User talk:Mglovesfun/Archives/21

Salut Mglovesfun (je me permet de te parler en français). Est ce que c'est normal que vous ayiez toutes les formes conjugaisons de faute d'orthographe ? J'ai vu ça avec le verbe débarasser (l'orthographe correcte est débarrasser). Ainsi on trouve débarasse, débarasses, débarassent, débarasseront, ... Tout ça a été fait par un bot qui a donc fait ça sans vérifier. Pamputt (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Idem pour râtisser. Pamputt (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd say it's not normal to have all the conjugated forms for a misspelling. I would rather delete them. We could probably just ask User:SemperBlotto rather than use WT:RFD. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok. In fact, there are several verbs which have wrong conjugated form. I found them with this page created by Dakdada on French Wiktionary (/!\ HUGE PAGE). So, I will contact User:SemperBlotto and explain him all that stuff. Pamputt (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what occurred here but it looks like you and Equinox were both simultaneously rollbacking and something subtle changed regarding IPAI? Etym (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

My changed came after his but didn't cause an edit conflict. I undid instead of rolling back, and used the opportunity to review the IPA. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ah okay, just wasn't sure what happened there. Anyway I get what you mean about how it would be annoying to do that for words like 'brilliant', but that's in regard to describing attributes in people. Brilliance clearly must exist as an objective thing (a capacity to think about and solve problems or question, something like that) even if opinions differ about who is and isn't. But creepiness on the other hand, arguably doesn't, since rather than defining something that literally exists, we are defining something purely upon reactions to it.

I think we do this in some cases. Like for example ugly: "Displeasing to the eye/ear". Eye/ear being the things that make it subjective. Perhaps we should just say "displeasing"? I actually find it odd we use metaphorical expressions like this to define 'ugly' (it's after all the brain/person who interprets what the eye sees, 2 perfectly functioning eyes could have attached people who have differing opinions of beauty).

Similarly "offensive to one's sensibilities or morality" uses "one" as the subject of interpretation. So there seems to be precident for explaining/emphasizing the subjective basis on purely aesthetics-based terms that don't relate to actual existing qualities ( merely subject to subjective interpretation of intensity, rather than being purely based on it) like genius or strong or tall. Etym (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

To be honest I think you should read the last two paragraphs you wrote again and then reply to them. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wow, you are quick! Seventeen minutes after I added the fact that "rung" is a nonstandard past temse of "ring", you reverted it! But I even gave a reference: AHD. That means the American Heritage Dictionary. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Etymologically speaking, it is nonstandard because strong verbs are not derived from other words whereas this one is. No doubt analogy with other verbs is the cause. —CodeCat 13:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand what you mean. "Rung" is simply from the old preterite plural, whereas "rang" is from the old preterite singular. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

But is it really? hringan was a weak verb in Old English, so that mean the strong past form can't be "old", it has to be an analogical formation. —CodeCat 14:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

It follows the general pattern of Class 3 strong verbs. It was strong already in Middle English. But all of that is immaterial to my complaint that Mglovesfun reverted my edit. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I only reverted the ones with unacceptably bad formatting. Ideally I should've edited them, but it was two minutes before I needed to leave the house. I still need to fix your edits from earlier, unless someone else has done it. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I notice that in 2010 you made a change in the article saugh () labeled as "format", but in fact you changed the verb that "saugh" is supposed to be the past tense of. I think it's a past tense of "seen", meaning "saw". Eric Kvaalen (talk)

Feel free to edit it. There is no see#Middle English so it can't be the past of that. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, can you please restore the deletion of vorbei-, there are verbs linking to it and it similar to other german prefixes like voraus-#German... Thanks, Jobnikon (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

No I can't, having incoming links doesn't justify having a page with no language or definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Also, is it a prefix or is it an adverb? —CodeCat 00:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've restored it with language and definition. Do you translate prefixes? The meaning is "by", "past". I see many German prefixes just have "# A prefix."

It's a prefix, the adverb has no "-". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's not really an answer, though. What makes this prefix distinct from the adverb? —CodeCat 01:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Prefixes are attached to verbs. Usually they are classified as prefixes. Separable Prefixes (trennbare Vorsilben), see "vorbei-". Verbs with vorbei- (vorbeigehen, vorbeifahren) are considered single verbs, even if English counterparts, like "to go by" may be considered as "verb + adverb". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Our Dutch entries consider them verb + adverb compounds (see voorbijgaan), rather than verbs with a prefix. It seems rather inconsistent to treat German differently. —CodeCat 02:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't usually do German entries but that's how we treated them at school and at uni, even including some real adverbs, which are now spelled separately with the new reform - radfahren, kennenlernen, spazierengehen. Don't know who would be the person to talk to. IMHO, treating the Dutch "voorbij-" as an adverb is just trying to match English grammar because it translates as "by", a separate word but that's IMHO :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, not at all. In Dutch (and presumably German too) there is no distinction between the compounded and separated form. "voorbij gaan" and "voorbijgaan" are one and the same thing, and they both have indistinguishable conjugated forms: "ik ga voorbij". The difference is only in writing, where putting in the space calls attention to the nonidiomatic sense of the adverb, if the compound might otherwise have idiomatic senses. —CodeCat 02:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The infinitive form "vorbeigehen" is always spelled together (also participle "vorbeigegangen" and form with "zu" - "vorbeizugehen"), with the new orthography as well. "Ich gehe vorbei" is written separately because it's separable. I haven't followed any recent docs or researches on the German grammar, I just treat those words that are written together in dictionaries as prefixes. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Any German prefix with just # a prefix needs to be fixed; it would be like defining Tier as # a noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I'll let someone else fix others but I've fixed vorbei-. They should be mass RFV-ed. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've mass-RFD-ed them instead. —CodeCat 12:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please stop your bot (and the others like it) from reverting my edits. See this revert. Yes, I had to move the German content to another page, but how can I do that if I have to battle bot after bot? Maky (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've restored the German to Lemur. I didn't realize that German nouns begin with a capital letter. Either way, fighting the bot reverts of useful changes and this stupid reference warning are annoying. It makes me not want to edit on Wiktionary. Maky (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

And why the hell does the edit page warn me that my edits are not constructive, saying: "A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: ref no references" I am using reference! Stupid software.... Maky (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's not a bot it's me and other editors reverting your terrible, thoughtless edits. We can assume good faith (that you're not a vandal your a good faith bad editor) but good faith only lasts so long; keep breaking entries and you'll get blocked. The same rules apply to everyone. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wow, dude. Do you even know how to welcome people to the project? If you haven't noticed, the help pages and templates on Wiktionary are about a decade behind those on Wikipedia, and I've been struggling to figure things out. First of all, I modified lemur because I thought that like Wikipedia, it corresponded to both lower and upper case instances. When I found I was wrong, I assumed the upper case version was strictly for the taxonomic name, so I moved the German definition over. I also moved my first "bad" edits (where I put the taxonomic information on "lemur" instead of "Lemur") to the page they were supposed to be on. I then moved the German edits back when I realized my other error. So yes, bad edits... but I'm a beginner here. Lighten up. I'm at least trying. And just because the information was misplaced and "bad" doesn't mean the information was. If my edits were poorly structured, then correct, don't revert. Also drop me a friendly greeting and point me to some help pages... like we do on Wikipedia. Maky (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is a dictionary. The entries reflect the way words are spelled. In taxonomy, the taxon Lemur is spelled with a capital letter, but the English word is spelled lowercase. —CodeCat 21:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I understand that now. My bad. But do the 2nd and 3rd noun entries on "lemur" (which I created) belong on "lemur" or "Lemur"? Now, after what I've learned, I would guess the latter. Maky (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nouns can never be translingual because different languages inflect nouns differently. To say that another way: if it has a plural, it's always going to be language-specific. —CodeCat 21:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Anyone who comes straight in with a hostile attitude isn't going to get a warm welcome from me. In other words, be nice to people and they'll usually be nice to you. Try it. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was being hostile towards the Wiki software, which was flagging my edits as disruptive because it couldn't distinguish "References" from "references". Then there was what appeared to be bot reverts. Nowhere above was I making personal attacks against you. Maky (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

No problem, let's start over. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why did you take out ‘borrowed’? Ƿidsiþ 04:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not sure; is it borrowed or inherited? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's definitely borrowed. The inherited term is gaine. Ƿidsiþ 14:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/vagin says borrowed, but why as vagin and not vagine? First attestation is as vagina, then vagin all the way since then. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Quick question about your recent edit on swḏ‎ - are definitions supposed to have initial capitals?

1. to bequeath
2. To bequeath

Hyarmendacil (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

WT:ELE says they may have a capital letter and full stop (so also they may not). The 'house style' is to use capital letters and full stops for English definitions, and neither for non-English definitions. That includes definitions for Scots and Middle English. Nonetheless, the format is consistently inconsistent. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Cool. Thanks for clearing that up. Hyarmendacil (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Sorry for the message that you did not like. It was not my intention and I hope you do me no like. Sincerely,

--Automatik (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

My message was to ArséniureDeGallium (that's not you as well, is it?). I corrected the message but must've had an edit conflict and I didn't notice. So sorry. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, it's not me. So okey, it is better to know it :)

Regards, Automatik (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I apologise for the inappropriate revert (which I admittedly realised was in haste), but I do wish to inquire about the nature of the process. I have glanced on the talk page and found that the same entry was previously requested for verification, but it did not seem conclusive. Is such an entry really appropriate for this dictionary? Thanks for any and all clarifications you can provide. AnnicAllus (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

See User talk:Equinox#Jill. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I see. So because it wasn't caught in time it should be allowed to remain? I'm sceptical as to how many readers would view that particular page within 30 days' time. Even User:Equinox himself couldn't find any citations for such a usage. AnnicAllus (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

You've lost me. What is the point you're making? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

My apologies for any lack of clarity. What I'm simply trying to say is that the definition is rather un-substantiated, and I would prefer an actual source. Of course, if it is to stay, then so be it. AnnicAllus (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I thought this had been orphaned? There are still many entries that use it, like public, but they show broken code instead. —CodeCat 03:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well {{etyl:xno}} exists but isn't being called anymore; so this a problem with the etyl template. Codes like {{etyl|LL.}} and {{etyl|VL.}} should be having the same problems. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you check diff? It added "t" to the pronunciation of "askance", which seems optionally supported by MWO and unsupported by some other OneLook dictionaries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can hear a -t- in the audio file, could just put it in brackets. I've seen it written on some pages that /æns/ and /ænts/ are almost indistinguishable from each other. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mglovesfun, Today I find abundant durably-archived attestations for mentulomania using Google Books. For example "(1918) The Urologic and Cutaneous Review - Volume 22, Issue 3 - Page 147", "(1898) An Illustrated Dictionary of Medicine, Biology and Allied Sciences - Page 746", "(1919) The American journal of surgery - Volume 33 - Page 193". Please undelete the page for this legitimate medical term. Keith Cascio (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why are you going to me? I'm not the deleting admin. Anyway, I can't see the second two citations, what are they? The first one is a bit mention-y too "The term masturbation rather than manustupration, metulomania, clitoromania, etc., seems to be preferred by the majority of authors". So so far that's zero valid citations. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I derped, and misinterpreted "diffs" :/ I thought the newest revision on the page was the one where it was just an empty wikilink on the def line. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 12:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not really sure what to make of this. On one hand, it's wrong to use {{term}} without a language. But on the other hand, what you replaced it with doesn't really seem like that much of an improvement. Do we not know the language that it was actually borrowed from? It seems to me that Cantonese or Min Nan are the most likely candidates. —CodeCat 13:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was gonna bring this up on your talk page. Some of the uses of term with sc and no language are in fact correct, such as this one would have been using {{term|日本|sc=Hani}}. It seems to me to be ok to signal when term doesn't have a lang, but some such cases may actually be correct, linking to the whole of an entry instead of one specific section of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

All terms have a language, otherwise how can they be terms? I think that the problem in this case isn't that the term has no language, but rather that the formulation of the etymology isn't specific enough. What it really intends to say is that the term originates from an undetermined Sinitic language. That all of those languages happen to write it the same isn't terribly relevant... would we say "from Germanic bord" or "from Slavic bog"? No, we'd either specify which language was intended, or list several possible cognates for comparison. I think that should be done here too. —CodeCat 16:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

That is I suppose a valid point. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you check the quotation you added to resultar in your book again? The following: “ a arquitetuira, somadas a rica história ” should probably be “a arquitetura, somadas à rica história”. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

arquitetuira is definitely a typo. For the other one I'd need a page number, though I only got through about 10 pages so I can probably find it pretty easily. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

 Done. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

what are the declensions of the personal pronouns in Old French?

jeo, me, mi

tu, te, ti

il, ?, ?

ele, ?, ?

nos, nos, ?

vos, vos, ?

ils, ?, ?

eles, ?, ?

Thank you for your answers!

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what you mean, I'd say jeo and me are different pronouns not forms of the same pronoun. I don't think there's a pronoun mi. Might be a very rare form of me. Jeo is invariable and generally not used (as with Spanish yo). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I meant the first is nominative, the second is accusative and the third is dative. I think "jo" then also could be used for "jeo". Also "mi" can be replaced by "mei". But what do you think for "tu" and for the other pronouns?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Pretty much the same as Modern French. Apart from lui (to him, to her) is li and leur (to them) is lor. There is no mi and ti that I'm aware of. Mi exists with another sense, 'mid' (the same as French mi). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ti seems to be attested meaning your, yours, masculine, feminine, singular and plural. It's all of ton, ta, tes but it's rare. Anglo-Norman On-Line Hub has hits for it but no definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

You've set me quite an interesting challenge. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed this diff of an edit you made two years ago: diff. Look closely at the quotations. You replaced ''s'' with {{s}}, probably with a bot or with AWB, thinking that it stood for singular. I wonder if there are any more edits like that? —CodeCat 21:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Possibly, it's from User:Mglovesfun/vector.js where I extended msh210's code to turn ''f'' into {{f}} to include ''s'' into {{s}}. Might not be the only one, of course. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Talk:poetry#Etymology. πr² (talk • changes) 04:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you have been fixing these, but how do you find them in the first place? —CodeCat 12:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Eror is a good place to start. I've managed to get the number of transclusions down from about 500 to about 150. I'd imagine Special:WantedTemplates would overlap with that quite a lot. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour

Le segment de phrase "le gâteau le plus grand que je n’ai jamais vu" est incorrect. Après "le gateau le plus grand que" on attend un verbe à la forme affirmative, c'est pourquoi l'on doit dire le gâteau le plus grand que j'aie jamais vu. "Jamais" est ici l'équivalent de l'anglais "ever", n'est donc pas une négation. On peut remplacer "jamais" par exemple par l'expression "jusqu'ici" qui n'a rien de négatif, le sens restera le même. Cf. http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/jamais I.E. Voir les phrases du même type : Le prologue est fini, et je puis promettre au lecteur (...) que le rideau ne se relèvera que sur la plus étonnante, la plus compliquée et la plus splendide vision qu'ait jamais allumée sur la neige du papier le fragile outil du littérateur (Baudel., Paradis artif.,1860, p. 409).Il a l'air en pleine forme et ses derniers articles sont parmi les meilleurs qu'il ait jamais écrits (Beauvoir, Mandarins,1954, p. 176). Jamais est employé sans négation et le verbe est conjugué au subjonctif. Pour moi le paragraphe "4. (in grammatically negative comparative clauses that express superlatives) not (usually translated with the positive sense of the subsequent negative) le gâteau le plus grand que je n’ai jamais vu — “the biggest cake that I have ever seen”" ne tient pas debout et doit être supprimé. Amicalement, --Echtio (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Bien sûr, l'on dit "je n'ai jamais vu cela" et c'est la seule forme correcte ("j'ai jamais vu ça" est familier) ; mais l'on a alors affaire à la négation composée "ne jamais" (=never) et non pas comme ci-dessus à l'adverbe "jamais" (=ever) qui signifie "à un moment quelconque". Cf. derechef http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/jamais I. --Echtio (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think it should be treated with {{rfd-sense}}. I managed to find a couple of citations that show this exists (be it as a rare error or not) so rfv-sense wouldn't work. I can't delete it unilaterally without looking for some sort of consensus and/or evidence first. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could you have a look at the descendent list of *wardōn? In these cases, I always have trouble figuring out which absorbed the Frankish term first, Old French or Late Latin, and did Old French absorb it independently or via Latin. --Victar (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can have a look but I don't really have any expertise in the area, CodeCat and Leasnam are usually the ones I would ask about this sort of thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think the real question is, how different are Late Latin and Old French in principle? Vulgar Latin evolved gradually into Old French, and Late Latin as we know it is really just the formal literary register of that same language. So I think the real answer is, it was borrowed into both at the same time, because there was only one language, which happened to have two forms of expression: one written and one spoken. —CodeCat 14:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Did Late Latin even really exist in the Gallic Empire, or was it unwritten Vulgar Latin already? If so, wouldn't the word have to travel to Italy or Spain first to be absorbed into Late Latin? --Victar (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why would it have to travel to Italy or Spain first? —CodeCat 16:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Because Vulgar Latin was unwritten. --Victar (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Huh? I don't get it... —CodeCat 16:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

If Late Latin didn't exist in what is now France, than for a word to enter Late Latin it would have to leave France to a region that did have Late Latin. --Victar (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

But Late Latin did exist in what is now France. People continued to write it until about the 8th century, when spoken Latin had become so different that people no longer understood the written form. —CodeCat 16:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

That was my question. --Victar (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I get the feeling that you are trying to make some kind of hard distinction between Latin and French, but in reality there wasn't really one. Up until about the 9th century (w:Council of Tours, 813), people still considered the spoken and the written language to be more or less the same language, Latin. It was kind of like how modern English is still written with medieval spelling. People didn't think the languages were different, that was just how you wrote. So if a word entered the spoken language, once they wrote it down, they automatically converted it into the literary form that was normal at the time. So they added the old case endings to it, and so on. It doesn't mean that at that point it was "borrowed" into Latin, because there wasn't really a distinct language to borrow it into. It was only once people began to realise that their own language had become so different from classical Latin, that they started to make the conscious choice to speak (and later write) one or the other. That's more or less where Latin really ended as a language. —CodeCat 16:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

If *wardōn came into Latin directly from Frankish, wouldn't it have realized as *vardere or *vvardere? --Victar (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

But the Latin of the time no longer had a sound, it only had . The sound only occurred in the combination , so when they borrowed the word, the substituted that sound. —CodeCat 17:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Also, some dialects did borrow : w:Joret line#Third isogloss. —CodeCat 17:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Leasnam answers this on his talk page better than I could. Let's continue this conversation there. --Victar (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I thought Old French and Latin were your areas of expertise... --Victar (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Certainly not Latin, haven't done any study on it. I've read one short book on the matter, that's it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

And Old French? --Victar (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've done a cursory look around at the French etymology of garder, and none seem to have a Latin (VL, LL, ML) step. Hope this helps. Leasnam (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so kindly for the warm welcome. That kind of gesture makes people want to help out with the project constructively more. :)AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have some usages of this in the sandbox - together with some questions. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I won't get round to this until tomorrow now. But then, is ils the plural of il or is it a separate pronoun? Sometimes I like to use feminine equivalent for English words like waiter where there is no gender, maybe this is appropriate here. There's a quite a lot of usage to cover, and the template will only get used on 100 pages or less. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I know that you were upset that you missed past discussions, but I can't really help it if I do try to discuss and nobody responds... —CodeCat 16:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

In fairness, I'm here less than I used to be. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I have done as much as I can in the User:Robert Ullmann/Français entries. They are mostly blue. Most of the red links are rubbish, but there are a few that I'm not confidant of. Perhaps you would like to finish them off, then they can probably be deleted. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

p.s. Did you notice that m=.... does not work in feminine nouns?

I think m= used to work, I wonder who removed that code? I think it might have been me actually! Manageur is an interesting one, the usual word is manager, manageresse sounds like a word to me though perhaps I'm confusing it with the English word. The reason I say this is {{feminine of|manageur|lang=fr}} is correct I suppose but I think the term might be nonstandard or less common than just manager. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Seems so; fr:manageur says the preferred term in France is manager and in Québec where they ironically make more effort to avoid using English words, gérant (of a sports team) dirigeant (of a company). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

In reply to User:Robert Ullmann/Français, the way to go seems to be to remove all the fulfilled requests, then all the definitely bogus ones, and then it's completely obvious what's left. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

See User:Robert Ullmann/Français. Some rubbish; some easy ones; some that need a bit of research. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Quels mots sont les diminutifs de renard ou de goupil ? --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

That I'm aware of... none. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

renardeau --Æ&Œ (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well I wasn't aware of that, thanks. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

What is that exactly? Should all rhymes pages use it? —CodeCat 11:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I meant colon, whoops. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

We may need a partial reversal of edits of User:MglovesfunBot on monosyllabic toned pinyin entries. Is that possible? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't know, depends what the actual change is, probably not by me but by another user. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Crées‐tu des protologismes (français) quelquefois ? Curieux. --Æ&Œ (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

In what context? In real life I guess you mean. Hmm, can't think of any. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

En ligne. Peux‐tu créé un synonyme pour sandwich ? --Æ&Œ (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for creating the French entry. Do you know if the word has an Old French etymon intermediate between it and the Latin appellātiō? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/appellation says yes it does. Possibly instead of borrowed, the entry should note that it's been respelled to match the original Latin form. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, perhaps. Do you know how the Old French etymon was spelt? The OED mentions an Old French apeler, but neglects to spell the noun. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

apellatiun, it's in the link. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I — somehow — missed that. Are you happy with this presentation of the facts? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not in this case, since the whole expression acts as a proper noun (like the synonim Pacífico, derived from the adjective pacífico). The rule says that the preceding generic common noun must be lowercased (). Peter Bowman (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

See: (1) http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Romanization_of_Bulgarian

    (2) http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Emil_(given_name)

You reverted an edit that included both Romanized and Cyrillic versions of this Bulgarian name. FOL-logician (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I fixed the etymology and you (unwittingly) reverted it. Also neither of those matter here, we use Wiktionary:Bulgarian transliteration. People often make the mistake of thinking Wiktionary and Wikipedia have the same policies. We don't. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Quoting w:Romanization of Bulgarian "The various romanization systems differ with respect to 12 out of the 30 letters of the modern Bulgarian alphabet. The remaining 18 have constant mappings in all romanization schemes". Yes, not all romanization schemes are the same. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Even better, your romanization of Емилия (Emilija) doesn't conform to any of the systems listed there. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Looks like you missed ISO 9. FOL-logician (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nope, ISO 9 gives â for я. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

And since we're transliterating using conventional English letters, the edit is valid. BTW, when did you start using obscenities? Or is that proper Wiktionary convention too? FOL-logician (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Now you're going against your own source, but I've already said that source doesn't matter, we use Wiktionary:Bulgarian transliteration. There's nothing to discuss here. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's your conflation, not mine. I ask again, is using obscenities Wiktionary policy? FOL-logician (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Unless you can find such a policy, no, never seen a policy on it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

So if you adhere to Wiktionary policy, why did you use an obscenity? FOL-logician (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I censored it using asterisks, and even if I hadn't, there's no rule against it. I'm getting trolled, aren't I? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

You're getting warned. Don't use that language again. If you do, I'll get you in touch with moderators who will demonstrate how they perceive such actions; cause you seem confused at the moment... FOL-logician (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

>2013
>Still taking Wiktionary seriously.

LEL. --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

This category would not be necessarily subjective — there are articles and books on the subject. Ilunga and toska are two such examples.   — C M B J   00:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

So what? It would still be in the author's opinion, even if a work is published. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

"... a list drawn up in consultation with 1,000 linguists" is subjective opinion?   — C M B J   13:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Of course. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

It is technically possible to refer to any conclusion as opinion, but in terms of opinions reached through genuine ratiocination, such usage is usually indicative of fallacious reasoning or contemptuous undertones. This is often the case with those who argue, in spite of tremendous evidence and consensus, that the premise of anthropogenic climate change is just an opinion. In popular usage, an opinion is "a belief about matters commonly considered to be subjective" and subjectivity is "based upon a person's feelings or intuition, not upon observation or reasoning". In contrast, objectivity is characterized by "judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices".

In the context of this matter, linguists are observing that they cannot ascertain any means of translating a given word, and so they reason that it is untranslatable. They and their conclusions are open to rebuke by anyone who presents contradictory empirical evidence in accordance with the standard scientific method. In other words, it is not subjective, but in fact objective. Further, in the case of this particular example, any research that evaluates contributions from multiple sources (not to mention 1,000) is particularly valuable. This method, known as meta-analysis, is usually considered to be the gold standard of scientific evidence in a given area of research.

Again, and in any event, these sources—and many other sources—are more than acceptable by our project's standards.   — C M B J   07:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Many opinions don't make a fact. You can have six billion opinions and they are still opinions. And when you say "these sources—and many other sources—are more than acceptable by our project's standards", what are you talking about? What standards? I'm guessing you mean Wikipedia's standards, and they're not relevant here, as we aren't Wikipedia, despite what many think. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

You have first removed the word, and then blocked me. I am not a troll. This word is the symbol of protests going on in Turkey. You may want to reconsider:

http://www.ibtimes.com/what-capuling-everyday-im-capuling-turkish-protest-video-goes-viral-1291541 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxuCNj7LaQM

Kind regards

Egunes (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll reproduce the message I left you for all to see: "Are you saying it's used in English in Turkey? Where? By who? See WT:CFI#Attestation, can it be cited over at least a year?" I have nothing to add, really. This message should cover it, if it doesn't, please ask specific questions that I can attempt to answer. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

So be it. Egunes (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm currently working to add {{context}} to all context labels (per the BP discussion) so that the labels themselves are never called directly from an entry. That should make it a lot easier for a bot to recognise context labels. After it is done, you may want to refresh this list? I also noticed that there are some instances where context labels are placed in definitions, but not at the beginning. Some have been placed at the end (as if they were {{gloss}}), some in the middle of the definition, and in some cases one label is placed after the other rather than merged into a single call (for example {{rare}} {{slang}} instead of {{context|rare|slang}}). —CodeCat 23:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your last point is covered by Wiktionary:Todo/separated context labels. Your other point, as far as I know, isn't covered anywhere. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

As a participant in an associated discussion, you are invited to contribute to the list of terms and criteria at Appendix:Terms considered difficult or impossible to translate into English. Cheers,   — C M B J   10:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

could you help my by a translation of this text into Old French?

French lyrics:

Les cieux pleurent et je regarde

Attrapant les larmes dans mes mains

Seule le silence, comme la fin, comme si nous n'avions pas de chance

Veux tu que je me sentes mal comme une moins que rien

Tu peux prendre tout ce que j'ai

Tu peux briser tout ce que je suis

Comme si j'étais de verre

Comme si j'étais de papier

Vas-y et essaie de me démolir

Je me lèverai jusqu'aux cieux

Comme un gratte-ciel, comme un gratte-ciel

Comme la fumée se dégage

Je me réveille et je m'en vais

Te sentirais-tu mieux à me regarder saigner

Toutes mes fenêtres sont cassés, mais je suis sur mes pieds

Aller cours cours cours je vais rester ici

Te regarder partir

Aller cours cours cours c'est un long chemin qui t'emmenera vers le bas

Old French lyrics:

Li ciel plore et jo garde

Coillant les larmes dans mes mains

Seulement li silence, comme la fin, comme si nos ne avons pas de chëance

Quiers tu que jo me sentes mal comme une moins que nïent

Tu puez prendre tot que jo ai

Tu puez brisier tot que jo sui

Comme si jo ere de voirre

Comme si jo ere de papier

Va endroit et esprove de m'essilier

Jo me leverai jusque à le ciax

Comme un alerïon, comme un alerïon

Comme li fum se degage

Jo m'esveillie et...

Te sentis tu mielz à me garder crïer

Tots mes fenestres sont quassés

Va, cor, cor, cor, jo esterai part

Te gardant partir

Va, cor, cor, cor, c'est un longue chemin, qui t'enmenera en bas

Thank you for your answer!

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why not, sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

It would be hard for me to guarantee any accuracy, not as if I can ask a native speaker, if you can get an academic to check it, so much the better. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

unfortunately I can't ask any academic person for Old French. Maybe you could just check it, I wasn't sure with "que jo me sentes mal comme une moins que nïent", "jo ere de papier", "jusque à le ciax", "te sentis tu mielz à me garder crïer", "jo esterai part" and "te gardant partir".

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Tomorrow. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I could suggest despartir for leave, other than that, you're leaving the subject pronouns in which isn't normal, the usual negative form is just 'ne' with the second word (ne pas, ne mie, ne goutte) being optional. The trend of saying something like « je joue pas au Scrabble » is the opposite of what they did back then (« je ne joue au Scrabble »). Also in the original French, it should be fenêtres ... cassées (fenêtre is feminine). The word for to is a not à, the distinction comes later, ad is another valid alternative chiefly from early Old French and Anglo-Norman. Gratte-ciel is obviously a total loss. Um, not sure what to say. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Okay, this is the new version:

Li ciel plore et jo garde

Coillant les larmes dans mes mains

Seulement li silence, comme la fin, comme si nos ne avons de chëance

Quiers tu que jo me sentes mal comme une moins que nïent

Tu puez prendre tot que jo ai

Tu puez brisier tot que jo sui

Comme si jo ere de voirre

Comme si jo ere de papier

Va endroit et esprove de m'essilier

Jo me leverai jusque ad le ciax

Comme un alerïon, comme un alerïon

Comme li fum se degage

Jo m'esveillie et jo este sor mes piés

Te sentis tu mielz ad me garder crïer

Tots mes fenestres sont quassées

Va, cor, cor, cor, jo esterai part

Te gardant despartir

Va, cor, cor, cor, c'est un longue chemin, qui t'enmenera en bas

Is there anything left to say?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Chemin is masculine so it should be lonc not longue. And we do have despartir, but under departir. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Have we changed the way we are doing these? I vaguely recall seeing some discussion about not using "Abbreviation" as a header any more, so I am making case citation abbreviations as nouns, e.g., Comm'n. (Per the Bluebook and other legal citation format guides, these are always capitalized). Please let me know what you think. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Should have Category:English nouns somewhere on the page, everything else looks good to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Excellent. Thanks, all fixed up that way. bd2412 T 13:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing my formatting! --Slashme (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I see that this verb now has a grammatical label on only the first definition. Was that deliberate? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not deliberate so much as I knew it would happen. Extending it to all definitions, I don't think that can be done with regex. An alternative method would be {{qualifier|transitive}} (and so on). Bearing this in mind, have stopped the bot. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Shall I continue or not? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, I wouldn't bother. I don't see what's wrong with the articles as they are. When there is a single definition/translation, I have no objection to the template being moved to the # line (that's how I would do it now). But when there are multiple such lines, all the same transitiveness etc (whatever the word is), then a single template on the headword line makes more sense to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could you comment on this please? 94.211.59.112 15:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't have much to add other than 'yes maybe'. Why do you ask me? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't know, you are an active user here who speaks English as a native language. I thought you would know whether that was a way one could use taboo. Sorry. 94.211.59.112 21:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I see that you deleted a couple subpages in my user space, citing "no usable content given." What is the standard for "usable content" in user subpages? Not a big deal to recreate but I'm going by my knowledge of WP rules which may differ from userpage guidelines here. Someone left a possible explanation for their deletion on my talk page; perhaps you could respond there if you have time? Thanks. --Rhododendrites (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

They didn't seem to serve any purpose and I waited a short while to see if you were gonna use them and you didn't. I suspect WT:USERPAGE is on your side with this one " User pages which do not adhere to these guidelines may be nominated for deletion or even "speedily deleted" in clear-cut cases (spam, offensive messages, etc.)." Mglovesfun (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I expanded the pronunciation, and added the slang penis definition. See Wikisaurus:penis, where it is one of many slang synonyms. - Gilgamesh (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could you just give me a lot of the edits you've made that are totally wrong instead of partial wrong, then? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is not an appropriate response, nor is it appropriate to block a user for incorrect edits made in good faith. —Leftmostcat (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was unable to fix the edits quickly enough; it should've been a shorter block for that reason, to allow me to 'catch up'. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I still believe it's inappropriate to block for this reason. Talk to the user first. —Leftmostcat (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I didn’t want to revert, but I think this change to Wiktionary:Context labels makes the language imprecise. When people speak or write, they are using terms and senses of terms. This is what “usage” refers to. The definitions of these terms and senses remain in the dictionary. —Michael Z. 2013-06-22 14:51 z

Definitions aren't senses... indeed, that's why I changed the word sense to definition! Mglovesfun (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

But the labels describe the usage of terms and senses in the language, not the usage of definitions while referring to the dictionary. —Michael Z. 2013-06-23 17:00 z

I agree with Michael. diff was a worsening, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I meant to do this yesterday, when I spotted this while moving completed/out-of-date/no-longer-relevant to-do lists off the main TODO page, and your change to your userpage has just reminded me to do it... for cleaning up that old list, and for all your other work around here, u can haz cheezbrgr. If you want to take a wikibreak, by all means, you've earned one. - -sche (discuss) 21:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not sure I'll be back. No point me doing this if I'm not getting any pleasure out of it. But I'm not ruling it out either; depends entirely on how I feel. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I hope you stay. The project will suffer for your absence, and I think it's always possible to find fun things to do here. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Good luck with whatever you decide. I stepped back for a half-year before coming back to it, kind of by accident. Dunno how long I'll stay involved this time around, but hey, it's all one. You've got to find what works for you.  :)   -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Too bad for Wiktionary if you're not getting any pleasure from it. There are people, however, who take pleasure in contributing to great things even if it does not bring any pleasure to them. Looks like a contradiction, I know. A fix: there are people who decide to contribute to great things even if it does not bring any pleasure to them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I noticed a little while ago your bot added sc=Latn to a lot of calls to recons. Why did it do that? —CodeCat 12:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

At the time, calling stuff lang |lang=VL. called the script template {{VL./script}} which doesn't exist, which in turn caused {{Eror}} to be called. {{Eror}} of course doesn't even exist anymore. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Seriously, are these automatic rollbacks or something? Yes, the rollback is in error, please undo it. See: http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/User_talk:SemperBlotto#Novak

You're introducing a second etymology without any new meanings, so the only meaning goes under etymology 2 while etymology 1 is empty. It makes no sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

PS we lack the Serbo-Croatian given name :). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's because SemperBlotto complained when I did this edit. So what would you like me to do? Copy the identical "Proper noun" sub-heading into both etymologies, or redo the edit that SemperBlotto complained about, with the exception of linking to http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/novina and making a Slovenian entry there? I can't comment on the Serbo-Croatian.

SemperBlotto was enforcing a rollback by Jamesjiao. But I don't know why; looks ok to me. I couldn't revert it since I don't reasonably believe it to be false. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Re your comment "what language is this?"

w:Purépecha language is a language isolate from Mexico in the vicinity of Lake Pátzcuaro.

It seems Ethnologue has given it two codes, which have been inherited by ISO 639.

tsz is the code for what Ethnologue just calls "Purépecha". This is the variant that has an orthography and literary history and is the one from Pátzcuaro itself.

pua is the code for what Ethnologue calls "Western Highland Purepecha", which I believe has more speakers but is not considered the "main" variety of the language.

Well that's partly from memory so you probably want to check out the situation yourself rather than rely just on what I've said (-; — hippietrail (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

My question was purely for language coding purposes; I looked up Purépecha and it said code not found. The ISO code finder, which I believe is User:Yair rand/languagenametocode.js, isn't perfect; it misses languages which do have codes. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I ran into the same problem I guess when I tried to add those terms into translation tables and got a red errror I hadn't encountered before. — hippietrail (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I added it to Module:languages. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yo, I noticed a tendency in French is to make superlatives by prefixing words with très instead of suffixing them with -issime. très-silencieux has some results whereas *silencieusissime is unattested. So, my question is: can we add these kinds of adjectives into the mainspace? I’m not sure how you feel about hyphenated terms. This could permit très silencieux per COALMINE, though. --Æ&Œ (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Generally, hyphenated words aren't considered single words for the purposes of COALMINE, at least IME. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well I'd say très-silencieux is two words linked with a hyphen, not one. Also -issime isn't used much, I get the impression Italian ad Spanish use it (i.e. -issimo) a lot more than French does. I've come across rarissime once, I wonder if it's attested, and if so, how recent are the attestations? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

We have rarissime, and it's probably a descendant of rārissimus rather than stem + suffix, but possibly not. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply