. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
you have here. The definition of the word
will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary!
If you have edited Wikipedia, you probably already know some basics, but Wiktionary does have a few conventions of its own. Please take a moment to learn our basics before jumping in.
First, all articles should be in our standard format, even if they are not yet complete. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with it. You can use one of our pre-defined article templates by typing the name of a non-existent article into the search box and hitting 'Go'. You can link Wikipedia pages, including your user page, using ], {{pedia}}, or {{wikipedia}}.
Notice that article titles are case-sensitive and are not capitalized unless, like proper nouns, they are ordinarily capitalized (Poland or January). Also, take a moment to familiarize yourself with our criteria for inclusion, since Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. Don't go looking for a Village pump – we have a Beer parlour. Note that while Wikipedia likes redirects, Wiktionary deletes most redirects (especially spelling variations), in favor of short entries. Please do not copy entries here from Wikipedia if they are in wikipedia:Category:Copy to Wiktionary; they are moved by bot, and will appear presently in the Transwiki: namespace.
A further major caveat is that a "Citation" on Wiktionary is synonymous with a "Quotation", we use these primary sources to construct dictionary definitions from evidence of the word being used. "References" (aka "Citations" on Wikipedia) are used predominantly for verifying Etymologies and usage notes, not the definitions themselves. This is partly to avoid copyright violation, and partly to ensure that we don't fall into the trap of adding "list words", or words that while often defined are never used in practice.
- Note for experienced Wikipedians:
- Wiktionary is run in a very different manner from Wikipedia and you will have a better experience if you do not assume the two are similar in culture. Please remember that despite your experience on Wikipedia, that experience may not always be applicable here. While you do not need to be an expert, or anything close to one, to contribute, please be as respectful of local policies and community practices as you can. Be aware that well-meaning Wikipedians have unfortunately found themselves blocked in the past for perceived disruption due to misunderstandings. To prevent a similar outcome, remember the maxim: be bold, but don't be reckless!
- Having said that, we welcome Wikipedians, who have useful skills and experience to offer. The following are a couple of the most jarring differences between our projects that Wikipedians may want to learn up front, so things go smoothly for everyone. Changing policy pages on Wiktionary is very strongly discouraged. If you think something needs changing, please discuss it at the beer parlour, after which we may formally vote on the issue. You should also note that Wiktionary has very different user-space policies, we are here to build a dictionary and your user-page exists only to facilitate that. In particular we have voted to explicitly ban all userboxes with the exception of
{{Babel}}; please do not create or use them.
We hope you enjoy editing Wiktionary and being a Wiktionarian. Conrad.Irwin 23:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Please note that the Wiktionary community voted to ban userboxes. There are a numebr of good reasons for this, but I didn't begin to appreciate them until I'd been here for some time. (see WT:USER and Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-08/Babel_userboxes) Yours Conrad.Irwin 23:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Ah, yes, right. Sorry! Should've read the rules first… Thanks for bringing this to my attention. — Sam Wilson (Australia) 00:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Your edits to this page have been reverted. You seem to have intended them for the entry on (deprecated template usage) awfully, rather than for (deprecated template usage) awful. The quote you added did not include the word awful. --EncycloPetey 01:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I've moved that quotation to 'awfully', but restored the second sense of 'awful' in the last definition: that it can be a positive expression should, I think, be mentioned. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 01:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I don't see how the two intensifying senses are different. In any case, we do not format entries with secondary indenting of numbered senses, as you have done. --EncycloPetey 01:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Right, good point. I've amalgamated the two and removed the secondary indenting (I was aiming at a layout that would designate the two definitions as related). — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 01:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Please note: Your contribution has been move to the appropriate namespace Citations:borné. The Citations: namespace exists precisely for the accumulation of supporting citations for words that do not yet have entries, or to supplement existing entries with evidence of use. --EncycloPetey 03:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you very much! (I appreciate your forebearance of a Wiktionary novice.) — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 13:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hello! I'm glad to see somebody working on an aboriginal Australian language, as we dearly need it and I haven't gotten around to learning any. I just wanted to notify you of a couple changes I made regarding formatting, so you can learn from those. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Ah thank you indeed! Yes, I still feel like quite a newbie here :) so it's very nice to have some proper stuff pointed out to me. I'll go back over what I've done so far and fix anything up. We've got a few noongar sources at Wikisource, and I'm going to (slowly) work through them. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 04:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Excellent. I presume the orthography is rather outdated, though; perhaps dictionaries like this one may be of help. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, you're right. The spellings can be updated with the modern ones (and I'll leave the old ones in as alternative forms)... it's just easier to start with public domain stuff. There's a dictionary by Douglas too, which has part-of-speech and other greater detail; I've not yet got a copy. Thanks for the link to Whitehurst -- I was going to go to the library for that; hadn't realised it was online. :) Is it okay to create RQ:* templates for these? Oh, and I'm also adding things to the Noongar incubator site (incubator:wt/nys). — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 07:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
- That's fine, it's just better to have the modern spellings as the lemma in the first place. Making RQ templates for those should be fine, although you may not want to link to a site that may take the content down for any reason. I can't find Douglas online, I'm afraid; maybe I'll try JSTOR later when my proxy is working (if that works, I can email the pdf to you, assuming you don't have JSTOR access yourself). And thanks for the work on the incubator as well! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply