User talk:Renard Migrant/archives/1

Welcome!

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 explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. 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.
• The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
• A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
• If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

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! -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I noticed you reverted my edit on grurë. As a natural Albanian speaker I can confirm that the meaning of this word is indeed 'wheat' 'Triticum' Etimo (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Removing the rfv tag doesn't stop the rfv, it just removes the link to the discussion. I'm not debating whether it's valid or not, I have no idea, naturally. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I understand your answer correctly..why do you still need a rfv discussion if the meaning of this word is already confirmed by the dictionary? Etimo (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's not my answer you don't understand, you seem not to know (by your own admission) what an rfv is. Anyway it's bad form to remove an rfv notice while the debate is still going on. You should not do it... move to close the rfv first, and when it is closed, remove the notice. I think in this instance the tagger isn't doubting the existence of the word so much as the accuracy of the meaning. I can't speak for him (DCDuring) of course. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think I know what a request for verification is, feel free to fill my knowledge gaps any time you want though (I still have much to learn about Wiki rules). What I wanted to ask is, why the rfv discussion considering that the meaning of this word is quite straightforward? Because I checked the talk going on about the topic, and looks like there is some unnecessary confusion about it. The dictionary already gives a (correct) definition for this word, so why the need for a talk? Hope I made myself clear Etimo (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Re: pecker. I know the correct "pure" IPA is the inverted r but thought the standard with English entries was to simply have it understood when using /r/. Is this something you just noticed? or are systematically correcting? — LlywelynII 12:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

You are correct to say it 'was' /r/ because it's now /ɹ/ and has been for awhile. There's a vote on it. The vote is ambiguously written which annoys me, but everyone agrees it's supposed to mean 'always use ɹ for English and never use r'. Perhaps if you Google search this wiki you can find the vote. If not please tell me and I can find it. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

For the record, the vote was Wiktionary:Votes/2008-01/IPA for English r, and until now I only knew of one person who found its wording ambiguous — Mglovesfun. If I note that English has two r phonemes, does that make it any easier to see why the vote was worded the way it was? It was worded to apply to "the r phoneme in words like red, green and orange" (the phoneme that had sometimes been /r/, but which the vote made uniformly /ɹ/), but not to apply to the r of words like sir and her, which is technically / ˞ / (as in /hɝ/), though many entries don't distinguish that phoneme from the other r phoneme (and hence represent it too as /ɹ/). (If you're bored, see this discussion.) - -sche (discuss) 04:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

According to , it comes from the Old French word astenir. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well Old French astenir and abstenir aren't different words, they're variants of the same word. Wouldn't it seem more likely that Middle French and French abstenir come from abstenir not astenir? Abstenir was the more common variant in late Old French and has simply continued to exist. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/abstenir sums it up pretty well, you'll notice that later on abs- forms replace the as- forms, and this happens before the end of the Old French period. http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/dictionnaire-godefroy/astenir on the other hand gives a 1528 citation for astenir (astens), so it seems it did continue to exist into Middle French. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am a Ph.D. student in linguistics, although not historical linguistics. My knowledge of Old French is largely self-taught but I have a pretty good understanding of Romance linguistics as a whole; e.g. I wrote most of the current article on Romance languages in Wikipedia. Benwing (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

You can now leave out the stem from {{fro-conj-er}}, {{fro-conj-ier}}, {{fro-conj-er-e}} and {{fro-conj-ier-e}} and it will fill it in from the infinitive. Can't yet do this for {{fro-conj-cier}} or other of the more-specific templates, nor for the templates requiring two stems to be specified.

Benwing (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have an experience working on wikipedia (Bosnian and Serbo-Croatian). A question: Why is it Bosnian forbidden here? --Munjanes (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's been decided that the difference between Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian is political or religious, but not linguistic. Since they're all the same language (from a linguistic point of view) we treat them as a single language. One interesting question is if a Croatian speaker converts to Islam, does he or she instantly become a Bosnian speaker? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

You did not create this word. Mglovesfun did. He is well-known for spewing Old French errors all over Wiktionary.

Please do quote a source for this word. I know your opinion about my deleting words but in the process you are perpetuating errors. Benwing (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am Mglovesfun (I retired that user name because I was getting too much harassment). They are not errors so much as I'm using a different system to you. I enter the most citable term where you enter the normalized form. Normalized forms are not wrong. Not usually anyway, sometimes they are. Like http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/dictionnaire-godefroy/ often has normalized forms that don't appear in any of the citations, so I use the most citable form. Bouterés is in the Godefroy anyway http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/dictionnaire-godefroy/bouteret, under the 1360 citation. That would fall under Middle French... that's because we changed the cutoff date from 1400 to 1340 to be aligned with the French Wiktionary's dates. So the entry was correct at the point of entry.

By 'spurious' what you actually mean is you're too lazy to check so you're going to apply the rules blindly. At least have the guts to admit it. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Fine I've put you on Vandalism in progress, that should slow you down a bit: diff. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

FWIW bouterez isn't recognised by academics either, if you look at http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/dictionnaire-godefroy/bouteret, bouterez is used in citations but not in the normalized form. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I know it goes against that explanation, that's precisely what I say in the edit summary. But χαῦμα (khaûma) (which doesn't exist) is obviously a mistake for καῦμα (kaûma). --Fsojic (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Forget what I wrote above: I hadn't properly read your edit. The assertion that it comes from Catalan rather than from Italian is not mine; I've read it in the link you provided. --Fsojic (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

We have many entries in various languages that include the article in this way. Some in English, but I recall seeing many in Irish as well. If you think this practice should be discouraged globally, you should probably suggest it on the BP. —CodeCat 18:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think in the case of Suisse it's to distinguish between le Suisse (the male Swiss person) and la Suisse (Switzerland) but the gender does this already. Suisse is not unique because pretty much all proper nouns that have a gender in French are used with the definite article. Grande-Bretagne doesn't use the head-word la Grande-Bretagne for example. But yes I'm aware this doesn't answer your question, and no I have no real desire to discuss it on a policy level. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Renard Migrant. You recently cleaned up the etymology section at puss; thank you. However, in your edit you added the suggestion, "The 'vulva' sense is a clipping of pussy." That may be possible, but it is not obvious. The word puss in the sense of "cat" is older than pussy. The slang usage of puss appears by 1630 (Thomas Dekker, The Honest Whore: "This Shee-cat will haue more liues then your last Pusse had"), around the same time as pussy (e.g. "Puss in a corner" in Thomas D'Urfey 1699, A Choice Collection of New Songs: "Johnny who many Times Pussey had fed"). It's not obvious that pussy is earlier. Indeed, on the basis of these poems puss seems to appear first, but it's not prudent to rely on a few appearances in print when dealing with slang. Forms of pussy had already been used to mean "woman" or "wife" before 1630 (e.g. Philip Stubbes 1583, The Anatomie of Abuses: "So he haue his pretie pussie to huggle withall, it forceth not"), so it's hard to know if one form is earlier than the other.

I've removed that line from the etymology. If you know of any works of etymology that support the clipping analysis, we could add them as references.

By the way, if you choose to reply you can do so here. I rarely use my Wiktionary talk page. Cnilep (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think you've slightly missed (or forgotten) the point. You've made the point above, I said that "The 'vulva' sense is a clipping of pussy." not that puss comes from pussy. What you're saying is about the originally etymology, whether puss or pussy is attested first; I'm just saying that in the vulva sense, puss comes from pussy, not in all senses. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've added it back on the grounds you're not disputing it. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

No, I am disputing it. Sorry if I wasn't clear. In the bawdy songs puss is used as a reference to sex and sexual organs. "Fed pussy pap", for example, is a double entendre for giving a cat porridge and for ejaculating in a vagina, and the poem's title uses puss. In other words, both puss and pussy were being used as slang terms for "vulva" in the seventeenth century. Likewise "your last puss" is a reference to prostitutes, suggesting that the word may have been used in the relevant sense even earlier than pussy was. It might be the case that puss is a clipped version of pussy, or it might be that the latter is an embellished form of the former (as is the case for the literal "cat" usage), or they may have developed more or less independently from the two words meaning "cat" (or "young woman"). It is, in my opinion, inappropriate to assert the clipping etymology on the basis of common knowledge – that is, without citing authoritative sources. Cnilep (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sauce for the gander: I'd better cite at least one secondary source for my assertion. See Gordon Williams (1994) A Dictionary of Sexual Language and Imagery in Shakespearean and Stuart Literature, in particular his discussions of D'Urfey at "pap" and at "whiskers", inter alia. Cnilep (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I see, feel free to remove it then since you have a source. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

This has been replaced by Category:Requests for quotation by source, but the subcategories weren't moved. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Interested in re-applying? You add quite a few deletion tags on obvious speedy-deletes, etc. Equinox ◑ 22:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Nah, I'm more thinking of editing less to be honest. Sometimes I think I need a better bad weather hobby. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Luckily, you haven't abandoned us yet. You sure you don't want to be reädminated? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gloves. Would you be able to regenerate this cleanup list? I've tackled most of the nouns on the list, and then got bored. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I totally forgotten. Um yeah just not yet. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I seem to think the system I used was with AWB take the entire content of Category:English nouns then in the skip box, skip entries contain

\{\{(head\|en\|noun|en\-noun)\}\}

Since it doesn't involve saving any edits, you might be able to do it even with AWB rights on this wiki. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Renard, thanks for your input at the RFD. Your first sentence seems contradictory. What did you mean? This, that and the other (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

There was a big mistake, yes. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Earlier you said "I think you mean questioning someone's opinions is wrong unless you or someone who agrees with you is doing it. It's the most blatant hypocrisy you will ever see"

My complaint is that inclusionists get a lot more grief than they give. Look at RfD at the present. There are a lot more delete votes with no contrarian responses then there are keep votes. Or look at your vote about CFI. None of the support votes have replies to them, and every oppose has a reply to it. It also irks me that you and Equinox and DC make the same slippery-slope/reducto arguments over and over and over again...if we keep this, we'll have to add something else... They've made them to me forty or fifty times, and it's clear no number of times they say them, I'll still be convinced that keeping entries is the best thing for Wiktionary. They're just wasting breath with those arguments.

As for the hypocrisy, a lot of my detractors complain about me being on BP and RfD a lot. Those same people often have 5-10 times as many BP or RfD edits as I. +Purplebackpack89 23:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

My arguments are not slippery-slope, as Chuck Entz pointed out to you before. Also, maybe if one group loses more debates than the other, it's because they are poor debaters and basically wrong. Equinox ◑ 19:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Call them what you will. I consider them to be poor arguments. They hinge on too many assumptions I'm just not willing to make/ If you argue "Delete article A, because what are we gonna do next, create article B?", as you and DC have a zillion times, you're assuming: 1) deletion discussions are linked and not independent, 2) article A and article B are equally (un)deserving of entries, and 3) article B shouldn't have an entry. And you never provide any evidence that any of those are true. Purplebackpack89 19:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

The point is, no matter how many of them they are, they are legitimate arguments, and shouldn't be dismissed as 'harassment'. It's just so cheap to play the harassment card to avoid replying to the point made by the arguer, and it smacks of lack of understanding of one's own argument. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think just as important, people reading the debates aren't swayed by the number of arguments but by the quality of them; if six people say the same thing but you disagree with it, it makes no difference if it's sixty people saying the same thing. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I require your aid. I have to know what the Middle French form of très is. Is it spelt in the exact same fashion as modern French?
Did this form, très, ever exist in Old French? --Romanophile (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/tr%C3%A8s has a section Prononc. et Orth. (pronunciation and spelling) which (I think) says tres until 1718, trés is first attested in 1718, then très in 1740, and as we know très is the surviving form. I've had very little luck trying to research the development of diacritics in French. Sure, it's out there somewhere, but where? You can definitely find acute accents in Middle French, the earliest I can think of was about 1455 which was societé which I researched. It's standard practice to notate a final /e/ in Old French as é, which is why societé has an Old French section. This is because all the normalized texts do this. Literally all of them, I've never seen a single one that doesn't. So why the manuscript may say societe every typed up version (as far as I know) in the world transcribes this as societé. It's a tricky issue and you've reminded me to try and get a book on the issue. I think I once found one on Amazon but it was a lot of money. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

We have an old French section of trés, which doesn’t seem consistent with the claim that trés existed since 1718. I was suspecting that this was a modern interpretation, like spelling Old French words with j, a relatively young letter, but we still have Old French entries with j in them. Right now my current plan is to create a Spanish etymology that says that très comes from frm. tres, from Old French tres &c. I just prefer having approval to ensure that my information is accurate. --Romanophile (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I should say that a final /es/ is transcribed -és. So the past participle of trover would be trové, masculine plural trovés, feminine singular trovee, feminine plural trovees. There was quite a debate when a user speedily deleted aprés and it was eventually kept. I can no doubt dig up the debate. The thing is really, of those interested in Old French, how many are going to have access to the manuscripts compares to the normalized versions in textbooks and online sources? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

You mean the original texts? Hardly anybody, of course. Photographs would suffice, but I know of no dépôt that contains photographs of Old French manuscripts. I suppose that I should stick to my original plan, then. On a side‐note, do you think that the abbreviations in Serments de Strasbourg are worthy of entries here? --Romanophile (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Have you looked at Gallica? I haven't looked for Old French, but they do have quite a few other quaint and curious volumes of forgotten lore, so it's a good place to check. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've seen some Middle French ones in person at the Musée Boucher de Perthes in Abbeville. There are some Old French manuscripts in picture form on commons:, I believe also. I'm sure that the abbreviations in Serments de Strasbourg are worthy of entries. I thought I might have entered all the words from the Oaths of Strasbourg, but perhaps not. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

In particular s:fr:La Chanson de Roland/Manuscrit d’Oxford. Not sure my eyesight can cope with that. If yours can, good luck! Renard Migrant (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

If you compare that with s:fr:La Chanson de Roland/Léon Gautier/Édition critique/Première partie, in line 5 it says "Murs ne citet n’i est remés à fraindre". If you look at the manuscript it seems to say "remes a fraindre" without the accents. In fact it looks like "rėmes a fraindre" but I'm sure the dot is accidental. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Line 17 païs and line 22 païen seems to me to be pais and paien with tremas. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for doing these bit by bit. Line 73 "Ço senefiet pais e humilitet." First word appears to be co not Ço. Finally line 59 "Que nus perdum clere Espaigne la bele" it appears to be espaigne not Espaigne. I'm going to stop there; obviously I could spend hours just one this one manuscript before moving on to others. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Très or très appears a couple of times in the Léon Gautier transcription, but I just don't have the patience to go through all the images to track them down, given there are no line numbers in the originals, it's just a case of going through line-by-line trying to see words I can make out to find out where I am in the Léon Gautier transcription. The normalized form per WT:About Old French is trés. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary talk:About Old French#aprés#Old French. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

A touch late, but I've discovered that the abbreviation ds. Ac. meaning 'in the Académie Française (dictionary)'. So ds. Ac. 1718 (for example) means entered into the Académie Française dictionary in 1718. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is there any reason why you don’t include more Middle French entries? --Romanophile (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

These things take time, and it's often pretty tedious as they're the same words as modern French. Not too many words used between 1340 and 1609 that didn't survive into modern French. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I myself would always include as many Italic sections that I know of since I’m a perfectionist, but if it doesn’t bother you, then I guess that there’s not much that I can do to turn you. --Romanophile (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's one of those things, whether it bothers me or not, I can't do everything. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Would you have quotations for this word, in French? I found quotations for Middle French, not for French.

Regards, — Automatik (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Only two. One, two. You could rfv if you like. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The first quotation is not in French (see the end of the paragraph of the quotation). The second doesn't seem to be French : please see this discussion to be convinced of that if you're interested. — Automatik (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why are you setting anagrams headers to L4? DTLHS (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Such as? Renard Migrant (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

NVM, if you didn't do it intentionally. DTLHS (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I changed from L5 to L4, I miscounted. Renard Migrant (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

here your bot has set descendants to be a child of derived terms- more care might be needed. DTLHS (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

True, the bot doesn't check what comes before the level changing. Having said that... that entry is correct because Derived terms goes at L3 when it's not clear which part of speech the derived term comes from. Renard Migrant (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's not correct, because descendants don't come from derived terms, hierarchically. DTLHS (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I mean the wikisyntax is correct. Renard Migrant (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

1. {{zh-forms}} is not a redirect. e.g. diff.
2. "Descendants" header is not always L4. e.g. diff, diff, those descendants are derived from the Chinese word, not from a particular part of speech.

Wyang (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know zh-forms had been recreated. I will take it off the list of redirects. As for 'descendants', I think yes we should add it to the exceptions list of L4 headers that may be L3 when not referring to a part of speech in particular. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I just noticed your bot doesn't have a very good heuristic for the Descendants section.

It made the Descendants section of ferry into a subsection of the See also section.

That doesn't make sense. There are a few places the Descendants section does make sense, depending on whether the entry has one or more homonyms and if those are divided by etymology or part of speech, and also whether we know specifically which of those the forms in other languages descend from.

If we know exactly where they came from then it makes sense under a POS if they came from that POS. But often two or three POSes share an etymology, especially in non-inflected languages or in English where a Noun and Verb share the same form. In this case the descendants either didn't come from one specific POS, or we don't know for sure. Then the Descendants section makes sense as a subsection of an Etymology section if there are more than one, or at level three if there's no etymology section or if there's just one, meaning POS sections are not subsections of Etymology sections either.

Occasionally even when the parent word has multiple etymology sections we still don't know which of them the descendants came from, in which case the Descendants section shouldn't be a subsection of any of the etymology sections.

Anyway, happy botting! (-: — hippietrail (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The problem with ferry is the order, not the header level. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

If I were you I would've fixed the page ferry instead of breaking it again. But hey, you're not me. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Umm well then there's obviously two kinds of "broken". Broken where sections are subsections of the wrong parents is more broken than sections in the "wrong" order, especially where few of us can keep up with the endless minor and major changes to how things "should be done" (the opposite of "broken"). If I were you I would fix my bot to fix the heading in the proper way if it's so trivial to know all the "rules". I'm not sure if you intended to talk down to me but that's how it seems. I'm losing interest in helping improve the bot if that is the case. )-: — hippietrail (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just generally pissed off today. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

January 30th has come and gone, so the CFI vote has been closed as not enacted. Purplebackpack89 15:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Fancy merging Template:ast-noun-mf into Template:ast-noun? --Type56op9 (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not sure why I've never seen this before, but sure, why not. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey Gloves. How would a page like User:Mglovesfun/to do/English be generated for Spanish? --Type56op9 (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

The weather's nice so, I wouldn't hold your breath. If it rains for a week no doubt I'll get round to it. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I thought when I had read the part that gave it as an archaic form of Alba, that I'd read all the definitions they gave. I should have looked more carefully. I'm sorry.PaulBustion88 (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I edited here a while ago under a different account, but I decided to switch to this one. As long as I never use the old account again is that allowed, or is that still considered sockpuppetry? I tried to change to a different on simple English wikipedia and they banned me for it, so I want to make sure I'm not violating any rules here.PaulBustion88 (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not that I know of. Sockpuppetry means using two accounts at once (i.e. alternating) with the intent to deceive people, such as voting keep or delete twice on the same RFD debate. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

One could also get into trouble for using only one account, but using it deceitfully and in bad faith, for instance, if one's account is blocked, creating a new account to continue one's misbehavior- even if the old account will never be used again. That's not to say block evasion via new accounts hasn't been allowed to slide on numerous occasions, but it's generally only tolerated as long as the new account is on its best behavior. Even then, it's understood by all that the evasion is against the rules. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've never been blocked on this wiki as far as I know. So that does not apply to me.PaulBustion88 (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tread carefully, anyway. --Type56op9 (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

On English wikipedia jmabel, Flyer22, and Malke2010 all said I was a sloppy editor. So could you look at my edits to make sure I do not make any mistakes?PaulBustion88 (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Judging by Category:Pages with module errors, there were a good number of entries using templates named in the format l/code/script. Needless to say, {{l}} is having trouble with code/script as its first parameter... Chuck Entz (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I fixed the module errors, there weren't too many of them. However, I am worried that you also replaced instances of {{l/he}}, which should be undone because it has specialized display features that do not work with {{l|he}}. For example, {{l/he|דיבר|dwv=דִּבֵּר}} produces דיבר / דִּבֵּר, while {{l|he|דיבר|dwv=דִּבֵּר}} does not work and only produces Lua error in Module:parameters at line 858: Parameter "dwv" is not used by this template.. It wasn't used in very many places, but it was used. --WikiTiki89 13:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've added a whole series of 'skip if contains', containing all the ones you've mentioned, plus {{l/grc}}. {{l/he}} was never on the list to start with, but would be done if it had another l/ template on it. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

You wrote here,https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Requests_for_cleanup&oldid=32722296, that the comment I wrote, that the most popular definition of pedophilia, to include any sexual attraction to or interaction with a person under 18, is not correct, should go because even though I'm correct, that is a prescriptive not a descriptive statement. I want to defer to consensus, so if you still want it removed, I'll remove it. Do you still feel that way? Another argument in favor of removing it would be that by giving the correct definition in the entry, we've already made clear the common definition is not correct. So maybe you're right. PaulBustion88 (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is there any reason you couldn't comment on the RFC debate directly, instead of spreading comments over user talk where not everyone will see them? In answer to your question, you don't get to decide for all English speakers what's correct and what isn't correct. While I agree with you, I don't get to decide either so we go with the way it's actually used. I think as a sourced statement from various sources, it could be included, but the word 'correct' is quite toxic because it's a minority trying to impose its will on a majority. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Maybe we could include one definition that goes by the popular definition of attraction to anyone younger than 18, and another that goes by the medical definition. I think at least in the medical definition it should be specified that it is specifically attraction to prepubescent children in that sense, although not in the other,more popular sense of the term. In the medical definition it only means attraction to prepubescents, so that restriction is appropriate in that context. That's what the American Psychiatric Association, the DSM-IV, etc., say. I agree that what I wrote in the usage note was probably a mistake, and I agree that the popular definition should probably be given. But the medical definition is different and is restricted in the sense I stated. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I tend to agree if you're right. But are you? You're just blindly asserting it. Can you get some evidence to support it? I'm gonna nip upstairs and check my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia's article about pedophilia, which is sourced, states that I'm right,"Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger. As a medical diagnosis, specific criteria for the disorder extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13. A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years of age, but adolescents must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia."--PaulBustion88 (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition". American Psychiatric Publishing. 2013. Retrieved July 25, 2013. See section F65.4 Paedophilia. "The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders Diagnostic criteria for research World" (PDF). World Health Organization/ICD-10. 1993. Retrieved 2012-10-10. "B. A persistent or a predominant preference for sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children. C. The person is at least 16 years old and at least five years older than the child or children in B." Those are the sources wikipedia used. I've never read DSM-IV, but I have a link to the website, http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/search/advanced. I searched it but couldn't find this specific topic. However, my father is a neurologist, so maybe I could ask him to look it up for me later. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/freemasonry#English I wanted to include the definition of Freemasonry as the organization everybody knows in the lower case freemasonry entry, but I was reverted, and the user said that should only go in the capitalized Freemasonry entry. But I've even seen the organization spelled with a lower case f before in writings. I gave an example on the user's talk page who reverted me. Should the organization go in the definition under the lower case f or only the upper case F? --PaulBustion88 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC) This is the example I gave of it being spelled with a lower case f and how I then used that to argue it could be spelled that way, I wrote "For example, in George Bush the Bush hating, Freemasonry hating authors Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin wrote about Freemasonry with a lower case f, "After the French elections, it was Bush who was despatched to France to meet the new French President Francois “Tonton” Mitterrand of the Grand Orient freemasonry." "In all of this the freemason Bush shares the obsession of the Anglo-American elite, who are committed to destroying the papacy as one of the few institutions in the world that has dared to resist their Malthusian proposition that the central problem of humanity is overpopulation."http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-17-the-attempted-coup-detat-of-march-30-1981/ "There was at that time a deep suspicion of, and national revulsion against, freemasonry and secret organizations in the United States, fostered in particular by the anti-masonic writings of former U.S. President John Quincy Adams." "Beyond the psychological manipulation associated with freemasonic mummery, there are very solid political reasons for Bush’s strong identification with this cult."http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-7-skull-and-bones-the-racist-nightmare-at-yale/ "then came the endorsement of G. William Whitehurst of Virginia, an endorsement that stood out for its freemasonic overtones in a field where freemasonic modulations were rife." http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-13-bush-attempts-the-vice-presidency-1974/ The authors there spelled freemasonry lower case to many times for it to have been a typo. So I think that it is spelled lower case sometimes."--PaulBustion88 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I really can't answer all of these queries. Perhaps WT:TR is the best venue. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'm sorry.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

What is the Old French word for harvest? --Romanophile (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Goupil is a good editor. --Romanophile (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have a couple of sources that indicate messon, , . Renard Migrant (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Récolte apparently comes in 1550: . Renard Migrant (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

What’s the Old French word for economic? --Romanophile (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I can't think of one, and dictionaries like the Godefroy only do Old French to French, not the other way around. I've checked and financier, fiscal and monétaire all come in later. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Which sense of economic where you thinking of? If you're talking about inexpensive, there may be something, but if you're talking about something to do with economies and the study thereof, I'm not so sure there is one. Yes, people thought and wrote about many economic topics, but I'm not so sure if they had the concept of economics as a discrete field of study. I suspect the closest you could get would be to think of how one would describe the term to someone who had never heard any of our modern terminology, and then translate that. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I meant what the Old French form was. CNRTL doesn’t specify the exact form that was used in 1265. --Romanophile (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Brunet Latin, Trésor, éd. Fr. J. Carmody, livre 1, chap. 4 : les .iii. manieres de governer soi et autrui, ce sont etique, iconomike, politique

(éd. is édition Fr. J. Carmody I think is going to be François J Carmody). Renard Migrant (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

The usual Middle French spelling seems to be œconomique. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

It might not be from Old French but rather borrowed directly into Middle French from Latin, by an author unaware that iconomike (or iconomique from a different manuscript of the same text) had been used 110 years earlier. But I'm not going to change it because I don't know. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I suppose that that’s possible, but I’ve always found inheritance more probable. If the word was extremely rare in Old French then I would find your idea quite probable, but I have no way of calculating how common it was. If it’s any help, we could insert the simple disclaimer ‘possibly from…’ --Romanophile (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

What’s the Old French word for recréateur? --Romanophile (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Someone who recreates? No idea, I tried on the Anglo-Norman On-Line Hub recr(i|e)at(o|eu|u)r (see w:Regex) which gets no results. I think a lot of things you may be able to look up yourself. The tricky bit is getting away from the idea of one word, one spelling. Once you start seeing sope/soupe/souppe/supe as a single word without evening thinking about it, most the vocabulary has survived into modern French. I rarely need to look words up. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

CNRTL implies that it existed in Old French here, but they don’t display any form. --Romanophile (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Apparently there's a typo, the name of the thing is "Livre d'Evast et Blaquerne" (they've written Blaqueme). And it's originally written in Old Provençal. Um, the thing is you can easily spend an hour looking through Google hits just to find the usage of this one word and not even succeed. I'm not going to. If you want to, I say go for it. Maybe spend your time on a more well-known word. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome to keep asking. I find the whole language fascinating. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Are you being sarcastic? You gave me the impression that you’d prefer that I do the research myself. --Romanophile (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Both really. A lot of these requests are easy to fulfil if you use http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie such as moisson for harvest. The more unusual ones are more interesting. And I have my own lists I'm working on (right now, Category:Terms derived from Old French). Renard Migrant (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is there any reason why you prefer using the qualifier Anglo‐Norman over England? I’m not objecting to your modification, I’m just curious to see your reasoning. --Romanophile (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think Anglo-Norman, as well as being more widely accepted, is more accurate because the Normans were present in Scotland, Wales and Ireland as well. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I thought that they were secluded to England. Do you know a geographic name for those areas collectively? In Wikcionario, I designated your entries as being from Inglaterra, but I think that it’s about time to fix that. I just need to think of a good name. I guess that I could just include all those regions in each entry, but that’s pretty tedious. --Romanophile (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

There was a good BBC documentary on the history of the Normans. In fact there's an Anglo-Norman influence on the Sicilian language (see Wikipedia) because the Normans set up camp there on their way from England to Jerusalem, while taking part in the crusades. The BBC documentary won't be available in the US unless it's on YouTube, which I would be very happy about if it were. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Romanophile https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKhsNALWkeBIiFnxPv7rsSpQBSFmfEY0O. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

(context/posterity)

The use of memrise is demonstrated by a fairly noteworthy website as well as a song by a fairly noteworthy artist. These uses prompted me to create the entry. I do not understand how this can be dismissed to the point of saying it simply does not exist at all ("only attested with -ize").

Could you please provide an example of memrize being used in any published context? Could you please explain how the two uses I've shown you don't demonstrate attestation? Bruto (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

We don't deal in the names of "noteworthy Web sites"; see WT:CFI for what counts as a dictionary word. Searching on Google Books finds a lot of useless Web brand names for "Memrise", but the actual word for "memrize". Equinox ◑ 06:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary doesn't deal in the names of noteworthy websites? That isn't what I'm saying anyway. I'm saying the website's usage of the term proves it is indeed attested, and it being a noteworthy site guarantees it is a term many people have encountered, and the song shows the term's spread. The song – which was released four years after the website launched – also proves the term is not momentary. A non-native speaker may not even recognize what the word is conveying at all (to quote CFI: "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means").

And also, are you saying you found instances of memrize on Google Books? Would you mind providing a link? Why dismiss my examples and deny memrise exists while providing no examples of memrize? Bruto (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you actually look at Wikipedia:memrise, it's actually the name of a website called Memrise. The song you link to is also a song called Memrise not a usage of the word memrise. So that gets us down to zero. If we allowed citations that define it but not with the definition provided, why not define memrise is a small house or a type of ostrich? These definitions are no less supported by the evidence (since the evidence doesn't support your definition either). Renard Migrant (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

The existence of memrize so far has not been demonstrated in any form, and if we're down to zero for memrise, doesn't that mean that the argument should be about if the entry should exist at all? Are the two examples I've shown for memrise so egregious that having absolutely no examples for memrize is actually better? I cannot understand the logic of these arguments. I present (what is in my opinion) two examples of memrise; they are dismissed. No examples are presented for memrize, so the entry is actively renamed to that title. Could you explain this to me? Bruto (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not quite; disputed context goes to WT:RFV. I've had a quick look at google books:memrize and since it's not evidently attested, I will rfv it. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

N.b. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 08:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sure! Renard Migrant (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Done. Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Goupil, are you absolutely certain that this definition is correct? --Romanophile (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well it sounds right but this was back in 2010. I'll look it up. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've changed it. By the way check out the Anglo-Norman On-Line Hub for 17 lines of alternative forms. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

• @-sche I don't feel like adding them all, but if you do, I'm pretty sure we've got a new hall-of-famer right there. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Nice! I'll try to find time to add them. - -sche (discuss) 22:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

says 266. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Where did your find this word? How did you define it? --Romanophile (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Looks kinda wrong doesn't it. I can't remember. I suppose I should at least search Google Books before speedying it. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

It seems to be an adjective form and there's also "comment les moultes doivent être gouvernées" in this book, which I guess would mean the masses? Not heard of this usage and fr:moult doesn't have it. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's doing this sort of thing; it seems not to recognise numbered etymology headers as Etymology headers, adding redundant Etymology headers between the numbered etymology headers and the {{rfe}}s. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's also adding extraneous headers in cases like this and this. Perhaps a subsequent bot run can examine entries for consecutive etymology headers, numbered or unnumbered, which have no other header in between them. - -sche (discuss) 18:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I forgot to anticipate etymology headers under the wrong level; it checked for Etymology 1, 2, 3 (etc.) under level 3 which is the correct level, but as usual, I forgot to anticipate mistakes in other people's editing. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Acula is apparently the only one of its kind and I've fixed it. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Huh? Numbered etymology sections can correctly be at level 4… Anyway, it made a similar mistake in the case of laura. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

When can they correctly be at L4? It's my understanding that when different etymologies have different pronunciations, the standard format is ===Etymology 1=== ====Pronunciation====, as on ] and ]. - -sche (discuss) 17:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

in fine - French or Old French? --Type56op9 (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't edit here anymore I just logged on to look up a word. Since I'm here, anglo-norman.net gets no hits for it, {{R:Godefroy}} also no entry main dictionary or supplement. No reason to think it's Old French. Enfin isn't from the French in fine it's from the Latin in fine. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey Gloves. Is the term tenfoot just from Hull, or is it used elsewhere in Yorkshire? You heard it in Leeds? --A230rjfowe (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

No, not heard of it. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'll tag it as Hullish. --A230rjfowe (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Could you make a declension table for the Old French adjective «peior»? --Romanophile (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Probably. I think it might be in my little grammar book. Although that's in a big box of books on my wardrobe. Or I could look up some citations. Or both. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/dictionnaire-godefroy/peior says « s'employait dans l'ancienne langue comme cas régime singulier et comme pluriel » (was used in the old language as the oblique singular and plural). Peiore does get one hit on the Anglo-Norman On-Line Hub, and you can see feminine forms in the citations, such as peioires. If you click next page, the subject singular is pire (pyre, piere) though in typical Old French fashion, but so is peior. So it seems to be pretty regular apart from the additional irregular form of pire for the subject singular. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm gonna get my book out and have a look. Unfortunately it's in a big box on top of a wardrobe. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't list it. But we've got loads of citations to work with. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there gloves. Can you help with these requested entries? They look like old forms of French etc to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Where's the list? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Old Provençal: tezic – tesic; Old French: tisique – thisique – tysike – tisik; Middle French: tesicque – ptisique —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:About Old French#Appropriate sources for a single mention, and the Anglo-Norman On-Line Hub has its definitions in English. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/complement-godefroy/phtisique looks promising for tisique for thesique. Thisique, ptisique and phthisique seem at a glance to be Middle French, but there are no dates with the citations. And the Anglo-Norman On-Line hub has tisike and tysike. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

In fact it lists tisik and tisike, but as nouns, which is fine, as it still fits the definition just used nominally (one with tuberculosis). Renard Migrant (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. The list is visible from Recent Changes. I've added simple translations for them - we're just missing "tysic", which I wouldn't be surprised was Old Provençal. Cheers. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

As for the Old Provençal, if we could find a Catalan etymological dictionary it might say 'from Old French' but in general Old Provençal words are from Old French only as often as Old French words are from Old Provençal as they're concurrent and border each other geographically. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Which meaning of aube is this word a diminutive of? SemperBlotto (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Apparently aube meaning planchette, which we lack in French! I suppose it's the one we call 'vane'. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I created a module (Module:frm-headword) and started the adjective part. There are some examples at User:Enoshd/frm-adj-test. I don't know what the rules are, so if you could list them or something, and some more examples to test would be nice. Enosh (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Enosh Well a final -ts comes -s like parent > parens (I came across enfants the other day but it's a rarer form) except of course something like fust which doesn't have the plural fuss! Stay with fusts, though I suppose it could be fustz. Sitck with -s and change on a case-by-case basis IMO. As in French, invariable words (singular and plural identical) are the ones ending in -s -x and -z, words ending in -eau have the plural -eaux (-eaulx is about a common, both would be fine). -és to -ez (though -és exists -ez seems to be more common). I suppose -al could become -aux (-aulx exists but is less common; stick with -aux) but that might be better on a case-by-case basis to stop any mistakes slipping though.

For feminines, -é becomes -ee and -if becomes -ifve (-ive exists, best to stick with just -ifve to avoid information overload in the template) you already know that -eux becomes -euse as it's in your template. That would seem to be it for now. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Now I think about it, for feminines there espés to espesse. If you can start the module I can probably add my own rules by copying-and-pasting; what I'm not able to do is start the module from scratch. Another good step for me would be to review Category:Middle French adjectives which won't be massive. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well the module is pretty started. I added all of what you listed except espés to espesse, it's backwards compatible I think. I also added nouns (test page User:Enoshd/frm-noun-test). I'm having an issue with the plurals there, maybe fresher eyes tomorrow will be able to solve it. Enosh (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think the module is ready to go. Do you think it's fine to switch? Enosh (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I can see one, -al should have the plurals -aux, -aulx and not -alx. -eau is fine though. Is the diacritic stripping just for categorization? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I made it do -al > -aux. Should it have both versions? There seem to be about 11 nouns and they are not very consistent. There's a diacritic stripping function leftover, but I'm not using it, I guess I could remove it. There's also a |sort= parameter, but Module:fr-headword says it's not needed for French so should I remove it? Enosh (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I would sort as French and strip all the diacritics for categorization (so povreté sorts as povrete). As for inconsistency, yeah because it depends what's attested. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I did a little bit of investigating and it looks like Module:frm-headword doesn't need to do anything with the sort key because it calls Module:headword which calls Module:utilities which calls Module:languages which strips diacritics for every language based on the data modules. In the case of frm its already setup at Module:languages/data3/f. You can check if it's ok. Enosh (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is it possible to have both -eaux and -eaulx for -eau words please? Module:fro-utilities does this for example for -al words. Also I've tried it in my sandbox and it says frm-headword isn't set up for nouns yet. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm working on the plurals but I don't have to lot of time so I'll finish it later. As for the sandbox you entered noun not nouns and these modules take plurals. Enosh (talk) 07:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I copied across from {{fro-noun}}, and {{#invoke:frm-headword|nouns}} doesn't work anyway. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

No problem, by the way. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's {{#invoke:frm-headword|show|nouns}} like User:Enoshd/Template:frm-noun (and User:Enoshd/Template:frm-adj) which you can use like the test pages which you can also edit.

Also, Is the plural of a mf adjective the same as the masculine plurals, I've been treating them differently. Enosh (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

By which you mean just add 's' I think; yes you are correct; just add 's'. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I changed how it stores plurals and it works, except I can't figure out how to push to the second position of a nil array in order to make |mp2= in {{frm-adj}} work. Enosh (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. In the French Wiktionary they give, as an example sentence, "une chaussette veuve". Does this mean a missing sock, or the odd sock that you can find?

Cheers Jeff (SB)

Never heard of it. Purely based on logic, since a widow is the one left behind, it would be the sock that's left behind. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK - I shall ask my French teacher (yes, after a gap of over 55 years, I'm going to French classes (fairly basic level) every Thursday afternoon). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

{{l/he}} has special features not supported by {{link}}, so edits like diff cause module errors. Enosh (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh right. If I stick in a line converting it to {{he-l}} it will solve the problem. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please don't do this. I don't care where the template physically resides, but the syntax {{l/he}} is much better. --WikiTiki89 18:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sigh, is it? Why? Renard Migrant (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Renard, thank you for your work replacing l/ templates with {{l}}, that was much needed IMHO.

I was aware of Wikitiki89's position concerning {{l/he}}. FWIW, I oppose it; personally, I prefer the template to be renamed to {{he-l}}. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think the list of derived terms at יד is a good example, for how it's weird/people might assume it's an error. Enosh (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Looks alright to me, I couldn't tell which were {{l|he}} and which were {{he-l}} without clicking edit. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

The problem is only in the editor. How it alternates between {{l|he}} and {{he-l}}. It makes it more difficult to switch between them when making a change and looks strange in a list. {{l|he}} and {{l/he}} align better with each other and to switch between them you only need to change one character. What differentiates this template from other templates like {{ja-l}} is that {{ja-l}} is intended to (eventually, at least) be used for all Japanese links (and thus, there is no problem with alignment or switching between two different templates), while {{l/he}} is only meant to be used for some words that require it. --WikiTiki89 16:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

To clarify: personally, I would prefer the name {{he-l}}, no matter how little it is used. Reason: language-specific templates usually begin with "xx-". When I look at "l/he", I don't see any reason to think: "Well, it has a slash in it, so I'd better use in the few words that require it, not in all links." I don't get that logic. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's not that it is used in few words (and if that were the case, I wouldn't care). It's that it is used for maybe 30% of words (random guess), and it is the intermixing of {{l|he}} and {{he-l}} that looks bad. You don't have to personally like it, because you don't work with Hebrew. --WikiTiki89 17:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

So it's purely an aesthetic thing for you personally, literally nothing to do with functionality? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not sure if you understood correctly. There is a functionality difference between {{l|he}} and the language specific one (whether it is called {{l/he}} or {{he-l}}), since {{l|he}} does not support the extra parameter dwv= needed for some words. Currently {{l/he}} is a redirect to {{he-l}}, so there cannot possibly be a functional difference. What's left are two things: the aesthetic difference relating to the alignment of {{l|he}} together with {{he-l}} in lists, and the workflow difference in the ability to switch between {{l|he}} and {{he-l}} when making changes (not nearly as quick and easy as changing a character from | to /). If you don't think that aesthetic differences are important, the workflow difference is still a big deal. After all, workflow differences are the whole reason why we create shortcuts to templates and other such things. --WikiTiki89 18:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

In WT:RFDO#Template:l/..., Template:link/..., I suggested adding dmv= to {{l}} even though only Hebrew would use it. Wikitiki89's response: "dwv= makes sense only for Hebrew. DWV = "defective with vowels". It's silly to add language-specific features to a general template." That said, I keep my suggestion. If {{l}} had that parameter, we could delete the Hebrew template and stop worrying about using a different template for the sake of a named parameter. If someone tries using that parameter with other language, it could generate a module error. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't mind having a way to add language-specific extensions to general templates, that would be activated only when that language code is used (similar to how auto-transliterations work), however that is not how it currently works and I would definitely be against adding language-specific code directly into Module:links. This suggestion bears to weight in the debate between {{l/he}} and {{he-l}}. --WikiTiki89 18:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'll reverse it; it might create a couple of little problems when I try and orphan the remaining l/ subtemplates, but very few. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I appreciate it. Don't forget {{he-m}} back to {{m/he}} as well (if you there are any... it's hard to tell whether a page transcludes a redirect or not, especially if it is an indirect transclusion). --WikiTiki89 15:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I never touched that in the first place, but I can do it of course. Also why does that exist since the main difference between {{l}} and {{m}} is that m italicizes where l doesn't, except non Latin script, such as Hebrew. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

It italicizes the transliteration. If you didn't touch it, then don't bother worrying about it all. --WikiTiki89 22:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your bot needs to check for "/" coming after the language code in the l/ templates: Chuck Entz (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ok I've changed the character range to (\-). Renard Migrant (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

could you create the entry for the Old French verb noer, nöer? Actually it seems there are several of them: one from Latin natāre (“to swim”) (with dissimilation, cf. Noël from Latin natālis); one from Latin nōtāre (“to mark; to note”); and another one yet from Latin nōdāre (“to knot, to tie”). --Fsojic (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes we have desnoer but not noer; Godefroy lists 'to swim' and 'to knot'. The FEW (I really need to make a template for this) does list noé under notare but everything after that is noter or nocter. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Could you check that I have this correct (not in any dictionary that I have seen). SemperBlotto (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've added it to fr:Wiktionnaire:Proposer un mot/décembre 2015#héhé which will hopefully get some sort of response. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'll keep an eye on that page. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is there a French equivalent of the adjective well-spoken, possibly related to bien-dire? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not that I know of; the French Wiktionary suggests éloquent. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply