Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word User talk:Polomo47. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word User talk:Polomo47, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say User talk:Polomo47 in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word User talk:Polomo47 you have here. The definition of the word User talk:Polomo47 will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofUser talk:Polomo47, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Welcome
Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 6 months ago9 comments3 people in discussion
I reverted all of your "pre-1945 using AWB" edits that caused entries to show up in CAT:E, because they I don't think they'll work unless the module is updated to deal with them. I'm not sure how to fix the module, or even if it's a good idea. You should talk to @Benwing2. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've meant to speak to you about this for a while. It's the fact the Portuguese verb module isn't equipped to handle verbs spelled according to pre-reform orthographic norms.
The change I made was, in words such as adéque, to change {{pt-verb form of|adequar}} to {{pt-verb form of|adeqüar}}, and that broke things. The module also can't handle verbs with mid-word h like cahir.
Yup, that’s exactly right! Love it. Thank you lots.
I’ve used this name for a while; it was originally spelled with Portuguese phonology in mind, and this English pronunciation seems to have developed naturally among my English-speaking peers. Polomo47 (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Olá, este parece ser um daqueles poucos casos em que duas acentuações são aceitas , mas só as versões acentuadas têm entrada em português. Você poderia adicionar às outras duas? RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Um outro caso que nunca entrou muito bem na minha cabeça é o de "baniua", que o Priberam acentua: . O Michaelis não, como eu esperaria: . Tem ideia do porquê? RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Pior que eu não sei sobre baniua, mas vou pesquisar um pouquinho se em algum momento teve acentuação (realmente não sei).
maoísmo é mais complicado. Eu bem vi que a página foi criada e me perguntei a mesma coisa que você, mas aí lembrei de ter visto algo sobre isso no AO90. Pesquisei, não encontrei nada, e não levei adiante; mas posso levar. Polomo47 (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
examples of "idiosyncrasy" uses
Latest comment: 5 months ago7 comments2 people in discussion
thank you for your note. If you think my examples are good (NOTE all of them have references to the original sources), then fix the formatting, rather than deleting them. WikiMedia is a place to improve the work of your predecessors, not to destroy it.Victororor (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC) Victororor (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi. I could not fix your examples because you have not formatted the references in a useful way (e.g., by adding a link), so I can’t check them myself. I recommend you look at {{quote-book}} and use that to format quotes instead. WT:UX and WT:Quotations are what you should check. Polomo47 (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for getting back. BTW, to the best of my knowledge WikiMedia has refused to adopt a preferred citation format: Wikipedia does not dictate a particular way to insert citations into an article.
(Please show me a link, that proves me wrong). For this reason, your "incorrect formatting deletions" also violate the current policy. Again, if you think I am wrong about it- proof it instead of waving hands.Victororor (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Wiktionary is not Wikipedia (the section “Differences in page format and wikitext” is very worth reading). If you look into the links I sent you, you can learn how Wiktionary does things. While not necessarily fallacious, it’s not a good look to accuse one of violating policy when you don’t appear to know Wiktionary policy yourself.
Please understand that I would correct your edits (changing to quotations in the appropriate formatting, appropriately credit the original source...) rather than reverting you if I had the means to do so. You did not provide them, so I could not. Polomo47 (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your reply. I will be the first one to admit, that I am always learning. Since you did not provide a specific references about Citation Format on Wiktionary, we have to assume, that it does not exist (just like in Wikipedia). For this reason, I would insist, that the reference format I provide is legit. Please educate me-with wiki-policy quotation, if you still think I am wrong.
Also thank you for your willingness to do the formatting. Do I understand correctly, that your concern is, that these quotations are not from Open Access online sources -these are from published books, which are behind the paywall or on paper only. (And btw such short quotations do not violate copyright because of Fair Use), and this is why you cannot
A) verify them?
B) get the complete citation? Which is not required according to the 1st paragraph.
I may be wrong, and I would be most grateful, if you can explain to me the proper way,
Rather than me paraphrasing Wiktionary policy pages, I invite you to actually follow the pages I linked and cease aggressively pressing me for "proof". After doing so, feel free to edit the page in question again. Hopefully by then you’ll have a better idea of how Wiktionary entries are supposed to be formatted (something you could also learn by comparing other pages) so you don’t get reverted by someone else¹.
¹Note: If I hadn't reverted you — and I did it because I just happened to be on the Recent Pages page — someone else would have done it anyway. Likely an administrator patrolling recent edits. Polomo47 (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Olá
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Olá, o Aurélio de 1986 registra "mboi" e "mbóia". Atualmente, "mboia" não tem acento, né? Quanto a "mboi", não ganhou acento, ou ganhou? RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Aliás, agora me peguei na dúvida em relação a como criar entradas para mboia e mboi. Digo, {{alternative form of}} não parece adequado, ou pelo menos não há categoria para o português. {{synonym of}}, OK, mas como ligar, por exemplo, "mboia" e "mboi"? Pela seção "Alternative forms"? Ou talvez {{doublet}}?! Se me puder dar uma luz, agradeço! RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Depende da pronúncia. Para não ter tido acento antigamente, imagino que seja com /oj/, então não tem por que ter tido (nem muito menos ganhado), se te entendo bem.
Sobre como ligar “mboia” a “cobra”, você pode incluí aquela na seção de sinônimos desta. Sobre a definição, talvez seja interessante repetir a definição. São realmente sinônimos completos? Se não forem, ao escrever a definição você consegue explicar a diferença.
E isso me lembra de “maoista”, que eu lhe disse que ia conferir — venho vendo mais e mais, e percebi que no VOLP está sem acento. Acho que o legal é mandar uma pergunta pro Ciberdúvidas da Língua Portuguesa sobre “maoista” e “maoísta”. Eu já envio perguntas em demasia — talvez você queira enviar. Polomo47 (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
FWOTD
Latest comment: 2 months ago9 comments4 people in discussion
Things came up, and I never replied. Now, 20 days later, I shamefully message you again.
Right, I think having backups is great, but I'm not sure about how that would work. Can you remind me how it is for WotD?
I was also thinking about how the FWotD template has some big limitations and works way more manually than the WotD template... I wonder if we could improve that at all, maybe port the template to some degree. Like, FWotD cannot currently list a "comment".
I see that you have been setting the new FWOTDs—or is someone else helping with that? Anyway, I also thought we should look into updating {{FWOTD}} by incorporating some of the features of {{WOTD}}. I can try working on that, though because {{WOTD}} uses modules I may need help with editors who work with Lua.
As for creating a FWOTD backup set, as I mentioned the idea is simply to create entries in the format "Wiktionary:Foreign Word of the Day/March 16" using {{FWOTD}}. If no FWOTD has been set for a particular day in the current year, the Main Page will display the fallback (I've already updated the relevant template to do this). For the WOTD fallbacks, I usually choose entries which are appropriate to specific dates, and which are quite complete (in the correct format, having quotations, etc.). You can probably just create fallbacks as and when you are free—many of the WOTD fallbacks have not been set yet. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good! I see how the fallback works, yeah, I'll keep it in mind. I'd love to see the improvements to the template; good to hear you're able. And, indeed, I set the FWotDs for today and tomorrow. Svartava set the ones for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. Polomo47 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
(For the record, the 3rd April FWOTD was set by @Justinrleung.)
I like the idea of multiple people managing FWOTDs in a group as I'm also interested in setting up FWOTDs and I have chatted quite a lot with LBD on Discord about various FWOTD candidates, so I do think I have good idea about them by now.
An useful message I remember from LBD on Discord was:
Overall, try to aim for nominations that are similar to German Backpfeifengesicht (interesting concept, "face in need of a slap", literally "faceslap face"), Hungarian kukac (interesting polysemy, "maggot, @-sign" also "willy" but that sense has not been featured) or a putative Polish grzlczkwosky (interesting pronunciation).
But terms with interesting etymological or semantic developments are also good for FWOTD, of course.
Another common convention LBD spoke about was generally not having more than one in a language in the same month.
Thanks for sharing; I do have the same impression on all accounts. Regarding who sets FWotD, it would definitely be great if multiple people did it. Polomo47 (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I think I came across a few time ago a discussion or voting about specifying where to use one or the other, and from what I remember a consensus was't reached. If that is the case I'd prefer you not to change that, since it's just a matter of personal preference, unless you can point me to some guideline which gives a specification on the usage of these. Thank you! Sérgio Santos (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Common practice, as I perceive it, is that the References heading is used for </references>, i.e., for in-line citations to prove specific statements, while Further reading has relevant websites/information that may be generally relevant — the opinion of these "not having influenced the entry directly" appears rare. This seems to have been in mind as early as the 2016 vote implementing the Further reading section, and is hinted at in policy.
You are right in that it’s not exactly clear and formalized, and so if you really want to use References, sure you can, and I won’t change it (what happened this time is I copied my list of sources directly). But you might want to consider switching to Further reading. Polomo47 (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I dont really mind one way or the other, I've been copy-pasting as well; you provide a reasonable argument so go ahead and chage it if you want. Sérgio Santos (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Oh, by the way, I dont know if you read my edit summary on halogénio, I really dont like calling it "european spelling" since it's used in all other countries outside Brazil. Can't we come up with a better term? I guess this is more a subject for the Discussion pages. Sérgio Santos (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don’t think the terminology is inaccurate in this aspect, because the spelling was determined in Europe, and applied in other countries while they were still colonies. Maybe we could come up with something better, but afaik that’s the terminology generally adopted.
One thing that is problematic is how we link to alternative forms with, e.g., {{alt|pt|secção||Portugal}}, rather than by calling it an European Portuguese spelling, and same for Brazil and Brazilian Portuguese spelling. Maybe we could have a bot change that. Polomo47 (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Quotes from dictionaries
Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion
The Greek entry might have some reason to use it as a quotation because it is the only attested mention; the latter two, comparatively, use quotations the wrong way. Dictionary entries are by no means quotations! Quotations are meant to illustrate usage, and a gloss definition neither illustrates nor shows usage. You can and should mention the dictionary as a reference (which I did), but not as a quotation. That’s nonsensical.
If such Armenian words are only mentioned in this one dictionary, they may not be included. Armenian is a WT:WDL, and thus needs three citations per WT:ATTEST — for which purpose, dictionary entries of course do not count.
Armenian is a well-attested language … Bold claim for a minority community half of which was genocided or displaced in the beginning of the 20th century. What was the intention of the peculiar rule formulating the requirement of three uses in media of a certain quality? To exclude protologisms, and ghost-words, and probably dead links, not impede philological conclusions that a dialect notice is reliable. Even English in particular has marginal regiolects that leave incomplete traces, but the assumption is that each included term has been used thrice by people independently: it just needs to have existed, not be well accessible to us; the larger a language the more such wobble room.
Either way it was not nonsensical but well understood, only broken by your Wiktionary-specific formatting and inclusion filters, not those common to the science, which should be more familiar to readers. Rather it is nonsensical to assume it possible for one language header but not the other. Fay Freak (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Do not distort my words: what I called “nonsensical” is the use of a glossary dictionary definition as a quotation, a subject you haven’t touched. Other than that, I’m reasonably in agreement with you; I would definitely not contest the existence of these words by sending them to WT:RFVN, but it is fact that, if they cannot be thrice-attested, our policy does not allow their inclusion. I mentioned this because it is what allows σκολύβρα(skolúbra) to exist with the label of hapax, and why the singular quote could have value there; hapaxes cannot, strictly, exist in Wiktionary for a well-documented language (whose definition is by policy, and not whatever struggles the population has gone through) like Armenian cannot, strictly, have hapaxes. I do not care whether these entries exist or not, but what I don’t want to see are quotations that are not quotations at all! Polomo47 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
The logic here is as follows: For parts of a language that have died out, we treat it like a language that has died out, with the inclusion criteria and formatting habits that they usually have. So Classical Arabic shares the fate of Old English with which it cooccurred, which already means a split treatment under the same header; but the reading must be sufficiently certain. Somehow people found it most convincing that pre-modern Arabic is not mentioned in WT:WDL but only “Modern Standard Arabic”. It should be obvious however that every word in the Qurʔān or Tanakh will find the mainspace notwithstanding the formulation. Behind the formulation, trust the plan. Fay Freak (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
hello
Latest comment: 2 months ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Habilite a função de receber e-mail, Theo, que eu lhe quero enviar. Já mandei e-mail prò Trúper e prò MedK. MedK não viu. Quedê MedK? Polomo47 (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I got your ping. I think there was a larger discussion here; what was the outcome? We should be in accordance with whatever was decided there. Benwing2 (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Are you talking about that RfM I made? That’s actually entirely unrelated. My question here is whether we need to have entries for alternative spellings of this phrase, when the alternative spelling exists for a word by itself.
I remember discussing this with you and you saying we could format it like I had the entry contanto que. But, now that I think about it, we usually do usually have entries for this sort of thing. Maybe my question is moot. Polomo47 (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I guess my view is, we don't have to have entries like this, but there's nothing that disallows them, meaning they probably shouldn't be deleted except if we decide that rapôsa itself should be deleted (which is what I thought the RFM was about). Benwing2 (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. And, yeah, my RfM isn't about rapôsa because that is a 1943–1971 spelling, not a pre-1943 spelling (in the Brazilian time period). Polomo47 (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
continuing our summary edit conversation
Latest comment: 2 months ago11 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, the reason for me pinging you in the edit summary of tudo and pointing out the article to you was because in a previous edit you said wtf is this azores pronunciation, so I assumed you were being skeptic of it, as many people were being skeptic of some of the transcriptions of so-called "natural (pt-PT) pronunciation" I was addding a few months ago; also check my translation to the quote you added to tudo to see if you're satisfied with it.
By the way, what is the best place to suggest corrections to the template pt-IPA? I made a few a time ago in a few places, and I don't remember having any replies - which may be because my posts were really long-winded and people just weren't to be bothered to read it. Sérgio Santos (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think you could ask in User:Benwing2’s talk page. Mr. ’Wing, do you have any recommendations?
Thank you, I figured it would come down to Benwig, he seems to be responsable for 90% of the modules on this site! Very busy man indeed. I wasn't expecting an answer that quick, thought it would be sleepy time in Brazil ar the moment. Sérgio Santos (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Calma aí... percebi agora que não há por que falar em português nesse caso. No edit history, sim, né, mas aqui... ’Tava pensando como há pouco mandei e-mail prò ILLLP (nome engraçado) da ACL (nome normal), sem saber se ainda hoje receberia resposta — talvez.
Investigando a reforma de 1920 que houve por esse lado do Atlântico. Não consegui nenhuma boa informação... algum dia hei-de-lhe pedir alguma ousadia, como que vá n’um sêbo, encontre um Vocabulário Orthográphico de uns 100 annos de edade, e mande-me pelo correio. Fal-o hia? Kkkkk! Ah-ah-ah! Polomo47 (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Pô, mas in English como é que eu vou esbanjar meu vocabulário brasileiro?
Do FO1911 já estou careca de saber — se você fôr ver quem que criou essa transcripção do Wikisource, vai encontrar meu nome. O que me estava encucando há alguns meses, já, é a pequena modificação que ocorreu nêsse formulário alguns anos depois, em 1920. Eu e o MedK procurámos por muito tempo o texto da chamada portaria 2553, mas não encontrámos! Ia pedir sua ajuda, que conhece dos sites do govêrno português, pra encontrar.
Tinha esquecido o número da portaria e fui pesquisar. O que eu encontrei! O texto da portaria!
Mudou minha realidade. Eu tinha feito umas alterações em páginas como argüir para dizer que era só brasileiro, e criei também argùir, mas agora, sabendo que é verdade, criarei novas categorias e farei alterações no {{pt-pre-reform}}.
Leia essa portaria, que quero saber um negócio: que pensa o senhor da parte em que escreve-se “vém“? erro de digitação? E você já viu essa de “conteem” (com til)? Se não me engano, antes de 1920 era teem, veem (cf. vêem), conteem, etc. Foi aí que introduziram o circunflexo no plural, e também essa história do til... Polomo47 (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Acho que é erro de digitação, sim, porque logo acima diz “polissílabos oxítonos“. Engraçado que as grafias tambêm só duraram nove anos. Minha interpretação é de que tiraram o circunflexo para que ele pudesse indicar o plural em vêm, têm. Polomo47 (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Caramba, Sérgio, estou completamente apaixonado com esse documento. Achei que fosse só as mudanças, mas tem toda uma historinha contida ali, que para gente como eu é encantadora. Quero ser como Cândido Figueiredo quando crescer! A correspondência dele com os outros AAAAAA! Em pânico! Fangirling!
Fangirling! lol, é realmente interessante de ler, e até fiquei surpreendido por terem tido a humildade de consultarem professores e filólogos brasileiros.
que pensa o senhor da parte em que escreve-se “vém“? erro de digitação? é em que página? (só li por alto)
...Doces Bárbaros! - tive que pesquisar o que era isso, não conhecia! (à segunda, porque à primeira o google autorecomendou "doces baratos"!)
Em relaçao a palavras como tem/têm, etc., pelos vistos eram pronunciadas da mesma maneira na altura, sendo a pronúncia tem-em (com dois ditongos) descrita como sendo dialetal, típica do Algarve, o que é curioso, sendo que hoje em dia me parece a pronúncia mais comum em todo o Portugal. Parece que em dada altura em Portugal, como no Brasil, o plural (têm) e o singular (tem) se fundiram, tendo sido mais tarde o plural re-introduzido por analogia com outros verbos - ele faz, eles fazem > ele tem, eles tem-em. De facto, os textos antigos que eu tenho lido normalmente escrevem eles tem, em vez de, por exemplo, eles teem. Também é curioso verificar que, lendo a proposta de 1911, os ditongos em e ãe ainda eram geralmente distinguidos na capital. No entanto parece que a mudança já estava em curso; por exemplo, Fernando Pessoa no poema "O menino da sua mãe", rima mãe com bem e tem. Sérgio Santos (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Respondo agora, no horário de nanar brasileiro. Pois é, eu achei tão elegante o jeito como êsse moço, Cândido Figueiredo, estruturou a carta ao Govêrno; 105 anos depois, é-me tão útil que êle o tenha feito dessa maneira. O que eu falei de estar escrito tém é da segunda página do arquivo, bem no comecinho (na parte que é a Portaria, em si). Quando lhe respondi aqui, ainda em êxtase, dizendo cousas desconexas!!
Percebi, tambêm, como não sou imune da fetichização por parte dos brasileiros dos portugueses. Chamei-o faz pouco de “o senhor”, e tudo bem que eu chamo o Benwing de “mister”, mas não sei se chamaria, por exemplo, o sr. Rabelo assim; talvez chamaria. A propósito, a palavra portuguêsa “mister” apareceu grafada “mester” em algum dêsses documentos velhos e me confundiu muito! Tinha ainda alguma confusão no uso de e–i, mas eu ainda fico de conferir no Vocabulário Ortográfico para ver se não foi só um lapso na redação (como o fato de terem escrito alguns “comquanto”s na publicação do DO de 1911).
Cada um dos Doces Bárbaros, mais Chico Buarque, são meus artistas brasileiros prediletos (e de muitas outras pessoas, claro). Eu sou soteropolitano, e meus avós contam de como viam Caetano no fundo de uma picape ao longo da Rua Chile e da Praça Castro Alves — centros do carnaval de Salvador homenageados inclusive em algumas de suas canções. Penso que, assim como diz o povo que o sotaque carioca se assemelha do português, poderiam fàcilmente dizer coisa parecida do baiano — falamos “bãnãna” e “tãmãnho”, meus avós inclusive falam “truvão”, e usamos o erre fricativo. Mas, no final, esse mito da influência portuguêsa é só motivo para realizar pseudolingùística — como quando dizem que os brasileiros falam coisas como “pessôua” por influência italiana (?!). Polomo47 (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Happy Birthday
Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Heh, thanks. It seems the Malagasy ported the entry back in March (when it was pretty bad), and just now the Vietnamese did too. Always weird to hear of that — like when I found the quote templates I made were ported to some unknown language’s Wiktionary, alongside some entries and quotes for Portuguese pre-reform spellings. Polomo47 (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion
@Polomo47 Why do you keep publicly censuring me by putting notes directed to me personally in edit summaries? If you must include such a comment when you revert one of my changes, please keep it a bit more private by putting it on my Talk page. Being reverted – for a good-faith edit – stings enough as it is. — HelpMyUnbelief (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well, who else would I address the notes to? I didn’t mean to “censor” you, however, and for that I apologize. The times I pinged you in an edit was for you to see if you’d find it useful/learn from what I changed. I understand your edits are in a good faith and very useful — all I make is minor tweaks.
I would only leave a Talk page message for what I understand as continuous low-quality edits, and your edits are not low-quality, so edit summaries are just a punctual nudge. Polomo47 (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Polomo47 Please forgive my defensiveness and my tendency to think of the entries that I've worked as "mine" in some sense. And thanks for being gracious enough not to respond in kind. You meant no harm; quite the contrary, as you said, your suggestions are helpful, if I can simply find the humility to take them as such...HelpMyUnbelief (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Archive page for FWOTD nominations?
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
To User:Svartava and User:Sgconlaw — since you are also involved. I haven't tried too hard to set up daily FWotDs the past few weeks: turns out that scrambling to find a foreign word daily was not as enjoyable as I'd thought, and so I don't really want to do it. I'm hoping I can be excused from related expectations...
What does bring me joy is finding finding words suitable for specific dates, or coming across words and finding a date for them, like patriota from a few weeks ago or zeura and tonsi, which I've just set up. That I have been and will continue doing. Polomo47 (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Polomo47: thanks for your work thus far! Working on a wiki is a hobby, so feel free to engage in whatever brings you joy or relaxation. May I suggest that you help to build up the FWOTD fallbacks in the format Wiktionary:Foreign Word of the Day/ , which are displayed when no FWOTD is set for a particular date in a year? What I’ve been doing for the WOTD is to focus on setting backups for significant days. Eventually there will hopefully be a complete fallback set of WOTDs (and FWOTDs) for all 366 days in a year. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
derrogatório
Latest comment: 1 month ago9 comments3 people in discussion
O que tem para não entender? Eu duvidei da definição, então pus pra RfV. Como é um termo derogatório, os critérios são mais estritos e infelizmente exigem duas semanas. Polomo47 (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
About this revert: the pattern of which, I guess, you were thinking would be the closed o/open o in masculine plurals, such as (using IPA template diacritics) môrto/mórtos, ôvo/óvos, nôvo/nóvos, tôrto/tórtos.
I have never thought about that regarding verbs, but now that I think about it, a few ones have that, too, like "sâber" vs "sábe", "môrrer" vs "mórre", and mover/movo/moveis/movia/moveram vs move/movem/movemos/movimento.
Anyway, to me, "ele/ela/você besta" with an open e sounds wrong, but that may be because I have only so seldom heard it being spoken. I also simplistically concluded that, being from "besta", it should follow that the 1st vowel of bestar (and of besta, besto, bestam, ...) has that same closedness.
But maybe I should look it up on spoken conjugation tables instead. I am really not sure now that you mentioned it over there. It used to be obvious to me. Thank you for reverting. ʙ ʏ ᴛ ᴇ ᴋ ᴀ ꜱ ᴛ (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I was referring to the pattern with verbs, yes. Looking at entries liked to from ], the pattern is often that a deverbal will have a closed /e, o/, while the corresponding verb’s indicative will have open /ɛ, ɔ/. The only notable exception I noticed is with verbs with -elh-: grelho, espelho all have closed /e, o/ (not sure about velho, from velhar), which is why there wasn't a spelling espêlho at that time, and why I listed it as obsolete for later cleanup of that crowded category.
When I said I can check somewhere, I mean I can look at my 1943 Orthographic Vocabulary, which should say something like
bêsta — cf. besta, f bestar — ind. bêsta
if the verb has a closed vowel, or
bêsta — cf. besta, f e besta, v
if it has not.
This is how I determined cobro (etymology 2) is likely metaphonic, because it doesn't say “pl. côbros” (for etymology 1), which means both should have the same (closed) height. Polomo47 (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Old Reliable
Latest comment: 12 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion
It might be more fruitful to write a Wiktionary entry on the common English phrase "Old Reliable" than on a particular use in one SpongeBob episode from almost thirty years ago. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have mentioned this to @ToThAc, the user who wrote this entry in the first place. "Old Reliable" does not have a Wiktionary entry, and I think the burden of writing this article really rests on their shoulders. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I’m not saying you should write anything, just that if you think the entry should be at old reliable, then you can click a button and move the page there. Indeed, I don't see a problem in leaving the entry as it is now. What it shouldn't be is deleted. Polomo47 (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I'm not the only person to ask for Stríðsdrengur's libel to be hidden by an admin. He's been reprimanded for his behaviour and even blocked for it. I don't understand your attitude over my request. I made it pretty clear what my request was about. "Preferably" just hide the edits from March 2024, was my phrasing. Wikiuser815 (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
What I saw was an attempt to hide aperfectly civil dicussion, which left two possibilities: either you want to start anew (with your new account) after receiving a few complaints and think your dignity has been blemished, in which case the accusation of libel reeks of bad faith; or you’re assuming bad faith from another person to the point you read civil messages such offensively!
Not only is this terminology disrespectful to Stríðsdrengur — who has been rude a few times, but definitely not in your page —, but the act of trying to hide your talk page is also disrespectful to other editors. There’s important context there. You can archive it all you want, but making an attempt to delete it is suspicious.
More pertinently, however, it’s a fact that your talk page does not meet the requirements for speedy deletion nor for hiding revisions (which is for actual offensive content). You can have your request denied by an admin if you'd like; just thought I’d save you some waiting and them some trouble. Polomo47 (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I won't push this too hard, but I consider it libel (false and denigrating) to imply that someone made errors in their French (when they really apparently only made formatting errors), and that the errors were apparently so egregious that they apparently don't "know" French at all. And based on the guy's talk page it seems like misrepresenting other people's edits is something he does quite a lot. I'm not even the only person to complain about this exact same thing, down to the wording. Then again I might be misreading that situation. The entry User:Stríðsdrengur was reacting to was gneugneu, if I recall correctly, a silly (I thought) low-stakes entry I made for practice early on. So anyone can check there if I'm misrepresenting things.
I admit that I do see how it looks, and speedy delete was the wrong template, but I did explain what I was really asking for. Anyway I barely even care about this myself (and am on my way out, or at least taking a break from editing) so I can't imagine how little you care. And no admin hid the edits either so maybe that's that. At least I got my side of the story out there. Wikiuser815 (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I changed the templates to use inline modifiers instead of separate qualifier params for all params, including genders. A single gender spec can also have multiple comma-separated genders (each with inline modifiers), or you can use the old |g=, |g2= way of doing it. Currently, plurals and feminines and such don't accept multiple comma-separated values but do accept inline modifiers <q:...>, <qq:...>, <l:...>, <ll:...>, and <ref:...>. I'm currently doing a bot run to convert all the uses, as the old way with separate qualifier params is now an error. Benwing2 (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply