User talk:Stephen G. Brown/2014

--Æ&Œ (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me. —Stephen ^(Talk) 14:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

--Æ&Œ (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Looks good. Also often translated by these verbs: plagar, afectar, castigar, apenar, apesadumbrar. —Stephen ^(Talk) 18:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

--Æ&Œ (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

wealthy: acaudalado, acomodado, adinerado, afortunado, creso, lujoso, millonario, opulento, próspero, pudiente, ricacho, ricachón, suntuoso

succulent: agradable, apetitoso, deleitable, deleitoso, delicado, delicioso, exquisito, gustoso, sabroso, suculento

copious: abundante, copioso, exuberante, feraz, fértil, floreciente, prolífico, próspero, valioso —Stephen ^(Talk) 18:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

--Æ&Œ (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

--Æ&Œ (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

--Æ&Œ (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me. —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

(I am especially worried about the etymologies). --Æ&Œ (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don’t know how to use the Spanish templates, but I would use this etymology instead:

del prefijo Ancient Greek φρήν (phrḗn, “mente”) y el sufijo λόγος (lógos, “conocimiento”). —Stephen ^(Talk) 07:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Done. I don’t know why you classify those as affixes, though. Feel free to relook. P.S. The Italian etymology is from . --Æ&Œ (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Looks good. φρήν (phrḗn) really is not a prefix, it’s a stem. The way you have it is good. —Stephen ^(Talk) 21:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

--Æ&Œ (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. To me, the principal meaning is to misread. Also, I think I would have stated the third definition differently (concerning losing one’s mind), though there are many ways to put it. So, you might add the following:

1. leer mal
2. (familiar) decir tonterías, o hacer disparates
3. (familiar) perder la cabeza por la lectura de un montón

—Stephen ^(Talk) 07:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is it perfect now? --Æ&Œ (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think you should keep the original definitions as well. Probably a good idea to ask Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV to check it out as well.

1. Volver a leer una obra muchas veces.
2. Inferir o interpretar (un significado o una intención).

—Stephen ^(Talk) 22:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I should note that I am incertain if the velocipede is either a hyponym or a hyperonym of bicycle (or perhaps a synonym of it). --Æ&Œ (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me. It’s a hypernym of bicycle. Velocipedes may have from one to four wheels and include the monowheels, unicycles, bicycles, dicycles, tricycles, and quadracycles that were produced between 1817 and 1880. —Stephen ^(Talk) 06:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

& --Æ&Œ (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me. —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

--Æ&Œ (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

--Æ&Œ (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Some of the definitions seem strange to me. The French says: "Tercera persona del singular (ella, él, ello; usted, 2ᵃ pers.) del pretérito de indicativo de conter." However, the French third person is only the regular third person, it does not include usted (vous). I would have changed it, but it’s a template. I believe the Italian has the same problem. Otherwise, looks good. —Stephen ^(Talk) 06:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I believe that French does have second‐person pronouns that must be handled like third‐person pronouns, but they’re probably all unfashionable these days. Any way! It should be fixed, now. --Æ&Œ (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

--Æ&Œ (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

& --Æ&Œ (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

They look good to me. —Stephen ^(Talk) 06:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

--Æ&Œ (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

quebra-cabeça is masculine. Otherwise, it looks good to me. —Stephen ^(Talk) 10:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

& --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

They look good to me. —Stephen ^(Talk) 03:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am going to assume that my e‐mail did not arrive again. --Æ&Œ (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

It arrived, but right after I looked at it I went to bed and then forgot. It looks fine to me. —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

--Æ&Œ (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

¿Sólo uno error? ¿De veras? --Æ&Œ (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

That’s all I noticed. I wondered about the etymologies, but I don’t have a convenient source to check that. —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

--Æ&Œ (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me. —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is there any way you can verify the words listed here? Basically I don’t know for certain when Old Italian ended. I’m worrying. --Æ&Œ (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think the Old Italian period ran from 900 CE to about 1550 CE. You would probably have to search Italian books for each word to see the dates it was in use. It would be a labor-intensive project. We have Category:Old Italian language here which might be of help. I assume that someone has researched the words listed there. —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

(really requires peer review). --Æ&Œ (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I didn’t spend a lot of time on it, but nothing struck me as odd. I think it’s good. —Stephen ^(Talk) 11:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

--Æ&Œ (talk) 06:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

A couple of minor corrections, otherwise looks good. —Stephen ^(Talk) 13:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

--Æ&Œ (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

--Æ&Œ (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

& --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

--Æ&Œ (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me. —Stephen ^(Talk) 03:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

--Æ&Œ (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

(updated). --Æ&Œ (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

--Æ&Œ (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me. —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not sure if you can do much, but here: . The dictionaries that I used contradicted each other, so I thought ‘fuck it’ and decided to pile all the stuff together. Any comments? --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think it’s fine. What specifically was contradictory? That might be easier to work out, but otherwise it seems okay to me. —Stephen ^(Talk) 06:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

http://dexonline.ro/definitie/acum
actualmente is used as a brief definition, but in the synonyms section it is treated as it were a significantly different synonym.
More: https://ro.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/acum#Adverb
Notice how the synonyms are less divided? --Æ&Œ (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

You’ve lost me, I don’t get what you’re referring to. —Stephen ^(Talk) 04:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Those are the dictionaries that I used, and the synonyms are listed differently between each other. They also have separate definitions. I’m not sure what’s unclear about my message, but I’m willing to attempt to deobfuscate myself (if I know what is wrong). --Æ&Œ (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The message is completely unclear to me. I don’t know what words you are looking at or what thoughts you have about the words when you look at them. Maybe if you list the problem synonyms and explain why they are mutually exclusive (if that is the problem). I don’t know how to explain it any better because I don’t know what you’re looking at or what thoughts you’re having about what you’re seeing. It wouldn’t be a question of misunderstanding actualmente, would it? actualmente doesn’t mean actually, it means currently, at the present time. If that’s not the problem, then I simply cannot figure out what is contradicting what. —Stephen ^(Talk) 07:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

On second thought, you can just forget about it. I don’t see much productive coming out of this discussion. --Æ&Œ (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

--Æ&Œ (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

It looks good. I added the etymology to repertare, but not to es:repertare since I don’t know how the Spanish template works. —Stephen ^(Talk) 10:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

--Æ&Œ (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me. —Stephen ^(Talk) 10:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

--Æ&Œ (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Linked "ad" and "supra" to their Latin sections. --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me. —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

--Æ&Œ (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me. —Stephen ^(Talk) 11:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

(the Romanian section may require expansion). More: --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

--Æ&Œ (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

They look very good to me. —Stephen ^(Talk) 15:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

. Did you stop caring? --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

It looks fine to me. I’ve been exceptionally busy with a Navajo-language discussion page for Navajo speakers. Our membership has been increasing rapidly (already over 10,000 members) and I can barely keep up with it. —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Here’s something different for a change: . Is it at least comprehensible? --Æ&Œ (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I fixed what I could, but it was very difficult to understand. Some of it was not comprehensible at all and I could not even venture a guess. If you could translate it back into English, it would be a lot easier to fix the Spanish. —Stephen ^(Talk) 00:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Damn… that’s really, really disappointing.
Somebody already added the link to the English version. --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

. I tried to make it look complete, but I probably made a few errors. It may also be incomplete. --Æ&Œ (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Stephen. This word is said to come ultimately from a Classical Arabic “qaiṭūn” – but I can't find that in any of my dictionaries so I'm not sure what it means or exactly how it's spelled. Any ideas? Ƿidsiþ 16:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

That’s Maghrebi Arabic قيطون (qiiTuun, “tent”), from Classical Arabic قطن (qáTana, “to dwell”), cognate with قطن (quTn, “cotton”). —Stephen ^(Talk) 18:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Привет, Стив. Посмотри, пожалуйста на результат. Как тебе нравится транслитерация? Она правильная? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Привет, Анатолий. На мой взгляд, это почти идеально. Единственная проблема, что я вижу, это «анусвара» (ం), что приводит к различной транслитерации в зависимости от следующего согласного:

లిపినుండి (lipinuṇḍi) (предпочтительная: lipinuṇḍi), udbhaviṁciṁdi (udbhavin̄cindi), kālaṁlō (kālanlō), sāmaṁtulugā (sāmantulugā), aṁducēta (anducēta), nuṁḍi (nuṇḍi), udbhaviṁcinā (udbhavin̄cinā), nuṁḍi (nuṇḍi), dhātukaraṁḍamupai (dhātukaraṇḍamupai), aṁṭāru (aṇṭāru), lipinuṁḍē (lipinuṇḍē), ceṁdāyi (cendāyi). —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

О да, «анусвара», в сингальском и хинди та же ситуация, где я прокомментировал «until a better method is found» :) Module:hi-translit. Там некому убрать «а», которая не читается, поэтому модуль для хинди не включен. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Позднее придется проблему с анусварой решить, когда будут желающие помочь, но пока придется оставить так. Думаешь, это приемлемо как временное решение - "ṁ"? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Да, приемлемо. Должно быть ясно, что имеется в виду. —Stephen ^(Talk) 23:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

There's something weird or wrong with also putting these into Category:Navajo proper nouns.

Proper noun, yes. Navajo? Well... totally butchered, anglicized, and misspelled resemblance of what once was Navajo, maybe. Are Miiller and Shmeet German proper nouns? Seb az86556 (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Foreign personal names are always problematic. For example, is Schmidt an English surname or a German one? There are lots of Schmidt’s in the phonebooks of large American cities. On the Navajo surnames, they are (mostly) common among the Navajo people and the etymology section tries to explain how they came about. If you had rather that they be changed to English surnames and English proper nouns, it’s okay with me if you want to make that change (although I think it would be weird in reverse).

The way our templates work, there is no way to divide a word up, categorizing it as a Navajo surname but an English proper noun. I don’t know of any other way to handle these names. —Stephen ^(Talk) 01:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Then the template doesn't account for the correct categorization in this case. They are indeed Navajo surnames, but only appear in English language texts and are therefore English proper nouns. (btw, it's true you'll find Schmidt in American phonebooks, but you'll also find them in German phonebooks. I highly doubt you'll find any Miilers or Shmeets in German phonebooks, though) Ah well... Seb az86556 (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I recall that there have been discussions about this in general (what language should names be in, considering the country of residence or birth versus ethnic origin and so on). I tried to find some of the discussions but I could not. But if I recall correctly, the consensus was that names belong principally to ethnic origin. That does not answer every case, unfortunately. For example, what language is a name that has been transliterated from a non-Roman script into the Roman script...Путин is clearly Russian, but what language is the transliteration Putin? (I suppose it would be English, since the transliteration of Путин into Dutch or French alphabets would be different.) Here we run into a difficulty because we require that language entries be in their proper script. Anyway, it’s a confusing and complex matter. In my opinion, these names are Navajo because they have a Navajo origin and are used only be Navajos or people of Navajo descent. On the other hand, a lot of these names are anglicized in spelling and pronunciation. On the other hand, a lot of Navajos have names that are clearly English (but we still consider these names to be English because of the ethnic origin of the names). As I said, I don’t mind if you want to change them somehow ... but many changes would trigger an error response from a bot. Maybe a new category could be created and added, such as "Navajo names that are anglicized". (That doesn’t sound very good, but you get the idea.) —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

¿Hay insultos contra los españoles o castellanos en esta lengua? Saludos, --Æ&Œ (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Against Spaniards? There aren’t many that I can think of. In Mexico at least, they can call them gachupín. The name chapetón is only slightly offensive, referring to a Spanish immigrant who is fresh off the boat from Spain (with rosy cheeks as opposed to real Mexicans who usually have ruddy cheeks). Sometimes gallego can be used offensively (but only slightly) in some Spanish-speaking countries, but more often gallego referring to a Spaniard is meant affectionately. —Stephen ^(Talk) 07:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Quels sont les termes injurieux en cette langue pour les français ? --Æ&Œ (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

gabacho, franchute. —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hein, c’est‐à‐dire, en français. --Æ&Œ (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

The French-Canadians or French-speaking Algerians may have derogatory terms for the French, but I don’t recall ever having heard any. —Stephen ^(Talk) 10:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Stephen, I think your input may be useful at WT:RFM#Merge North Levantine Arabic ("apc"), South Levantine Arabic ("ajp"), and Syrian Arabic ("sem-syr") into Levantine Arabic. --WikiTiki89 06:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think they could be merged. I would never have separated them in the first place, until (and unless) a knowledgeable contributor requested it. That’s how we started off doing it. I don’t know who separated all the Arabic language codes into separate languages, but I assume it was someone who knows little about Arabic. —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think it was just a direct result of each of them having its own ISO code. Anyway, it would help if you gave your opinion in the discussion that way everything would be together in one place. --WikiTiki89 19:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Of course it was because of the ISO codes. What so many don’t realize is that ISO codes are granted rather freely. If some people insist that their speech is different from the rest and want a code, they get it. There is no committee that checks out whether there is really a difference. —Stephen ^(Talk) 22:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you reverted my edit on суп. I believe this was done in error as the pronunciation had been listed twice in two separate sections and I had removed the duplicate. Cloudlet (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Right, the section was duplicated. Reverted. —Stephen ^(Talk) 10:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Who told you >that<? Sounds strange... Seb az86556 (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Al Yazzie explained that there many ways to say it, but prefacing with this chicken term makes for a not-so-uncomfortable question when addressing the elders. I suppose that the other meaning of ayęęzhii makes it a ticklish choice of words. I think in Monument Valley they call eggs naaʼahóóhai yázhí. —Stephen ^(Talk) 21:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Weird. akʼǫ́ǫ́ʼ are just for plants... In any case, you wanna build a phrasebook that useful, common and practical. This phrase isn't. Seb az86556 (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Stephen. The vote Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2014-03/User:Wyangbot for bot status has finished, indicating support for granting User:Wyangbot a bot flag. Could you please review the result and grant the account a bot flag if there are no problems? Thanks in advance, Wyang (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Done. —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Wyang (talk) 05:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could you please add User:Wyangbot to Wiktionary:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage too? Thanks. Wyang (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Added. —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Wyang (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Здравствуйте!

Можно спросить вас насчёт статьи «Стихия»? Вы записали, что у этого слова есть синоним «элемент». Ни один человек с родным русским языком (кроме, может быть, каких-то сверхобразованных товарищей, которые по-древнегречески говорят чаще, чем по-русски, или что-нибудь в этом духе) не примет эти два слова за синонимы. Даже в голову не придёт. В обычном русском языке у этих двух слов совершенно разные, никак друг с другом не связанные значения. Может быть, имеет смысл как-то переменить статью? Спасибо. - 89.110.12.208 17:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Вот, я поменял "Synonyms" на "See also". Так лучше? --WikiTiki89 17:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

По-моему, да; спасибо, Викитики. Не могли бы вы заодно прокомментировать ещё тот текст на странице "Discussion", который я написал полгода назад? По-моему, определение всё же хромает; даже если оно по содержанию и верно, оно всё равно не отвечает тому использованию, которое большинство русских находит для слова «стихия». Спасибо большое. - 89.110.12.208 18:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Я теперь добавил все смыслы, которые есть в русском Викисловаре. --WikiTiki89 19:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Stephen can you please translate below in Sanskrit alphabet;

"One contains all"

Thanks!

ऐकगुण्य सर्वधा (aikaguṇya sarvadhā) (doublecheck it, please) —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

BAICAN XXX (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

You removed a lot of sense. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

No, there was nothing there. Are you thinking of the Sanskrit requests? Those were too long and complex, and I don’t do them when they are like that. —Stephen ^(Talk) 11:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Привет, Стив.

Не забыл ещё русский?

Подскажи, пожалуйста, шаги как номинировать на администратора. Какие ссылки? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Привет, Анатолий.

Да, я до сих пор помню, как говорить по-русски.

Во-первых, спроси кандидата (User:Xxxxx), если хочет стать администратором. Если согласно, то создай этот файл:

Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2014-04/User:Xxxxx for admin

• Nomination: I hereby nominate Xxxxx (talk • contribs) to be a local English Wiktionary administrator. Xxxxx is a reliable contributor. ~~~~
• Vote starts: as soon as the nomination is accepted
• Vote ends: 24:00, <day month year> (UTC)
• Acceptance:

Затем на Wiktionary:Votes, добавь « |sy-2014-04/User:Xxxxx for admin » под Current and new votes. —Stephen ^(Talk) 06:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Спасибо, Стив! --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Stephen,

I wondered whether you could help me with some Russian words. I sometimes hear someone saying 'na pustim' or 'na pushtim', forgive me if this does not make sense. He seemingly says it in the way he says 'naprimér', but, seeing as I don't know what 'na pushtim' means, this could not be the case at all. Thanks in advance 83.83.1.229 19:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure he's not saying допу́стим (dopústim, “let's assume that...”)? --WikiTiki89 19:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could be, do you mean it in the same way as in 'let's say...'? That would make sense. I heard pustim most clearly, but did not quite catch whether it was do or na, that would be my mistake. Thanks for your help. 83.83.1.229 20:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I mean it in the same way as in "let's say...". Also note that the "o" is pronounced the same as an "a", so the only difference is the "d" consonant. --WikiTiki89 20:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could also be допусти́м (dopustím, “allowable, valid”). But if you’re not accustomed to the sounds of Russian, there are other things that you could have misheard. —Stephen ^(Talk) 11:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but Wikitiki was right. It was used when looking for some sort of example, almost exactly like 'naprimer'. 83.83.1.229 15:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, no one seems to have touched my translation request for a sentence that I want translated into French for an example usage. Don't worry, take your time. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Привет, Стив,

Если у тебя есть какая-нибудь информация по темам: User_talk:Vahagn_Petrosyan#Слогоделение, простановка знака ударения в русском, User_talk:Wanjuscha#Удвоенное (долгое) произношение согласных, пожалуйста помоги! Главная битва здесь: Module_talk:ru-pron/testcases и Module:ru-pron/testcases. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Привет Стив,

Предсказуемо ли кхмерское письмо? Есть ли исключения, много ли их? Как ты думаешь, возможна ли автоматическая транслитерация кхмерской письменности? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Привет Анатолий.

Автоматическая транслитерация будет очень трудно. Возможно только для производства очень неточной транслитерации. Как и в тайском языке, нет пробелов между словами. Нет никакой индикации, когда слог сводится к согласным без гласной. Поэтому, транслитерация не разделяет слова, и вставляет гласную после каждого согласного, даже если не существует гласной. —Stephen ^(Talk) 09:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Лаосский и бирманский модули - Module:lo-translit и Module:my-translit уже работают и дают автоматическую транслитерацию - ວັດຈະນານຸກົມ (wat cha nā nu kom) и အဘိဓာန် (a.bhi.dhan), их сделал Wyang. Мне кажется, то же самое можно сделать с кхмерским. :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ну, мы можем попытаться. Кхмерский язык не похож на лаосский или бирманский... кхмерский имеет сдержанные слова, а не независимые слогов. Я не думаю, что будет возможно, но попытаться можем. —Stephen ^(Talk) 14:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Stephen, my request here has been hanging since 7 June, while most of my requests on other wikiprojects have already been accepted. I understand this is not very urgent, but I request you to please look into this sometime soon. I am also willing to wait if this has been a part of the process of informing the target username for usurpation. Thank you. D abhi (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hullo. Is there some other way I can contact you besides Wiktionary? I’d e‐mail you, but I still can’t send e‐mails thro’ Wiktionary for some annoying reason. The reason I’m asking that is if I ever become blocked here, I still want to contact you for reviewing my works on Wikcionario. Cheers, --Æ&Œ (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

w:User talk:Stephen G. Brown and w:nv:User talk:Stephen G. Brown. Also I have a Facebook page at Stephen G. Brown. —Stephen ^(Talk) 21:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

On the I dont know page, you like removed my definition. There was hardly anything about the term. Tinton5 (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

That term is considered SoP (sum of parts), so it does not need a definition. If not for the useful translations, the page would be deleted, because SoP does not meet our criteria for inclusion. —Stephen ^(Talk) 03:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey, can you confirm that this locution is dictionary‐worthy, if it pleases you? --Æ&Œ (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

’Tis. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it’s good. I suppose you are thinking of the derogatory word for a Dutchman. So called because of fixed ideas, rigid mindset. —Stephen ^(Talk) 17:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

For the pronunciation, see any major American dictionary. For example: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defense?s=t12.125.129.58 20:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

defense already has the US pronunciation displayed. When you changed the RP to US, you lost the RP pronunciation and duplicated the US pronunciation. Only need the US pronunciation the one time. —Stephen ^(Talk) 00:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is charcutier really a good synonym of boucher? --Æ&Œ (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes. —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

¿Cuáles son los sinónimos de recargar (una arma)? --Æ&Œ (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

volver a cargar. —Stephen ^(Talk) 00:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

¿Cuáles son los sinónimos de pico (de ave)? --Æ&Œ (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

boca. —Stephen ^(Talk) 10:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Would cavidad oral work? --Æ&Œ (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think cavidad bucal is more usual, but no, I wouldn’t say it’s a synonym for pico ... the cavidad bucal excludes the pico. —Stephen ^(Talk) 11:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

regarder & observer sont bons synonymes ? —Romanophile (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

What are the synonyms of haineux? --Romanophile (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, regarder and observer are synonyms.

Synonyms of haineux: enfiellé, fielleux, malveillant, malfaisant, mauvais, méchant, pervers, rancuneux, rancunier, venimeux, vindicatif, vipérin. —Stephen ^(Talk) 14:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Are there other ways of saying fruncir el ceño? --Romanophile (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

fruncir el entrecejo, arrugar el entrecejo, desaprobar. —Stephen ^(Talk) 09:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

You added once this. In French we write île de Pâques instead of Île de Pâques — you can see w:fr:Wikipédia:Conventions_typographiques#Toponymes (I fixed it). Apparently, same for the Catalan (see the text in w:ca:Illa de Pasqua), and maybe for others languages it could be reviewed.

Thanks for your attention. — Automatik (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Stephen_G._BrownYour changes have flabbergasted me. I will try to explain here why I do what I do, or at least what I do that you seem to object to. I will confine myself to the changes you seem to have made to the first sense.

• On defdate, I make a superscript out of the th so that I can remove the following space and avoid widowing (see here).
• When I give the name of an article that is available on-line, I enclose it in brackets preceded by its URL so that the presentation of the link is at its simplest, and much better than when it is given in a separate url= entry.
• When I want to give a link, I like to keep it simple: thus I code {{w|American Scientist}} rather than ] and it works.
• When I code a simple bracketed ellipsis, that is, a {{...}}, I do not put blank spaces before or after. The template does this for me.

1. If I have missed any problems you see, please tell me what they are.
2. If you know of any reasons why I should abandon my practices, please tell me what they are.
3. Otherwise, would you please undo what you have done.

— ReidAA (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

What are you talking about? I have no idea what you are referring to. —Stephen ^(Talk) 07:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Привет Стивен,

Что такое "тун"? Какой перевод на английский и какое было бы определение слово, если бы была статья об этом слове? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Привет Анатолий,

Я не уверен в значении этого слова. На мой взгляд, это значит большая бочка специально для вина (hogshead, puncheon, tun, butt). Я думаю, что один тун обычно эквивалентен 252 галлонам. —Stephen ^(Talk) 04:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

1882, James Edwin Thorold Rogers, A History of Agriculture and Prices in England, p. 205:

Again, by 28 Hen. VIII, cap. 14, it is re-enacted that the tun of wine should contain 252 gallons, a butt of Malmsey 126 gallons, a pipe 126 gallons, a tercian or puncheon 84 gallons, a hogshead 63 gallons, a tierce 41 gallons, a barrel 31.5 gallons, a rundlet 18.5 gallons.

Спасибо, я сделал статью тун (tun), но оставил без определения и этимологии. Ты можешь добавить? Я не нашел нигде русского определения. Ты уверен, что это русское слово? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ну, я нашёл его, используемое в том примере в Wiktionary:Requested entries (Russian) (смотри Святой праведный Иоанн Кронштадтский). Оно также перечислено в starling.rinet.ru, но без определения. —Stephen ^(Talk) 07:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Спасибо! --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

...w/o object is haʼagééd. Seb az86556 (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

But can haʼagééd be used as a noun, as in a coal mine? I thought that would be haagééd, as in łeejin haagééd. So, if the ore or mineral is not named, then it’s haʼagééd? —Stephen ^(Talk) 07:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Correct. (> naalkaah/naʼalkaah) Seb az86556 (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

nouns, not verbs. Seb az86556 (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Y&M lists naashkaah (CI), nináshkah (R), niséłkááʼ (P), ndeeshkah (F), naoshkaah (O) = to investigate it, and so on. I think the 3rd person imperfective form is naałkaah; the naalkaah form would be a passive (or mediopassive). —Stephen ^(Talk) 19:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

3rd is neiłkaah and naʼałkaah (Y&Mrev, page 591, na-³, 3o & 3i).

naalkaah: Noun derivative of *KÁÁʼ₂, Y&M Analytical, page 310, left column, section D- ex(3),(10),(12),&(15).

Seb az86556 (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ah. I didn’t think to look at na-³. Occasionally I look at those tables, but I tend to neglect them. I don’t have the Analytical yet, I really need to get it. —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've seen you around here many a time, but I can't figure out what your niche here is (if you have one). In other words, I'm asking what you most contribute towards Wiktionary and/or what kinds of pages you usually edit. Tharthan (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. For years I did most of the Russian here, but the declension and conjugation templates have been changed and I don’t know how to use them anymore. I used to do most of the Arabic here, as well, but big changes in templates and transcription have crowded me out of Arabic. I used to do most of the Cherokee, Navajo, and Ojibwe, but changes in WT:CFI made most words in polysynthetic languages unacceptable for inclusion, so most work in such languages has ended. I used to help Æ&Œ with his Spanish, French, and Portuguese questions, but he has left the project. Now I just add the occasional Khmer, Thai, or Navajo word to the translation sections. Also, I’m a global renamer when someone needs to change their username.

The time that I save here has been retargeted toward the Navajo Wikipedia and to the Navajo Language group on Facebook. —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see. So you have expertise in non-eastern Native American languages. Very interesting. I remember noticing a lot of Navajo words under colour translations years ago, and was impressed by the amount of effort that had been put into their inclusion. So is the Navajo Wikipedia growing at a good rate, or is it severely limited due to lack of speakers able to contribute or the like? Tharthan (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Navajo Wikipedia grew rapidly and steadily for about four years, but there are systemic problems arising from the fact that most Navajo children have been removed from their homes at an early age and sent to BIA boarding schools, which focused on interdicting the Navajo language and on stamping out Navajo spiritualism and culture. The result is that over half of the Navajo population cannot speak Navajo except for a few simple words, even though many of them are able to understand it when others speak; and probably 95% of the population is unable to read or write Navajo even if they speak it fluently, and can only read and write English. So most Navajos, including those who speak it fluently, cannot read the articles on Navajo Wikipedia, and we have not been able to attract any native speakers who know how to write the language and also know wiki and html encoding.

Our basic task in the Navajo language group on Facebook is teaching fluent speakers how to read and write. Since Navajo orthography is complex, and a single missing or misplaced diacritic can completely change the meaning of a word, the work proceeds slowly. But we have almost 14,000 members and they are (most of them) determined to learn how to read and write, so....

I had the intention of adding a lot of Navajo vocabulary here, including verb conjugations, and then adding audio files to each page. I thought this would be really useful if helping Navajos learn to read and write their language. But since WT:CFI was changed in a way that blocks most words, it is not possible to do that here now. That’s why we started the Facebook group. —Stephen ^(Talk) 17:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I see. Is there any reason why the criteria changed in the way that it did? It seems relatively counterproductive to have such restrictions put into place. Tharthan (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would point out that not everyone agrees with Stephen's interpretation of what the change to WT:CFI means for Navajo. See Wiktionary talk:About Navajo#WT:CFI and Navajo. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

So at this point we're not even pretending to care what people who know what they're talking about think.

This is freedom. — — 22:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Angr, after reading through that discussion, I conclude that the policies probably were detrimental to less literarily attested languages like Navajo, as Stephen was suggesting. Furthermore, I have this to ask: Why is there such a stark fear amongst Wikipedians and Wiktionarians that the English Wikipedia and English Wiktionary will become almost like a modern Holinshed's Chronicles in terms of accuracy? I especially question this fear when anent the English Wiktionary. Unlike the English Wikipedia, the English Wiktionary seems to get itself by pretty well in terms of reverting vandalism and providing accurate content on a good basis. So why be so restrictive on what a maven of a relatively poorly attested language can contribute? If you have concerns with an individual contributor's accuracy, it would most likely be better to sleuth them, and determine from the get-go if they are trustworthy or not than to make a change to a criterion for inclusion that will just function as a stonewaller's block for honest contributors.

This all brings to mind this WP essay Tharthan (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I work mostly on LDL languages (Irish and Lower Sorbian) myself and I feel like the changes to CFI have made it easier, not harder, to add entries in those languages; the rules have been relaxed, not tightened. But maybe that's because Irish, unlike Navajo, has a long literary tradition, and neither Irish nor Lower Sorbian is polysynthetic, so there are fewer forms that need to be worried about. I also think that Stephen commands enough respect around here that if he says "I know from my expertise that such-and-such a form is a grammatical word of Navajo, even though it won't be found in a dictionary and even though I can't actually find a text in which it appears", most people will believe him. That courtesy might not be extended to newbie Navajo editors, but of course only a tiny fraction of entries ever get challenged at RFV anyway. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I see. Fair enough. Tharthan (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

The change in WT:CFI concerns attested use of words, which is similar to Wikipedia’s requirement for citations. We don’t accept protologisms, and we tend to take a dim view of neologisms. Polysynthetic languages have few fixed words, and most words in a given text are built up of stems and affixes, and nobody has ever tried to list all possible words of such a language (with or without definitions). There is nothing comparable to the OED for these languages. Also, these languages have little literature written in them. Navajo was written with a woefully inadequate spelling system (if it can be called a system) since first contact until the mid-1900’s. There is an impressive old Navajo dictionary called An ethnologic dictionary of the Navaho language, published around 1902 by the Franciscan Friars, but it is almost unusable today because nobody can decipher most of the entries (for example, the Navajo word néʼéshjaaʼ bíńdáhii is written as in that dictionary). During WW II, most existing Navajo texts and dictionaries were gathered up by the War Department and burned in an effort to keep the language secret. The modern spelling system for Navajo was not developed until the 1940’s, and even after that, its use has been denied to Navajo children by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, therefore few Navajos know how to read or write their language and there is virtually no literature written in it. There are few Navajo dictionaries with the modern spelling, and no dictionary tries to list more than a smattering of words. Almost all existing Navajo dictionaries have a lot of typos and other mistakes, so they must be used very carefully. Since Navajo is a polysynthetic language with extremely complex verbs and deverbal nouns, few words found in any Navajo text will be found in any dictionary. On top of that, Navajo (like most polysynthetic languages) has few set nouns, and most nouns are descriptions (for example, the word for teacher is báʼóltaʼí, which means "the one for whom he reads/counts"...and it cannot take the usual possessive prefixes such as my, your, or their, but instead it is treated as a verb: "the one for whom we read", "the ones for whom you two will read", and so on). This means that there are as many ways to say something as there are descriptions that can be made. And finally, there is a strong tendency for Americans to think that Navajo and other Native American languages can only say things that were relevant to the tribes in the 1800’s and before (like tepee, scalp, wampum, and buffalo), and that Native American languages cannot have words for modern things such as helicopters, nuclear power, computers, or footballs. They think that if words are suggested for plants and animals that are not native to the U.S., such words are neologisms at best, and if Navajos have been seeing orcas in aquariums and books for the past 80 or so years, their words for the orca can only be a neologism, and since there are no Navajo books about orcas, it’s an unacceptable neologism. But polysynthetic languages have words for anything that can be described (which is everything), yet neither these words nor most of the old "traditional" words such as quiver, titmouse, or umbilicus, can be found in any text and rarely (if at all) in any dictionary. As a result, only editors who are versed in these languages are able to make judgments about them, and other editors who happily go about adding or challenging words in languages that they don’t know such as Russian, French, or Arabic, cannot make any edits to polysynthetic language or even offer much in the way of useful opinions about the entries. It does not sit well with editors accustomed to European languages and other popular languages, and words have already been deleted because editors who do not know Navajo could not find them in dictionaries and could not imagine that Navajos could have a word for something that was unknown before 1900. —Stephen ^(Talk) 23:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am at an absolute loss. Are you a bot? —Wiki Wikardo 06:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

No, I am a person. —Stephen ^(Talk) 15:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Stefan is guma. Tharthan (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

In the future, it would be appreciated if you didn’t revert good-faith edits with boilerplate summaries. —Wiki Wikardo 20:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

What summary would you prefer? —Stephen ^(Talk) 21:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the defense above (section "Hey"), esp the last part ("And finally, there is a strong tendency for Americans to think that..."), I often feel very alone when preaching this. I should print it out and frame it.

But what I came here for is: standard orthography changes high-tone long to high-tone short when -ígíí is added (cv́v́c > cv́cígíí), so for example, this should be sǫʼ nanidéhígíí. (This is only true for high-tone and only for -ígíí) Seb az86556 (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ah, thanks. I had never noticed that change before. —Stephen ^(Talk) 23:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

There is no such thing as "non Oxford British English". The closest thing would be Commonwealth English. Dlpkbr (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I should also note that Commonwealth English deems Oxford English as wrong and that words spelt with an -ize are not actually British English.Dlpkbr (talk)

There is probably a better way to put it than non-Oxford BrE, but the point it tries to make is that the Oxford spelling is with -ize. Please do not make any further changes of that sort. If you know of recent changes to the OED, or if think you have a valid argument against this convention, please discuss it first at WT:BP and get a consensus before making such changes. —Stephen ^(Talk) 10:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

What is even the point of listing "Oxford spelling"? It is not official in any of the counties that speak British English. Is WikiMedia receiving sponsorship from the company Oxford University Press now? Will the Macquarie Dictionary also be talked about as well? Why was this implemented throughout Wiktionary and made into a "convention", when clearly no one who was involved had any understanding of the matter? Lastly, why is a consensus needed to to remove a non-existent made up term?

Dlpkbr (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

You should ask these questions at WT:BP. Those involved with the convention are British and if they don’t understand British orthography, you should tell them, because I don’t think they are aware of it. —Stephen ^(Talk) 11:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Where exactly is this convention that you speak of recored? Dlpkbr (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

That is all a British matter. You have to discuss it with the British editors at WT:BP. I am American, I don’t use the Gallic spelling, I use the older English spelling. You have to take your questions and views to WT:BP. —Stephen ^(Talk) 17:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Or maybe the WT:BP? Is this a technical question (GP) or a policy question (BP)? - -sche (discuss) 18:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, WT:BP. My brain was elsewhere. —Stephen ^(Talk) 18:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

• @Dlpkbr some points:
• Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary; it is more concerned with how language is actually used than with what is 'official'. (Perhaps the clearest sign of this is that for languages which have governing bodies, e.g. French, we don't include 'official' words unless they're attested in actual use, and we do include words which are attested in use regardless of whether or not they're official.) In this case, the wording is designed to describe how only one group of 'British' English speakers writes things like "realised the colour was red", while another group writes "realized the colour was red". (The latter group includes a major publishing house and dictionary, which ensures that their spellings are well-attested.)
• This is not quite here nor there, but in the case of many of the Commonwealth countries, what is 'official' in the country (British spellings of whatever sort) bears little relation to what is actually used (American spellings, which have come to be used especially by younger generations due to the prevalence of American media).
• We are open to suggestions of better ways of wording the labels, but please note that the wording has been discussed many times before, and every wording which has been suggested to date has its flaws. For example, 'Commonwealth spelling' is flawed because the spellings are not used in all Commonwealth countries (e.g. Canadian English has been influenced by US English, and some Commonwealth countries don't officially use any variety English, and unofficially use American English—see the previous bullet point), while they are used in non-Commonwealth countries (e.g. Ireland). Lists of all the countries where particular spellings are official would be prohibitive long. 'British spelling' at least conveys the origin of the spellings, with 'Oxford' qualifying the Oxford spellings and the other spellings being distinguished as 'non-Oxford'.
• - -sche (discuss) 18:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to thank you for all of your countless amount of help in Translation requests in so many different languages. You really are very intelligent to know all these different languages. Thank you so much! Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

You’re welcome. You should always have translations verified by a native speaker. —Stephen ^(Talk) 03:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Stephen,

could you perhaps tell me whether дьяволёнок is related to devil or to any of the words devil originated from? Thank you. 82.217.116.224 22:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have added etymology sections to both дьяволёнок and дьявол. English devil is ultimately derived from the same Ancient Greek source. --WikiTiki89 23:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and could you also explain to me when it's okay to use иметь? Again, thank you very much. 82.217.116.224 22:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

What's your question about иметь? I don't understand. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Anatoli, he’s asking when it’s proper to translate English "have" as Russian иметь and when do you need to use an expression such as у меня or у меня есть. —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

82.217.116.224, learning when to use иметь is going to require practical experience. All I can tell you is this:

иметь is not often used. Until you have enough experience to develop a feeling for it, always try to avoid using it. When an object of possession is referred to in a general sense, usually you use у (u) меня есть (jestʹ). If the object of possession is referred to specifically, then omit есть (jestʹ). You could think of the construction WITH есть (jestʹ) as having an indefinite object of possession; and of the construction WITHOUT есть (jestʹ) as having a definite object of possession:

У меня есть деньги = I have money.

Деньги у меня = I have the money.

To express nonpossession, you must use нет (net), and the object of possession is in the genitive:

У меня нет (net) денег = I have no money.

So, do not use иметь unless you cannot figure out how to say it using у (u). —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thank you for the sage advice. Is there also something you can say about the usage of иметь? Many thanks in advance. 82.217.116.224 12:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

No, simply conjugate it as shown on the иметь page. Sometimes you may need the infinitive, in which case иметь would be handy:

Было бы замечательно иметь дом в Москве — It would be nice "to have" a house in Moscow.

иметь is used more with abstract nouns that cannot literally be possessed, such as причина, честь, право, надежда, нужда, несчастье, счастье, дело, etc. If you use it with a concrete noun, such as имею книгу, you will be understood perfectly well, but it sounds weird, like a direct translation from English. —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Привет!

Можно я буду задавать тебе вопросы по оформлению переводов? А то я не всегда знаю как поступить.

Например вот такой случай: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/while#Verb на русский похоже надо перевести как проводить (время) коротать (время). Как это правильно оформить в mediawiki-разметке? --Nataraj (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Привет. Можно сделать так: корота́ть вре́мя impf (korotátʹ vrémja) или корота́ть (ru) impf (korotátʹ) (вре́мя). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 15:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, can you please take another look at my Sanskrit-to-English translation request, now that I've provided the proper diacritics? http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Translation_requests#Sanskrit_to_English