User talk:Stríðsdrengur

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 (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! --Apisite (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. It's generally not a good idea to blank a page like this; if you want it deleted, use the {{delete}} template. Benwing2 (talk) 00:0024 July 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to create an automated table for the verbs of this language but I'm not succeeding Stríðsdrengur (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I need a template to conjugate Galician-Portuguese verbs that change from g to gu, could you help me? Stríðsdrengur (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've noticed you adding pronunciations to German entries. You get most of it right, yet many of the accents are put in the wrong place. I'd recommend only adding pronunciations if you're taking them from a dictionary. Megathonic (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I apologize for that, I'll just put the pronunciation of the words when I find them in some reliable dictionary. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

There are numerous problems with the automatically generated 'Vulgar Latin' conjugations. Please do not add them. Nicodene (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know about these problems, I apologize for the inconvenience, I won't make the same mistake again Stríðsdrengur (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I suggest you be more careful when adding IPA for Swedish entries, because many of your transcriptions have contained errors thus far. For a few examples: "körd" in norrlandskörd starts with a /ɕ/ (not a /ɧ/), "nation" in värdnation is pronounced with a /t/, and broad transcription doesn't recognize as its own phoneme; is either either the retroflexion resulting from an "rs" sequence or a dialectal realization of the sje-sound. Also, a single word can't have equally high stress on two syllables, ergo there can't be two instances of the stronger stress marker "²". Glades12 (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Alright friend, sorry for the mistakes, I won't touch the Swedish page anymore Stríðsdrengur (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Don't stop altogether! Your contributions overall are accurate and helpful for Swedish; it's just the pronunciations that contain errors at times. Glades12 (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's great to see Sorbian. What have you been using to do your work? Btw, would you like to join the discord server? We could talk about all this there as well. Vininn126 (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've been trying to improve the Upper Sorbian page, it's been quite abandoned lately, but it's been difficult since it's hard to find resources in English, I understand a little German but it's not that good

Send me the link pls Stríðsdrengur (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

WT:Discord Vininn126 (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

hi please creat forms with bot to creat faster

Hey, I'd make sure to verify the output of any machine translations before using them. While these translators have certainly gotten much better over the years and can be used to help, they're not perfect, and simply copy/pasting the results will inevitably result in errors being made, such as in your edit at Mohr. It was not able to recognize that Thor is an archaic spelling of Tor, which in this context means fool, and thus the word was left untranslated as if it were a name of a person. Megathonic (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Where did you got the forms in "-êssedes" in roa-opt? I can't attest it. - Sarilho1 (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Acho que é melhor responder-lhe em português para ser mais fácil. A maior parte das formas conjugadas nesta tabela foram "reutilizadas" de tabelas manuais para outros verbos, basta procurar na categoria de tabelas de conjugação de verbos em galego-português antigo. Penso que fui um pouco irresponsável ao não ter pesquisado todas as formas atestadas em textos ou em sites como Universo Cantigas. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Não me sinto muito confortável em ter formas especulativas. Não consegues adicionar uma fonte à descrição do template que justifique a escolha das formas verbais? - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Até onde eu sei, formas em -êssedes seriam as esperadas vendo a história da língua; o "-êsseis" de hoje vem dum "-êssedes" anterior depois do "d" sofrer elisão, "-êssedes" esse que é mantido no galego. E olha, achei uma. "Vivêssedes" nessa cantiga aqui. MedK1 (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Muito bem colocado. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Como sou brasileiro e comecei a criar manualmente as tabelas nesse link, eu impus a grafia portuguesa sobre os verbos. Eu poderia muito bem ter escolhido outras formas como "-essedes", "-esedes" e "-êsedes". Além disso, conforme MedK1 disse, esse /d/ sofreu uma elisão. Vivêssedes > vivêssees > vivêsseis. Vi que o verbo galego-português antigo "ysopar" está grafado com /y/, poderia ter sido escrito como "isopar", assim como "trebellar" poderia ser "trebelhar". 131.196.77.227 22:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Foi muito difícil analisar a conjugação (verbal) dessa língua antiga do zero. É um sucesso ter isso acessível para todos na internet, ainda mais com o auxílio dos templates automáticos. Ainda têm alguns pontos a se verificarem, como o "vós", que pode tanto no português quanto na sua forma antiga ser considerado como plural e singular, e as formas como "vós outros", "vós outras", "vós oitros", "vós oitras", "nós outros", "nós outras", "nós oitros" e "nós oitras". Há também as formas como "vós outro", "nós outra" etc. que são singulares, e que não coloquei nas tabelas. 131.196.77.227 00:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I can't believe I'm saying this, but stop editing languages you don't know! Greenlandic isn't this simple, it has a bunch of very difficult phonological rules pertaining to the ending, please first read up on a language in its entirety before creating infrastructure for it! Thadh (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the inconvenience, I'll stop. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 09:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Created in error 63.160.115.162 01:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

niibiwa-bakise adaawewigamig is the correct term

Don't, unless the language actually uses them across all pages (like Slavic languages). Uralic languages don't. AFAIK Vietnames doesn't either. Thadh (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

This, for one. -- Sokkjō 12:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

What's the justification behind reverting my edit that Q and R weren't randomly picked out of a hat? 203.145.95.43 09:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

i don't want to seem annoying but your last edits weren't that... Hmmm how can i say , i just saw you deleting the translations and thought it was something u did wrongly Stríðsdrengur (talk) 09:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

What deleted translations? I only edited the section on the etymology of the word? 203.145.95.43 10:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

why did you undo that? 195.169.52.5 09:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'd like to ask about the reversal of my edit without a reason provided. Per WP:REVEXP, users expect an explanation for reversals, either in edit summaries or in talk pages. In this case, the term was clearly a coinage analogous in construction to an earlier attested term, and "with analogy to" is a well-established form, as it can be seen in dozens of entries' etymology sections, so I can't see any reason to remove it. 82.222.238.185 11:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi anon, WP:REVEXP does not apply here as this is not Wikipedia, but I agree that the reversal was undue (and that providing an explanation would have been preferable). I have restored your addition to the etymology, as it is basically correct. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 08:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand your explanation for reversing my edit in which I expanded Ælfric into a full article. You wrote "You must apply this content in another language". As far as I can tell, this is en.wiktionary and I wrote the material in fine English. What precisely was wrong with my edit? - Pangur Bán & I (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

You have to apply this to the Old English language, not to the Modern English page, all that content is used for another language Stríðsdrengur (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm fairly new to Wiktionary, so forgive me if I'm still misunderstanding you. I changed the section title from "English" to "Old English" because Ælfric is an Old English name that is not used in Modern English, with perhaps the odd exception. Essentially, there should be no such thing as a Modern English Page for Ælfric. Do I need to do something additional to indicate this other than altering the section title? I did a fair amount of research for this, so if you could walk me through fixing whatever my mistake was I would be very grateful. Pangur Bán & I (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry, buddy! Everyone has been a new user with difficulties and doubts, but anyway. The point is that Wiktionary in English has several languages, not just English, so try to "imitate" some entries in Old English if you feel lost in the organization etc. I hope this helps, and if you have any more questions, I'd be happy to help! Stríðsdrengur (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, I'm still not understanding. I did actually try to model my own edit on other articles for Old English names like Æþelred, Friþuric, and Ælfræd. What specifically am I missing? Is there a detail I needed to add but didn't, or somewhere where I deviated from a standardized format that I'm not aware of? Pangur Bán & I (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

u should talk to the creator of the pages, they can help you Stríðsdrengur (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I will do that. I really don't mean this to sound rude, but why did you revert my edit if you can't articulate what was wrong with it? Pangur Bán & I (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Coz you did try to transform a page from Modern English to Old English when you could just create a new one Stríðsdrengur (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, I did that on purpose. Ælfric isn't a Modern English name and therefore doesn't need a Modern English page. I don't get why that would be a problem. I will reach out to the original creator of the page as you suggested. Thanks, Pangur Bán & I (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

The point is that that page was an archaic/rare form of modern writing, as was listed in the meaning Stríðsdrengur (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I understand that's what it said, but from my own investigation "Aelfric" appears only to be a transliteration of Ælfric, not a modern name in its own right. It isn't in any modern compendium of names I've found, it hasn't been in the top 17000 male names in Britain since they've been recorded, and it isn't in the US's name popularity database at all. Plus, I can't find any examples of well known persons with the name since the 12th century. I just don't accept that there needs to be a Modern English page for it. Pangur Bán & I (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why was the etymology of caça-dotes changed to "Blend of (...)"? I don't think it's considered a blend, it is actually a compound. And I believe that that part of my version was right... OweOwnAwe (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think you're right about that, I was a little irresponsible Stríðsdrengur (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I was creating the OPG entry for bannar when I realised that we'll have a problem soon. I mean, most Galician sources use the spellings: bann-, ban-, bañ-, while most Portuguese use banh-. Applying the conjugation we now have we will end with forms absolutely unlikely to have ever been written: say, **banhasche. That will happen with any verb that, in its theme, has /ʎ/ (Galician spelling <l>, <ll>, Portuguese <lh>) or /ɲ/ (Galician spelling <n>, <ñ> Portuguese <nh>).

Also, since we have expanded the duration of OGP period from essentially a century to three centuries, we'll need to cover the evolution of both Galician and Portuguese varieties (So, for example, 15th century Portuguese spelling cantaram = Galician cantaron "they sang"). I'll advise in using a double template, à la Occitana. Well, let me know. Froaringus (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

ok Stríðsdrengur (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

So how about we do it this way, in each verb entry that has "regional" variations, we won't put the conjugation in the main entry, we'll put it in the regional entries to avoid any more problems with the difference that the two variations of the language had. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

That sounds ok and probably will be necessary. Froaringus (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I undid your marking for speedy deletion of Template:hsb-decl-noun-smh-inam. Whenever you use the speedy deletion tag, it's very important to indicate why; furthermore, this template is used on several pages, such as dorn, and adding the speedy deletion tag causes all those pages to be marked for deletion, which is incorrect. Benwing2 (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

This goes for all the Upper Sorbian templates you marked for deletion. Benwing2 (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I was already taking care of this, I was replacing the page template and adding manual templates Stríðsdrengur (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by "manual templates"? If you are referring to hard-coding the declension tables, you shouldn't do that. What was the reason for wanting to delete the templates in the first place? You have never indicated that. Benwing2 (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

First of all, the templates were created by me and they were completely "broken", they didn't perform the function correctly and it was a mess, and now, with the help of native speakers who contribute on wiktionary I'm going to make the "real" templates that finally do the functions correctly, and yes, I think I was a bit irresponsible for making a mass deletion without specifying the reason. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 11:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Having crap like "tomémosle por el pito del sereno" at tomar por el pito del sereno doesn't seem useful Denazz (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Although this does not create new entries and is just joining several entries together as if they were one, it is good to keep the pages complete to avoid further problems Stríðsdrengur (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry but how are they useful?????? We want to believe that someone will add them later but years pass and no one does. 178.120.11.81 23:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

all these pages are sent to a verification category, and there users look at the pages and make the necessary changes, if you keep vandalizing, you will only keep getting worse Stríðsdrengur (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Where is this category? 178.120.11.81 23:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

https://en.m.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Category:Requests_for_etymologies_in_Hindi_entries Stríðsdrengur (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

There are 300 entries!! How many editors are there who know the etymology of Hindi words? How active are they? I'm guessing two or three. In the meantime, we have to deal with those empty sections. 178.120.11.81 00:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Are you the one who will fill these pages without etymology? If yes, then you can remove the check tag and put an etymology, otherwise, stop vandalizing them Stríðsdrengur (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would but I'm not an etymology expert. Btw way to go with the vandal assumption, seems like you forgot about good faith. 178.120.11.81 00:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

ehh... You're right, I was just in a hurry with something, but anyway, sorry Stríðsdrengur (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

He visto en tu página que no usas https://dle.rae.es/ para buscar palabras en español. Alguna razón en particular? 178.120.11.81 00:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

No soy un usuario de español muy activo :) Stríðsdrengur (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I entered Discord, but I neither want to give an e-mail address nor get into a lot of discussions. I read something about Upper Sorbian IPA. What you said about /ʑ/ and /ɕ/ not existing in hsb is absolutely correct. The letters ć and č represent the same sound (unlike Lower Sorbian). Then there was something about stress. It's normally on the first syllable, but in borrowings including internationalisms it's on the same syllable as in German. So it should be included. (In fact, in such words vowel length is also mostly carried over. This is not part of the prescriptive standard, but so pervasive in practice that I recommend including it as optional.) I'm willing to answer other questions here, but wouldn't join Discord. I'm fairly familiar with the phonology of Upper Sorbian, but I don't speak it. 88.64.225.53 11:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the information, @Vininn126 and I are building a pronunciation module for hsb, and we would really appreciate your help. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

What sound should dź represent? Furthermore, stress can be set manually, otherwise by default it's initial. I don't think we're going to include length, I doubt it's phonemic. See my sandbox for test cases. Vininn126 (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

dź is . --- Vowel length is disregarded in the prescriptive standard, so of course you can say: It's optional and hence not phonemic. But in actual speech it's almost always maintained, so I think it would be good if it could be added manually and then be given in brackets. Like entering kandidât gives /kandiˈda(ː)t/ (or the like). Another such thing is that "y" in Greek words is pronounced . It's simply how the language is spoken, so I think it shouldn't be disregarded entirely. But that's all I'm going to say. --- Another thing would be silent letters. "w" is only pronounced when either followed or preceded by a vowel. "h" is only pronounced when (1) the first sound in a syllable AND (2) followed by a vowel. Other letters can be silent (e.g. the "p" in "ptak"), but these have to be added manually. 88.64.225.53 13:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are there minimal pairs for the length? If not, then it's not phonemic, it's phonetic, and we'd have to change the output from // to . Vininn126 (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Probably. It's definitely phonemic in the colloquial language (which is quite different from the standard). This is a thorough study of colloquial Upper Sorbian, though there's not that much about phonology. -- But we should probably leave that for now. It's not that important. I just happened to mention it in the context of stress.

Otherwise I thought a bit more about things that would go beyond simple sound-letter correspondences:

1.) <h> as above, always silent when not immediately followed by a vowel. -- An open question for me is cases like "Zhorjelc", where "h" is followed by a vowel, but isn't in the syllable onset: Is it necessarily silent or just optionally?

2.) <w> as above, always silent when not adjacent to a vowel. -- Open question 1: Does <ł> behave the same way? -- Open question 2: There are words in which silent <w> resurfaces after a vowel in the preceding word, but AFAIK this is only true of some words, not all. For example, I read somewhere that it always remains silent in "wčera" (yesterday). We would need a way to indicate this difference.

3.) <ch> is split into /x/ and /kʰ/. We must distinguish the latter because it isn't restricted to word-initial position, but also occurs in stem-initial position, which means that at least for our purposes we must consider it phonemic. Compare: "wuchod" /ˈwukʰɔt/ vs. "přichod" /ˈpʃixɔt/ (latter is etymologically stem-initial too, but isn't recognized as such, possibly a learned borrowing from Czech). I suppose by default <ch> would be /kʰ/ word-initially and in initial <sch>, otherwise /x/. Cases like "wuchod" could be encoded as |wu-chod| or the like.

Those are my two cents. If you have other questions, I'll try to help. I'll check the page in a couple of days. 88.64.225.53 15:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

We will need a special character (or perhaps a digraph) for /kʰ/, because there's no way for the module to know what's a stem or not. As for <h> and <ł>, I'm not sure. Vininn126 (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

But also does /kʰ/ actually contrast with /x/ anywhere? Vininn126 (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You mean a 100% minimal pair? I don't know. But there's e.g. "pochar" /ˈpɔxaʁ/ ("peat cutter", poch + -ar) vs. "pochad" /ˈpɔkʰat/ ("origin", po- + chad). This should really be good enough for us. It's not predictable without knowing the morpheme boundaries! And then what help would the IPA be if we neglect this distinction? 88.64.225.53 15:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

It might make sense, but again, we'd probably want to change from // to . Vininn126 (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Found one: "pochowa" with /kʰ/ = "he buries", with /x/ = "peaty" (f. sg.) 88.64.225.53 16:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Alright then. But either way I'm going to need a special character or something. I'll have to think about t he best way to do that. Vininn126 (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, it works when the page begins with ch-. Are there any words that begin with ch- that begin with /x/? I also still need to figure out a good way to give /kʰ/ in the middle, any suggestions for letter combinations? I propose using CH in respellings. Vininn126 (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, I know that my appendix is not 100% complete and is not that reliable, but according to it, k͡x is used at the beginning of words and x in the middle.

Appendix:Upper Sorbian pronunciation Stríðsdrengur (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Read the conversation above... Vininn126 (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oooooo sorry :) Stríðsdrengur (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

But it's really /kʰ/, not /k͡x/. I've read the latter too somewhere, but it's quite wrong. may in fact occur for initial "kr" and "chr", but not for "ch" on its own. (This must be either a mistake or a long obsolete dialectal pronunciation.) -- Regarding words with initial /x/ I wouldn't rule it out entirely. I read that "chcyć" may be pronounced , although it's usually simply . So I think we should have the general principle automatically, but also a possibility to override in both directions. 88.64.225.53 19:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have set q to print /kʰ/ and x to print /x/. If we have a foreign word with those letters, they will need a respelling. Vininn126 (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good :) 88.64.225.53 13:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

All right. So I've read up on the details of /h/ and /w/. We can work with the basic rule that

• <h> is silent unless followed by a vowel;
• <w> and <ł> are silent unless adjacent to a vowel (i.e. followed or preceded).

There are some irregularities, e.g. "łhać" is /fat͡ʃ/ and "łžeć" is /bʒɛt͡ʃ/, but these are isolated cases which can be entered manually.

The only open question remaining for me now is how to deal with initial silent consonants that become audible in what may be called liaison. For example, we have "wsy" /sɨ/ vs. "ze wsy" /zɛ‿w.sɨ/, "mzda" /zda/ vs. "wo mzdźě" /wɔ‿m.zd͡ʒɪ/. We could represent these as /(w)sɨ/, /(m)zda/, but there may be better ways. 88.64.225.53 10:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Some examples for testcases would be useful. Vininn126 (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You mean words as examples for the above rules? -- Okay, let's see. Initial before a vowel: "haj" /haj/, "hora" /hɔʁa/. Initial before a consonant: "hródź" /ʁʊtʃ/, "hlina" /lina/. Preconsonantal: "wuhlo" /wulɔ/, "nahły" /nawɨ/. Wordfinal: "Bóh" /bʊ/, "kruh" /kʁu/. Intervocalic: "Boha" /bɔha/, "alkohol" /alkɔhɔl/. -- In postconsonantal position it is often silent, but I haven't found any clear mention that this is obligatory or general, so we should keep it for now. Thus: "Zhorjelc" /zhɔʁjɛlts/, "pomhać" /pɔmhatʃ/.
I'll give you /w/ later today or tomorrow. 88.64.225.53 11:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I added them to my sandbox. Feel free to add any other testcases you find. Vininn126 (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, here you go with /w/: Initial + vowel: "woda" /wɔda/, "wutora" /wutɔʁa/, "łakać" /wakatʃ/, "Łužica" /wuʒitsa/. Initial + consonant: "wčera" /tʃɛʁa/, "wzać" /zatʃ/, "wróćić" /ʁʊtʃitʃ/. (Of course, not silent in <wj>: "wjesć" /wjɛstʃ/. With <ł> I'm only aware of the irregular words for "lying" already mentioned above.) Postconsonantal + vowel: "twaroh" /twaʁɔ/, "zwón" /zwʊn/, "mła" /mwa/, "mjetła" /mjɛtwa/ (with silent <h>: "hłowa" /wɔwa/, "jehła" /jɛwa/.) Postconsonantal without vowel: "wotwlec" /wɔtlɛts/, "mjetł" /mjɛt/, "kładł" /kwat/. Postvocalic: "zawróćić" /zawʁʊtʃitʃ/, "domow" /dɔmɔw/, "był" /bɨw/, "jałmožna" /jawmɔʒna/. Intervocalic: "Domowina" /dɔmɔwina/, "dźěławy" /dʒɪwawɨ/, "była" /bɨwa/. 88.64.225.53 15:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks for the test cases. Aside from these phonological processes, is there anything else that needs to be accounted for? Vininn126 (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've (re)read some more things. I have a couple of points, some of which I'd already alluded to:
(1.) /x - kʰ - k/ -- I think we did good on this one. There is in fact a threeway minimal pair for them: "wuch-ow" /wuxɔw/ vs. "wu-chow" /wukʰɔw/ vs. "łukow" /wukɔw/. And there is also another word with initial /x/, namely the onomatopoetic "chachotać" (to laugh loudly). What I hadn't mentioned is that word-initial <sch> is also /skʰ/ as in "schód" /skʰʊt/.
(2.) /h/ -- I can now safely say that it is silent in word-initial <zh>. So correct "Zhorjelc" to /zɔʁjɛlt͡s/ above, but leave "pomhać" as it is (/h/ in the latter is considered very formal, but does exist). Also note that /h/, when it is pronounced, devoices a preceding obstruent: "podhódnoćić" /pɔthʊdnɔtʃitʃ/.
(3.) There is some irregularity with /d, t/ + /ʒ, d͡ʒ, ʃ, t͡ʃ/, but these cases have to be entered manually. By default they should be treated like normal clusters. Of course, <tř> is equivalent to a palatal <c>, thus /t͡s/ before i, ě and finally, otherwise /t͡sj/, e.g. "tři" /t͡si/, "nutř" /nut͡s/, "batřa" /bʁat͡sja/. <kř> and <př> are always /kʃ/ and /pʃ/.
(4.) /n ~ ɲ/ -- How are you handling the palatal nasal? In spelling it's pretty much the same as in Polish, where we use /ɲ/. In Sorbian, however, an actual doesn't exist. Written <ń> is pronounced /n/ after i, ě and sonorants, e.g. "ćerń" /t͡ʃɛʁn/, otherwise /jn/, e.g. "kóń" /kʊjn/. It's a fairly simple rule. Nevertheless I wouldn't disagree to using /ɲ/ as in Polish.
(5.) /w/ -- Initial /w/ + consonant is silent, but it can resurface (as I had mentioned). Now this only happens in nominals when preceded by prepositions. So maybe we could have a parameter |nom=1|, which then produces initial /(w)/ instead of zero. The syllable break would be after the semivowel, e.g. "wšo" nom=1 produces /(w)ˈʃɔ/. That would be optimal I think. (Apart from /w/ the same seems to happen only in two words with /m/, namely "mzda" and "mša", which we can handle manually.)
That would be all for the template. I've made a list of some irregular words like "hołb" /hʊjp/, which I'll work on once it has been "launched". 88.64.225.53 15:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

ARe you sure about /ɲ/? w:Sorbian alphabet seems to imply it's palatal. Vininn126 (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I see it's not /ɲ/, but would <ń> not print at least /nʲ/? Vininn126 (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you intend to use /Cʲ/ instead of /Cj/? We don't seem to do that in other West Slavic languages and I don't see any reason for it in Upper Sorbian. The system is the same as in Polish, so all instances of consonant + <j> can be interpreted as /Cj/. In fact, the phonetic realisation is also usually with a glide (unless palatalisation is lost altogether, which happens with <je> in colloquial speech).
/ɲ/ can occur in the syllable coda, but as I said: it is realised after non-front vowels and after front vowels and sonorants (merging with <jn> or <n> respectively). So in my mind there are two ways of dealing with it:
1.) As in Polish, i.e. /ɲ/ for any <ń> or <n> in palatal context: "ničo" /ɲit͡ʃɔ/, "něchtó" /ɲɪxtʊ/, "kóń" /kʊɲ/, "konja" /kɔɲa/, "ćerń" /t͡ʃɛʁɲ/, "ćernje" /t͡ʃɛʁɲɛ/.
2.) Without a special phoneme: "ničo" /nit͡ʃɔ/, "něchtó" /nɪxtʊ/, "kóń" /kʊjn/, "konja" /kɔnja/, "ćerń" /t͡ʃɛʁn/, "ćernje" /t͡ʃɛʁnjɛ/.
The second system is more minimalist and it reflects the actual pronunciation better, but the first system is a bit more internally consistent. So that's why I consider it a matter of preference and I would agree with either choice. 88.64.225.53 16:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay. And I think finally, what is the best transcription for <tř>? Vininn126 (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

/t͡sʲ/ Stríðsdrengur (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I know French, by the way :) Fond of sanddunes (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

But I'm also extremely sloppy Fond of sanddunes (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok then, sorry Stríðsdrengur (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Despite what my userpage says! Fond of sanddunes (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

dont worry, everyone makes mistakes :) Stríðsdrengur (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I made that edit when I was logged out, why the hell do we need (at least) ten different pronunciations of "water"? Isn't 4 or 5 enough? Esszet (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because all these pronouncements are valid, the point is not to be enough, but to be as realistic as possible. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, the pronunciation section is supposed to provide a basic overview, not list every single pronunciation in existence. Look at the word of the day, for example: one pronunciation, two dialects listed. Scottish and Australian would both be different, but, for the sake of avoiding clutter as well as overload, they aren't included. This is a practice followed in 99% of entries. Esszet (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Esszet We don't delete things because of "clutter", and the only reason most entries don't give lots of information is because no-one has got round to it yet; not because we only care about prestige accents. Theknightwho (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

It sounds like you take Wiktionary way too seriously, and your expectations are completely unrealistic. There's no way you're ever going to get that level of detail on however many words there are in the English language, nobody has the time (let alone patience). I have noticed a trend towards excessive detail lately (such as the number box at two); most people would find it strange and off-putting. Relax and try to include reasonable amounts of information, not everything there is. Esszet (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Esszet I'm not expecting anything - I simply object to deleting stuff simply because you personally don't care about it. Theknightwho (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

That we shouldn't have details on any page because we'll never realistically have them on all pages is a completely lúdicrous argument. Nihilism hasn't and isn't going to build a dictionary. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Stríðsdrengur. Here are my comments in regards to the pronunciation at buollinčáskadanbiila, which obviously wouldn't fit in an edit summary. The stresses (both primary and secondary) in compound words in Northern Sámi always fall on the first syllable of the individual lexemes. See Ante Aikio and Jussi Ylikoski's chapter "North Saami" in the The Oxford Guide to the Uralic Languages, page 152: "in compound words stress is assigned to the first syllable of each lexical constituent regardless of syllable count". The term buollinčáskadanbiila consists of three parts, buollin, čáskadan and biila. The secondary stress isn't gonna fall on the "dan" part, because that is the tertiary syllable of the second foot, not the initial syllable on the third foot. The template {{se-IPA}} does not know how to tell whether a word is a compound or not, and therefore not where to place the boundaries of the feet.

Also, <d> is pronounced like when it is between two unstressed syllables, i.e. between the second and third syllables of a foot. See Peter Klaus' "Samisk grammatikk", page 17: "d uttales som đ, når den inne i ordet mellom 2. og 3. stavelse" ("d is pronounced like đ when it is inside the word between the second and third syllable"). Whether to transcribe this as /t/ or /ð/ in broad transcription is ultimately up to debate, but I prefer to use /ð/ because it actually reflects the pronunciation of the word.

If you want further confirmation on the pronunciation, just listen to this radio broadcast (moment at 1:40) by Ođđasat. The commentator states the following: Ohcavuona gielda Finnmárkkus lea boarráseamos buollinčáskadanbiilla skeŋken Ukrainai. Note that he has an Eastern pronunciation, but the stress patterns and pronunciation of <d> are identical regardless. Wiktionary currently uses only Kautokeino pronunciation, i.e. Western pronunciation, probably because the author of the template found it to be the most consistent in regards to the spelling. The template is not sufficient for transcribing Northern Sámi, and cases like this are a prime example. I'd like to hear your reasons for actually believing it without double checking. ArcticSeeress (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the explanation, I had forgotten that the module actually had some limitations/errors. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ArcticSeeress I've now fixed the pronunciation of d that's generated by the template in those cases. Compound words are still an issue though. —Rua (mew) 21:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not all pronunciation modules operate in the same way; Portuguese pronunciation has many more exceptions than, e.g., Spanish and often requires respellings. I can get by in Portuguese, but have much less experience speaking and listening. I only add pronunciations to Portuguese entries when I am totally confident that the module's output is correct. I suggest you do the same. Ultimateria (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I speak Portuguese fluently :), but ok, don't worry, I can add it for you Stríðsdrengur (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. I see that you wrote to me but I am always logged on when I do edits. But yeah, hmu about Discord. Mulder1982 (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

ooki Stríðsdrengur (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could you tell me how does one know the date of an OGP quotation? I'm trying to add the etymology to Cornoalha, that I think is borrowed from Cornuaille, either from Old French (that existed until the ~1350's) or Middle French. Cornoalha is attested at the cantiga Maestre, tôdolos vossos cantares. Amanyn (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Froaringus and @MedK1 understand better than me, I just did some amateur editings in the past Stríðsdrengur (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Alright, thank you! Amanyn (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, when using {{grc-IPA}}, please remember to mark α ι υ as long or short. Thanks! —Mahāgaja · talk 21:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

My bad, thanks Stríðsdrengur (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can't just plug a module for another language into a headword template. Even if the parameters matched (upwards of 180 module errors says they didn't), it would categorize everything as the wrong language- Category:Old Galician-Portuguese nouns would be virtually empty. If someone replaced {{roa-opt-noun}} with {{pt-noun}} in all ~470 entries, you would revert them- why would you do it yourself? Chuck Entz (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry, I was a bit irresponsible for not testing it in my sandbox first, I'll fix that in a few minutes, I'm busy at the moment Stríðsdrengur (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thank you for your contributions but please read Wiktionary:Entry_layout#Context_labels. Labels such as "zoology" should not be added to commonly used terms for animals because that implies restricted usage (used solely or mainly by zoologists instead of by ordinary people). Fskel (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh sorry, I usually get these labels from the dictionaries I use, thanks for alerting me :) Stríðsdrengur (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your collaboration. I'm glad we've both been able to correct/expand each other's work. Denazz (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks? I think... Stríðsdrengur (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

While I do sincerely enjoy your continued patronizing messages, I implore you to be more careful when editing Wiktionary. It is not a simple website. This labeled as "Vielli" shows you have lots to learn. Please read Wiktionary:Context labels for a start. Denazz (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, I'm not sure the content you added at blanc-bleu is correct. Denazz (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's completely correct, all I did was expand the incomplete page you made Stríðsdrengur (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

You may have been here longer than me, but French is something you're definitely not more advanced than me. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

• All this finger-pointing is not the way forward, Stringy. We're part of a team! Denazz (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Just for curiosity, why do you call me "Stringy" lol :) Stríðsdrengur (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @Phacromallus Stríðsdrengur (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Kinda rolls off the tongue more than the Icelandic shit in your usernamePhacromallus (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You made me remember that I must change my name to Stríðsdrongur. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  What does it mean anyway? Mine is phac + romall + us = We are a pack of hankies. Phacromallus (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Stríðs (genitive of stríð: war, combat) + drongur (boy) = My adaptation to the fictional character's name W:Soldier Boy Stríðsdrengur (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Ooh, you like the f word too!. We have more in common than I first thought. Denazz (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Haha Stríðsdrengur (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

When making the entry pomorski for Upper Sorbian, should pronunciation, declension and references be made?

I found the term at {{R:hsb:Soblex}}; thanks for reading. -- Apisite (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

These features should definitely be included. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The term has been added; now, how about the Upper Sorbian term pomada? --Apisite (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found the entry моко (moko), which means "moss" apparently, at R:mhr:ML. -- Apisite (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

And a related term мокан (mokan). --Apisite (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

мокан is a term derived from моко, which is resulted by adding the suffix -ан Stríðsdrengur (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The noun has apparently also a synonym: регенче (regenče). --Apisite (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

And adjective регенчан (regenčan). --Apisite (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The same goes for this same term Stríðsdrengur (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've been very patient with you up to this point (perhaps to a fault), but it's time for an intervention. I can see just in your 60 most recent edits you scolding five different users and leaving passive-aggressive edits summaries. One of these is a valid complaint against a repeat offender, but the rest are you getting visibly frustrated that people are editing in an acceptable way but not being as thorough as you would like. "Don't edit languages you don't know" can of course be a valid comment, but you're using it to correct behavior you personally dislike rather than in response to mistakes. Let me give you some advice:

• Assuming good faith is essential to wiki projects. Your frustration over differences of opinion show that you are not assuming good faith.
• Being condescending, dismissive, and otherwise hostile will cause problems for you sooner rather than later.
• Focus on what you can do rather than what others "should" do.
• Your definition of a "mistake" is not universal.

Feel free to continue "cleaning up after" other users, but please keep the passive-aggressive comments to yourself. Ultimateria (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ultimateria Not to mention expletives in edit-summaries. --Apisite (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Three terms have yet to be expanded: пеледыш (peĺedyš), кӱч (küč), and йол (jol). -- Apisite (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I haven't forgotten about them yet, I'm just trying to get the courage to do it :) Stríðsdrengur (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I finished! Thank you for your help :) Stríðsdrengur (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh I forgot to tell you something, if you are going to create more entries, please try to pay attention to other types of lemmas besides nouns, there are already 300 of them haha, I would like to expand the other categories :) Stríðsdrengur (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fair notice: I'll be on my annual family vacation during the week of July 15 to July 20. --Apisite (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Have a nice vacation! I'm also a little inactive because I'm sick and I'll be back active on Monday. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The area around Redfish Lake got closed because of a fire, but some of my relatives are still visiting. --Apisite (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Crew of Redfish Lake Lodge need financial help right now. --Apisite (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh sorry I hadn't seen the previous notification, it's really sad what's happening, I'll try to help financially as soon as I can Stríðsdrengur (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Now there's a related crowd-funding campaign also. --Apisite (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I noted that you requested a few of the Upper Sorbian declension templates to be deleted with the rationale There is no longer any use as an automatic already exists. There are however still some transclusions of these templates. Would you be able to replace these transclusions of the old templates to the automatic new one you are referring to? Jonteemil (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello! My apologies for what happened, I've been very busy, but I'll try to finish correcting this soon, sorry for the mistake! Stríðsdrengur (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

As noted in the documentation, the template must not be used for compound terms, terms with irregular stress, and terms with vowel sequences. I have had to undo many of your edits that incorrectly add this template and generate nonsensical pronunciations. However, I see that there are many more. Can you please undo the rest yourself? —Rua (mew) 21:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see your notification, I'll definitely do that as soon as I have enough time Stríðsdrengur (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I came across the Upper Sorbian Term achat at the Website Soblexx. -- Apisite (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Stríðsdrengur, I saw the edit you made on this page, which I was surprised for having to create, being such a common expression, at least where I live; is it also used in Brasil?, I wasn't aware of that. A good idea would be to create a page where people from Portugal and Brazil - and hopefully from other Portuguese speaking countries, who tend to be underrepresented, that's why I created the page PALOP, which is still not ideal, since there are other PT speaking countries outside of Africa (East Timor, for example) - could go and quickly clarify any doubts about whether a word or expression is used in the other country. I'm relatively new to wiktionary, so such place might already exist and I'm just not aware of it. Although I feel that the qualifier "colloquial" is still apt to describe it; it's not exactly a word used in "high language", so to speak, and Priberam does classify it as "informal".
And this is completely unrelated, but since I saw that you have some knowledge of Faroese I was wondering if you could clarify a little doubt I have: in the northern accents, they pronounce the diphthong "ei" as "oi", which you can hear for instance from Eivør when se says words like "heim" or "eg veit", however in this song she pronounces the word "aleina" as "alaina", instead of "aloina"; do you know why that is? Anyway, I hope I'm not burdening you with inquiries that you're not able to respond to. Stay well. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this is also used frequently in Brazil; It's just a slightly colloquial word, I think "informal" sums it up enough.

Yeah I have a reasonably advanced knowledge of Faroese; Faroese from the island of Vágar downwards really "should" pronounce "ei" as , although she is from Syðrugøta, I believe she grew up in other regions of the country where it is pronounced as Stríðsdrengur (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for your speedy reply! When I first saw your username I thought you were Icelandic, but apparently it's Faroese, which have very similar spellings but are pronounced quite differently, kinda like Portuguese and Spanish. Although they do share a few sound changes, like the devoicing of l and r (and also n and m?) before p, t, k. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your welcome :) Originally this should've be Stríðsdrongur, but due to my inattention I typed Stríðsdrengur; yeah, they are more or less similar, quite similar in spelling and grammar, but phonetics is another story haha Stríðsdrengur (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, so if you agree with the informal or colloquial label, would you mind if I re-added it, or do you prefer to leave it as it is? Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I thought about keeping just "informal", but I don't think there's any problem in also having "colloquial" Stríðsdrengur (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll put "informal", then. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ultimateria Thanks for the block lmao, enjoy watching the users you protect continuing adding stubs, see you later! Stríðsdrengur (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your comments to User:Linguoboy "asking you to do some shit right" and "looking at your latest contributions, it looks like they were made by someone with 0 IQ" are completely unacceptable. The entry that you refer to as a problem is acceptable to me; multiword common names of animals are always going to be stubby. The only concrete complaint you made against Linguoboy in this discussion is the creation of stubs, which doesn't remotely merit this level of insult. The whole discussion strikes me as an excuse to attack this user on flimsy grounds.

I also need to address the "Monitoring" section of your userpage. I specifically banned you for "Intimidating behavior/harassment" rather than just "unacceptable conduct" for this reason. If you believe someone's edits are actively incorrect (and, I reiterate, not just against your personal preference), you can explain the problem to them and monitor their edits without a public announcement. We don't motivate our users with public shame. I suggest you take down this display of hostility and reread WT:AGF. Ultimateria (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I won't try to revoke lmao, I wanna see you regret it alone Stríðsdrengur (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed you were "monitoring" me?? I admit I've made a few mistakes in the past, but nothing too serious, so I'm not sure why you thought it was ok to add my username to your page (without my consent). I'll go ahead and remove it Protegmatic (talk) Protegmatic (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ultimateria While the comments were unacceptable, the complaint about entries like Catalan cotxa blava is completely legitimate, in my view. It's low-effort and low-value, and we as a community can do a lot better than that. If @Linguoboy has repeatedly ignored requests to improve their entries beyond that standard, that raises its own concerns as well. Theknightwho (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Even Benwing has openly asked him to improve his edits, a while back he used to copy wrong translations and pronunciations from the Catalan Wiktionary. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This ^ CC: @Benwing2. We've got to be more stringent on disallowing poor entries to be created. AG202 (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree on not tolerating bad entries, but I also agree with Ultimateria here that Stríðsdrengur does go overboard with their comments. Blocking to prevent a user for creating a lot of bad-quality entries that will have to be cleaned up is one thing, being unkind and even intimidating is a whole other thing. Thadh (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I understand that sometimes I am really rude with my comments, I would like to apologize to anyone I have offended directly or indirectly; but Linguoboy has already gone beyond the limits, every day he creates at least 5 stubs that could be improved by him in different ways, but every time I give him a touch to make him realize this, he just says "mind your own things" and while I'm blocked for being a little rude trying to teach someone how to improve, Linguoboy gets away with continuing to add stubs. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Feedback is useless unless it's specific and informative. Periodically posting "your entries suck" to my Talk page does nothing to help me improve my edits. If you want an example of good feedback, look at the exchange with @Arafsymudwr there. They made a specific request for me to change the way I create Welsh-language entries and provided references to help me do so. I've followed their advice and now regularly consult Y Bywiadur to confirm the accuracy of those entries. As @Ultimateria has repeatedly tried to tell you, @Stríðsdrengur, you don't get people to do better by insulting them. (And I do know a thing or two about instruction, having worked in higher ed for over 30 years.)

I also struggle to understand the hostility toward "stubs" here. Because of the open-ended nature of language, Wiktionary is always going to be a work in progress. Entries will never be "complete" because there's always more that could be added. If you view my edit history, you'll see that I'm improving existing entries all the time. In the meantime, I'm firmly of the opinion that something is better than nothing. This is based on years of interacting with Wiktionary as an ordinary user (which I was for years before I became an editor). Linguoboy (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is no such thing as "entries will never be complete", honestly, I feel sorry for you and those who will search for Catalan words on this site; It doesn't matter being here for years if you can't understand something basic, I'm out of it now. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I second AG202 and TKW above. Svartava (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I see where public opinion lies on these entries. My thinking was similar to Biolongvistul's below: "what more is needed in a dictionary when it comes to such encyclopedic content words?" Ultimateria (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I understand the criticisms but I also feel like there's a disproportionate amount of attention being given to these types of entries considering the small portion of my total contributions they represent. Of the last 37 entries I've created since cotxa blava (the one which drew Stríðsdrengur's ire), only 6--rossinyol del Japó, rap vermell, granota roja, anques de granota, picotet tacat, and àguila pomerània--fall into this category. That's fewer than one in six of the total and they are outnumbered by single-word entries like pal·li, llunat, carnestoltesc, mamarratxo, patoia, etc. not to mention my work improving existing entries (see, for instance, my recent edits to estrènyer). Moreover, this is all just for Catalan, which is only one of the languages I create and edit entries for. Linguoboy (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I understand stríðsdrengur's frustrations, however, I believe Ultimateria's block was justified. If it's true that Linguoboy has been uncooperative with relatively simple requests, as they seem to have been regarding the automatically generated pronunciations, that is a bit concerning. However, Stríðsdrengur's comments went overboard and it is not acceptable to bully another user over an editing dispute in any case. Stríðsdrengur should work on better conflict resolution and be more willing to ask for a neutral third party to step in before the situation degrades to personal insults. — BABR・talk 15:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Respectfully, I think you have this backwards. I used to routinely add auto-generated pronunciations to Catalan entries until @Benwing2 directly asked me to stop. Now I only add them when the normative pronunciations are 100% unambiguous for all varieties. Linguoboy (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The issue now is no longer pronunciations, but your lack of competence/effort to deal with the language. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Stríðsdrengur I really don't think you're in much of a position to judge. Linguoboy (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was never here to judge, but to help. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for making more stubs lmao granota roja rap vermell Stríðsdrengur (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think a clarification as to what is so bad about these entries is in order. Low-effort—maybe, but what more is needed in a dictionary when it comes to such encyclopedic content words? I see no value in adding pronunciations in multi-word terms, references would be welcome but a link to Wikipedia would suffice—the only thing I would like to see added to them is a literal translation when relevant. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is what you see, not what people who visit the page will; pronunciations are necessary regardless of the circumstances. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why do you consider pronunciations necessary on these types of entries when the user can click on each individual element in the compound and be brought instantly to a page which gives the pronunciation(s) for that elements?

I could see an argument for languages where compounds show pronounced sandhi effects, but Catalan is not one of those languages. (At least, not at the level of detail the auto-generated pronunciations are capable of reproducing.) Linguoboy (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

details are details, but you are not prepared for this conversation; have a good day Stríðsdrengur (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is exactly what I've been talking about. Whenever I press you for specifics, you just say something dismissive and end the discussion. That's not how you convince anyone to do things your way. Linguoboy (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Added. Thank you for the feedback. Linguoboy (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you sincerely wanted to help, you would listen to the feedback I, @Ultimateria, and others have been giving to you about how your comments have been the opposite of helpful and work on improving them. I see no evidence that you have any interested in doing that. Linguoboy (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are countless times that I gave you tips on what you could improve, but you always ignored them as if they were rubbish and I simply lost patience with you. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

granota roja I think this time I managed to touch your heart Stríðsdrengur (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it was @Biolongvistul. They told me the specific elements they wanted to see added and I added them. See how that works? Linguoboy (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh wow 🤯 you just did what I've been asking you for months Stríðsdrengur (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Consider this a teachable moment. Linguoboy (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think you could look in the mirror and repeat what you just said lmao Stríðsdrengur (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Stríðsdrengur @Linguoboy you two are doing the exact same thing that got us here in the first place. Please try to keep a level head and assume good faith and at the very least, no personal insults. You guys both are in the same editing community and have the same end goal, constantly fighting will get you nowhere. If you are unable to calmly address a situation please tag a third party to mediate instead of going low and digging a deeper hole for yourselves. — BABR・talk 18:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but where have I ever insulted Stríðsdrengur? My head is perfectly level as I express my considered opinion about his lack of willingness to learn how to offer feedback in an appropriate manner--an opinion that echoes that of others on this page, including the moderator who blocked him. Linguoboy (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Linguoboy You might not have been throwing insults, but asking why it's necessary to add pronunciations is just obtuse and pointless, so I can understand the frustration. Why not just add them? Theknightwho (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho: Adding pronunciation to multi-word terms is fairly pointless (unless there's sandhi going on) and User:Stríðsdrengur's reaction seems way over-the-top to me. And if User:Linguoboy wants to create Catalan entries but maybe isn't knowledgeable in Catalan phonology, then bullying him into adding pronunciations no matter what seems like an extremely bad idea. Ioaxxere (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ioaxxere that's a good point and it does make me change my mind a little. Also it seems Linguoboy was adding pronunciations until Benwing2 asked them to stop (seemingly because Lingo's pronunciation dictionaries are for a different dialect than the one included in Catalan entries). And, as Ultimateria pointed out, all the "stub entries" seem to have Wikipedia pages. So it seems that, for all the stubs mentioned here, all the missing information was behind a redirect. Even if that wasn't the case, the personal insults are like treating a paper cut with a machete. — BABR・talk 05:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Babr The biggest problem with User:Linguoboy is (or at least certainly was) that he didn't (doesn't?) have the requisite linguistic knowledge and understanding of the flaws of the various dictionaries out there to be able to add accurate Catalan pronunciation, but thought he did have this knowledge. He also made a lot of mistakes in Catalan headwords due to simply using the defaults without bothering to check if they were correct (and before I fixed the multiword handling, most default plurals and feminines for multiword terms were wrong). Now the defaults are mostly correct, but you still have to check them, and in order to do that you need to have enough knowledge both of Catalan and of which Catalan dictionaries to make use of (and how), and honestly I don't trust Linguoboy to do this correctly based on prior experience. Maybe he has changed, but certainly before, he was not very receptive when I pointed out his mistakes. I am glad to hear at least he has stopped adding pronunciations, as those are the trickiest part of Catalan entries (since we represent three different dialects simultaneously and you need a lot of domain knowledge to get this right). Note that I did write up in Template:ca-IPA#Sources_of_pronunciation what the different freely available online dictionaries for pronunciation are and which ones to trust in which ways, but I'm not sure Linguoboy has read this (or even has the linguistic background to correctly interpret what I've written). I do trust User:Stríðsdrengur's linguistic knowledge a lot more, but at the same time I agree his reaction was excessive and his responses when called out for this were not terribly helpful. Benwing2 (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 First, is your typing speed 500 wpm or something? Because I'm impressed how fast you wrote that 😭. Second, thanks for the background information on the situation, and it kinda explains Stríðsdrengur'a frustrations. Though, as you said yourself, those frustrations were not handled appropriately. — BABR・talk 05:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Babr Huh, dunno but I do type fast lol. I think (hope) that the week block for User:Stríðsdrengur will calm him down a bit. Benwing2 (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm really not being obtuse at all. I'm assuming that everyone here is familiar with the concept of sandhi, but if you're not, Wikipedia has a decent article on the topic. Essentially it's a cover term for various morphophonemic processes which occur at morpheme boundaries. Now, Catalan does have processes like these, but they occur on the phonetic level. For instance, in cotxa blava, the /b/ will be realised as the approximant rather than the stop because it occurs intervocalically in the middle of a breath group. But (1) this isn't unique to compounds, it also occurs in phrases and (2) the convention for Catalan pronunciations in Wiktionary is to give only broadly phonetic respellings, not narrowly phonetic ones.

So given all that, what is the point of respelling the compound cotxa blava when the two elements have the same phonemic forms as the individual words, those words already have phonemic respellings in their respective entries, and the entry for the compound links seamlessly to those entries? That's my question, which no one has actually addressed. They've just offered their opinions for adding pronunciations or not to these entries without bothering to explain what they're based on. Linguoboy (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure it's necessary to add pronunciations to multiword terms when it's transparent from the individual elements. However I agree that entries should try to not just be stubs; e.g. entries for e.g. birds and other plants and animals should ideally have the correct categorization. Also be careful using Wikipedia as a source for translations; there are several instances where Wikipedia's links are wrong. Benwing2 (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Ultimateria's and Biolongvistul's view on stub entries, but I want to particularly echo Ultimateria's comments regarding the Monitoring section of your userpage @Stríðsdrengur. It seems to me wildly inappropriate and presumptuous, bordering on harassment of the users in question. Please remove it. There is a reason why nobody else on this website does this, even if we disagree with certain users or feel their edits could use improvement. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 07:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's no such thing. You probably meant purse seine. Wikiuser815 (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello? @Stríðsdrengur diff Wikiuser815 (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh sorry, I forgot to answer you xD; you are right, this must have happened during some rush of mine and I didn't pay attention, thanks Stríðsdrengur (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, where did you learn this very interesting expression from?
Regarding achocolatado, do you guys say "leite achocolatado" or just "achocolatado"? I've heard "leite achocolatado" in Portugal, but leite com chocolate seems more common here; I have, however, never heard just "achocolatado" used as a noun, so maybe that should be classified as brazilian? - note, however, that I can be quite ignorant when it comes to specific uses of words, so we might have to double-check with other pt-PT users. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Eu tinha encontrado essa palavra (menino-mija) na seção de "palavra do dia" na Infopédia, aí me chamou a atenção e resolvi criar; quando mais novo eu costumava dizer "achocolatado" para "leite com chocolate", não sei se é tão comum ou algo individual (ou até mesmo regional). Stríðsdrengur (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The happiest birthday to you today.

How is your username pronounced? Do you have an audio or transcription?

Thank you Flame, not lame (Don't talk to me.) 12:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Priberam lists this as a synonym (but doesn't define it as "hoisting rope"). Jberkel 23:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

So it's better not to list it as a synonym, it was probably an error when scanning the dictionary, it's quite common. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with most of the edits of mine that you reverted, as they were silly mistakes I made having just started editing here, but what about with а-а and Йошкар-Ола (the etymology section specifically)? Just curious about what mistakes I made there so I don't make them again. InfernoGaming46 (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Some are not exactly errors, but stylistic patterns, Mari has its own formatting pattern. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see. Does that include the bolding and capitalization for examples? InfernoGaming46 (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I only ask this because I see several other Mari lemmas with the subject bolded in the examples, as well as proper sentences (first letter capitalised + punctuation), so it's a little confusing and contradicting. InfernoGaming46 (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the delay, it's basically this:

Short example sentences do not need capitalization, while longer sentences or quotes from books do. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

WT:UX#Official policy: ‘Example sentences should be grammatically complete sentences, beginning with a capital letter and ending with a period, question mark or exclamation point.’ ―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, this is what I saw in the policy as well. There's not a distinction for shorter example sentences. Additionally, the policy says that example sentences should "be italicized, with the defined term boldfaced" and "with the translation of the defined term boldfaced", another thing I did that was reverted. InfernoGaming46 (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Stríðsdrengur! How are you? I hope you are well, I would like to ask your permission to "copy" the Xârâcùù language pronunciation module that you created so that I can adapt it to South Sami Auringonlasku (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Feel free pal Stríðsdrengur (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Olá, aqui você solicitou um request for verification de rohayhu. Basta uma citação? É uma expressão tão comum em guarani que uma rápida pesquisada no Google já nos deve mostrar inúmeros resultados, a tender ao infinito. Cumprimentos, RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ôpa boa noite, eu entendo o seu ponto, porém, no Wiktionary geralmente citações/referências são indispensáveis, especialmente num idioma pequeno/vulnerável como são os idiomas indígenas. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ultimateria Feel free to continue blocking me, but know that you will NEVER join this project. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Stríðsdrengur (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

@Ultimateria (also pinging @Benwing2, @MedK1, @Thalyson2019, @Polomo47 if it is of interest to you) The reason I removed you from the project page is a completely different case from what you did on my userpage, but this issue is already dead; + 1 month of block is exaggerated, me causing some kind of edit warring is not exactly highly punishable vandalism like deleting content from a whole entry on purpose/in bad taste. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not gonna lie, I feel the only reason why Strid got blocked was because the person he removed was an admin, and one he's had beef with at that. Had it been anybody else, I doubt anything would've happened.

It's odd that the user page thing was factored into the block, too, when he'd initially gotten left with a warning and then he actually heeded it.

I've shared my thoughts about it in the Wiktionary Discord, but it's mind-boggling that a little edit on a low-movement page in the Wiktionary mainspace can get someone banned for a whole month.

Also, although Strid's been blocked before for being rude to other users, it's gotten better as of lately. Someone in the Discord mentioned that it is standard policy to, on the third offense, block for a month, but this really cannot be said to be an offense at all since a) there was no edit warring; Polomo and Strid were talking it out peacefully while making the edits b) the userpage thing had already been dealt with and c) Strid wasn't rude to anybody — those were his two precious offenses.

I disagree with comments made saying that WT:AGP is to be a private usergroup, but those were obviously made in the heat of the moment. ...And I can't blame the guy. He's passionate for Wiktionary — that's a good thing — so of course he got upset after being blocked.

All in all, I don't think the block was legitimate at all. He's a well-intentioned user, and, as much as Ultimateria might dislike it, they are not entitled to be part of a usergroup just because it's public. The idea of a usergroup is to help maneuver users towards a series of tasks, and the medium where this maneuvering occurs is either the members' talk pages or the Discord server. From what I've been able to tell, Ultimateria added themselves into the group (OK), immediately sent out an order for everybody to carry out (?), didn't at any point communicate with any of us nor join the Discord (??), and allegedly, mobilized against any proposal we attempted to carry out! (?!?!?)

No offense meant to anybody at all, but if that's the case, then to say that such a user's removal from a usergroup (a symbolic gesture let me restate! It doesn't change anything!), even if you disagree with it, is not baseless. The grounds were rational. But perhaps people should've talked it out more to see if the previous paragraph's analysis was 100% fair. That should definitely have happened.

...Either way, it's not a big deal. It's just a usergroup page. My buddy didn't do anything wrong. Please free him already? MedK1 (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I realize I'm not the best with my wording, so I'd like to clarify something: I don't mean to say that all usergroup members must agree on something or another, or else they'll be removed. I just mean that there's been no communication. As with any cooperative group, you're supposed to talk to your fellow members so you can coordinate efforts towards given tasks... help each other out, you know? And not dump orders to the group then start blocking when surprise, someone didn't like that.

Had it happened to a normal user, their instinct would've been to go to Strid's talkpage — or the Discord! Or someone else's talk page! — and ask why it happened, get the problem sorted out, and everyone's forgotten about it the following week. But noooo. MedK1 (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Stríðsdrengur was guilty of edit warring (keep in mind this is a Wikipedia link, only meant to illustrate). The edits he made were clearly controversial (not just to me), and I issued a warning before the third strike. The onus was on him to justify these controversial edits and he did not. The length of the block is not for the severity of the edits but the number of offenses. For the record, both times that I blocked him, it was for the lowest amount of time for that level of offense.

S's reaction here has been level-headed, and I appreciate him bringing in another party so that he doesn't lose his cool; that shows maturity. That said, MedK1's extreme mischaracterization of me adding an item to a to-do list as " out an order for everybody to carry out" (twice) is laughable. Also, if it's "not a big deal" for S. to remove me from "just a usergroup page", then isn't it also "not a big deal" for me to be allowed as a member? One thing we agree on is that S. is "a well-intentioned user". I do believe that; he just needs to follow the rules and be less hostile to others.

Just communicate with me directly next time. I am not active on Discord; I just don't care for it, and I was never told that I need to be active there to be a member of the AGP. I did not know that any of those discussions were happening, then I was cryptically told "the decision has been made". What decision? By whom? From my perspective, I joined a public group and was removed by one disgruntled member in retaliation for enforcing Wiktionary policy on his userpage. I didn't even know that there was a discussion about my removal until an unrelated party told me. Ultimateria (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Your own reference on edit warring goes against your point. As I mentioned, Polomo's edit and Strid's subsequent one were both done during a conversation between the two on a public Discord. Not warring, civilized conversation about whether or not to make a change with the undo button being used for convenience.

The three reversal rule was not broken, and Strid reverted your changes exactly once. How can one call a single reversal an edit war? Your second reversal, on the other hand...

You point out my 'not a big deal' wording when, again, you blocked him over it. If it's not a big deal to keep you there, surely you don't have to enforce your stay through blocking? MedK1 (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

There's also the part where there was no retaliation; the userpage and the AGP things are separate matters as mentioned in his very first sentence.

Per this and other statements above, my point is that there is no merit to the one-month block. It's been over a week, isn't that enough? MedK1 (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

The three reversal rule is a Wikipedia policy - not a Wiktionary one, it may be applicable here as good advice in certain situations but certainly not a binding rule; blocking on Wiktionary is mostly left to the admin's discretion (as neither WT:BLOCK is a binding policy).

Having seen some of Stríðsdrengur's interactions (like a recent one with former admin Romanophile on his talk page), the behavior is pretty bad and blockworthy in my opinion (as a repeated offence) and the one month time-out issued by Ultimateria is a good idea to cool things down. Svārtava (tɕ) 07:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I discreetly followed Stríðsdrengur's conversation with Romanophile; although Stríðsdrengur didn't start off in the best possible way, Romanophile was also quite unfair in telling them to pretty much shut up and never speak to them again, I personally would be quite hurt by those words and perhaps would become frustrated or even angry. I'm not exactly trying to justify Stríðsdrengur's behavior, but I think we could try to understand their side as well. Auringonlasku (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Mx. Ultimateria clearly believed they were applying the Wikipedia policy, otherwise they would not have "warned" Strid when they did. Indeed, stupid decisions on Strid's part.

Something the blocking policy does say is this:

2. It should not be used unless less drastic means of stopping these edits are, by the assessment of the blocking administrator, highly unlikely to succeed.

I understand why Mx. Ultimateria's assesment was such. Was it correct? I don't think so. I think a lot of us in AGP would like to speak to Mx. Ultimateria, though none of us have pursued it yet — that context wouldn't've been great, but I really think we'd have made it work. If only Mx. Ultimateria messaged any of us.

Note: I was going to reply in this thread when it was originally posted, but held off on doing so — I could not have said anything better than MedK. Polomo47 (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Polomo47: The policy you quoted is indeed relevant here. At the time of the block, I believed that Strid was acting alone and that he had no basis to remove me from the group. I assumed, perhaps unfairly, that simply asking him to stop would have been unproductive, so I didn't. After all, he never provided a reason on-wiki for the removal beyond the edit summaries "the decision has been made" (I assumed by him alone) and "you are the one who entered as a gatecrasher" (in a public group?). I didn't think it was necessary involve the other members in what appeared to me as a personal dispute.

So now I'm wondering, Strid, if I had messaged you to ask "Why are you removing me from this group? Please stop." how would you have responded? Ultimateria (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Strid's comment posted just after the block is a complete deal-breaker itself. Svārtava (tɕ) 08:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Comments like these, the cliquish Discord behavior including the debacle surrounding this AGP "ban", the condescending "monitoring" list -- this is all just toxic and deeply immature behavior. I am not opposed to the block either. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Would you prefer, that you add the term иктӱкан to the entry unicorn? -- Apisite (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Done 👍 Stríðsdrengur (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

To answer your question about why I put /o/ for Portuguese santol, which unfortunately cannot be encountered in other dictionaries usually linked on Wiktionary, I actually tried to filter the right IPA from a Brazilian audio and now have reviewed the phonetics, so we can also refer to it for warning:

My auditory perception – field independent – accurately recognized the absolute value of the final vowel of this word multiply times uttered therein, but it turns out Portuguese so-designated /ɔ/ is about ⅓ higher than /ɔ/ in German, my native language, which distinguishes /ɔ/ and /oː/ (cf. Häuser and holen), such that one would suppose I could do the same in Portuguese, but this assumption is too quick: the Portuguese /ɔ/ is in line with the F1 and F2 frequencies of German /oː/, while Portuguese /o/ has hertz numbers another third higher.

By listening to the relative differences of the speaker, I understand how you can make out the distinct quality, unfortunately the International Phonetic Association has not really provided us absolutely gradated signs, so that without background knowledge particular to a language the phonetic spellings given for it by Wiktionary are somewhat meaningless, if this is not mended by a pronunciation appendix—and nobody will care about it in the foreseeable future since social conventions to employ signs in order to further language acquisition overshadow technical progress, though in such fashion one never learns foreign language pronunciation accurately in any class (ever found formant maps in language textbooks?): English vowels are still transcribed according to how Daniel Jones heard them in his now extinct leading class.

For the expected only rare times of creating Portuguese entries I will have to leave these phonetics requested. Fay Freak (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry about the Abridores pronunciation. I accidentally thought it was the Galician. I will make to create the Galician section. Ryou14 (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello ! Regarding , in English we don't say "to" before each verb in a list of verbs, unless there is some sort of intentional emphasis (which would be unwarranted by a dictionary definition). We only use "to" to introduce the first verb, and the "to" gets transferred to all other following verbs. To say "to pull, to heave, to haul" sounds very odd and unnatural. The unfortunate result of teaching the "to-infinitive" as the infinitive of English verbs causes this, when in fact it is the bare infinitive that is the English infinitive. However (as you already know) there is not always an easy way to tell a verb from a noun (e.g. pull, heave, haul) and so an introductory "to" if often used to signal them as verbs. It is not necessary to signal each individually. Leasnam (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, it's conventional that in Faroese we always mark the infinitive with "to" in definitions, as is the case in most languages you find out there :) Stríðsdrengur (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's incorrect. See . Leasnam (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I refer within Wiktionary - the use of "to" before all infinitives has become more stylistic than functional or productive, so it's kind of a standard 😅 , see glæma Stríðsdrengur (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Then I need to bring this up at Beer Parlour. Having "to"s where they're not natural connotes an air of unseriousness to this project. Leasnam (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't seem like a "air of unseriousness" to me at all; this is a collaborative wiki, as many of you like to emphasize in any conversation. I can't understand why you're bothered by such a small detail that actually gives it more charm than simply a dry list of definitions, and if it somehow bothers you so much then try to convince the hundreds, if not thousands of editors who prefer this standard and have always used it. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

"to pull, to heave, to haul" - to native English speakers this sounds unprofessional. You would not find this type of definition in an English dictionary. Let's look at how OED writes their definitions: haul - transitive. To pull or draw with force or violence; to drag, tug (esp. in nautical language). - look familiar ? a new "to" is introduced only after a semicolon, as a new gloss, for clarity and flow. A definition should be written so that it's pleasing to read. Leasnam (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty sure using "to" before each gloss is quite standard for non-English verbs. See eg olla#Finnish, spędzać#Polish, eiga#Icelandic. Thadh (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is that a result of non-native users not knowing it is unnecessary ? Leasnam (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Or it's just because it's three glosses, not one. Thadh (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely not, look for other languages too, Hungarian, Slovak, Czech 😉 Stríðsdrengur (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

You're missing the point. Just because some have been doing this, is it good practice ? What is the need for all the extra "to"s ? If we can save space, why wouldn't we ? Leasnam (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's not "just because I saw someone doing it", this pattern has literally been followed since the beginning of this wiki 😐 Stríðsdrengur (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Leasnam: The need is to make clear that these verbs are separate. Take for instance the following example:

"to see, view". Are these two verbs? Or can this be a verb and a noun? What about "to have a look, view"? Or how about something like "to want to have, crave" - is it 'to want to {have, crave}' or 'to {want to have}, {crave}'?

Marking every verb is simply much clearer for the reader. And I think your idea that it is unnatural is also not correct: "I want to see, to touch, to feel" seems just as natural to me (albeit not a native speaker) as "I want to see, touch, feel". Maybe it's a little more emphatic, but is that a crime? Thadh (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

up Stríðsdrengur (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

How can anyone reading a definition as to see, view possibly think that view here is a noun ? "I want to see, to touch, to feel" yes, this is emphatic (i.e. I want to see I want to touch I want to feel), and I mention something similar further above. I'm trying to not say the wrong blunt word, but a definition written "to see, to touch, to feel" sounds obtuse to an English speaker, and it should come to sound as such to a non-native speaker (I blame the system). I believe in this project, and I want us to put our best foot forward, and having definitions that sound robotic and somewhat puerile tends to bother me Leasnam (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Leasnam: Because there are plenty of languages that do not distinguish between various parts of speech that English does. Some languages do not have adjectives. Our Chinese entries have just one part of speech because there is no real way to distinguish between them - who's to say that "to see" and "view" is not the same word in such a language? Thadh (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Granted, but the definition "to see, view" is written in English, as also the PoS header. In English we make that distinction. Anyone using English Wiktionary is assumed to have a grasp of English language. Leasnam (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Leasnam: I wasn't talking about Chinese speakers misinterpreting an English entry, I was talking about an English speaker misinterpreting a Chinese entry. Thadh (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I see. However, if a definition were written "to see, view" on the same line, as one sense, it would be fairly evident which part of speech was meant. Leasnam (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Leasnam: If it were written on one line like that under the PoS "Definitions", I would personally think it's a mistake and should have been two lines. But maybe that's because I'm not a native? Then again, neither are the majority of our users, so is it fair to say we should be targetting such people with our definitions? Thadh (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

uh huh... Leasnam (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Leasnam I'll just comment the OED adds to after other infinitives. I'm not sure what arcane literary rule you're invoking but it's clearly not that common. Let's not let this get out of hand, shall we? Vininn126 (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's not a "rule". Perhaps you folks aren't native English speakers (I'm beginning to realise this...), but "to pull, to heave, to haul" as a definition sounds...childish (written by a 3rd grader). Period. Leasnam (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Besides, OED second sense at haul: To search, examine thoroughly, overhaul (cf. drag v.). Obsolete. rare.. Third sense: colloquial. To worry, torment, pester. Obsolete. - Doesn't this sound better than "To search, to examine thoroughly, to overhaul" and "To worry, to torment, to pester. ? The latter sounds, well, (tbbh) written by someone who doesn't know English very well. Leasnam (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Again, what are you basing that on other than simply asserting it over and over? Would you care to provide evidence for your claims or whine over and over for a editing preference that seems clearly unpreferred by a large number of editors? Vininn126 (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's self evident. Leasnam (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Better to provide evidence than assume self-evidence, which is the entire point of wiki. Vininn126 (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is a babble box for a reason. Stop the condescension and self-conceitedness. Addressing your actual point, I'm not sure what you're drawing that conclusion on, but plenty of other English native editors add it. So this whole "debate" seems to be an exercise in one's personal preference while demeaning non-native speakers and those who use a style outside of their own. Vininn126 (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

You sound like you're against teachability, and I don't know where you get "condescension" from. If I were making a mistake in another language, I'd appreciate constructive criticism Leasnam (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Go on, keep teaching them "to to to" is the right way :| Leasnam (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

constructive criticism is one thing, assuming that other editors don't agree with you because of their native language and despite a mountain of other evidence is another. Vininn126 (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Show me one dictionary that uses to-infinitives in the way described above ("to pull, to heave, to haul") Leasnam (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

...other than ours, of course ;) Leasnam (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Merriam Webster, haul, definition one. Care to continue the self-righteousness? Vininn126 (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

to cause (something) to move by pulling or drawing : to exert traction on - this is not the same thing. We're discussing simple listing of verbs. I mention further up that a new "to" is convenient for flow and after semicolons (in MW's case, a colon), for clarity and readability. Leasnam (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ah yes, No true Scotsman. Vininn126 (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

not a fallacy. general misdiagnosis Leasnam (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, continue the hand-waving Vininn126 (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

LOL - another useless weapon Leasnam (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

"self-righteousness" ? wow, glad you're a psychologist. Leasnam (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't require psychology. Vininn126 (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

care to prove that assertion ? Leasnam (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

This has quickly devolved into a pissing contest. You have 1) ignored any arguments presented by saying it doesn't count 2) saying that the only way we'd disagree is by being non-native (which is evidently not true) 3) push your editing preference without regard to consensus and claiming "it just sounds better". Until you are willing to continue this conversation in a constructive way, consensus is against you, good bye. Vininn126 (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

yeah... Leasnam (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

For example, all of the common German-English online dictionaries (leo.org, pons.com, dict.cc) use "to" in front of every English verb. All three also present their translations in a tabular format, not on one line, for what it's worth, so it's not even about clarifying separation. For good measure, Cambridge's German-English dictionary does the same thing in a format that is closer to wiktionary's, with translations such as "to fall, to sink" and "to be killed, to fall" to cover two different senses of "fallen". PhoenicianLetters (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just tell me you honestly think "to pull, to heave, to haul" sounds better than "to pull, heave, haul". Leasnam (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Leasnam IMO @Stríðsdrengur is right. It is standard practice to use "to" before each verb in a list of equivalent translations of a foreign verb, and as a native English speaker it doesn't look wrong or ungrammatical to me. (In fact it looks wrong the other way, the way you prefer.) Benwing2 (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

In a list of equivalent translations this makes sense (i.e. in a Translations section), but if those translations are in a line definition I recommend we review whether we want to continue doing so (perhaps opening a discussion at Beer Parlour is in order). It's not a practice even remotely common in other dictionaries, and it therefore feels very non-dictionary-like. No one has yet presented a good reason or justification on why we should always use "to", other than telling me "this is standard" or "this is conventional". I agree it is, but why should it be ? Leasnam (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

IMO it provides a clearer separation between in-line equivalent definitions. Sometimes you see a phrase in apposition after a verb translation, and without the 'to', it wouldn't be immediately clear in some cases if a given phrase is a separate equivalent definition or in apposition to a preceding verb. Benwing2 (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Correct. This discussion is really only about definitions consisting of a string of multiple one word verbs, like the ones mentioned above: "to pull, to heave, to haul". There are definitely times when an additional "to" makes it flow better and helps make it clear that a new verb is coming, as in "To transport by cart or other conveyance; to cart, carry." This discussion began because I was reprimanded for altering "to pull, to heave, to haul" to "to pull, heave, haul", which I am wont to do everywhere I see it. IMO, the latter string is preferable - it sounds better and it's more concise. Technically, both ways are correct, but I shouldn't be accosted for wanting it to sound better and be more efficient. Leasnam (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Leasnam Well as a general rule you shouldn't be making stylistic changes that go against established practice even if it "sounds better" to you. If everyone did that, we'd end up with chaos. So IMO regardless of your personal beliefs about what sounds better, you should adhere to established practice, and you should definitely not speak in Wiktionary voice about your own personal preferences, which you did in your first message to Strið. Benwing2 (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's not a stylistic change. It's removing superfluous particles and better-wording a definition. Are you going to tell me this is what you stand for now ? Leasnam (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's absolutely a stylistic change, and the fact that it is standard practice means you absolutely should not make changes like without prior BP consensus. It's similar in some ways to changing between American and British English, which likewise should not be done. Sorry about the boldface but you don't seem to get it and are making the same sorts of arguments people have often made when asserting the right to change between American and British English or make other essentially stylistic changes. If you truly believe this is "removing superfluous particles and better-wording a definition", by all means start a BP discussion about changing standard practice in the direction you believe in, but don't unilaterally make such changes. Benwing2 (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

No need for apologies, I'm an adult. I am considering opening a discussion at BP, but to be honest it's not really that big of a deal Leasnam (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

My take on this is we should avoid long lists of infinitives in the first place- they're a bit awkward with or without the "to". I suspect the reason the professional dictionaries such as OED and Merriam Webster don't provide examples that support either practice is that they reword things so they don't have to do either. That said, it's not awkward enough to make mass changes to avoid it, nor to switch between "to" and bare infinitives wholesale in either direction. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This I agree with; sometimes providing lists of infinitives can help with disambiguation but otherwise there often isn't a need for doing it. Benwing2 (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Re: Special:Diff/85017832/85021134 -- especially not after having harassed the same user before on their talk page last December (the edits on the talk page in question are now deleted, but I think you probably remember). It doesn't matter that you think adding stubs is a cardinal sin. Stop doing this. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Take advantage of your momentary disposition and also ask him to stop telling everyone to shut up and never talk to him again every time someone tries to get in touch. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is such an immature response. You made an unacceptable personal attack and when confronted about it, totally ignored the message and said "he's not perfect either".

I also want to point out two other recent edit summaries: "sigh..." and "dude" which accompanied relatively minor changes on your part (and actually included dead links). Do you actually think these passive-aggressive comments improve Wiktionary in some way? Ultimateria (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think a policy that eradicates info-poor stubs would improve Wiktionary. Good day, good afternoon or good night wherever you are. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ultimateria It's better to hide all these edit summaries, edit summaries are visible to all and undeletable (unless spotted by admins), and personally I've seen few examples of these. Chihunglu83 (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You have just undone my edit in "Nyom", although I had deleted rather misleading infotmation. It is said in the section the word comes from Proto-Finno-Ugric, however the exact source is unknown - two possible Proto-Finno-Ugric roots are suggested. Still, it is not even stated these two roots come from a source which is not Finno-Ugric and it means the word is probably native. I mean, we do not know where the roots came from into Proto-Finno-Ugric, thus, if we do not know whether it was a borrowed word in Proto-Finno-Ugric, why should we write "a borrowing but the source is unknown" in the section? It has no sense currently; it would be meaningful only if we exactly knew the two suggested roots were borrowed into Proto-Finno-Ugric from a different source. Eniisi Lisika (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oh I apologize to you a thousand times, I had already undone other edits of yours because they were really incorrect, this time I did it unnoticed. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Eniisi Lisika: for this kind of thing, it's better to tag it with {{rfv-etym|hu}} and start a discussion at the Etymology scriptorium, rather than unilaterally changing things. Also, if it was borrowed from another Finno-Ugric language, it would be of Finno-Ugric origin but not directly inherited from Hungarian's ancestral languages. After all, most of the words in the English language are borrowed at some stage or other, but from other Indo-European languages so all but a fraction are Indo-European in origin. Etymology is rarely so simple as you seem to think it is. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I am aware how it works. In the bokmål Norwegian language, for example, approximately a half of the current vocabulary is composed of words of Low German origin and although they are often clearly Germanic, they are still considered borrowings. In this case (with the Hungarian word), however, it is truly pointless to write "a borrowing" since there are no proves which confirm it is not a native (at least not Finno-Ugric) word. Thank you for your remarks. Eniisi Lisika (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply