. 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.
Appendix:Hungarian minimal pairs
/* DWDS link */
javascript:(function(a){a.value=a.value.slice(0,a.selectionStart)+"* {{R:DWDS}}"+a.value.slice(a.selectionEnd);})(document.activeElement);
/* German verb */
javascript:(function(a){a.value=a.value.slice(0,a.selectionStart)+"==German==\n\n===Verb===\n{{de-verb}}\n\n# \n\n====Conjugation====\n{{de-conj}}\n\n===Further reading===\n* {{R:DWDS}}"+a.value.slice(a.selectionEnd);})(document.activeElement);
/* German noun */
javascript:(function(a){a.value=a.value.slice(0,a.selectionStart)+"==German==\n\n===Noun===\n{{de-noun}}\n\n# \n\n====Declension====\n{{de-ndecl}}\n\n===Further reading===\n* {{R:DWDS}}"+a.value.slice(a.selectionEnd);})(document.activeElement);
==German==
===Etymology===
{{af|de| }}
===Verb===
{{de-verb}}
====Conjugation====
{{de-conj}}
===Further reading===
* {{R:DWDS}}
* {{R:UniLeipzig}}
* {{R:Duden}}
* {{pedia|lang=de}}
Please fix these poorly formatted entries. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 19:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you for fixing them. By the way, I failed to notice that only one of them was created by you, therefore apologies! ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
- No worries. LinguisticMystic (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
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 (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! Vininn126 (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Vininn126 (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I hope the mass-deletion of your user space articles doesn't mean you will depart from Wiktionary :( I appreciate your German edits. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
- No they were mostly connected to last year's (discontinued) Arabic project. LinguisticMystic (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
- I keep the Sanskrit stuff though, might be of use later. LinguisticMystic (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
User:LinguisticMystic/de-du is done! — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 21:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Sweet LinguisticMystic (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
- User:LinguisticMystic/de-dude too. May I delete? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 14:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
- This is list of words where the Duden link is broken LinguisticMystic (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
- My bad, makes sense. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 21:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
FYI, these can be mass-added by bot. That has actually been done a couple of times before. Not saying you are not allowed to add them but rather that I feel your time is too valuable for a task that can easily be automated. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Sure, but I need to see the words in order to learn them, even though I already know *SOME* of them ... LinguisticMystic (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
- The reason why I do not like using bots is that they tend to make mistakes unless the code is perfectly written. LinguisticMystic (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Generally, when other dictionaries only list, say, 2 distinct senses (as in the case of ausschöpfen: DWDS, Duden), there's a good chance that there only really are 2 (common) senses. There are of course exceptions, usually with dated / regional / colloquial senses (see nudeln), but I think for instance the different glosses provided in ausschöpfen (apart from scoop) should be merged into only one, corresponding to the second sense in the two monolingual dictionaries I've linked to above: "etw. etwas völlig nutzen" / "sich etwas bis ins Letzte zunutze machen, ganz ausnutzen". — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 14:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
- okay, done LinguisticMystic (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
diff: I honestly don't see the point of doing that. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 08:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Ok, I'll explain, the reason I was doing that is that I occasionally come across the same articles to add a missing refercence link, which I have checked before and seen that it points to a blank/nonexistent page; If I remove the link, I might see next time that it is missing and add it anew, so I left them in comments, so that I can see that I've done it already in vain and spare time... (but they can be removed of course, in that case I might add them again) LinguisticMystic (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
- I see, köszi for explaining! — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Fytcha, Mahagaja, Chuck Entz I corrected dozens of errors made by you in German declensions and pinged you on many of them. I would assume you would learn from this to be much more careful, but I see you are not. You are still making lots of mistakes, e.g. just a few I have checked: Altlatein, Hindi, Kannada, Telugu, Oriya, Sanskrit, etc. which do NOT use .langname (only languages in -(i)sch use that) and Ascorbinsäure, Analverkehr and Brailleschrift (plus a ton of other chemical terms), which are uncountable whereas you made them countable. You seem to be making changes very quickly and not carefully. Please stop making such changes. Benwing2 (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
- okay, I stopped. I thought langname was ‘smarter’ LinguisticMystic (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
- The chemical names were countable in some sources and uncountable in others so I was not sure. LinguisticMystic (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
- In your defense,
{{de-proper noun}} lacked any documentation for langname. Then again, it should have been noticeable that some of the generated forms like *“Altlateinen” or *“Kannadaen” are utterly nonsensical. I think you should double-check the forms generated by the templates that you employ (e.g. by pasting them into Google Scholar for instance).
- The countability is a tougher one. For German, a whole lot more plurals can be WT:ATTESTed than are traditionally considered correct (or that even make sense semantically speaking). I think including all attested plurals is fine, so long as we properly qualify them (perhaps apart from obvious learners' mistakes). In the case of the Säuren, I think what we should do is include an uncountable sense that designates an occurrence of the real, physical substance and a countable sense that roughly means "a particular kind/type of this acid". This is also how German generally works for other fluids (Milch) or powderish materials (Sand).
- Generally, it is best to at least pause for a moment and think about it when adding new plurals, especially for words that semantically don't pluralize as easily as Haus->Häuser, which is certainly the case here, especially also when the gloss provided is an uncountable English word. I'm really not a fan of adding plural forms while we lack a countable sense; they should be added simultaneously. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 09:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Sorry, it was clearly inattentiveness from my part. LinguisticMystic (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Countability is contestable in many cases. Even here Klugheit here we have singular only, on the German page they have plural forms, and this occurs in countless cases. LinguisticMystic (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC) In this specific case I would pluralize here as well, but getting unsure. LinguisticMystic (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
- But on de:Klugheit they have a clearly countable sense "(vernünftiges/kluges) Handeln" that we're lacking. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Ok, so in such cases, we first need to add the missing senses, and only after that can we pluralize the declension templates, I guess. LinguisticMystic (talk) 10:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you. I'm not trying to get you never to contribute, but rather to go slower, not rely on the defaults (even though they're a lot better than they used to be) and check carefully the generated forms against the ones in Duden, DWDS, and/or dewikt (ideally, all three) before hitting save. You were making changes at the rate of 2-3 a minute in some cases, which leaves no room to check against other dictionaries. Benwing2 (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
- I'm going on with the more regular words. LinguisticMystic (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC) One more I found that should be pluralized: Unterstützung; also BetreuungReply
- Globalisierung also has plurals according to German, Programmierung etc. there are many; and it is really not obvious.
- Gleichstellung same thing. LinguisticMystic (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Einbalsamierung singular only, I guess LinguisticMystic (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
- , there's also no semantic reason why it would be singular only. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
- OK, then it is correct. LinguisticMystic (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Verchromung Duden has plurals
- Patentierung DWDS plurals
Hey. As you're adding all those Duden templates for words for which Duden has multiple web pages, could you please make sure that the template displays them differently? Having "word X in Duden online" twice in a row is confusing. See diff and diff. Thanks! — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
- You're right, I was planning to do a second pass with these entries, as there are many incomplete; also done by others previously. LinguisticMystic (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
- One thing I am not quite sure about is if it is okay to make the difference between them by simply putting the German note in brackets, since it is the English wikt, maybe it's better to translate those as well... LinguisticMystic (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you, I'd appreciate you doing a second pass a lot. On the second point: In my opinion, leaving the untranslated German page title there is fine, as that's just how Duden calls their own web page; we don't have to translate the name of a page when referencing it. Labeling them by their parts of speech (if applicable) would however be even better, see diff. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hi. Please be careful when formatting entries. I notice the following things you frequently do:
- Leave two blank lines in a row, e.g. in Äther (there should never be more than one blank line separating text).
- Forget to add blank lines between sections, e.g. in Aufzugwelle, ausleeren, ausplaudern, etc. (there should be a blank line prior to every section header like ==Alternative forms== or ==Noun==, and a blank line after the headword entry like
{{de-noun}} or {{de-verb}}).
- Forget to add a space after the
# that begins a definition line, as in befahren, bestärken, etc. (there should be a space after a collection of #, : and/or * at the beginning of a line).
- Add a blank line after a section header, e.g. in Bit (it not should be there).
I know these seem like small things but it is important for readability to keep the wiki entries following a consistent format, and if you don't follow the standard format, it makes more work for others who have to clean up after you.
If you have trouble remembering to do these things, it might be helpful to create predefined templates to copy from that are already formatted correctly.
Thanks!
Benwing2 (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
- I didn't always do in these things as they seemed to have no consequence at all on the rendered html output, but I will strive to follow these rules if you say it matters. LinguisticMystic (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC) (the double blank lines do change html)Reply
- I was more worried about giving wrong declension or conjugation data in German as that could have grave consequences if not corrected, but layout is also important, of course. LinguisticMystic (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
If you think a word doesn’t exist, then please nominate that word at RFV, instead of RFD. Thanks! ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 09:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
I just wanted to say thanks for adding DWDS links to German entries. I've been doing that for a while, but manually and only when I happen to look up the word here. I've noticed that I'm having to do that a lot less lately; one less thing to have to work on here. --RDBury (talk) 07:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
- They could be added by a bot just as well, but some of the German words are missing from DWDS unfortunately. LinguisticMystic (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
See WT:Entry layout#Headings after the definitions. "Anagrams" should always be the last heading in the language section. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
- 👍 LinguisticMystic (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Would you add terms to Polish Requested Entries instead of making stubs, please? Vininn126 (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Unfortunately, I don't speak Polish; not yet ... LinguisticMystic (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Sure! Hope that goes well. But I mean could you use this instead of entries like żywieniowy. Currently working on expanding the entry. Also, you should consider checking this out. Thanks! Vininn126 (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
- 💡 LinguisticMystic (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the work you do adding Swedish entries! (Even if they could use more content than a bare definition.) There's one problem with your conduct here however: you need to check your links before you add them. You're adding "further reading" links to Svensk ordbok en masse, but many of them lead nowhere since that dictionary has no entry for that word even if it's attested. Also, even if an entry *does* exist in SO, it often contains no more content than Wiktionary does; thus a "References" header would be better in many cases.
Your user page has no Babel boxes, but I assume (and hope) you know Swedish on at least a basic level. If you do, it only takes a couple seconds to check whether an entry exists and provides more info than we have here. If you don't know Swedish, I advise you not to edit entries for this language further (aside from small things like typos). Glades12 (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks for your feedback and sorry; I'll be more careful with links. Is there a Swedish free online resource that you know about that is more comprehensive than the Swedish Academic dictionaries/Svensk ordbok ? LinguisticMystic (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
- There are a bunch like synonymer.se, but I don't know any dictionary that's as authoritative or accurate as the ones by the Swedish Academy. Glades12 (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
When you're creating new German articles, it would be helpful if you could use the correct templates. See diff, diff. Thanks! — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
- 🆗 LinguisticMystic (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
I added native Lao digits to Module:number list/data/lo. Apisite (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
I assume this should be uncountable like the alt form, right? Acolyte of Ice (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Most probably. LinguisticMystic (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hello,
Are you aware that all your recent usage examples use non-standard transliterations, including capitalisations? The standard is here WT:About Arabic. Besides, editors strive to vocalise, so that the transliteration shows automatically on Arabic words.
@Fenakhay: what should be done with them in your opinion? Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Hello, I used manual transliterations, because the automatic transliterations do not work in some cases. LinguisticMystic (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- BTW, your edits are marked "minor" but they are not. You can use
|subst= as in
{{ux|ar|سِياحَةُ الْيَابَان تَتَضَمَّنُ مَزِيجًا مُثِيرًا مِنَ الثَّقَافَةِ القَدِيمَةِ وَالْحَدِيثَة.|Tourism in Japan includes an exciting blend of ancient and modern culture.|subst=وَالْحَدِيثَة/wa-l-ḥadīṯa}}- With ة you can either add the full ending or a sukun.
- It's مِنَ (mina), not مِن (min) before ال (al-) Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- You just don't know how to vocalise the text, and most of your transliterations are wrong... This is very tiring. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 03:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @Fenakhay: If most are incorrect, mass-revert? Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @Atitarev: The usexs are great additions. I just need to go through them and correct them. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 04:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @Fenakhay: Thanks, that's a bit too challenging for me. But I'd rather have no usex than have many wrong ones. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Spaced nouns borrowed in Classical Arabic from Persian
Ok guys, how does one nunate and decline correctly a word like شَاه بَلُّوط (šāh ballūṭ) (→ خَلَنْج (ḵalanj)) and خِيَار شَنْبَر (ḵiyār šanbar)? Since creating the latter five years ago I am afraid to have put some nonsense into the table out of Systemzwang, my then fat ass rationalizing it would decline like моро́женое «пломби́р» (moróženoje «plombír») (I don’t know how this branding phenomenon where the second part is not declined is called in linguistics). I never found an explicit discussion. Arabic grammarians shun to treat the consequences of language contact.
Is it as with those nouns used in apposition as خَرَاب (ḵarāb) (called by us an adjective) or قَفْلَة (qafla) (I am ashamed for proferring words nobody knows)? Which is analogous to this hyphenated stuff in Russian, I use to think: же́нщина-коке́тка (žénščina-kokétka), рыба́-пила́ (rybá-pilá). Would be strange then if say خِيَار (ḵiyār) in this example gets full endings and خِيَارْشَنْبَر (ḵiyāršanbar) gets a sukun in the middle because when written together it is a compound (compounds not existing in Arabic per se) and suddenly grammatically different? Probably one reason why I did not add خِيَارْشَنْبَر (ḵiyāršanbar) as an alternative form, I got shook. @Fenakhay, Atitarev. Fay Freak (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
See the mention of you in WT:RFVN concerning اشترف, which you created and I recently deleted. You don't seem to know Arabic and don't seem to understand how to use Arabic dictionaries but instead are simply blindly copying misinformation. As a result, please stop any editing of Arabic; it's better to have no entries than to have spurious ones that are completely wrong. Benwing2 (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply