User talk:Prosfilaes

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page 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.
• Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
• Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
• The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
• We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! L☺g☺maniac chat? 00:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I responded to you therein a couple of days ago, just FYI. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Was the quotation entirely in italics? We usually want the same formatting in the quotation as in the source. When you see a sentence on a page in italics, that indicates it is a fabricated example to show use of the word; we don't do that for "real" quotations. --EncycloPetey 03:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was looking at Citations:Timonism, which the citations page links to, and which has all its citations in italics. Given that that's incorrect, I've fixed the butchy citation.--Prosfilaes 03:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

We have various pages in various formats, which is why we've set up a few "model" pages. See Citations:listen and Citations:parrot for better-quality examples of formating a citations page. Ideally, we'd be consistent in all aspects of formatting, but we're a large project, with many contributors, and our practices sometimes change over time. We try to keep the few model pages current with best practices in order to help. --EncycloPetey 03:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've restored this pending fuller discussion at the RfD - I agree the deletion was premature and that the "German embedded in English" needs more consideration. You may wish to comment further. Thryduulf (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Would you add a babel box to your user page, using {{Babel}}? It would be nice to know what languages you speak. --Dan Polansky 16:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The scope of Clarification of language inclusion has been changed to languages that are not natural. I believe this satisfies the proviso in your vote. DAVilla 16:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's the thing, it's not any ball used for soccer. If I use a basketball or a tennis ball (and I've used both before) for soccer, or football as I would say, it does not become a soccer ball. I'd make a similar argument for barbecue sauce, if I add mayonnaise to something cooked on a barbecue, it doesn't become barbecue sauce. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

But the definition "A ball that is designed for use in the sport of soccer" is SoP, IMO. If someone designed a basketball for soccer, then it would be a soccer ball under our definition. "is designed for use in" is a pretty standard noun noun construction that is simply SoP.--Prosfilaes 23:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not sure. What about utterances like "They were trying to play soccer with a tennis ball"? By your statement they would be playing with a soccer ball, because that's what the tennis ball has become by being used for soccer; but that doesn't seem right. (I do dislike this kind of entry, by the way, but I suppose I like being devil's advocate.) Equinox ◑ 23:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

In the example above, I didn't design the basketball at all; I bought it. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure of this definition, but as per the definition, it's "designed by", not "used for". If some company started marketing basketballs-like balls for soccer, that would make them soccer balls by our definition. We could mention the 12-pentagon/20 hexagon feature, which would make it an non-SoP definition.--Prosfilaes 00:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

and commonplaceing. I'm sure you mean commonplaced and commonplacing. :) - -sche 05:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah. Forgot that en-verb has a bunch of switches, and forgot to check its output before creating the pages.--Prosfilaes 18:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is the vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Deprecating less-than symbol in etymologies, which would benefit from your participation, even if only in the role of an abstainer. Right now, the results of the vote do not quite mirror the results of the poll that has preceded the vote. There is a chance that the vote will not pass. The vote, which I thought would be a mere formality, has turned out to be a real issue. You have taken part on the poll that preceded the vote, which is why I have sent you this notification. --Dan Polansky 08:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have added a section heading for the thread that you have started (diff). I hope you don't mind: it makes the thread you have started easier to separate from the thread started by Mglovesfun. If you disagree, just revert me. --Dan Polansky 07:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

The definition given is # Values rationality. I don't think this is a very good definition - can you change it please --Yakky snacks (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

You change it, or bring it up on the talk page of the word.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would change it, but I don't know what it is! "Values rationality" doesn't help me find out what the word means. --Yakky snacks (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Then look it up. I'm not here to jump when you tell me to. Don't come to my talk page and tell me to do things.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Have you ever come across (deprecated template usage) luton as an abbreviated form of (deprecated template usage) saluton? I heard that it is used and was going to add it, but I want to make sure that it is legitimate first (I have trouble trying to cite eo terms). Thanks --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I haven't really come across much. My fluency in Esperanto was never great, and I've not been practicing the last few years. I generally search for Esperanto in Google Books by including la and kaj, but I'm only seeing one real hit for luton not as a place; "Kial ekzistas ni? Kiu kreis la luton? Kion ĝi celas?", from . Poking through Google Groups, I'm seeing no evidence of this, at least not as live slang. A question asking about "luton" as Esperanto slang (in English), a post with "Sa,luton" (typo maybe), various posts with "Sluton", "S-luton", "S'luton", a bootleg translation of Harry Potter that has Hagrid say "S'luton", a little "Sal'" here and there. Perhaps someone more interested then I could drag out citable slang/casual forms of "saluton", but I'm not seeing any evidence besides that quote, in which the meaning of luton is opaque to me, that luton is actually used in Esperanto.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you would like to explain why you reverted my edit on nub. In case you forgot, here is the explanation I gave in the summary:

made the rest of the example more internet slangy (it makes no sense for the word nub to be inside an otherwise formally written sentence)

--WikiTiki89 (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

B3(4U53 L337 5P34|< /\/\4|<35 3\/3R'/7|-|1|\|9 (L34R3R. Let's not make up misspelled hard-to-read examples; if you want a real life example, go cite one. If, indeed, this sense is citable at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Are you fluent in leet? In any case, I do agree with you. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I did not use any leet speak. All I did was uncapitalize the sentences, initialize peanut butter and jelly (which is a common abbreviation for it) and remove the h from what. I wouldn't really call that hard to read, although I will admit I was not very satisfied with the way pb&j looked in lower case. What do you think about a compromise of just removing the capitalization? The word nub really looks out of place in a fully capitalized sentence and lower case sentences are one of the most noticeable features of internet slang. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think the real takeaway message from Prosfilaes' statement is that real citations are always better than usage examples. Find a real quote using it, and then we don't have to bicker about whether we like it or not - it exists. If you can't find one, this sense needs to go to WT:RFV and potentially get deleted. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Can you turn up the volume of the file File:Fr-Normandie-Marseille.ogg please ? Fête (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's long been practice here that the main lemma page can include supporting citations from all relevant variant or inflected forms. Otherwise we would be in a ridiculous situation of not being able to show a ‘first’ citation until very recently. While an entry shouldn't be overrun with citations, it's good to have the earliest use possible at the very least. This is basic information for a word: when it first started being used. Ƿidsiþ 19:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

It would be nice to be pointed to some page that describes practice instead of just being told that. In any case, that cite is not English, it's Middle English, so we can put it in the etymology; there's no need to keep the citation with the English word.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

As a participant in an associated discussion, you are invited to contribute to the list of terms and criteria at Appendix:Terms considered difficult or impossible to translate into English. Cheers,   — C M B J   10:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I noticed this diff and I agree; I've made a list of the few other pages that likewise use Asian angle brackets (or chevrons, in case any of them should be changed): User:-sche/angles. - -sche (discuss) 03:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've added more comments to the discussion page since your reversion of my edits to the page itself. I don't know if there's a better way of sending a message. Phil Last (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

With the cat ribboning between his legs, Roarke stood and watched. Pg 65; →ISBNProsfilaes (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I don't wanna revert your reverts - but I do think we should discuss the def. First, I find just saying that it is considered "wrong" is a bit clunky - and I am not sure what it means exactly. Do you mean that it is considered "wrong to use"? Second, I wonder if we really need def 2 at all if it is just "a dialect considered as substandard or wrong", because that def just talks about how some people consider/view def 1 - it isn't a new meaning, it is just a usage note. Having said that, I think there is a possible def. 2, where people use the word dialect to refer to any language usage they see as incorrect (poor, bad, wrong, etc.) but they are not specifically referring to dialect (def 1) usage. Your thoughts?Sonofcawdrey (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can you confirm your cite is definitely singular? "The dead lizardfolk" can be plural too, as in "the worthy poor". Equinox ◑ 22:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Finding several other singular cites was easier than fixing that cite.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

lizard-folk is much harder; I prefer to keep it as is, as an alternate spelling, but it mainly shows older uses that aren't singular.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if you knew, but earlier this year, Lojban entries have been moved from mainspace into an Appendix. (see https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary_talk:Votes/2018-02/Moving_Lojban_entries_to_the_Appendix#LDL_instead_of_an_appendix ) (Appendix:Lojban) There is currently a vote (until June 2018) to move them totally out of Wiktionary. At least one of the reasons given has been that Lojban is a constructed language. You have expressed interest in Lojban in the past, and might wish to vote. (https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-04/Disallowing_appendix-only_languages ) Beer Parlour: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2018/April FYI: List of Lojban Indices Index:Lojban — This unsigned comment was added by Jawitkien (talk • contribs).

Prosfilaes has already voted, and he voted in favour. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why did you restore the RFV template at VGK? I provided 3 citations for the abbreviation. EhSayer (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Because RFV templates, especially on heatedly discussed words, should not be removed by the citer.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK. Then I should probably replace the templates on NJD, NYR, NYI, and CBJ as well. EhSayer (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

You reverted my edit of cunning linguist with the explanation "please don't move quotes against consensus as a minor action". Should I do so as a non-minor action? I don't want to be accused of edit-warring, and the quotes I moved belong under the 'literal' meaning, not the 'colloquial, humorous, euphemistic' definition. Thanks. Walterblue222 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you don't want to be accused of doing something, then don't do it. It's clear you're the only person here who believes that those quotes belong under the literal meaning. --Prosfilaes (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

You are clearly mistaken. None of the quotes I moved reference oral sex or cunnilingus in any way - of the two that I did not move, only one specifically references oral sex/cunnilingus, and the other is suggestive but not explicit.

All of the quotes I moved belong under the literal entry, which you reverted to 'rare', instead of 'literal'. Why did you do this?

I've been erroneously accused of edit-warring in the past and wish to avoid this in the future, but seeing as this accusation was incorrect, and I got banned regardless, your suggestion of "If you don't want to be accused of doing something, then don't do it." is not helpful. Walterblue222 (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Why don't you take this to the talk page? You're repeatedly changing things against the general opinion.

You moved the quote that says the translator goes down on history, and you ignore the context of the others; one can argue about what the man writing on the wall is writing about, but it seems less likely that it's a witty professor and more likely that it's dirty, as things that are written on the wall like that are usually dirty.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

"You moved the quote that says the translator goes down on history" - um, have you looked at the page you tagged? "Go down"? Most of the first 6 examples support the literal definition. Only ONE of the 9 definitions - #7, of 9 - is in any relation to oral sex. I did not ignore the content of the others, and you claim that "things that are written on the wall like that are usually dirty"... this is so absurd I'm flabbergasted. Walterblue222 (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Again, take this off my talk page. Talk it to the section on the Tea Room or the talk page of the entry. And please remember that you're trying to convince, not argue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dear Prosfilaes, I'm sorry for bothering you, the point that all entries with ƿynn have been deleted. There was a vote I didn't know anything about - Wiktionary:Votes/2020-09/Removing_Old_English_entries_with_wynns. I found out about it only when it was too late.

During this discussion I was told that I could start a vote to bring ƿynn entries back Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2020/November#May_at_least_one_entry_with_ƿynn_stay?

I've never created votes and now I'm only leaving messages to users that I think could support it. I know only a few. I am very uncomfortable with disturbing people like that, but I can't let these entries be gone for good even without trying. I thought you might support this idea. Sorry for bothering again. Birdofadozentides (talk) 08:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Prosfilaes. You've been here for 12 years. You're a good contributor. You're a sysop on WikiSource and an autopatroller on many other servers. I'm amazed that they haven't made you an admin here already. If I were to nominate you to become an admin, would you accept? — Dentonius 09:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not interested. Being an admin on one wiki is enough for me.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

It must be somehow mentioned in the usage note that the meaning 'happen' does not relate either figuratively or otherwise analytically to the original, because this non-opinion is supposed to be partly what informs the criticism which is described there. If you have time to do it in a better way, please improve or expand it, but it isn't justified to remove it. Contribber (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

It "does not relate either figuratively or otherwise analytically"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Stating a random fact is unnecessary; if you need to explain why the critics are doing something, you need to explain why the critics are doing something. They think it's wrong seems like more than enough for me.

As for "some people are discouraging it as wrong, and critics are affecting it", that interpretation is exactly what I got from your sentence the first few times I read it. My version was syntactically defective and yet perfectly normal and understandable English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Consult sources saying it and try again before wasting more time. It informs the criticism that the meaning is supposed to be extraneously, dubiously attached to a word of an entirely different original designatory context. The present wording even says 'was possibly extraneously interpreted from', which is just reporting what is claimed in the criticism even with a caveat, so there's nothing to possibly even contest here. Contribber (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

"designatory context"? Do you know English? Can you use English? Neither "designatory context" nor "extraneously interpreted from" has ever been used in any work Google Books has indexed. I'm not sure any English speaker would understand "extraneously interpreted from" to me what you want it to mean.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Luckily, if you don't know the words, we are literally inside a dictionary, and you can just look them up here. Contribber (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

A dictionary only helps if the language is being used correctly. You're not using English correctly; "extraneously interpreted from" is incoherent. Likewise, "designatory context" is not a clear way to say what you meant, again, as can be shown by the fact that (a) English speakers have never written it in anything Google Books has indexed and (b) it confuses native English speakers. No, I'm not a mood to try and decipher what you can't clearly write.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

No, you are quite provably being disingenuous. It initially read 'the extraneous meaning …'. You tacitly admitted to understanding it, because you called it 'editioralising', an opinion you couldn't have formed without at least the subjective experience of understanding it. Now, the rest of the sentence, for a normal reader, clearly removed any ambiguity the word might have occasioned, because it was further indicated how the different meaning was formed without logical relation to the original, whence the 'extraneous', 'extrinsic', 'external' nature of it in that respect. Now you removed some bits of the text, which caused a blurring of some of the points in it. I reinserted 'extraneous' before 'interpreted', trying to accommodate. From then on, you disingenuously claim you no longer understand it, maybe because you are upset for some reason – I don't know. The phrasing could arguably be improved, but the meaning was still apparent from the context.

Designatory context as distinguished from etymological or whatever other context. In the entire context it simply clearly means 'the context of the meanings ascribed to some word'. There's nothing wrong or difficult about it, even disregarding it was just said informally here.

Hapaxes occur all the time. It doesn't imply anything for clarity or understandableness that some infrequent combination of words gets no hits in your favourite search engine. Contribber (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Extraneous = "not essential", "superfluous", and whether something is essential or superfluous is clearly an opinion. It's obvious to you because you wrote it, but the author arguing that something "clearly removed any ambiguity" is arguing something they don't have the perspective to see.

Hapaxes don't imply anything about clarity? That's not what w:Hapax legomenon says:

Hapax legomena in ancient texts are usually difficult to decipher, since it is easier to infer meaning from multiple contexts than from just one. For example, many of the remaining undeciphered Mayan glyphs are hapax legomena, and Biblical (particularly Hebrew; see § Hebrew examples) hapax legomena sometimes pose problems in translation.

To say that the meaning is attached to a word of an entirely different context is simply bad English, in my opinion, and not of the type that's understandable. Inserting a ten-dollar-word adjective didn't make it any clearer.

I understand "understandableness"; it's still bad English. It's notable that when Google Books turns up quotes, on the first page it turns up "once again hissing at the “understandability” (or “understandableness,” as Kaun chooses to put it)" and "The teacher's clarity and “understandableness” (Feldman's term)"; it's technically acceptable, but authors referencing other authors feel compelled to distance themselves from the use.

You can blame everyone else, but your communication problems are your fault, especially if you refuse to listen to advice about where you're going wrong.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Was I talking about hapaxes in ancient texts? You disregard 'extraneous' has other meanings. I understand 'understandableness' perfectly well. How does that hinder communication? I don't consider it 'bad English' to say that a meaning is attached to a word of another context, though it arguably should be put more clearly in a less informal context than a talk page, which is a totally different matter from 'bad English'. Your difficulties of comprehension are mostly your problem. Contribber (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

If you're talking to one person, and they don't understand you, you've failed. It seems like any further posting here is pointless. Gabale laxeous set mellodore, as hapaxes are perfectly clear and clearly using polysemous words is not a responsibility of the writer.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply