User talk:Lingo Bingo Dingo

Attention! The content of this article or section may be obscene or offensive to some readers.

Archive
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020

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 (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; 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 for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lingo Bingo Dingo, is there an official policy defined for unattested diminutives in Dutch? I would generally be more inclusive, as I don't want us to imply that a word such as "krijgsolifant" cannot have one - it does have the possibility of a (regular) diminutive. Morgengave (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Morgengave To my knowledge there is no policy specifically covering this. The general custom is that non-lemma case forms and derived forms have to be attested, but that plurals don't. So it kind of depends where you think the diminutives best fit. My view is that they are more like case forms. I personally don't mind showing unattested but potentially usable diminutives, but I am not a fan of having them as entries; but in my experience there are always a few users who create green links without checking for attestation, even some who do not state any proficiency in Dutch. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no problem using "dreen" as a lemma form, but please be cautious using WLD. The forms listed here and in the pdf version might actually not exist in Limburgish, as the bold forms are standard Dutch (or Dutch equivalent translations). For example dolletje only exists as "dø̜lkǝ (Urmond)", which is spelled as dölke and not as dolletje. For dreen specifically, this is no issue, as the form "drēn" (spelled dreen) exists in the area surrounding Maastricht and Geulle, where common ae is pronounced as ee just like in Dutch (f.e. laeve > leve). For the majority of dialects, "dręn", "drę̄ǝn", "drɛ̄n" (spelled draen or draeën depending on the schwa-diphthong) is used. Please keep this in mind in case you plan to use WLD in the future :) --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ooswesthoesbes Thanks for the warning. Is ae the usual result of a sharp-long vowel (I'd guess <a>?)? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"ae" /ɛ:/ is usually either the result from Proto-Germanic short "e" or short "a" with umlaut. For example *etaną > aete "eat" and *makōn > make "to make" > maeker "maker". The short counterpart is e /æ/, often in plural, such as bal "ball" > bel "balls". Although the precise distribution is very complicated due to syncope, the arrisal of tonality, more extended i-umlaut è /e̞/ (for example valle "to fall" > vèltj "(he) falls") etc. --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

"Holograph" (n) has never meant "a hologram" - IIRC Gabor chose the latter specifically to avoid confusion with "holograph" which already existed (meaning sole hand-written document). I'm not familiar with how Wiktionary do things, but to support this claim I would expect a cited reliable source (and this definition isn't in any of my dictionaries!). 51.6.110.70 21:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted your revision after I found the definition in some American online dictionaries (Merriam-Webster, American Heritage Dictionary). It is true that contents on Wiktionary should be verifiable (though usually not by means of references but rather quotations), I can RFV the sense "hologram" for you if you'd like. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I've been in photonics for decades and don't recall ever seeing "holograph" used for hologram, even in US publications. Both the examples given by M-W are very recent - one is obviously referring to Bladerunner 2049 - while the bogus definition has been here for 15 years without supporting evidence, with risk of creating a self-fulfilling loop ("citogenesis" on Wikipedia). So I still believe this is a false definition. (I also don't understand why it's given as the first definition...) 46.208.55.219 16:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a RFV discussion where you can weigh in here. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

Yom HaShoah 2021 is on the 8th, not the 9th. Sorry if this was a mistake on my part. It begins on the evening of the 7th, lasts until the evening of the 8th. Please move akodrar to the 8th. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@פֿינצטערניש Thank you for the timely notice.  Done It will take some time before the template has been updated, but it probably will be in time. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

I see you changed the pronunciation of "verwaarloosbaar" from /vərˈʋaːr.loːzˌbaːr/ to /vərˈʋaːr.loːsˌbaːr/, i.e. the /z/ to /s/. Please note that in Dutch all voiceless consonants get voiced before the voiced stops /b/ and /d/. This is a general phonological rule without exceptions (see e.g. "leesbaar", "huisdier"). This needs to be indicated in the phonemic transcription (and it always is, see dictionaries of Van Dale or Heemskerk and Zonneveld: Uitspraakwoordenboek (2000). Utrecht: Het Spectrum, and see the phonological literature, e.g. Geert de Booij: The Phonology of Dutch (1995). Oxford University Press) since the voiced counterparts of voiceless consonants are separate phonemes in their own right in Dutch, not just allophones of voiceless consonants. It does not matter that historically, the /z/ developed through the voicing of an /s/ in this specific word: synchronically, it is a /z/. As the general principle of phonemic transcription says: "Once a phoneme, always a phoneme." This means that if we indicate /z/ as a phoneme in e.g. "zoon" /zoːn/, then we have to indicate all occurrences of the sound as a /z/ phoneme in the phonemic transcription as well. (The same applies to the glide /j/ in "theater", which we discussed before: if we indicate /j/ in the phonemic transcription of "jong" /jɔŋ/ (which means it is a phoneme), then we have to indicate all occurrences of the sound as /j/ in the phonemic transcription as well, also if historically it occurred as a hiatus-filling glide, as in "theater" /teːˈjaːtər/.) Also, in my opinion there is no need to add the pronunciation of the prefix "ver-" with a full vowel, since the usual pronunciation is with a schwa (see pronunciation dictionaries mentioned above). Also, the possibility of a pronunciation with a full vowel is not a lexical peculiarity of this word only, but of all occurrences of the prefix "ver-", so no need to indicate that this specific word has both pronunciations.) Thank you for reading my comment. If you agree, please revert /vərˈʋaːr.loːsˌbaːr/ to /vərˈʋaːr.loːzˌbaːr/.

Leandro81 (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Leandro81 We usually transcribe this type of regressive voicing in square brackets, so phonetically. If you want this to be represented as the phonemic transcription (as I assume you want this to be our default from now on), that's probably a matter for the Beer Parlour. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo Hi, thanks for the tip. I'll see if I have the time for more discussions in the Beer Parlour. Just wanted to add that phonologically, it cannot be demonstrated that this is a /s/ phoneme (morphological alternation between the various forms of this stem containing /s/ and /z/ is a different thing), it is only the spelling which has an "s", but spelling is not indicative of phonological structure. The same principle underlies the fact that we analyse /ŋ/ as a separate phoneme in present-day English and not just as an allophone of /n/. Since "sin" /sɪn/ and "sing" /sɪŋ/ are minimal pairs, /n/ and /ŋ/ are distinct phonemes. (In earlier English, when "sing" was still pronounced with a /ɡ/ at the end, the could just be analysed as an allophone of /n/). Therefore, today, we analyse all occurrences of the sound as a /ŋ/ phomene, even if historically it developed as an allophone of /n/ through place assimilation before velars. So today, "English" /ˈɪŋglɪʃ/ also has the /ŋ/ phoneme, not /n/, because synchronically, we have no reason to assume that it is not the /ŋ/ phonome, but an allophone of /n/. The same applies in Dutch as well, due to the "ton/tong" minimal pair, so "dank" has the /ŋ/ phoneme, not /n/. Leandro81 (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Leandro81 I can post your comments in the Beer Parlour if you like. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

hi @Lingo Bingo Dingo, you mentioned me in your edit of ommantelen. I think this verb could be described as prefix 'om-' + verb 'mantelen'. See: https://www.ensie.nl/van-dale/mantelen I don't describe verbs with om- as circumfixes, because they can usually be seen as a combination of an existing verb and a prefix. I realize that this doesn't always work, in those cases the distinction between circumfixes and prefixed verbs + -en (denominative) is somewhat arbitrary. I'm open to idea of using circumfixes when no basic verb is available but this should be done consistently. --DerRudymeister (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

All right, I changed it to {{pre|nl|om|mantelen}}; the chronology checked out as well, so there was no reason not to. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not great with many of the templates, although I have begun using a small number of them lately. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. Tharthan (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tharthan I see. {{m}} and {{l}}, and the variant {{m+}}, are the most important ones to start using. One hardly ever uses bare double brackets in etymologies or usage notes. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The two sites Reconstruction:Proto-Turkic/öküŕ and Reconstruction:Proto-Tocharian/wəkʷsó should be corrected, "Güntert, Anders H; Festschrift Fr. Panzer 10" actually describes a reverse loan, cf: Orel handbook, page 434 on top. Also consider the loss of initial /p-/ in Turkic (> *pökkVr-) and ToB. 10:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)~

Eh, okay? I do not know why you address this to me, but I'll ping an editor who can evaluate the claim. @Victar ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed sources, but this is perma-blocked user User:Altuunay. --{{victar|talk}} 18:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  I have never heard of the user, but thanks for the information. I've read the CU discussion now. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I am finding it so hard to nominate a word there because the list is so long, and I could not make out if new nominations are put at the beginning or the end. So if I simply list a few ‘ready’ words on your talk page, would you be able to list those as FWOTD by yourself? Thank you! -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 10:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī Yes, that is all right. The practices are divergent and a little confusing, but at WT:FWOTDN new nominations are placed directly above the other nominations in the same language (so a new Chinese nomination is placed directly above the other Chinese nominations), but at WT:FWOTD/FW they are placed directly below the other nominations with the same ready/unready status. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī The nominations have been put in the right place. However, in this case one nomination is the immediate ancestor of the other nomination, but we generally avoid featuring cognates with a similar semantic range. In this case I would prefer to feature the Bengali, because of its polysemy. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: If we feature the Bengali one now, then the Old Bengali may be featured afterward. Is there any rule that cognates can never be shown, even after a good while (just wondering)? Also, by the way, the ‘quote translated’ signal is not showing for this: diff. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 17:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī There isn't such a rule, but it will probably take a couple of years. And yes, if the cite parameter is greater than one, another text is not shown, but I don't know what the details are. It was probably implemented because for LDLs two quotations or citations are enough to qualify. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Just informing you that there’s a new entry on that page: Middle Bengali ঘর (ghor); you might to want to make it the FWOTD as this word is also polysemantic. The Modern Bengali term is a very common word (which is why I nominated the Old Bengali at first), so you may choose the Middle Bengali instead. Thanks. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 13:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī Considering that the senses currently in the entry are identical, I am in principle relatively indifferent about which of the two is featured. I generally dislike changing FWOTDs on short notice because the template takes ages to update, though that is less of an issue here because the entries have the same title. So, if you'd rather change the language code to Middle Bengali, be my guest. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Geachte Bingo, wat je daar in de edit history tegen me zei, vond ik niet bijzonder vriendelijk. Ik ben inderdaad geen moedertaalspreker van het Nederlands, maar ik denk wel dat ik van mezelf mag zeggen dat ik "the fucking language" een beetje geleerd heb. Het maakt echter niet uit. Alleen hoop ik dat je me dat misschien even kunt verklaren... "Eu" wordt over het algemeen /øː/ uitgesproken. Dus, dan zou het tenminste een beetje vreemd zijn als het in dit woord /œy̯/ was, want daarvoor schrijven we eigenlijk "ui". Maar, kijk, voor mijn oren klinkt het inderdaad als /øː/, ookal is het een beetje gediftongiseerd als . Misschien vergis ik me, dus dan had ik inderdaad niet moeten zeggen "clearly". Maar eigenlijk denk ik ook nu nog dat hij "eu" zegt en niet "ui". In elk geval, beste groeten. 78.54.16.104 00:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

PS: En om eerlijk te zijn: Wat de beklemtoning betreft, daar zei ik al van tevoren dat ik er niet zeker was. Maar als je naar het meervoudsvorm luistert ("eunuchen"), dan vind ik dat hij dus écht de eerste lettergreep beklemtoont. Dan zou zelfs dat niet zo "idiotic" zijn. Tenminste niet om even te vragen. En dat hij hier inderdaad /øː/ zegt, lijkt me zelfs duidelijk te zijn. Dus ja, dan verwacht ik misschien zo'n kleine verontschuldiging van jou, als dat kan. 89.12.62.14 04:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

All right, it was rather unfriendly, so sorry for that. Anyway, the dictionaries I checked both have initial /œy̯/ with final stress and that's the only pronunciation I've ever heard. /œy̯/ for 〈eu〉 is entirely normal in words derived from Ancient Greek, especially if they aren't everyday words, compare Zeus, hermeneut, deuterium, farmaceut, Pentateuch. It's true that the audio file has /øː/ with initial stress, but to me that sounds just like a spelling pronunciation by someone who doesn't know the word. There is unfortunately no shortage of audio files with errors like that, adding RFCs based on them isn't going to be helpful. It's in general a bad idea to rely on audios like that, IPA and audio probably have an error rate that's in the same ballpark. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'd just like to inform you about two entries I added among the kruis page's derived terms before any confusion arises. The entries are "kruisblom" and "kruisblommig". Kruisblommig isn't a derivative of kruisblom as the latter entry is a passionflower whereas kruisblommig refers to a cruciferous plant. If you see any problems with the page's major edit, just point it out. Thanks in advance. AdjacentTriangle (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@AdjacentTriangle It looks really good. By the way, don't you have green links on? You can enable it at Preferences > Gadgets > Add accelerated creation links (...). The plural surely deserves a non-lemma entry. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Another thing I'd like to bring up, unrelated to the Kruis page, is the dophou page. According to an etymological book I have on Afrikaans, it's derived from a Dutch saying "in de doppen/gaten hebben/houden", which sounds plausible enough. Is how I've set up the etymological section up good enough? AdjacentTriangle (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@AdjacentTriangle Yes, I'd say it's all good. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo Hey there again, I've made a pretty large edit on the bot page. I hope it is sufficient given the many different grammatical aspects? AdjacentTriangle (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you have something against the usage of {{dercat}}? --{{victar|talk}} 16:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Victar No. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, *phew*. --{{victar|talk}} 17:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Lingo Bingo Dingo, I'm well! I hope I'll be able to stick around for a while. Looking forward to collaborating with you again. --Azertus (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'd just like to mention that I've reversed some of the changes you made to Bronkhorst. The etymology was actually pretty much complete: I source everything from Berkel and Samplonius (2018), and that text pretty much indicates that the etymology is cut and shut. I never add personal conjectures or folk etymologies, even when it's very clear what a toponym is supposed to be (e.g. De Hoeve). If I don't have any professional etymology or attestation, I immediately indicate that the etymology is uncertain. The only thing the etymologies lack is a citation, but that's because I don't have the printed version(s) of Berkel and Samplonius to hand and thus can't add them (I could add hyperlinks to etymologiebank.nl, but that looks a little unprofessional and I might be able to get my hands on the printed work(s) at some point in the future anyway). Berkel and Samplonius are not infallible authorities of course, but they do have the maturity to say "we don't know" when they're dealing with an uninterpretable toponym and then offer a selection of older hypothetical etymologies, which I also indicate. I'm not mad that you changed the page or anything, just letting you know that I don't add conjectures or personal speculation under any circumstances.

Oh two more things. One: Bronkhorst is very aggressive in profiling itself as a capital C city based on its vaunted city rights (and to steal tourists from Staverden and Sint Anna ter Muiden) so I've reversed that too. Two: horst is a highly variable term depending on where in the Dutch linguistic area you are. A horst can be anything from a small sandy wall with a bunch of weeds on it to a bona fide hill or a kind of small dune plateau (e.g. de Vliehorst). I've deliberately chosen to copy Berkel and Samplonius and use "overgrown elevated place" ("begroeide hoogte") to ensure some degree of general applicability. The definition of "hillock" is not wrong per se (because most places indicated as "horst" are about two to three meters off the ground at most), but I think it's better to keep things general (the same reason why I translate lo as "light forest", because again the term carries different connotations depending on where you are). Nothing serious, just thought I'd let you know my reasoning. 030BeterHe (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@030BeterHe I don't really mind the changes a lot, especially not those to the etymology. My main concern is to prevent surnames to be placed under a neuter headword; whatever gender you can assign to surnames, they usually are not neuter. To be honest, I think it is very grandiloquent to call anything with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants a city and with Bronkhorst apparently having under 100 inhabitants, I'd say "f- their marketing". We do not and should not call Stavoren a "city" either and I think it is more important to adapt the terminology to the expectations of native English speakers (whose expectations are not uniform!) than to the external desires of Dutch speakers. But I won't change it back without further input. Your approach to generalising glosses in etymologies is entirely justifiable. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you that Bronkhorst's city status is entirely a joke at this point and is just done to lure in tourists, so if you want to change it back be my guest. As far as surnames are concerned: maybe a stopgap solution would be to create a separate etymology for the surname with the correct gender? Although that might clutter up the pages too much. 030BeterHe (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yo, I realised just now that it's technically possible to add definitions for water boards (seeing as how they're current and past administrative subdivisions with clearly defined territorial jurisdictions, i.e. they manage real dirt and aren't statistical districts or something). Do you think they should be added or will they clutter up the site too much? Most of them are hydronyms with the term "waterschap" or "college" added to them, so I'm 50/50 on them being included. 030BeterHe (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@030BeterHe I'm not sure either. There aren't too many anymore because of mergers, so the amount of content should be managable, but if historic ones are added as well it might be a bit much. And the ones with waterschap/college/(hoog)heemraadschap + are not very interesting (in this case just adding the hydronym or toponym seems more useful), but the ones with different names might be interesting. Perhaps you could ask for more input in the tea room or beer parlour. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Lingo Bingo Dingo,

I made some changes to the page Sanskrit अल्पप्राण (alpaprāṇa), in the hope of adding actual quotations when possible and make quotation stubs more precise. The definitions appear to have been taken from the MW dictionary (see Reference section) in a manner less critical than desired. There weren't much informative editing since the page's creation. For example, the sense for "unaspirated" (as in phonetics) were not used as such in Panini, but in Paninian scholastic writings (which the MW dict. indicated by using a shorthand). I also merged two definitions, about being fatigued or tired, while adding a full quotation. My addition of stub quotations are based on cursory readings and it is still desirable to examine how the word was actually used in context, and add the quotations with translations if possible. Meanwhile, the FWOTD may need updating. Thank you! --Frigoris (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Frigoris Thank you for the message, the FWOTD page has been edited accordingly. The changes may not show up in time though. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi LBD, happy to help. Is there anything in particular you wish me to comment on in this lemma? Everything looks good to me. Kind regards, Morgengave (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Morgengave: Could you perhaps shed light on the etymology (is the development like "drain" > "trough, minimum, lowest point" > "coldest part of the season") and check whether the entry putje is correct? Is bare putje for instance ever used for summer? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

To me, you can't use "putje" (basically "in the deep of") on its own - not even for winter; you always need to add a time period; most Flemings in my opinion wouldn't understand it otherwise. If there are attestations with just "putje", I believe these are rare exceptions and I think the context must have made clear the meaning. To me, it's just the same as "hartje" ("in the center of"). My own hypothesis is that there was an intermediate step "(in het) putje van de" (you can find many attestations for "putje van de + ") and that it just means "in the deep of". I would even argue that seen its productive use (putje zomer, putje lente, putje herfst, putje nacht, putje vakantie, putje Koude Oorlog, etc.) that putje winter is a SOP... but seen the predominant use with winter, I am not against the existence of the lemma. Morgengave (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Morgengave, I see. I have changed putje winter to a hard redirect, because that does seem justifiable. Ironically, it first caught my attention in the rare form "in putje". ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you really speak that many languages? Impressive :3 Shumkichi (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey, can I steal your message at the top, the warning I mean? I will change it slightly. Plssss :( Shumkichi (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for spamming so much but I can see that you've added the most Dutch entries. I think you should get inspired by the way we add our Polish entries to improve yours. Are there any external sources, like online dictionaries, that could be added to every single Dutch entry to standardise them, just like we do in Polish? Because tbh, they look kinda bad from the technical side ://///////////////// Shumkichi (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not know how useful a response is now that you have been permanently banned, but because there is a non-trivial probability that you will read this anyway, I'll answer:

The most obvious choice would be the WNT, that is completely accessible online, but the issue is that this is an unabridged dictionary that was started in the mid nineteenth century, so a lot of early entries have a poor quality and some important words are missing. Even the supplements have not completely covered some important words and a great many derived terms don't have definitions. I personally prefer to try to provide a rounded selection of lexicographical information (etymology, pronunciation, hyphenation and main definitions) and leave the rest for others to solve. It is a wiki, after all. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo Hmm, how about these two: CLICK 1 and CLICK 2? Shumkichi (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Shumkichi I am not a fan of those websites. They are on the level of Dictionary.com, more or less. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

:/// Shumkichi (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The ones at level one aren't really speaking except for Volapük. And be my guest. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

thx :3 Shumkichi (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello there, it's been a while since we last talked. I was wondering, do you think it's worth it to add Dutch street names? There is a precedent for adding them, as English has a few (https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Category:en:Named_roads) and they are considered relevant enough to have individual pages on Wikipedia (e.g.: https://nl.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Drift_(Utrecht)). I can see however that including a lot of them would be spammy and a bit too much information. What do you think? 030BeterHe

I am myself not very fond of doing so, but the matter is regulated by WT:NSE and specifically the section "Place names". Streets are not included in the bullet list, so the following applies to them: "All place names not listed above shall be included if they have three citations of figurative use that fulfill attestation requirements." You may therefore add them as long as you can find the appropriate attestations. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Most of the streets do not fulfill the figurative use requirement, so I'll abstain from adding them. 030BeterHe (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you expand this entry if possible? Thank you! ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 23:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the organisation, although I am aware of the radio telescopes at that location. I suppose the name is just a clipping of astronomie or astronomy. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The word must have been first coined in Dutch, I guess? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

And could you please create the Dutch entry? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed, but there's an {{attention|it}} tag that I left there because I found the entry with a module error and added my best guess at a translation for a quote in order to fix it- but I'm not confident that the quote or my translation are correct. It may be nothing, but it doesn't look good in a Foreign Word Of The Day. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Sorry, I missed that. I have alerted a native speaker of Italian about the quote by the way. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I noticed in the French lemma for Gembloux that a significant amount of meronyms are provided (referring here to subsections of the commune or deelgemeenten). Is it possible/desirable to add subdivisions of Dutch municipalities (i.e. cities/towns/villages/hamlets) in the same way? It's little work and they're only visible if you click the meronym tab, but I can see how the information would be a bit overkill for larger municipalities (although on the other hand it would make hunting for individual toponyms a lot easier). 030NogBeterHe (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that it is defensible to include, but you can probably expect some opposition down the line. I would put the meronyms in collapsible boxes if they take up too much space. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Added, they've been added in a way similar to synonyms, but they're hidden by default so they will not appear unless you click on them. 030NogBeterHe (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I've recently been upgrading a few of the Dutch exonyms of toponyms in Wallonia, and there's some that have reliable etymologies that can be added (on the basis of Gysseling's Woordenboek). I was wondering whether it's more correct to add Frankish (frk) derivations for these toponyms, as most of the settlements can be dated to the expansion of Frankish groups into the Low Countries and Northern France. However, Nederlandse plaatsnamen verklaard also contains toponyms from the northern Netherlands dating to this expansion, but that publication seems to treat Frankish and Dutch as synonyms. Do you have any recommendation on which should be used? The one example I've got until now is Bevekom. 030NogBeterHe (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@030NogBeterHe: I am not the ideal person to answer the substance of the question, because I do not edit the Germanic of this period. But I can say that some people do not really like seeing Old Frankish in etymologies. You would do best by discussing this with Rua, Mnemosientje and the people who edit French etymologies. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Will do 030NogBeterHe (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Become an admin please Flackofnubs (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

If you say so, WF. :P ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I had added a nomination for নববর্ষ to be published a FWOTD for 14 April last year. The intended day is about to come in the next month. As I am not regular in this project, I do not know the further procedure to speed up the process to make it FWOTD. Apparently, I have seen some of the entries to be added without FWOTD nominations. (Or, maybe I didn't notice) Is there anything that I can do? I am here to contact you as you had added the last Bengali FWOTD last June. Regards- Meghmollar2017 (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

What does bingo dingo mean 124.168.164.197 07:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I've opened a second vote to desysop User:Theknightwho in light of what I see as a clear-cut abuse of his authority as an admin. Unfortunately, I'm burnt out and need to step away from Wiktionary. I'm not asking you to intercede, but given that you initiated the previous vote, you may be in a position to offer insight. I feel that TKW shouldn't be given a free pass this time. There seems to be a repeating pattern of behaviour unbecoming of an admin. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

When you said that laveren was an important word I gave it a closer look without success, ultimately because I don't understand what the import is supposed to be. Care to explain?

I do note that my search was motivated by possibly unrelated topics, one of which leads to Loipe (durch die Lappen gehen, also Latten; differently and regional "Latten tragen", to be afraid, which compare to schlottern, uniquely of weak knees, in line with Lühr's former Germanic and Celtic reconstruction), which is perhaps the closest parallel to zig-zag (trench) I could find. Nothing naval at any rate.

Now I'm coming back because rap (watching Lupe Fiasco give a lecture at MIT) and its Low German cognates are remarkable, not the least because lavieren as a repetitive mode of talking is definitely related to laveren. Depending on what you got, can you either confirm or deny that that's comparable either in analogy or as a doublet through irregular sound change (a rare PIE *b > PGem *p is on the books but highly irregular, indicating a loan, and *bh should result in LG v instead, to say the least)?

If that's entirely wrong, level as a doublet of niveau most likely implies navigare, I almost forgot. 2A00:20:6082:200:9B2C:EECF:48C9:5401 22:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you Rhymin Reason?

"Care to explain?"

It is a culturally important word. I simply thought that its absence until recently was a surprising oversight.

"can you either confirm or deny that that's comparable either in analogy or as a doublet"

Which one ought to be confirmed or denied? Lavieren is obviously related, I am sceptical to varying degrees about the other ones. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

You're Dutch, what do you think: CLICK???????? Cause personally, I think they should be treated like normal lemmas, as is the case with literally every other language with diminutives. Dutch diminutives aren't different from Slavic or German diminutives in how they're used. PatkaSsie (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@PatkaSsie: I have already commented there. I ultimately do not care much about the categorisation, as long as the diminutives of countable nouns remain soft redirects. The singulative diminutives of what are exclusively mass nouns should not be soft redirects to begin with. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

hey hi hey could you add kobieta and donejt to the FWOTD queue? they've been nominated. c'mon, don't be sexist, add "kobieta" at least KamilekLebioda (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I had planned to set them eventually, yes. As for "sexist", wat? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

omg, just kiddiiiiinggg KamilekLebioda (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, LBD. I saw from your user page that you created the entry for the West Frisian winkelheak (“try square”). Do you fancy creating an entry for the West Frisian ryksrie (“rigsråd”), too? I added a citation of it at Citations:ryksrie. 0DF (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I can do that, although if most attestations are with a capital it might be better to have the entry as Ryksrie. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure; whatever you deem appropriate. The cognates appear to be common nouns, but they may seem to be proper nouns when referring to a particular *ricsrede (the Danish one, in the cited case), rather than to *ricsredes in general. That one from 1929 was the only West Frisian use I found, but I don't know how West Frisian spelling varies or how its nouns inflect, so you may find more examples. 0DF (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Very nice! Thank you. 0DF (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

As you've brought up in a few places, there are a variety of armour terms which are either definitely or possibly ahistorical in one way or another — the thing possibly or definitely didn't exist, or some thing did exist by that name but it's not clear it was the thing people take it to be today (e.g. tapul, manefaire, tuille). Would it make sense to gather these in one place, or link them to one another somehow? But if so, how? I've thought about making an appendix of all armour terms, e.g. sorted like ==Human armour== ===Head=== * great helm * cervelliere ===Chest=== * breastplate (etc) and then ==Horse armour== ===Head=== * testiere ===Chest=== * poitrel (etc); that could include footnotes on the possibly-ahistorical items... but it'd be duplicating information that's in the entries (and ) and would most likely fall out of sync. So then I thought, what about a list-like template that could go in each relevant entry's etymology section or usage notes (wherever the entry talks about the possible ahistoricalness), collapsed by default, that just lists and links "Other armour terms whose historicity or meaning is disputed: foo, bar, baz, ..." with the details staying on each entry. What do you think, would that be useful/interesting? - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@-sche, I honestly don't know. My first instinct is to add a label, or a usage note if the text is too long for a definition line. Beyond that, I think an appendix list or category could work for your purpose; it probably would not require very intensive maintenance anyway, because this is a topic where you wouldn't expect much lexical innovation outside fiction (academic new coinages would often be SOP). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point, re this probably being a pretty static set of terms. I will see about mocking up an appendix sometime, then. (If we did this as a category, I'm not sure what to name it that would fit the naming schema for categories for sets of terms: "Category:en:Armor (possibly ahistorical)"? So an appendix is probably better, and would allow for explanatory text.)
Yes, I take it as a given that the entries should mention the possible ahistoricalness somewhere within the entry, too. When it's a case of the meaning of a medieval (Middle English, etc) term being uncertain, I've been putting that in the etymology section, as in the entries linked above, since that seemed logical to me, but for cases where the term itself was invented post-period like ringmail, I agree something in the definition or usage notes would make more sense. For ringmail, what do you think of this? (Please improve if necessary.) - -sche (discuss) 21:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The change to the definition looks useful to me. It is the kind of thing that could be endlessly finetuned or re-emphasised, but it suffices that it clearly communicates the issue with the concept. I have added a label, because of its still very current use in fantasy. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)