In older English printed texts, colons and semicolons are offset from the preceding word by a non-breaking space, a convention still current in present-day continental French texts. You can see this here. Ideally, this space should be less wide than the inter-word spaces. Some modern texts (e.g. here) still recommend separation by a hair space.  --Lambiam 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wow, I never knew about this. I vehemently agree with your viewpoint about preservation of original typography. Thanks for the incredible resource. I took the liberty of adding what you said here to the English Wikipedia's semicolon page- let me know if that was wrong or if what I wrote should be modified. () Interesting! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for tyrning me on to three excellent words.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Lambiam, I'm English, and "pinky" for the little finger is not used at all in the UK. It means nothing at all, other than to a small minority of people who are glued to US television. As a Russian based in Germany, your sources are all online newspapers and the like. But the fact that an article in the Daily Mail mentioned "pinky" doesn't show anything about British English. Many journalists are in a kind of Global English milieu, and a lot of them aren't English. I can't say for sure if the Daily Mail journalist who wrote that article, Bianca London (the name doesn't sound English), is English or not, although she lists herself on Linked In as being native-equivalent in both English and Spanish. She may have both English and Spanish ancestry. It is unsurprising if such people speak a more US-influenced English. The Daily Mail also carries many pasted-in articles from the Associated Press, entirely in US English. It irks many English people to read Americanisms every day in the UK press, and there are likely to have been many English readers who will have been confused by the "pinky" article -- although the context and pictures made clear what it meant. Basically, "pinky" as "little finger" only means something to English people who consume a lot of US TV shows.

Thanks, Lambiam, for providing the etymology at imito. I remain curious about the Ancient Greek lemma that was suggested by Valpy, specifically if imito/imitor (whichever was earlier) came through the Greek, but have no time to investigate that at present...

I am very sceptical about this being a loanword from Ancient Greek, but am open to being surprised by evidence to this effect.  --Lambiam 17:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Our entry for tjaele was quite bare with regard to information, so I added some. However, I have to wonder whether or not the etymological information that I put together is as accurate as it ought to be.

Do you think that it is accurate? It is the best that I could discern. If not, feel free (obviously) to change it. Tharthan (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I’m far from an expert on North Germanic etymologies. The borrowing from Swedish is obvious, but I don’t quite see how to explain a sense development “frozen ground” < “underwool” < “plank”.  --Lambiam 21:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The sense development is "floor" (Proto-Germanic) → "ground" (Old Norse) → "frozen ground" (derivative of previous, in Old Norse). We are missing a number of senses of some of these words. Old Norse þel had "ground" and "bottom" as senses that we do not note here. I do admit that "ground" → "frozen ground", even in a derivative formation, is unusual. Tharthan (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Korn, Rua, -sche: Also, if anyone else has any insight on this, please feel free to chime in. The precise etymology of this word seems a bit difficult to pinpoint, but (again) the etymology that is now given on tjaele is the best that I could discern. Tharthan (talk)

Sorry, I got no knowledge concerning this. 193.174.122.76 08:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

？ Tharthan (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps User:Korn while not logged in.  --Lambiam 11:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I ask this question even more so when the native language of the person in question actually has /a/ rather than (or, sometimes I guess, in addition to) /ɑ/.

It seemingly defies logic, especially with some Germanic language speakers. This is not the most exact description that I could use, but at least to my ears, /a/ has always sounded like a middle ground between /ɑ/ and /æ/, and (in layman's terms) feels as if it has elements of both.

/æ/, in itself, is almost akin to a fusion between /ɑ/ and /ɛ/, of course. But given that it is written with "a", and given that you have situations where one might think an analogical pronunciation would result in an /a/ vowel in a loaned English word (such as "Gentleman" with potential plural "Gentlemen" perhaps being mentally linked with "Mann" and "Männer". Yet Gentleman and Gentlemen appear to be both pronounced with /ɛ/ in German, from what I understand), one would think that there would be a leaning towards /ɑ/ (or /a/, as the case may be) rather than /ɛ/. If /æ/ words were rendered with "ä" in German, I'd get it. But they aren't.

What's the reason behind this? Tharthan (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

The vowel /ɑ/ does not occur in the phonology of Standard German, so it is unlikely that a German speaker would perceive an /æ/ as an /ɑ/. While it is conventional to use /a/ in phonetic renderings of German, this vowel is actually much more central than its position in standard vowel charts would suggest; in narrow transcription it may be represented as ; see its position in the vowel chart in the Wikipedia article Standard German phonology. Now compare this with the position of in the vowel chart in the Wikipedia article Vowel, and transfer that to the German vowel chart. Which German vowels are close?  --Lambiam 22:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Tharthan It's not a very helpful reply, but as a native speaker of Dutch with a rather fronted realisation of Dutch /aː/ (more front than the position in the standard Netherlands vowel chart at Dutch phonology) and who does distinguish /æ/ from /ɛ/ (and GA /æ/ also from RP /a/), I can say I'd never 'translate' or perceive /æ/ as Dutch /aː/ and absolutely not as /ɑ/. For some reason it still sounds a lot more similar to /ɛ/ to my ears. In assimilated loanwords to Dutch /æ/ always becomes Dutch /ɛ/ in my speech, however, as is usual in Netherlands Dutch (tram, hacker). You may be interested to learn that, in Belgian Dutch, English /æ/ is rendered as /ɑ/ in loanwords; but that might as well be just a spelling pronunciation. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

That's quite bizzare. I guess that I just don't understand why anyone outside of Belgium wouldn't 'translate' (as you say) English /æ/ to Dutch /aː/ or /ɑ/. I wonder if popular preference overrode sound 'conversion'. From what I understand, in at least one of the Germanic languages that replaces /æ/ with /ɛ/ in English loandwords, the oldest English loanwords that were nativised didn't do that, and instead replaced it with one of the aforementioned vowels.

Lambiam's explanation for why Germans do it these days is understandable enough, I suppose, but given that some Dutch dialects have quite a number of "a" sounds, it seems against logic that /æ/ would become /ɛ/ for them.

Do you have any knowledge of what speakers of the Frisian languages do with English loanwords with /æ/? Tharthan (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Tharthan For what it's worth, the upper-class The Hague realisation of /aː/ does sound 'in between' Standard Netherlands Dutch /aː/ and GA /æ/ to me; but I don't know how they'd nativise /æ/. It should be borne in mind though that these loanwords come with a history that is not transparent to modern-day speaker; at least I don't know the phonology of the speakers who pioneered an adaptation to Dutch /ɛ/. Modern Dutch speakers by and large inherit the system from earlier generations and learn the nativised loanwords before they encounter any kind of English /æ/, so the perception is biased before they learn English. On top of that English realisations of /æ/ may sometimes approximate and I don't think many schools in the Netherlands teach that /æ/ and /ɛ/ are separate phonemes in English. I'd be amazed if any significant percentage of primary school teachers could keep /æ/ and /ɛ/ apart.

I don't really know about the Frisian languages' approaches, though the odds are that at least some loanwords from English entered West Frisian via Dutch. ("ight as well be just a spelling pronunciation" was by the way an understatement for "likely is a spelling pronunciation".)

It should be fairly obvious why /æ/ isn't perceived as Standard Netherlands Dutch /ɑ/: the former vowel is very front and the latter is very back. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

The standard pronunciation of Dutch banjo, also in the Northern Netherlands, is /ˈbɑn.joː/, which is clearly a spelling pronunciation, what with the /j/. It is listed with the same pronunciation under the L2 of West Frisian as borrowed from English, so this is also a spelling pronunciation (possibly copied from the Dutch pronunciation). It is the only inhabitant of Category:West Frisian terms borrowed from English for which the English pronunciation contains an /æ/. For German Banjo we list three pronunciations: /ˈbɛn.(d)ʒo/, /ˈban.(d)ʒo/, /ˈban.jo/.  --Lambiam 22:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's clearly a spelling pronunciation, probably borrowed via Dutch, but that also makes it less useful for figuring out how English /æ/ is usually adapted to West Frisian. West Frisian tram is pronounced /tram/ (apparently like according to West Frisian phonology) and /trɛm/ according to the WFT, although the Etymologiebank says it was borrowed via Dutch. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dear Lambiam, hello, I'm sorry for bothering you, the thing is there was a vote to remove all ƿynn entries and it was successful. - Wiktionary:Votes/2020-09/Removing_Old_English_entries_with_wynns.

I know that you are most likely not involved in this subject and I feel really uncomfortable to disturb you, but I was told you might be inclined to assist if I make a convincing argument.

There is a discussion about it on the Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/November page - ]. I hope the arguments you find there can be convincing. If there were a vote to bring these entries back, would you support it? Sorry for taking your time. Birdofadozentides (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have no opinion either way on that subject, but aren't you canvassing? That's generally discouraged. Tharthan (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Tharthan. I personally saw -sche going around inviting people in old BP topics and on their user pages to vote in favour of Option 1 when it was failing. Clearly canvassing is not a problem. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 05:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: Does Wiktionary have any particular rule on/restriction against canvassing? I cannot recall, but I thought that it was discouraged at the very least. Tharthan (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Not that I've been able to find, but it's considered bad wikietiquette at the very least. I've been trying to put my finger on why @Dentonius rubs me the wrong way, and I think I've figured it out. They obviously have an agenda, and almost all of their actions seem crafted solely for the purpose of furthering that agenda. It reminds me of spam, or of the phone calls with a recording that says "This is an urgent message for the vehicle owner. We've been trying to reach you about your vehicle's warranty" and is obviously selling some kind of generic third-party service plan. Fake. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chuck. It's okay if you don't like me. I've been very transparent about my agenda and have gone as far as to include it in my signature under "my politics." You already know my main interest is Patwa. I've reached out to you with questions about that. Nowadays you only show up to say what a bad person I am. I get it. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 15:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's not that I hate you or think you're evil. You strike me as a decent enough person who doesn't understand how a community like this works and is trying to fix things that aren't broken using the wrong tools for the job. It's like someone who starts working on a circuit board without reading the schematics or making sure they're grounded: they're liable to fry things without realizing it. I'm not trying to attack you, I'm trying to give you feedback so you realize that what you're doing isn't working and rethink things. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz, I exist in real life too and I'm aware of my own personality. I'm just powerless to change it. I'm just as polarising in real life as I am here. My intentions are good but, as you said, I'm not a people person. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 16:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Tharthan, sorry for answering so late. I guess my messages can be annoying, maybe I should've changed the text of every message, but I don't know the people I am writing to, so I thought it was the best way, I couldn't have done it better. Birdofadozentides (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dentonius, I'm sorry you had this conversation because of me. What should I do now? Some people answered, about 6-7 may support the vote, but others have ignored the message. Should the vote be created now? Because November is over, Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/November soon won't be current. I know there are not enough people, but I don't think it will ever change and I'm afraid that if not to do it now this discussion will just become history. Birdofadozentides (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Birdofadozentides. I'm happy to help. Finding the right wording might be key. inqilābī supports the creation of attested wynn lemmas. That might be the compromise you'll have to reach with the deletionists. They might be flexible enough to not stand in the way of seeing those entries come back. I would find out more from the creator of that vote — -sche. It's entirely possible that he wouldn't be against attested wynn entries. Starting the vote this early, even though, you have considerable support might spell disaster. Then again, you might get lucky. I'd spend a little more time on the wording though to see what resonates with everybody. Getting the wording right might be the key to your vote's success. Once again, good luck :-) -- Dentonius 22:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Dentonius, thank you for answering. Guess I can't actually find the right wording, I answered inqilābī and wrote what I think about the subject and why it is a stumbling block for me. I don't think I can find other words. I was not -sche who started it all, it was Benwing2 - Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2019/November#Proposal:_Delete_all_Old_English_words_with_-ƿ-.

It took a long time for this discussion to become an action. It was Benwing2 who was deleting the entries. I do not think they would be flexible, they would be against it. Starting a vote now is too early, I see. Sorry you will spend your time on this, for me it looks like that people who are against the entries will always exceed in number people who would support it. I am sorry I am kind of useless at finding more proper words. Perhaps we shouldn't write here, it's Lambiam's talk page. I suggest we'd better switch to my talk page.Birdofadozentides (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I thought you would like this for Christmas: the Nativity story in 5-grams by Battus (search for "55b Woord wordt vlees nieuw krols proza", it's a large page). Now I'd better hope you're not a great fan of Wouter Buikhuisen or Paul Cliteur. ;) ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to wish you a happy new year, Lambiam.

I hope that 2021 treats you well! Tharthan (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello Lambiam. I just wanted to inform you about the following current vote: Wiktionary:Votes/2020-12/Bringing back wynn entries. You might want to cast your vote there. You are an editor of great judgement, so I would appreciate it if you vote! Regards. — inqilābī ^{‹inqilāb·zinda·bād›} 18:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wierd is in fact a somewhat uncommon but not extremely rare West Frisian given name. The NVB treats Wiard as the main form. I do hope most of them aren't as weird as the specimen that made you encounter the given name. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey Lambian! I've seen you comment multiple times on the same topics as me and I've always wondered: What's your native language? Your user page leaves that as a mystery. Fytcha (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I prefer not to disclose this. The concept is ill-defined anyway.  --Lambiam 07:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. This is probably not a good idea: . Sticking to the semantic markup would be better, instead of choosing your own arbitrary fonts and sizes. Equinox ◑ 17:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I really don’t see why this should be considered an issue. If I’d had to use {{quote-book}}, I wouldn’t have presented the evidence – too much trouble.  --Lambiam 19:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have updated the entry with your information and now I feel dirty.

Can we take that as an opportunity to discuss methods for a minute? ApisAzuli (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply