User talk:PUC/2017-2018

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! Equinox ◑ 19:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. @Metaknowledge: I think I've just had the best idea ever: I'm going to create heaps of new socks, until you grow so tired of it that you'll nominate me for adminship just so I can give them the autopatroller status myself :3 --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

If you aren't careful, I'll block them on sight. That's what you deserve for making me Google that line by Ausonius. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Haha is this WF? I was proper fooled, so I was. (I also looked up the dirty Latin line.) Equinox ◑ 02:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't whitelist WF. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

WF? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wonderfool. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Who is this a sock of? User:Barytonesis? —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 03:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Other than "I don't whitelist WF" this discussion suggested User:Per utramque cavernam could be WF so I mistakenly added it to User:AryamanA/Wonderfool, but "I don't whitelist WF" means this can't be WF and User:suzukaze-c graciously fixed the error.

If this is User:Barytonesis it would be nice if you declare your new socks at User:Barytonesis/Socks and User:Per_utramque_cavernam per User_talk:Barytonesis#Socks since it is especially difficult for "casual editors to recognise your identity" and so that the respectable User:Barytonesis is not misidentified as someone else. Kutchkutch (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Kutchkutch:  Done --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Kutchkutch: Thanks for making this clear... —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 21:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I find this "sockage" (socage!) quite confusing and annoying and don't entirely see why it's necessary. But user is good, A++, would co-edit again. Equinox ◑ 23:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I also find it very annoying. --Victar (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

It appears that you are now the top Google and Bing results for the phrase you used as your username. —suzukaze (t・c) 00:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Suzukaze-c: Man, I've always wanted to be famous! --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

*infamous —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 16:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back, Puck (if you don't mind the nickname). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Thanks, and no I don't (+1 word to my vocab) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I understood that, but the spellings of the two words intelligence and intelligentia are quite different. So I don't see how this can be a case of borrowing. Are you sure of your claim? what are your sources? Drow (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Drow: TLFi, but just because the spellings (it's more than the spellings, mind you) aren't exactly the same doesn't mean it's not a borrowing. Words are adapted to the language into which they are borrowed all the time. kidnapper has taken the usual French ending for verbs, and thus doesn't look exactly like the English kidnap, but that doesn't mean it's not a borrowing.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but if you don't know this you have no business fiddling with etymology sections. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ok, sorry. Drow (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Drow: No worries. I hope I haven't deterred you from contributing altogether! --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

No no, there's no problem :) Drow (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

"whose none"? DTLHS (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@DTLHS: sorry, I read the description of Category:English dvandva compounds ("words composed of two or more stems whose stems could be connected by an 'and'."), "misparsed" that sentence (the antecedent of "whose" is "words", not "stems", right?), and applied that faulty construction somewhere else. Is this better? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Keeping Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/November § Category:Subtypes of compounds by language in the fridge. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm starting to think that for taxa like Saltasaurus, referencing the Ancient Greek is almost silly, and we should just have a Translingual suffix at -saurus (after all, the semantics have changed a great deal). But there's not much point to doing that unless someone wants to take on the project of converting all our current -saurus entries. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: I guess I can do that, but there aren't that many links to the AGr. entry (less than 100), are there? Or am I missing something? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Eh, the main job is deploying it, I guess. I also wanted someone to assess my logic in making the change. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Well, I'm happy with whatever proposal might help to unclutter and tidy up CAT:English terms derived from Ancient Greek (not that I think I or anyone else will spend much time in there, but still). So I'd say go ahead. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Some of the dialects in Korean and Japanese have larger difference than between several Indo-european languages put here. You can see the sources, they are being called 'dialects' because of politics. Effficientvegetarianpc16 (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Effficientvegetarianpc16: As I said, I don't know anything about those languages; I don't even know what this is about. All I'm saying is that a Swadesh list is almost certainly not the place for what you're trying to accomplish. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Uh, etymology and pronunciation are L2 headings, they go before the POS. See diff. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 16:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@AryamanA: I'm aware of that, but I'm starting to find this ordering rather nonsensical; def and POS are the first thing a dictionary user usually looks for. So I've stopped using it when creating new entries. I usually don't change old entries though. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, then you better get WT:EL changed, cuz User:NadandoBot will reorder all the headings anyways. I kind of agree with you tbh. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)}

@AryamanA: Ah yes, I'd forgotten about that... Well, it would be good to have a vote about it, but seeing that we're quite impermeable to change... --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's far easier to make new entries than to fix old ones... —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 17:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

My script would not touch this entry: I only rearrange headers at the same level, and would never promote a header from level 4 to level 3 for example. It would just go in the long list of entries that cannot be parsed. DTLHS (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@DTLHS: That's unfortunate. I wonder if Wiktionary parsing tools will be able to deal with this kind of inconsistency... —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 20:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Etymology is the preliminary for the understanding of the meaning’s extent in multiple ways, for it explains how there can be such a word in such meanings – including by cognates, calques and semantic loans –, thus it comes at the beginning, and the alternative forms come even before it because the etymologies are based on them, as for example حِلْتِيث (ḥiltīṯ),‎ حِلْتِيت (ḥiltīt) which imitates begedkefet and is thus an obvious borrowing. But I agree that the pronunciation headers are annoying when the script or the transcription is clear – I would like the pronunciation being hidden and loaded by some Javascript, though I point out that sometimes adding a pronunciation section gives me more space to add an image in a fine size. Chinese can have its own rules of course. Palaestrator verborum ^{sis loquier 🗣} 20:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Palaestrator verborum: "alternative forms come even before it because the etymologies are based on them" That's not always true. We sometimes use older, more etymological forms/spellings as lemmas (simply because they're still the most common ones); sometimes, alternative forms/spellings don't really have much to do with etymology.

About the etymology: well, yes; I didn't say it was useless information, just that it's probably not what a regular dictionary user looks for first. A related question is whether we want to order senses by their frequency (obsolete ones last), or by their history (obsolete ones first). I don't think there's a simple answer; different people look for different things. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Per utramque cavernam No doubt there are exceptions from what I have outlined, but there is a statistical distribution. And if it generally makes sense, then I am also willing to do it in the not-too-many other cases where nothing is gained by it because the reader expects the information in a certain order. Don’t underween the value of the ability to browse Wiktionary with knowing the order presented beforehand.

See field for how I order by conceptual closeness. Do you like this? I have transcended frequency and history (which does not matter that much either a reader might frequently read specialist books or old books which would be why a word is more likely for him but rare for your abstraction about frequency). Palaestrator verborum ^{sis loquier 🗣} 23:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

So, you were splitting up Category:Latin words suffixed with -itas and Category:Latin words suffixed with -etas. They are strict allomorphs of -tās. I'm not sure why they should be split apart, so I'd like to know why you split them. —*i̯óh₁nC 10:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5: I didn't create the first one, which was already full of entries when I set out to clean this up. I plead guilty for the second one.

In general, I'm still hesitant on how we should go about with allomorphs (see this), but in this case I agree with you that they don't need to be split; usage notes in -tas should suffice. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I certainly agree that not all allomorphs should go to a single category (though this question should be considered carefully when creating new categories), but in this case, the reflexes are extremely (perfectly?) regular according to diachronic sound laws and later analogy. —*i̯óh₁nC 16:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5: Bruh, you for real??

Just kidding. I've emptied both cats. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Lol. Sometimes even the righteous are led astray. —*i̯óh₁nC 23:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

hello, could you tell me more about the register of your example please? I want to be sure about the translation. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: I'd say it's rather informal, but to be fair I'm not entirely happy with it. If you feel like finding a real quotation, you could scrape that sentence altogether. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't think I'm using scrape correctly. I mean remove. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Per utramque cavernam: Thank you. :) What I have put is very UK-English and sounds very informal and possibly slightly regional. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

'scrap' :) Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

"It's hard/non-trivial to encode (why this, and not phony as a four-dollar bill?), but how will a dictionary entry help anyone to use it if (s)he doesn't know it yet?" — I don't quite follow. If I learn this phrase from a dictionary (or from anywhere: a phrasebook, or human conversation), then I have a new vocabulary item. Same as if I stumbled upon the word dysphemism and thought "oh, that's exactly the word I was looking for last week"! Equinox ◑ 02:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox: I've rephrased that ("how will anyone find it if..."), but it does sound quite feeble. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you already dislike something, and every argument entrenches you in "well, that's what I said, but what I meant was..." then maybe you were just wrong. But it's cool, nobody cares that much about three-dollar bills. Hugs. Equinox ◑ 14:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why are you getting rid of this? I see no deletion discussion, and I also see no reason to do so; for a third-declension noun, the entire suffix has been added to the truncated stem. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: I'm not getting rid of it, I'm cleaning CAT:Latin words suffixed with -unculus to avoid having diachronic and synchronic derivations bundled together. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Some convos: Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2017/March#homunculus; Talk:-ellus (no mention of -unculus, but from what I see, everybody prefers to treat suffixes in a diachronic way) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, thanks for the links. I'm suspicious of the distinction you're making being valid for a native speaker, but I'll go along with it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Yes, as you can see on the etymscript convo, I've had the same misgivings as you :p I'd like to have a two-tier category system... Am I using two-tier correctly? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, do you want to be an admin? --Rerum scriptor (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but I don't know if I'm ready... And beside there's already an admin vote underway, so I'm not sure I'm needed. @Equinox, Metaknowledge, Robbie SWE, Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, thoughts? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's what all this was for, so you could nom yourself to be an admin? You may have read what I wrote to you by email, but I don't think you really took it to heart, and this is part of what makes you still unfit for a position of responsibility. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: I agree. Did you know all along? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, I had no idea that your purpose was to nom yourself. I thought you were just having fun. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Did you know all along that it was me, I meant :p --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, but it's because your Latin was so poor that I thought it must be someone without any classical education, which I had assumed you had. (By the way, if I hadn't known, Palaestrator called you out publicly quite a while ago.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Mh, I see. I'd better get back to work then. So long. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Erm, what’s going on here? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 11:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: Trying to nominate myself under the radar was a thoroughly stupid idea, and pretty shady behaviour at that. I'm not proud of it.

Let it be known however that I did not make those other nominations for the sole purpose of making my own more credible; I truly believe the people I've nominated or tried to nominate are, will be, or would have been assets to the project as administrators.

I'd like to add that I find Metaknowledge's last comment needlessly insulting. Not groundless (it was poorly written Latin), but degradingly worded still.

Anyway, I'll leave that distasteful episode here for all to see. No point in trying to hide it. That should serve me right, and help drive the lesson home this time. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I suppose it was degrading, but it is emotional truth in unemotional wording. My thoughts on your Latin composition mirror my thoughts on your conduct: I expected better. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Nice try, PUC. --Gente como tú (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

So you think the association to Clotho bears no relevance at all? In wgich way youre getting old? Liedes (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Much more remote associations are recorded in here so please stop destroying peoples work for your own pleasure. Liedes (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I did not make any kind of etymological claim over the term and you cannot deny the interest in regards the deity. Liedes (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

regarding Liedes (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

You can probably use some better talk page decoration than the previous section, so I'll put up a request: Could you create an entry for lupeux? It is apparently a demon or imp in folklore with different characteristics per region, sometimes lupine and sometimes more like a bird. Probably related to lupus. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Man, I thought that was a Latin word at first (IPA^(key): /lu.pe.uks/: "what kind of declension is that?!"). I'll look into it. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Lol, yeah, I should have mentioned the language in running text. And thanks. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey man, adding side notes inside reference tags to discussions is super annoying and confusing. If you need to, maybe add a corresponding <references group="notes" /> so they aren't floating at the bottom of talk pages. --Victar (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Victar: I can do that, but I'm not sure which post you're bothered with. I did this on Sagir Ahmed's talk page, but the ref isn't floating at the bottom? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've seen it on a bunch of talk pages, User talk:Erutuon for example. --Victar (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Victar: Ah yes, sorry about that. Fixed, I think. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sweet, thanks! --Victar (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

My view: it is good for words that are precise synonyms, e.g. scientific terms, and have a specific complex meaning. It is not good for words that are just vaguely similar in meaning. Equinox ◑ 19:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Now that was kind of a spooky simultaneity. -- · (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Talking Point: Yes it was. Mind you, I'm tempted to put it back because I'm very confused. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ah, temptation and confusion. Lordy, lead us not into either. -- · (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I was in the middle of editing it. Please add anything you have to add now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Koavf: Sorry for the edit conflict, I shouldn't have edited it so soon. Just a note: please don't use {{etyl}}, it's deprecated. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

No problem--we're both just trying to make the best dictionary we can. Yes, I copied that from another entry. Note that I have also fixed the other templates on the entry. Thanks for the note and the edits. Do you want to incorporate the other citations into the proper entry itself? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Koavf: I'm good, formatting quotes is one of those things I find really tedious :p --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I was sure to have read here that 'inh' was deprecated and we ought to use 'der' now, but it such weren't the case I can of course use 'inh': I have no personal preference thereamong. 185.245.191.14 17:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, what was so objectionable in my post that you had to remove it? Just not answering would have almost the same effect and would leave the chance that someone might actually give a constructive answer.

I later had the genius idea to search for "phono-semantic-match Latin", but came up empty except for three Chinese terms. I can't imagine there are no historical examples of this at all, so I think the question is warranted. In fact, as time and time again I'm reminded that linguists are careful to follow sound laws, I'm affraid stuff like this was easy to overlook, and it's noted to be especially hard to proof, so the question is interestingly difficult and thus warrants a short reminder if nothing else.

I possibly should have left out my folk-etymology reasoning, as I am also always reminded that time's a-wastin', but the arguments throw up interesting questions themselves (e.g. "gradus" as military command).

Was calling "ex vs em" being contradictory out of line? i do note that people get offended by too much of an idealistic stance on literal translations. Solving that was exactly my aim of the post, because eggcorns can at times make more sense, and a double eggcorn could reinstate an original meaning, but I'm starting to ramble ...

"I'm not completely serious" means I don't have proof. If your revert implies it's non-sense, I think that requires stronger proof than my "could be". So that is kinda unfair and I intend to be understood as politely asking for common knowledge, not dragging anyone into doing research for me (althoug I obviously wouldn't mind that too much either).

In the same spirit, I shouldn't intend to drag you into a discussion for the sake of it, I just feel misunderstood and perhaps not expressing my self clearly enough or misunderstanding the spirit of the community, insofar this post is sincere. On the other hand, my justification for posting is that the tea room seems to have a broader scope than the etymology scriptorium (not to say it was full of non-sense, which however subjective wouldn't be justification to add to it) and that talk pages are meant also for social functions.

So, if I have offended you, please take this as an apology. Then pray say, did you think the post was getting at a wrong answer or just not meeting the purpose of the tea room? Rhyminreason (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note about the syntax! Very appreciated. I will use it from now on!

There is an article "Agency_(notion)" on the French Wikipedia, but, well, I am afraid I am not sure whether the term is actually used in French. I have removed the translation for now. Thanks for that. --Edcolins (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I liked your previous name Barytonesis better; I can never remember this one. Good names are memorable. Just a very soft hint. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Dan Polansky: Someone else just said the same thing... I don't want to return to Barytonesis though, and I don't think yet another username change would be well received by the community. But I'll give it some thought. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Go for it. There's nothing wrong with changing usernames. --106 for now (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, could you add IPA to this please, if possible? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: Np. Wikipedia has a nice chart on note values; I'm thinking we should have something similar here to link croche, noire, blanche, etc., together. Perhaps something similar to {{table:chess pieces/fr}}? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Per utramque cavernam: That's a really good idea, I don't know if it needs to be that extreme though. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Found another old account. This was a great one - cleaning up after old Wondercrap. --106 for now (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, check all my edits, please. 94.241.255.82 19:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fίλτατε X! I saw a tsaconic interest in your user pages! καούρ done! (I added at Tsakonian this: see: Category:Tsakonian lemmas Is this ok?) perhaps would be helpful for all lemmata for language names to have a similar link under their definition). I have a favour to ask: At Descendants sections, wouuuld it be sci-correct to put a...z closer:

• Greek:....
• Greek, Tsakonian: ...
• M...
• T....

instead of:

• Greek: ....
• M....
• Tsaconian:

If you say yes, I can do this myself (only few words: At γυνή-oops link onlyγυναίκα- γλῶσσα θάλασσα, καί, καλῶς-link only to καλώς-, ποτήριον, στόμα, ὥρα It is a favour for my great-grand mother (yes, my 1/8th is from w:Leonidio) who used to say to her son: τσούω?(δράω?) δούρα, θράω?(θλάω?) κάρα = I grab a stick and break your head!!! (Well, this is the only tsaconian my grand-father told me, and I cannot remember it well, i was 6 years old when he died). Thank you. sarri.greek (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sarri.greek: What about this? (at γλῶσσα (glôssa)) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Perfect, @Per utramque cavernam: you are such a great young man. Thanks, I'll copy. sarri.greek (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

P.S. But did they really 'have' an alphabet? I thought they were illiterate, and they would ask a priest or a teacher to write their letters, or whatever they needed. And he would 'use' greek alphabet. sarri.greek (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sarri.greek: Mh, it was probably true before, but I think they have been in the process of creating one for the last forty (?) years. From what I've read, it's still far from finished though; there are several competing systems, and there's no unicode support yet. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Calthinus: Hello. I'm well aware of the distinction between inherited terms and borrowings. To be honest, I'm not fond of the current layout either; see pacifico for what I think would be a clearer way of doing things. @JohnC5, Metaknowledge (I can't answer on your talk page because I'm blocked from editing). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

How are you blocked from editing? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I was also confused by this. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 18:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Huh?... Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

My IP was blocked because of one of my socks, but it's solved now. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 08:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oops, I just saw this now and it seems the issue is being resolved. For the record I think the format seen on pacifico could work too though I'm not aware of a theoretical reason for distinguishing borrowings into Romance languages from borrowings into non-Romance languages. Complicating the issue of the Latin loans is the fact that in Romance philology we have a "third" category of "inherited loans" which are not descendants but were loaned in ancient or early medieval times and hence do undergo the regular sound shifts but only some of them. I.e. French has all three strata of words from Latin and they are differentiated, while for the non-Romance languages in the Romance area, like Albanian and Basque and arguably Welsh, the distinction can also be important, although it might be best to note on the word's page itself. But I'm not going to be a stickler here, I'm very glad that at least loans are being clearly marked now. Cheers,--Calthinus (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Calthinus: I guess there isn't really a compelling reason to distinguish Romance and non-Romance borrowings; it's just that I find the latter totally uninteresting.

And yes, I'm aware of that too; actually I'm working on an Appendix:French doublets page, you might be interested in that. (as well as in Appendix:Romance doublets) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I am interested :). I'll help you out if I come across something that could be of use. I have Pope and Delamarre and Arteaga on hand, so I probably will. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Calthinus: Thanks :) If you see things that should be moved (old borrowings mistaken for inherited terms, for example) or deleted altogether, don't hesitate! --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is another (admittedly small) set of doublets the page is not yet covering, and I'm not sure where to place them. In one stage of Old French there were dialect loans from the "more Frankish" northern dialects in Normandy, Picardy and Champagne which at that time had prestige -- these produced doubles like grange (native) and granche (dialect loan). Would the best section name be dialect loans, or what? (this info is coming from Mazzola in Arteaga). --Calthinus (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do you want place name here too? There are plenty of doublets among those (Bituriges: Berry-Bourges, etc). The reason for the distinctions among these is actually Gaulish, for some place names the Gaulish antepenultimate stress was preserved, others adopted the Latin mostly-penultimate system and eventually this came to distinguish previously identical placenames. --Calthinus (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Calthinus: Yes, please add those two categories too (if you do this now I'll stay away from the page for a while to avoid edit conflicts). "dialectal loans" maybe? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you're working on it now I'll do it later. I'm just doing work irl and alternating a bit with this, but I didn't mean to cause edit conflicts. --Calthinus (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Calthinus: You haven't, don't worry. All right, I'll add a few more words then! --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Merci for everything FX. I have been visiting the French and Romance doublets! Nice work!... Will you be playing scrabble? sarri.greek (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you reverted edit of οὐρανός (ouranós) and both are referenced in http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=a)dh=&highlight=.

Please put them back... Thank you. 94.109.115.121 14:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your corrections at συγκρουόμενο. I had studied the definitions of nominalise and substantivise and I thought the difference is that nominalise=uses plus suffix and substantivize = the word intact. Have I got it wrong? Are the terms different, or strict synonyma? sarri.greek (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sarri.greek: Mh, I've been told they are synonyms, with nominalise being the more common term (which is why I've chosen it over substantivise), but maybe we should double check that. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

well, apart from the suffix or no suffix thing... I do not speak latin, but in my school grammar nomina were both substantiva and adiectiva (same in gre: όνομα), so, nominalise to me, would mean: create either adj. or noun (e.g. a participle can be nominalised). But an adj. can only be substantivized? :) sarri.greek (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Would you consider adding {{Babel}} to your user page? It would be useful. --Dan Polansky (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Dan Polansky: It's on my old user page, which is one of the first things I link to on this one. In short, I speak French, and English at a medium-high level. --Per utramque cavernam 08:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

{{Babel}} would be useful, especially since you are making comments about how certain uses of English rub you the wrong way. It should not be a detective work for the reader. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think you asked for this? It's implemented now, for nouns, adjectives and adverbs. I moved {{fr-adv}} to use Module:fr-headword since adverbs often have l' in them. Note that it merely links l' to ]; there's no way to make it smart enough to link to le or la. Also, prepositional phrases currently use {{head|fr|prepositional phrase}} (e.g. à l'instar de); we'll have to introduce a French-specific template and have it use Module:fr-headword in order to get the autosplitting behavior. Benwing2 (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Thanks a lot! I hadn't thought of the ambivalence of l’, but I'm not too bothered by that; after all the reader can check the gender on the noun entry. And I've created {{fr-prep phrase}}.

Two questions though: 1) do you know why the autosplitting doesn't work with jusqu’alors? 2) could you add another splitting behaviour for hyphenated terms (étouffe-chrétien, etc.)?--Per utramque cavernam 18:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Per utramque cavernam It doesn't work with jusqu'alors because I added a check that only autosplits when there are multiple words. I can remove that. As for hyphenated words, I can add that, but it may not make sense to do this when there are multiple words including hyphen-separated words, e.g. par-dessus la jambe, which currently relies on the existing splitting behavior to get par-dessus linked as a single word. Benwing2 (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: 2) Mh, it's a cost-benefit question then. I'd say there are mores cases where the autosplitting of hyphenated word is desirable than where it isn't. I prefer having to use the head parameter on a few entries (like the one you mentioned) than on many.

1) Did you have something specific in mind when adding the check? --Per utramque cavernam 20:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, you can post a late support to Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-06/Romanization of Sanskrit. To do that, you post a support but you indent it using ":" so that it does not get counted and say "Late" before "support". That does not change the result of the vote; it merele helps track prospective supporters for future votes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear φX, or @Per utramque cavernam a question: I see at latin sphaera, rhythmus, pisum, that they are all {der|la|grc. Is this 'derived' correct? If i add them at Descendants at the greek page which word do i use |bor=1 or |der=1? (The arrows are different) Thank youuu sarri.greek (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sarri.greek: They should use {{bor}} and |bor=1, both in the etymology section and in the descendants section.

Also, beware that these "der" have different definitions: {{der}} in the etymology section is

• 1) for terms not directly borrowed from another language (French café is derived from Arabic قَهْوَة‎ (qahwa), because there are intermediate languages: Italian, Turkish)
• 2) for morphological derivations (French sommeil is inherited from Vulgar Latin *somniculum, a derivative of Latin somnus; so sommeil is only derived from somnus)
• 3) when you're just not sure of the exact path. So you can use it for sphaera, rhythmus and pisum; it's just better to use {{bor}}, since we know the path.

But |der=1 is only for 2) morphological derivations, so writing {{desc|la|sphaera|der=1}} is wrong. --Per utramque cavernam 07:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Thank you teacher! @Per utramque cavernam: See? You trained me to be cautious. But I never thought the Romans derived from greeks:))) Merci sarri.greek (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

From what I've read, not is one of the many terms that 'triggers' negative polarity items along with -n't, various verbs like doubt and prevent, adjectives like unlikely, adverbs like hardly and barely, questions, hypotheticals, and many others (eg, without, before, only, few). Why not just make the not items redirects to the lemma? DCDuring (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring: I wasn't even aware of the existence of know which end is up! I like how this kind of work always makes us spot redundancies.

So, are you suggesting we move all the items of CAT:English negative polarity items with a negation in them to their positive forms? --Per utramque cavernam 09:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I still have to answer to several messages of yours I think, I'll have more time in two weeks. --Per utramque cavernam 09:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

No rush on any of my communications.

I am in favor of moving all to the positive form, leaving a redirect. I'm also in favor of adding redirects from a "not"-appended term to the positive form wherever that makes sense. I suppose we could use a usage note for all of the negative polarity items, perhaps also some kind of grammar page as an Appendix. Lastly we should make sure that all of the negative polarity definitions have usage examples with not and with at least one of the other 'triggers'. I think it is worth the effort, but I'd like @-sche:'s opinion on this. DCDuring (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I suppose some might say that the positive (not-less) forms should only be lemmatized if attested, like "unusually, when it came to the foobars, he did know which end was up". But even if they are not attested, I see benefit to having them all in one (type of) place (since even if they're only ever negative, not can be replaced with never, etc; "she proved fundamentally incapable of knowing which end was up"). As I've remarked before, it probably promotes some confusion, that we redirect readers from the negative forms to the positive forms, but usage examples and usage notes (probably templatized) would help overcome this. - -sche (discuss) 18:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the attestation problem would be serious. There might be a problem with finding pure "not" attestation (as opposed to "-n't" forms) for some of these.

I agree that there can be a user-confusion problem when we rely on hard redirects. Another approach would be a non-entry soft-redirect page that contained some kind of brief message explaining why there was no entry for the term in its "not" form (or "don't", "wouldn't", "never", etc. forms) and drawing attention to the usage note and examples. Do you recall any examples of particularly good templatized grammar-related usage notes? DCDuring (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, Google Books raw counts:

1. past tense
   1. didn't know which end was up (1,630)
   2. knew which end was up (640)
   3. did not know which end was up (143)
2. present tense
   1. doesn't know which end is up (1,480)
   2. does not know which end is up (125)
   3. don't know which end is up (2,480)
   4. do not know which end is up (140)

IOW, "n't" forms are much more common than "not" forms. Do the users who most need our help with these convert n't to not when lemmatizing for look up? That the "knew" form is more common than the "(did) not" should be a hint, at least, that the positive form should have an entry, even if we decide that the "not" form should also have a full entry. DCDuring (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

This word is clearly a cognate of kamień, *kamy, *h₂éḱmō, Old High German kemîn etc. Did the Proto-Indo-Europeans and Proto-Slavs not have chimneys according to you? Skrzymir (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I saw you removed the Louisiana French tag for patate douce. I was under the impression that you Parisians say "pomme de terre sucrée" or some similar nonsense about earth apples.<-- Aearthrise (𓂀) 06:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Aearthrise: I'm not Parisian, I'm not even French. :p

No, patate douce is used in Europe too. In fact, I've never heard someone speak of "pomme de terre sucrée". --Per utramque cavernam 07:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Forgive me for assuming that this is actual French when our entry literally claims that the phrase is borrowed from French. Maybe we should not claim that it was borrowed wholesale then.

Is it possible that the phrase was once used in French but has since fallen out of use? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Florian Blaschke: It's a May 1968 slogan, apparently. You can find some hits on GB ("vive la différence" + slogan: , , ; "vive la différence" + soixante-huit: ), but I don't think that warrants inclusion; it's not lexicalised. --Per utramque cavernam 14:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. Do you know what the slogan referred to originally? Diversity in general or a more specific kind of difference? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Florian Blaschke: Wait, I was wrong: it was already in use before 1968. I've found this 1945 occurrence (and a few others at ). Per utramque cavernam 11:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Fascinating. There's even one occurrence in a French context, from 1963, even though the book has an English title. This fits my sense that the phrase is older. I seem to recall seeing it in German (though sometimes translated to es lebe der kleine Unterschied) long ago, in journalistic texts and perhaps even older books. More clues are found here, including an ngram and a mention of its use as a Haitian tourism slogan. Pretty mysterious. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello X! Of mysoped: μύσος = uncleanness but also μυσός @perseus = μυσαρός=abominable. But no μυσόπαις found in gre. sarri.greek (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sarri.greek: Γεια σου. Ναι, αλλά -ως φαίνεται- υπερδιόρθωση είναι για misoped(ic). --Per utramque cavernam 13:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you are not sure what to do, the most important thing is to have {{taxlink}} in the entry. I find redlinked and unlinked taxonomic names very slowly. I regularly (multiple times a day) check for new occurrences of {{taxlink}} and for those that need specific attention. In a perfect world, everyone would master all aspects of the use of {{taxlink}}, but simply inserting it does much of the job. Each use of {{taxlink}} for a missing taxonomic name is a 'vote' to add that name.

IF you want to take the next step, you can add as second parameter the taxonomic "rank" or, rather, the type of name it is, eg, species, genus, family, clade (not a rank), phylum, order, subtribe, infraorder etc. As you can tell, this gets to be a bit technical (determination based on suffix) or requires going to Wikispecies (using the link taxlink creates). Not all of the small number of taxa we have are even in Wikispecies. Finding some more obscure, especially out-of-date taxonomic names can require multiple sources. I have links to more than 50 and could have many more. DCDuring (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring: Thanks. I'll use {{taxlink}} but let you sort out the details if that's okay with you; I'm not really interested in taxonomy. --Per utramque cavernam 19:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

That is the most important thing. Thanks. DCDuring (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

You've ignored my message here and are acting like a bot that is set up to revert any of my edits. Are you going to reply at all, or are you determined to "will me" into submission with a tug of war or something? Skrzymir (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Skrzymir: Edits like diff or diff lead me to believe you really don't know (and/or aren't paying attention at all to) what you're doing. Unfortunately, neither of those options inclines me to spend time responding to you. A few hints: 1) coincidences are coincidences, 2) chronology matters, 3) Proto-Slavic is not Latin, 4) language codes are there for a reason. --Per utramque cavernam 18:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Nothing like calling Latin a non-Slavic language, when Slavic is its entire military, agricultural and religious linguistic infrastructure, that is based on its etymology. Everything from the names of the Gods to names for crops and agricultural traditional practices find common cognates with Proto-Slavic historiographical material. The very word legion is oriented around the promise of a land to be given at the end of a career in order to be farmed by the retiring soldier's household -- it's a word that ultimately descended from lǫkъ, and its cognates explain this well; I can give several Proto-Slavic agricultural cognates to Latin legio-lecio, and Latin lego revolves around the meaning of "to collect ". The most insightful juxtaposition of words to prove this would be the name of Lechia or Lechitic -- Legitic-Legionic Tribes who served as auxiliary forces in the legions (or raided Rome). On one hand, sclavus was "borrowed" from the Slavic terms Sclaveni, Suebi and their cognates, in order to discredit the aspiring Slavic generals who wanted to ultimately defeat Rome, making slaves of them in the meanwhile -- hence the translation "slaves". But on the other hand, several names of tribes that supported and attacked the Legions both survive in the accounts of Lechitic tribes, always associated with Germans culturally, whose names define the "budging" and "budding" of Proto-Slavic peoples (that were present in Western Europe long before "proper" Proto-Germans arrived -- their name is a commonly understood between Proto-Celtic and Proto-Slavic peoples word gniyeti, that the "proper" Proto-Germans obviously took for themselves in order to let the Eastern Proto-Slavs and Baltic Slavs understand a new kind of culture with a separate language -- niemy -- "silent" (see: němъ) until then -- coming into cardinal (as it were) view; names of Eastern Germanic tribes are dominated with archaic Proto-Slavic etymological origins, while the Western ones are more "faithful" to Celtic roots. But they're always related, and predate "proper" Proto-Germanic.

I am willing to give a number of words that were clearly origins to many Latin terms, and correlate that with obvious cognates. You should have addressed this possibility instead of reacting hysterically. By the way, you have stated nothing that would disprove my direction of etymological associating of anything I've proposed -- is "I don't have the time for you" the best you got in defense of your your mindlessly-authoritarian reverts that lead to some kind of an uncritical, irrational bias being put forth here? Anything substantial at all regarding this or the etymology of pagan available here: https://www.reddit.com/r/paganism/comments/8llebq/are_native_american_religions_a_form_of_paganism/dzxjlwj/?context=0please -- let me know -- where is my narrative wrong historiographically, otherwise linguistically or however it is you think? As for the etymology of chimney alone, tell me how Polish kamień is not a cognate -- you will virtually make 0 sense however you attempt to argue. The Proto-Germanic word for kamin-chimney-komin comes from the name of a stone; a structure or "stone" itself, kamień -- which when pronounced without the acute accent at the end (as in -eń) gives exactly kamin (Old High German Kamin, directly related to hamaraz, a word meaning "hammer", because it is an attested derivation from *h₂éḱmō (“stone”) -- this is a PIE source-reconstruction from Balto-Slavic akmō and Proto-Slavic *kamy. Skrzymir (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Skrzymir: Your etymology edits are highly dubious and require verification. And this edit and this edit are insane. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't know about y'all, but I think this user is too dangerously misinformed not to be bannned. They seem to have a specific agenda, little understand of basic historical linguistics, and no intention of stopping. What do we think, @Atitarev? —*i̯óh₁n̥C 02:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5: I would start with a warning and thorough monitoring of his/her edits but I won't stand up if someone decides on more drastic measures. The user is 100% sure (s)he is right when they are very wrong and that's a problem. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5, Atitarev: I suggested a block on Chuck's talk page yesterday, then changed my mind. That last babble doesn't inspire confidence at all though, as much for the content as for the attitude. --Per utramque cavernam 11:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

0 logical argumentation so far from anybody. How decent of you to imply I must think I'm 100% sure I'm right, when you clearly are 100% sure yourself that you don't know how to substantially handle anything I've given so far. An obscene attesting of mutual bias and threatening me with punitive action is sure to help "your" situation, now that you've realized that remorselessly ignoring the logic of my breakdowns is too telling of a panicked attitude. Honestly, appealing to some high-strung and irrational allegation of my "specific agenda" surely must be the way -- go for it. Skrzymir (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Per utramque cavernam, the edit made in gnawing(adjective) by 2405:205:620C:9B53:F4F9:4B76:7D6F:3132 has nothing amiss in them, rather is outstanding as a scarce register of English- and given the breadth of freedom in Wiktionary (which it itself asks us have), all kinds of edits made should be worthied. Others may lack some knowledge that one has, and if one is hindered thus for no foul writing whatsoever, then Wiktionary is but meaningless. So kindly do unwork what you have shredded.— This comment was unsigned.

There's a reason that register is scarce: no one has talked that way in hundreds of years, and anyone who does so now sounds like a silly caricature of a pompous buffoon. We don't want to teach people things that will get them laughed at for no reason. Please stop. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I like the new organisation scheme. There are some mistakes, but it streamlines things a bit more. I don't know how interested you are in helping out with it, but I would definitely welcome more involvement from other people. Also @Lingo Bingo Dingo, are you interested in setting up a focus week (or anything else?) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Hi. I'm interested but I'm trying to limit the time I spend on Wiktionary, so I prefer not to get too involved right now. Per utramque cavernam 21:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ah, the age-old struggle... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: I've sorted out the nominations of the remaining years according to that "ready/not ready" scheme. I think it's a start, but it probably could be improved further. How do you pick words you're going to feature? Do you (try to) do a rotation by continent? Language family? Dead languages vs. living languages? Part of speech? Per utramque cavernam 13:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I rotate according to the following scheme: national European language, minority or extinct European-area language, non-European language. It reflects our relative strengths at Wiktionary for the most part, although the second one is always the hardest, and I'd like to do more of the third one if possible. I also don't repeat any language in a month, don't feature more than one constructed language per month, and don't put similar languages (e.g. German and Middle High German) too close to one another. That's pretty much it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: I've sorted the nominations according to that three-fold scheme; I can see now that there are very few nominations for the second type indeed. I didn't know what to do with constructed languages, so I put them in a fourth category. Per utramque cavernam 19:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I generally stretch the second type, just because there's never enough to fill it unless you bend the guidelines somewhat. And if our coverage gets better, it would be appropriate to decrease the European percentage that's featured; right now, the non-European slot is almost all Asian languages, which is also a problem. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and while you're at it, please just remove the nominees that have already been set for a day. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: All right; I was wondering if maybe we should have a nominations archive similar to Wiktionary:Word of the day/Nominations/Archive 2018, but I guess it's not that important. I've thus removed as many as I could find, but it's pretty taxing to navigate between the archive pages and the nomination / focus week pages though.

On a related note, do you think we could merge the latter two (standard nominations and focus week nominations, I mean), or would it become too long? Per utramque cavernam 21:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

We kept them separate to prevent it from being too unwieldy to edit. The focus week noms also often sit around for a long time, because it can be hard to put a good focus week together. Also, I sometimes leave old focus week noms that have been set to remind me of which languages to look at to create it again (like Australian languages). On that note, it would be really helpful to identify if we have any focus weeks ready to run. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

All right, I'll leave it there then. I'm trying to sort it out a bit too.

Would you consider Wiktionary:Foreign_Word_of_the_Day/Focus_weeks#The_Middle_Ages ready, or is too Europe-centric? Per utramque cavernam 11:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge The problem I run into with focus weeks is that I don't know enough about the phonology of a sufficient number of languages. So I can't prepare a full week with a different language on each day. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: That's why a big part of the job is pinging people to do the things you can't. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Take a look at "Words Frequently Sought" in the alt.usage.english FAQ. Equinox ◑ 15:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

BTW, regarding the red link on your user page: I suspect that it's a "negative-polarity" item, not a negative "polarity item". Equinox ◑ 20:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox: I think you're right, but at the same time Wikipedia has named its article "polarity item". Maybe I shouldn't give much weight to that?

Thanks for the link by the way. I'm leaving this aside for now, as I'm focusing on my endlessly growing French list. (pretty annoying: every time I create an entry, I stumble upon another red link...) Per utramque cavernam 20:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

My understanding of the noncognate-template is that it is used to show that two items are actually unrelated etymologically despite their shape and meaning suggesting the opposite, like in кӑмпа. In ilbiz, the items are indeed related, but not cognate. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Allahverdi Verdizade: Good point. There's also {{m+}}, but it doesn't create a link to the Wikipedia article. Per utramque cavernam 11:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

If nothing to write home about is a negative polarity item, than so is something to write home about, anything to write home about, and others like nothing worth writing home about. Not every negative polarity item is worthy of inclusion either. I've always been a believer in trying to find the core of an idiom and use redirects from typical collocations of the core to get people to the core so they could be made to see multiple usage examples and perhaps usage notes and link to relevant WP articles. DCDuring (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring: Yes, I agree; if I didn't categorise something to write home about, it's simply because I've missed it. But I don't know what we could use as a lemma: to write home about is a bit strange, no? worth writing home about would be a bit better already. Per utramque cavernam 07:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit troubled about the borders of membership in the category. For example, cent and farthing and sou#French have a meaning "paltry amount of money", which is often a 'negative polarity item' ("NPI"). We probably already have red cent as an NPI. Why not the others? I wonder what the name is of a category of terms that includes these and similar terms, all of which display this occasional usa as an NPI. Even the words one and, perhaps, two are used as NPIs in addition to being indicators that expressions of which they are a part are possibly NPIs. Since these uses are very common, it seems wrong to exclude the terms merely because they represent a small portion of the total use of the term (eg, one, farthing, cent). That is why an Appendix on the subject seems like a better tool than a category, especially one that doesn't have an explanation of inclusion/exclusion criteria. DCDuring (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring: Yes, I've also wondered about cases such as one or sou. And yes, maybe an appendix would be better suited to this than a category. But I've found that the category is a useful tool to gather the raw materials for an appendix. That's what happened with Appendix:French doublets, which is a much better way of presenting doublets than CAT:French doublets, but which would have taken a lot more time to create without the latter. Per utramque cavernam 11:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

A problem with using categories as scaffolding to build Appendices is that there never seems to be a time to remove the scaffolding. This is the case with Category:French doublets. Also, a term can have an arbitrarily large number of linguistically interesting features, many of them specific to one or a few of the definitions. How does one maintain links from the entry to all the appendices about such features, especially definition-specific ones, without obscuring the definitions? DCDuring (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear FX (@Per utramque cavernam).

• 1. I have this semantic loan from revenir à soi or revenir à moi (for greek συνέρχομαι second sense. Is it of any interest to you?
• 2. About the look of descendants: some thoughts: I've been puzzled with indent or no-indent...it seems as though a lang with an arrow derives from an language-not-borrowed which is just above it. What if every language had a prefix: a monospace symbol which would create equal indent-level?
• ↓ Xxxx: word
• → Xxxx: word
  • ↓ Xxxx: word
    • → Xxxx: word
• → Xxxx: word
• → Xxxx: word

I've tried with ... ellipsis at περίοδος#Descendants

... Greek: περίοδος (períodos)

Lua error in Module:parameters at line 376: Parameter 1 should be a valid language, etymology language or family code; the value "ML" is not valid. See WT:LOL, WT:LOL/E and WT:LOF.

→ German: Periode

→ Middle French: periode

... French: période

→ Middle English: periode

... English: period

Are these symbols international standards? → ← ↑ ⇒ ? But what would an ignorans understand without explanation?
→ = something went from point 1 to point 2, directly (inherit)
↷ = something hopped from point 1 and landed on point 2 (borrow)

→ Xxxx: word

↷ Xxxx: word

→ Xxxx: word

↷ Xxxx: word

↷ Xxxx: word

sarri.greek (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please check. I suspect this is our bad Thai IP editor using a French IP, but I'm not good enough at the languages to really patrol their edits. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your suggestionsGuglani (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Guglani: You're welcome! Per utramque cavernam 13:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@utramque:But can you explain reason of rollback . In what way creation of link in punjabi not proper.Guglani (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

You added an invalid interwiki link (these are now automatic anyway) - maybe you meant to add a translation? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Guglani: Hi again. Interwiki links such as ] aren't meant for translations (that's what the translation table is for, which you've already used correctly), but for linking to entries bearing the exact same title in other Wiktionaries.

For example, on the trowel entry, you'd have to put ], which will link to pa:trowel (but I see that you don't have an entry for it yet); it's only on the ਕਾਂਡੀ entry that you'd put ].

But as SemperBlotto is saying above, all this interwiki stuff is now done automatically, so you don't have to worry about it (notice that it already works at ਕਾਂਡੀ, which links to pa:ਕਾਂਡੀ without us needing to write ] in the wikitext).

In fact, I suggest you create an entry for trowel on the Punjabi dictionary (at pa:trowel), then come back here to check. You'll be able to see a link. Per utramque cavernam 15:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

By the way, does ਕਾਂਡੀ have another sense beside "trowel"? It looks like it judging from pa:ਕਾਂਡੀ. I've readded your quotes, could you translate them? Thanks! Per utramque cavernam 16:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

To clarify the revert, als doesn't introduce a simile here, but functions identically to as in known as. So literally "known as the bruised dog", not "known/famous like the bruised dog". Could you by the way take a look at the pronunciation at pétomane? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Ok, thanks for the explanation! (by the way, if you feel like adding new items to CAT:Dutch similes, be my guest).

About pétomane, I('d) pronounce it that way, but fr.wikt says it's a closed /o/ (I don't know why). In doubt, I've put both pronunciations. Per utramque cavernam 14:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey. I think I found another one of your projects that you started and soon forgot about and left a lot of crap to cleanup (not a criticism, I do it all the time too). Why did you create Category:English verbs with placeholder it when we had a perfectly good Category:English terms with placeholder "it"? Obviously, having both cats is ridiculous - my advice is stick to one and avoid a boring discussion about which name sounds better. --XY3999 (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@XY3999: I'm not fond of the old category, as it seems to me to gather pretty different things: impersonal verbs ({{m|en|it's raining, which, as a phrasebook entry, shouldn't even be in the main space imo), and transitive verbs with dummy pronouns (leg it, etc.). But I dunno, I wasn't too convinced by what I set off to do either. Per utramque cavernam 11:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

here a the links to the original quotes from the book: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=KbZqDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.co.in/books?id=vzlpDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA2&dq=bibhorr&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZy6Co44fdAhULN48KHZuvAjwQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&q=bibhorr&f=false — This unsigned comment was added by Asligunda (talk • contribs).

Hi there. Could you look at the anon's other French edits please. I haven't a clue. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto: Hi. There was only this one, which is all right. But this Thai IP is really problematic, and Surjection, Chuck Entz and I revert most of his contributions on sight. I think you should do the same.

Another thing: peeling the onion is given a =Verb= header, which seems wrong. Didn't you treat a similar case recently? Per utramque cavernam 14:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

My impression is of someone who loves contributing so much that they'll use any excuse to create or alter an entry, ranging from necessary fixes to adding unnecessary templates and labels or just plain making stuff up. The mixture of good, bad, and merely annoying edits in multiple languages makes them really hard for me to patrol. In the past month, a spike in similar edits from French Free SAS IPs coinciding with a lack of the Thai IP edits leads me to think they they may have been on vacation for a few weeks. At any rate, they're back now. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Please do not revert edits unless you have a reason to do so, just like you did on the word 'letterbox'. If you have any religious beliefs or you are a race offended by this, then Wiktionary isn't the place to express so. Thank you. CrayonS (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please try to help in the future! Thank you. CrayonS (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi.

To the Russian speakers out there (@Atitarev, Stephen G. Brown, Guldrelokk, Fay Freak): could I ask you for a big favor?

I've written a short (ahem, I realise it's quite a bit longer than I thought...) text in Russian, which I've posted just below. Based on that, I'm supposed to make a presentation in class later on. However, I'm afraid it's riddled with errors, for which I apologise in advance – I just hope they're not too horrendous.

So, could I ask you guys to look it over and correct any grammatical mistakes you might find?

I know it's very basic Russian, and it's quite repetitive too, but we're not supposed to use any fancy words or syntax, as our active vocabulary and grammar are very limited still. The purpose of the course is to get us talking. That being said, I'm welcome to all suggestions for improvement.

Also, don't hesitate to tell me if I got some of my facts wrong!

Спасибо большое. Per utramque cavernam 23:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Я решил вам говорить об Якутске. Этот город – расположенный пять тысяч километров в востоке Москвы, и четыресто пятьдесят километров в юге северного полярного круга. Якутск – столица и самый большой город в Республике Сахе, и Якутие. Имя города и республики происходит от имени народа Якутов.

Республика Саха – самая большая провинция России, и она почти так большая, как Индиа. Более того, тут есть очень мало людей – меньше одного миллиона жителей. Поэтому плотность населения очень низкая (низка?). Но тристо тысяч людей живут в Якутске – то есть один человек от трёх из Республики Сахи.

Якутск основал исследователь Пётр Бекетов в тысяча шестьсот тридцать втором году. Сначала, Якутск был маленький острог. Назвали его Ленский Острог, потому что он на берегу реки Лени. Лена – пятая самая большая река в мире, и одиннадцатая самая длинная река – длина её четыре тысячи четыресто километров. Её исток рядом озера Байкала, и её устье – на берегу северного ледовитого океана.

Но Лена выступил из берегов в тысяча шестьсот сорок втором году, и это заставила людей искать другое место. Они построили второго острог рядом первого. Недавно был ещё несколько остатков второго острога, например деревянная башня. К сожелению, башню разрушил пожар в две тысячи втором году. Но восстановили острог.

Якутск быстро становилься центром этого района, и изпользовался как база для колонизации восточной Сибиря. Оттуда начинались экспедиции в юг и восток. И сейчас ещё Якутск – экономический, политический и культурный центр Якутии. Её положение на берегу Лены делает её важным портом.

По-моему Якутск интересный, потому что это самый холодный большой город в мире, с Норильском. В самом деле, средная температура зимой – минус тридьцать пять градусов. Температуры минус пятьдесят градусов часто бывают, и температура минус шестьдесят градусов уже случилась. Никогда не была температура больше нуль градус в декябре, январе и феврале. И средная температура на польный год – минус девять градусов. В самом деле, надо знать, что Якутск расположенный рядом северного полюса холода. Села Оймиакон и Верхоянск, которые имеют рекорд холода, расположенные около тысячи километров далеко. К счастью, воздух сухой. Поэтому эти температуры более терпимые. Более того, летом часто бывает очень жарко 8 плюс тридцать градусов, потому что тут – континентальный климат.

Из-за этих экстремальних температур, у Якутска есть несколько особенности. Это самый большой город построенный на вечную мерзлоту, то есть всегда замёрзшая почва. Чтобы жара зданий почву не таяла, то что может быть опасно зданиям, здания строются над бетонными сваями (на бетонные сваи?). Но благодаря вечной мерзлоты мы сохранили трупы мамонтов. Поэтому в Якутске есть музей мамонта.

Кроме того, перед Лену нет моста, и только одно круглогодичное средство есть чтобы переходить реку – вертолёт. Летом, надо садиться на паром; зимой, можно водить машину над лётом, и Лена становиться настоящая дорога. Некоторые люди думают, что надо построить мост, другие тоннель, но конкретного проекта ещё нет. Многие боются, что это делать – экономическо неинтересно.

Более того, туда ехать на поездом не возможно. Самой близкий вокзал в Томмоте, который находится далеко, четыресто километров.

Но у Якутска аэропорт есть, который изпользуют авиакомпании чтобы пробовать умение и сопротивление своих самолётов в холодных обстоятельствах.

Несмотря на эту трудную ситуацию, Якутск – настоящий город. Большие здание и институты есть: преобрежанский собор, театр имени А. С. Пушкина, театр имени П. А. Ойунского, опера, спортивный комплекс, консерватория, и так далее. В городе тоже есть Северо-Восточный федеральный университет имени М. К. Аммосова (называемый Якутский государственный университет имени М. К. Аммосова раньше, и основанный в тысяча девятьсот пятьдесят шестом году).

Почему такой большой город находиться в таком суровом климате? Может быть, из-за прекрасного природного окружения? Наверно. Но думаю, что другая причина есть: в Республике Сахе есть много золота и алмазов.

Avoiding stylistic changes:

Я решил рассказать вам о Якутске. Этот город расположен в пяти тысячах километров к востоку от Москвы, и четырёхстах пятидесяти километрах к югу от Северного полярного круга. Якутск – столица и самый большой город в Республике Саха (Якутии). Имя города и республики происходит от имени народа якутов.

Республика Саха – самый большой регион России; она почти такая же большая, как Индия. Кроме того, тут очень мало людей – меньше одного миллиона жителей. Поэтому плотность населения очень низкая/низка. Но триста тысяч человек живут в Якутске – то есть каждый третий в Республике Саха.

Якутск основал исследователь Пётр Бекетов в тысяча шестьсот тридцать втором году. Сначала Якутск был маленьким острогом. Назвали его Ленский острог, потому что он стоял на берегу реки Лены. Лена – пятая по величине река в мире, и одиннадцатая по длине: длина её — четыре тысячи четыреста километров. Её исток находится рядом с озером Байкал, а устье – у берега Северного ледовитого океана.

Но Лена вышла из берегов в тысяча шестьсот сорок втором году, и это заставило людей искать другое место. Они построили второй острог рядом с первым. Ещё недавно сохранялись остатки второго острога, например, деревянная башня. К сожалению, башню разрушил пожар в две тысячи втором году. Но острог восстановили.

Якутск быстро стал (or, with historical present: становится) центром этого района и базой для колонизации восточной Сибири. Оттуда начались экспедиции на юг и восток. И сейчас ещё Якутск – экономический, политический и культурный центр Якутии. Его положение на берегу Лены делает его важным портом.

По-моему Якутск интересен потому, что это самый холодный большой город в мире, наряду с Норильском. В самом деле, средняя температура зимой – минус тридцать пять градусов. Температура минус пятьдесят градусов бывает часто, и уже бывала температура минус шестьдесят градусов. Никогда не было температуры выше нуля градусов в декабре, январе и феврале. И средняя температура за весь год – минус девять градусов. В самом деле, надо понимать, что Якутск расположен рядом с северным полюсом холода. Сёла Оймякон и Верхоянск, которые удерживают рекорд холода, расположены на расстоянии около тысячи километров. К счастью, воздух сухой. Поэтому эти температуры легче переносить. Более того, летом часто бывает очень жарко, плюс тридцать градусов, потому что климат тут континентальный.

Из-за этих экстремальных температур у Якутска есть несколько особенностей. Это самый большой город, построенный на вечной мерзлоте, то есть почва там всегда замёрзшая. Чтобы жар от зданий не растопил почву, что может быть опасно, здания строятся на бетонных сваях. Но благодаря вечной мерзлоте сохранились трупы мамонтов. Поэтому в Якутске есть музей мамонта.

Кроме того, через Лену нет моста, и есть только один способ перебраться через реку в любое время года – на вертолёте. Летом надо садиться на паром; зимой можно вести машину по льду: Лена становится настоящей дорогой. Некоторые люди считают, что надо построить мост, другие — что тоннель, но конкретного проекта ещё нет. Многие боятся, что делать это экономическо нецелесообразно.

Более того, доехать туда на поезде невозможно. Самой близкий вокзал находится в Томмоте, на расстоянии четырёхсот километров.

Но в Якутске есть аэропорт, который авиакомпании используют чтобы испытывать манёвренность и сопротивление своих самолётов в холодных условиях.

Несмотря на эту трудную ситуацию, Якутск – настоящий город. В нём есть большие здания и институты: Преображенский собор, Театр имени А. С. Пушкина, Театр имени П. А. Ойунского, опера, спортивный комплекс, консерватория, и так далее. В городе также есть Северо-Восточный федеральный университет имени М. К. Аммосова (ранее известный как Якутский государственный университет имени М. К. Аммосова, и основанный в тысяча девятьсот пятьдесят шестом году).

Почему такой большой город находится в таком суровом климате? Может быть, из-за прекрасного природного окружения? Возможно. Но я думаю, что есть и другая причина: в Республике Саха много золота и алмазов.

The text is very good overall. Don’t hesitate if you have any specific questions. Guldrelokk (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have substituted corrections followed by your original wording in . I'll leave it up to you to decide if the corrections are too advanced for where you are in your studies. —Stephen ^(Talk) 00:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

текст о Якутске

Я решил с вами поговорить о Якутске. Этот город расположен в пяти тысячах километров на востоке Москвы и в четырёхстах пятидесяти километрах к югу от северного полярного круга. Якутск является столицей и крупнейшим городом в Республике Сахе и Якутии . Название города и республики происходит от имени народа якутов .

Республика Саха – самая крупная провинция в России , и она почти такая же большая, как Индиа. Более того, людей очень мало – менее одного миллиона жителей. Поэтому плотность населения очень низкая . Но в Якутске живёт триста тысяч человек , то есть один человек из трёх человек из Республики Саха .

Якутск был основан исследователем Петром Бекетовым в тысяча шестьсот тридцать втором году. Сначала Якутск был маленьким острогом . Назвали его Ленский Острог, потому что он на берегу реки Лени. Лена – пятая самая большая река в мире, и одиннадцатая самая длинная река – длина её четыре тысячи четыресто километров. Её исток рядом озера Байкала, и её устье – на берегу северного ледовитого океана.

I think I'll stop here, because Guldrelokk has done it, and his should be very good. —Stephen ^(Talk) 01:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Guldrelokk, Stephen G. Brown: Thanks a lot to you both!

"Этот город расположен в четырёхстах пятидесяти километрах к югу", "на расстоянии четырёхсот километров": does that mean четыресто is an adjective? Per utramque cavernam 14:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Per utramque cavernam: Russian numerals show an incredibly awkward mix between government and agreement. They govern the noun in the nominative/accusative: четыреста километров, while they agree with it in the oblique cases: genitive четырёхсот километров, dative четырёмстам километрам and so on. There are many other complicacies, and this system is non-functional in the colloquial speech. Guldrelokk (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't help with anything, as a I had a very busy week but you have been helped and it was a great job by everyone. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

We have a bunch of French FWOTDs at WT:FWOTDN that need their quotations translated (and a couple, like noblesse du robe, could probably use better quotations). Could you please go through them? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: I'll have a look at that this week. Per utramque cavernam 16:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just a friendly reminder... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Salut mon brave. Does this literally refer only to drinking (in which case it seems SoP, more of a famous quotation than a dictionary entry), or does it have a further figurative meaning like a leopard cannot change its spots? Equinox ◑ 09:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I wasn't familiar with that proverb, but from what I see online, it indeed seems to be used in a more general sense: old habits die hard. Per utramque cavernam 09:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

This phrase is often mentioned in discussions of the Dutch bos hout voor de deur and appears in a dictionary from the 19th century. But it seems terribly uncommon, and might just be citable by the skin of its teeth. Do you know whether there are any variants made up of more or less synonymous elements? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Mh, not to the best of my knowledge, no. A common idiom that has a similar structure to this one could be avoir du monde au balcon ("elle a du monde au balcon") / y avoir du monde au balcon ("il y a du monde au balcon"). --Per utramque cavernam 15:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

We have an old-fashioned English veterinary sense. Same in French, yeah? It's not listed under the French header. Equinox ◑ 03:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox: Mh. I'm not sure. It's mentioned neither on fr.wikt nor on the TLFi, and the other senses make it quite hard to look for that sense. However, I've found this; at page 198, the legend of the third picture says "Barrage d'une seime (procédé Vachette)". The text also speaks of the "agrafes Vachette" or the "pince Vachette". Another book says "The best kind of clasps or hooks are undoubtedly those of Vachette". Looks like Vachette is actually a proper noun? Per utramque cavernam 10:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Okay, probably was named after somebody. Do ya like to follow WT:RE:fr? Do it! love, Equinox ◑ 15:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear X! I miss your guidance at greek! No greek any more :(((? You are the one who taught me that 'borrow' is not a bad word, and you always kept an eye on me. I hope your career is booming! Your faithful student, sarri.greek (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sarri.greek: Γεια σου Σαρρή. Συγνώμη για την αργοπορημένη απάντηση. Συνεχίζω να μαθαίνω Ελληνικά στις Βρυξέλλες, αλλά εδώ στο Βικιλεξικό προτιμάω να συγκεντρώνω στα Γαλλικά. Έχω πολλές εκφράσεις να μεταφράσω στα Αγγλικά. Per utramque cavernam 12:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

!! your greek is very good. Happy month! Kαλό μήνα. sarri.greek (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure, this rollback is in error. PaulaMeh (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why were you removing the explicit marking of the short vowels? PUC's rollback seems quite appropriate. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

How are you doing? Enjoying your break/retirement from hardcore Wiktioneering?
On lexical matters less hardcore but no less hard, it seems that French hard can also mean "hardrock". Do you think such a sense would be attestable? It would be a nice pseudo-anglicism FWOTD nominee. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Yes, I've already heard it used like that. I think so: , , , . Per utramque cavernam 19:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is this new entry legitimate at all? It claims to be an Acadian spelling. Equinox ◑ 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't know; I don't see any valid instance on GB. The pronunciation it points to (/o.ʒɔʁ.dɥi/ instead of /o.ʒuʁ.dɥi/) is very common in standard French, though writing it like that would clearly be considered a misspelling. Per utramque cavernam 18:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox Per utramque cavernam 18:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I hang out a lot on a certain Internet place where there's one French dude and he always writes "arf". I cannot get a translation out of anybody for this word. Is it a laugh, like LOL/MDR? Does it have sleazy/leering connotations, like phwoar? I put it on WT:RE:fr a while ago but it has been studiously ignored. Equinox ◑ 16:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox: No, it's not like phwoar. I see fr.wikt has it as a synonym of "lol/mdr/rofl" indeed, but that's not the most common meaning in my experience.

It's used when you're bothered by something, when there's an inconvenient situation, etc. Could argh fit the bill? "Arf, c'est ennuyeux ça !" = "Argh, that's a problem"; "Arf, je sais pas comment je vais faire" = "Argh, what am I gonna do?". I'd consider zut to be a near-synonym. Per utramque cavernam 18:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like argh/ugh (or even something like omg). Presumably not as apathetic as meh/blah, or as frightened as uh-oh? I would need more examples to decide for sure :D Equinox ◑ 19:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=benifit&type=revision&diff=51100262&oldid=51100253 --User123o987name (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I didn't look properly at the edit. Per utramque cavernam 18:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello X!, Nice entries. Αξέχαστες! They are perfect. Did you just want me to seeee your greek output? Do you need something else? sarri.greek (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sarri.greek: Γεια σου! If you could add the pronunciation (we should really have a template/module for that, but...) and any missing definition, I'd be grateful. Per utramque cavernam 16:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

ok Bary, Per, X I will. And alll theses greek names! and you are so fast too! sarri.greek (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

May I ask... X! I see at ασυγχώρητος, that you write 'Synchronically...' and you give the combinging forms. I love the 'synchronically' - I used to write 'morphologically'; would that be wrong? Should i shift to 'synchronically? sarri.greek (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, I think "morphologically" is good too; in fact that's what I was going to write when I remembered the word "synchronically". I'd say you can do as you prefer. Per utramque cavernam 16:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Given that this templates is fairly key to many parts of Wiktionary, How do I request page protection for it? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@ShakespeareFan00: You ask an admin to protect it. User:DTLHS? Per utramque cavernam

You wrote: If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page. You write in ваше благородие "Used in addressing barons, marquises and the other lesser nobles; not suitable for emperors, empresses, princes, princesses, dukes or counts."

Ваше благородие was a statutiry adressing of a civil or military official of 14th to 9th ranks according to the Peter I's Table of Ranks ]. If you read in Russian you can learn it in the Табель о рангах and Формы титулования в Российской империи wiki pages and in many other sources. Also when a nobleman held a public office, for example, had the 9th rank and the noble title of count, it was necessary to adress him ваше сиятельство ("your excellency") as a count but not ваше благородие as an official.