User talk:Mglovesfun/Archives/4

I'm sorry if I shouldn't be commenting on that (and if it's of bad taste, please alert me), but I could help noticing that in your page you used the structure "from whence". As you're a wiktionarian, I figured that you should be interested to know, however, that while this structure should not be dismissed as totally wrong, for it has support on the King James' Bible, it is unpreferred if compared to just "whence", because "whence" already means "from where". Thereby, it is as tautological saying "from whence" as "from from where". Font: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whence . Oh, and by the way, thanks for your welcoming! Wisapi 16:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Did you notice that you blocked the grammer vandal for one second? Ha. Equinox ◑ 20:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I saw another admin do it once and I thought it was quite funny. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see that you have just deleted 21st century. The following should be probably deleted too:

• 21st-century
• 21st centuries
• 21. század

--Dan Polansky 18:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is correct. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you please unprotect edzino? The users who were involved in the edit war have come to an agreement. Thanks, Razorflame 21:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I don't have found the template! Jiròni 10:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

You have deleted Appendix:List of portmanteaux because of "Bad redirect/residual from move: content: '#REDIRECT Wiktionary:List of protologisms".

The talk page Appendix talk:List of portmanteaux say: "Kept. See archived discussion. 09:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)".

Can you restore the appendix, or confirm that the revision history of the appendix contained no useful content?

If the page contained helpful content in its revision history, I would add a hyperlink to the appendix to Wiktionary:Things to do to a section on "blends", which currently links to a Wikipedia list: Wikipedia:List of portmanteaux. If the list was actually unhelpful, then I guess I should remove the section on "blends" from Wiktionary:Things to do. --Dan Polansky 09:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have taken the liberty of adding to your sandbox. There is bound to be some crud amongst all that stuff. Cheers. SemperBlotto 20:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sounds look. Am looking now. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can I get this permanently semi-protected, please? Thanks, Razorflame 08:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I also don't see why this page should be fully protected. Vandalism on that page happened quite a while ago, so I think it would be safe to unprotect it now. Razorflame 08:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can I get User talk:Razorflame/Archive 2 permanently semi-protected as well please? Thanks, Razorflame 18:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you agree that Wikiprojects can have titles starting with "Project - " rather than "Wikiproject ", can you please rename AKA move those starting with "WikiProject" at Category:Wiktionary projects? I've renamed several myself, but several of them are locked against moving. --Dan Polansky 09:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I do, however I wouldn't have moved them back to the original titles because of the capitalization. I think we can do better than that. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agreed that the capitalization should be sentence-case rather than title-case. --Dan Polansky 09:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is that different from rateable? SemperBlotto 17:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Was actually looking for French ratable on Google Books, but it got over a thousand hits in English. Yes, I've heard of both from Scrabble with the same meaning. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I moved everything in the In London category to the London category. Hope this helps :) Razorflame 18:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, cheers! Could you do the two policy ones listed in Category:Category redirects which are not empty? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Since you've been working on the WikiProjects I thought I'd let you know about two moves:

• Wiktionary:Project - German → Wiktionary:About German/Todo (done)
• Wiktionary:Project - Spanish → Wiktionary:About Spanish/Todo (haven't yet)

My reasoning is that these aren't really projects, but collections of language-specific cleanup lists (the usual stuff uncategorized pages, ttbc, redlinks). Therefore they should be factored into the normal About Language space. Hope that seems fine to you. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 03:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey there Mglovesfun. In the requested entries on the Recent changes, the single symbol that is the fifth one from the right is the Kannada letter for tha. I would like to request if you could possibly make that entry please? I cannot due to User:Razorflame/Promise. Thanks, Razorflame 12:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Out of interest, why would I know how to do that? I'm sure someone will; I'm doing some cleanup stuff right now. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just in case you were wondering, the IPA for this would be: /sablohoroˈlodʒo/ :) Razorflame 08:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Using Google Translate, I've found out that this entry menas to muse, however, I am not cerain how accurate Google Translate is. Hope this helps, Razorflame 18:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I know that cabinet can mean office in French, but can it also mean chambers i.e the offices of a law firm?

In case you are interested, I have a very distant cousin whose law firm (in Port au Prince, Haiti) is called "Cabinet Clifford Knaggs" (he is OK, being in the US at the time of the earthquake). You can see from his photo that he is a very distant cousin, being a descendent of the slave owner in my family tree). SemperBlotto 22:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well its the same meaning really, but we'd use a different word in English. A doctor's surgery would be a cabinet médical. That might be worth an entry, because médical implies doctor, not just any form of medicine. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Am currently in the process of leaving France for England, so no computer access until roughly Monday morning. All messages will get replies at that time. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mg. I have removed your attention template in this entry having reformatted the word with the currently used Dutch adj inflection template. In regards to your question "what inflection", here is a link which should give you a good overview of Dutch adjectival inflection. Thanks :) Happy contributing. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 10:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good, thanks. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, common gender. This emcompasses all nouns that collocate with the def article 'de'. All other nouns are neutral taking the article 'het'. I don't want to get too deep into this, the text here should clear this up (while on this subject, please see my reply in the tearoom re: cleanup).

Here are the rules I follow when defining the gender of a Dutch noun:

• If it's a common-gender word that has its grammatical gender agreed upon by both the North and the South, I will classify it as either m or f (or both: see below).

• The Dutch hates sexism. Traditionally a profession has both a male version and female version such as a courier: m -> koerier, f -> koerierster. However, just like English, gender specificity has been losing popularity in the recent years. Words such as 'actor' can now refer to both male and female acting professionals, although 'actress' is still used and can only refer to a female acting professional. The same analogy applies to Dutch, the only difference being that it also applies to grammatical genders. Therefore, the grammatical gender of koerier is now both m and f and the word can be used to refer to both human genders; the feminine version is now almost obsolete unless used to refer to a female person in history with such a profession. Now having said that, there are exceptions such as chirurgijn, which is m and m only. The reason for that is pretty simple. It's an obsolete profession that will never be the subject of gender conflict.

• If it's not agreed upon, I will classify it as c to avoid confusion with the above.

• A neutral-gender word is just as it is and is denoted by n.

If you are going to unblock people, you must leave them a message explaining why they shouldn't have done what they did. Otherwise when they do the action again, we have no way of saying "but we told you". Conrad.Irwin 15:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, only thing is doing so takes time away from editing articles. That's the counter argument. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

What was the point of this diff? Etyl, as you know, is very widely transcluded: all that edit did AFAICT was load the job queue.​—msh210℠ 16:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

A habit of templatify stuff I guess. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour, what do you think about my proposal? Cheers! Pharamp 13:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi MG, just in response to your question on my talk page. Yes I don't mind being an administrator. I just fear that I might be a little too green for it. Thanks Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Has 2 Old French sections. Nadando 23:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Category:Cajun French derivations should be in an etymology category, shouldn't it? --Volants 14:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah that's {{topic cat parents/Cajun French derivations}} that needs creating. It's not a simple system at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot for all your great work. I use both the French and English Wiktionaries for my studies all the time, when I want to quickly look up a word. Printed French dictionaries are so big nowadays... :P 93.97.167.16 18:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Martin. When creating claquement, I wanted to direct readers to claquer, which has more definitions. I wanted to say sth like "look at the definitions at claquer. A claquement is just the noun from claquer", but obviously that sounds pretty horrible. Can you suggest a smarter way of doing this? --Rising Sun talk? 23:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see no harm in copying out all the definitions. That's what I'd do. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, why did you delete {{bird}}? --Rising Sun talk? 05:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

It failed our deletion process, why else? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Template:fr-note-É -> Wot ? You mean In popular French orthography, I guess. Cdlt, VIGNERON 10:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

You just need to walk around France, you know. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

A small thing, instead of {{etyl|la}} you need to put {{etyl|la|fro}} for the correct categorization, otherwise it's listed as an English word derived from Latin. Still, all help appreciated, thanks! Mglovesfun (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/User_talk:Leasnam"

I did not know that. I will start doing so immediately. Thank you! Leasnam 18:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

You may know it already, but have you seen the very good online Anglo-Norman dico here? It saw me through most of my Marie de France reading (which to me certainly seemed distinct from standard Old French, although there is obviously plenty of overlap). Ƿidsiþ 16:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, never seen it. Marie de France definitely uses different spelling norms to say, Chrétien de Troyes, but I find them mutually intelligible. If that makes sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, for sure. I think of it like English and Scots. Ƿidsiþ 16:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Does decipio look better than my first Latin attempt? Ks0stm ^(T•C) 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

pour tes corrections.

Content de voir un british venu vivre en France par amour, et qui pense qu'on peut aimer les dicos sans être (ou devenir) un « vieux con » (comme on dit chez nous...) ! Comme tu as pu t'en rendre compte, j'essaie de faire sur la PDD du « Word of the day » quelques commentaires à visée humoristique, mais qui peuvent intéresser ceux qui aiment le français. Le plus souvent je vérifie la présence du mot dans un de mes nombreux dicos, en particulier je cherche s'il existe dans notre petit « vade mecum » (« Le Petit Larousse 2008 ») , ce qui prouve qu'il est bien entré dans notre usage courant.

Puis-je me permettre de redresser une des phrases de ta très claire page personnelle, dans un texte par ailleurs plus que correct ? Il me semble préférable de dire : «  Je passe plus de temps à corriger les articles qu'à en créer de nouveaux. La qualité d'un dictionnaire n'est pas fonction de la quantité de mots qu'il contient. » - plutôt que « Je passe plus de temps à corriger les articles que d’en créer des nouveaux. Un dictionnaire de qualité n’est pas uniquement défini sur combien de mots il contient. ».

Si tu as apprécié ce petit service , peux-tu me rendre la pareille ? J'ai commis sur WP:en deux articles : « Shibumi » (à propos du roman de Trevanian) – et «  Quinceanera, film » , j'apprécierais grandement que tu y jette un coup d' oeil pour y corriger les fautes les plus criantes.

Merci d'avance, et continues STP à travailler pour que nos langues soient belles, riches et correctes.

PS J'espère que je ne suis pas allé trop loin avec Semper, quand je l'ai gentiment « chambré » sur la PDD de « buttress » et de « to yomp » : j'ai constaté qu'il est assez « soupe-au-lait » (= easily boils over like a pan of milk )...Mais si je l'avais vraiment agacé, je crois que je serais en ce moment « licking my wounds »... Arapaima 08:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

you can do better than that... conj: an -er verb? --Rising Sun talk? 11:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think it's called "not checking". Mglovesfun (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

A proper version of that Malayalam article "samcharam" actually already exists here: സഞ്ചാരം, and the one with the transliterated title has been deleted. Unfortunately, I have no real knowledge of Tamil, but I'll see if I can move chezhiyan to செழியன், which I think is the correct spelling. --Grammatical error 11:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi! These entries (œnologie, œnologue et œnologique) need a note about their pronunciation, like in the French page. Maybe just a specification with the Template:a is good, but I don't know the words to use. Thank you very much! Pharamp 15:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

to be mentionned: nobody prononces those words as they should (i.e. with /e/ sound) --Diligent 16:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I imagine, but /e/ is the rule. We should put both, and mark their differences in utilisation correctly. Pharamp 16:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

tu peux repasser derrière moi (comment dire liste électorale?) — This unsigned comment was added by Diligent (talk • contribs) at 11 Feb 2010.

Reply

Erm, there is a word but I can't think of it right now. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

il y a une traduction plus précise pour le sens de buns ?

tu es capable de faire une ligne "sécante" entre l'anglais et le français pour que l'illustration ne vienne pas empiéter ?

merci. --Diligent 08:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I used {{pedialite}} to avoid the right-floating box. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Cool. merci. --Diligent 14:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Are you User:MG too? --Rising Sun talk? 03:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, MG aren't the rarest initials in the world, you know. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

quelle est la traduction exacte en anglais ? cf. konšel

Personally, I'd call it a town councillor or city councillor (someone who works for a town/city council). --Rising Sun talk? 19:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not a town counselor! --Rising Sun talk? 19:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Can you check the noun part? Exact definition is 'Ensemble de litiges', plural is somehow incorrect but even used on the website of the French Govt --Diligent 17:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

surpoids (rapport au fait qu'il n'est ni dans TLFi ni même dans WKT)

Sorry what's the question here? I've certainly heard of it (in relation to myself, I'm afraid). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

i'm familiar with the Wiktionnaire usage of entering words which do not exist in dictionaries (and a mention thereof). Here, not sure. If you could have a look at the way i did it... merci. --Diligent 10:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

ps - I've decided to stop bothering you and use the template:attention instead.

That's fine, as I check that category. Right now, all the tagged words in there are mine. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Thanks for pointing me to the etyl template. I saw you applied it to some pages already, but why did you also remove the original words? I suppose you did that unintentionally... - Golradir 19:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually, because Yiddish doesn't use the Latin script. I think there's a request for script template, if I can find it. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yiddish doesn't, but we do. By all means, add {{rfscript}} or {{attention}}, but you should not remove the transliteration and translation. Not all of our Yiddish editors have ready access to Dutch etymological dictionaries. Given the transliteration and translation, they can give us the Yiddish spelling, but without that, they just have to take a stab in the dark at what the Yiddish etymon is supposed to be. And anyway, the transliteration and translation are still informative for readers, even if the Yiddish spelling isn't there. —Ruakh_TALK 21:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Which etymology do you think is correct; the one I put on pulmō from πλεύμων (pleúmōn)'s etymology; or the one you added to poumon? Caladon 12:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

You should ignore me, I bet I copied that from fr:poumon, so if it's wrong, so am I. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

As a long-time Wikipedia editor, it's strange to have documentation on a talk page, which in my mind should be reserved for comments about the template. In my mind, the documentation risk getting lost if there are a lot of comments. But I've moved it if that's the norm.Dcmacnut 22:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

We change the =Documentation= and =Discussion= headers to L1. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good to know. The other projects don't use =Lorem= headers. The highest level is ==Lorem==.Dcmacnut 03:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. In this edit, you say that جدّی failed RFD. I don't see a link to جدّی with the RFD results. Could you please point me to the page where that RFD occurred so I can read the reasoning? —Rod (A. Smith) 22:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

How about WT:RFD#جدّی? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. I missed that somehow. I now see the RFD discussion about it, but it's not convincing at all. The tashdid mark is completely different from the short vowel marks that people in the discussion seemed to be referring to. —Rod (A. Smith) 22:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit confused about this. How can we say xno is derived from fro....when the former is attested earlier? It seems to me the two languages represent cognate branches (albeit in slightly different time periods) of one dialect continuum, rather than being in any position of descendance to each other. Ƿidsiþ 11:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

The basic theory is that Anglo-Norman developed from Old French, which started in 842, whereas Anglo-Norman is more like 1040 (slightly before the Norman invasion AFAIK). But again, I almost never know what to do with these. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've never heard that "basic theory". Who says that? Ƿidsiþ 12:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

From a bit of reading, basically. To put it another way, which bit of what I said do you think is wrong? PS try this to start with. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

What I think is that we should be very careful of attributing etymological lines of descent in two languages which were co-existant. The problem is compounded by the fact that there is a lot of early Anglo-Norman writing and rather little in Old French, so even if we suspect that Anglo-Norman is a "development" of something in standard continental Old French it can be hard to prove it. I understand xno as developing from something like Old Norman (what the OED used to call Old Northern French), although obviously there was always a lot of interaction and these branches were not isolated. Nevertheless I think xno is rarely a "development" of standard Old French, but rather usually a development of some unattested northern form(s) of Old French. My head hurts. Ƿidsiþ 12:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is one even more dubious solution - to start a vote to merge Anglo-Norman into Old French. I dislike the idea for two reasons.

1. It has an ISO code xno
2. We use it a lot in etymologies

The main advantages are

1. All the books I've consulted seem to think that it is a dialect
2. I can't find any solid way to tell the difference between the two. Generally I look for spelling difference. Avoir/aveir for example. But other than that, the author is not as important as the scribe. You could take a Marie de France text and 'translate' it into continental Old French, and visa versa. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well I came to Anglo-Norman through etymologies first, so I hate that idea because English words often took specific characteristics from xno forms which were not there in Old French. Many people do call it a dialect, but that's neither here nor there -- the difference between a dialect and a language is essentially arbitrary, and as long as there are Anglo-Norman dictionaries and an established body of Anglo-Norman literature, I think it's better to keep them separate. Ƿidsiþ 12:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just worked on taquet where the /k/ sound is from estaque, a "dialectal" Anglo-Norman of Old French estache (estachier > attacher > to attach), I was missing the code for Anglo-Norman so here we have it... thx for the conversation. --Diligent 13:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Again though, the Trésor which the entry references says nothing about Anglo-Norman, it just says "a Norman variant of Old French". So it doesn't come from Anglo-Norman -- it comes from the same source as Anglo-Norman, namely whatever northern variety of Old French was being spoken round those parts. Ƿidsiþ 13:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I doubt it's really as accurate as all that. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, as you know ONF. doesn't have an ISO code. I find the assumption that Old French turns into Anglo-Norman the minute that it hits England a bit weird. Surely it takes a bit of time to diverge. Essentially it's just a mess and I see no way of sorting it out other than just POV. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

No but that's the whole point -- it IS completely arbitrary. There are no historical dividing lines between these languages - Anglo-Norman is just what we decide to call the Norman/French language when it starts being used by native British writers. Of course in reality the transition was gradual and complicated, but hopefully most of the texts can be roughly assigned to one dialect group or another. Language names are very vague labels, they were never supposed to be applied scientifically to distinguish between one text or another like this. In 12th century France there were different kinds of French being spoken in literally every village, it's only looking back we make generalisations of different dialect groups for the sake of convenience. When you're interested in literature from a time when languages were diverging, you're going to face this categorisation problem a lot. (This is why I find "Middle English" such a difficult label -- the divide between that and modern English is even more illusory than with French, because there is a constant stream of literature produced through the whole period.) Ƿidsiþ 16:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

How about a concrete example, instead of pure theory. How about this then, is it Old French, Anglo-Norman, or both? How do you tell? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

• It's both. You tell because it's used both by Anglo-Norman scribes working in Britain, and also by writers working in Old French on the continent. Ƿidsiþ 15:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Prepositional phrases are now allowed as a PoS header because of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-01/Allow "Prepositional phrase" as a POS header. —Internoob (Disc.•Cont.) 00:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yep, thanks for fixing that. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

je viens de rajouter le français.

l'étymologie anglaise me semble douteuse. Tu ne veux pas vérifier ?

--Diligent 18:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to thank you again for taking an interest in the older varieties of French that have been so particularly important for Middle English and early modern English vocabulary and orthography. Also for all the work you have been doing on the RfV and RfD pages. DCDuring TALK 11:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'd also like to thank you for all the work you do standardising English entries, and on RFD, even if we don't always agree (I mean, why would we?). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Some day I'll be able to also write good definitions of basic words, maybe. DCDuring TALK 16:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

je viens de faire le français mais je me dis que j'ai 90 % de chances de tomber sur un faux-ami. tu pourrais repasser derrière moi ? — This unsigned comment was added by Diligent (talk • contribs) at 26-02-2010.

Looks ok to me. Your articles are very good, especially for someone who's new here. PS please rememeber to sign (~~~~) Mglovesfun (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I second that. Keep it up! --Rising Sun talk? 03:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is very difficult- as there exists no such word for a "god" in Indonesian. Only close is "dewa"/"dewi" and this is gender specific and solely for Hinduism. The joys of translation, hmm? Sadly- not everything in Indonesian nor Javanese translates directly with English-Germanic or Latin-romance languages.Peeweebee 15:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply