User talk:Surjection/archive/2018

Welcome to Wiktionary! We have a small but active community of Finnish editors . Together we have made Finnish a big foreign language within the English Wiktionary, competing in number of entries with French, Spanish and Japanese and being somewhat behind Chinese and Italian . Our dearest competition, Swedish is far behind. There is a lot to do, e.g. in eliminating the redlinks on subpages of the Finnish Index or shortening the list of Finnish redlinks . Stay active! --Hekaheka (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Hekaheka: Thank you for the warm welcome. There is also another category that I've been trying to clear up somewhat and recommend others to try as well: Category:Requests concerning Finnish and especially the subcategory Category:Requests for definitions in Finnish entries‎. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 10:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Impressive energy with all these Finnish translations! Thanks. Equinox ◑ 12:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've seen you added a tranlation to quadriga (Roman racing chariot and team of four horses) at User:Matthias Buchmeier/en-fi-q. Thank you for your contribution. However I update these dictionaries automatically from the database, so this addition would get lost with the next update. Please add translation to the corresponding wiktionary page (quadriga) instead. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry , forget about my last comment. I didn't notice you actually deleted an erroneous translation. Thank you again.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Matthias Buchmeier: I do also always change the translations on the respective Wiktionary entry pages. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 16:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'd recommend you read Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. One of the most important ones is attestability. If asked, one should be able to show at least three different, permanently archived (e.g. in written works) occasions where the word has been actually used. A mention, such as being mentioned in a dictionary is not sufficient. If a word is not actually used, it should not be included in Wiktionary. I'm afraid these two verbs are examples of such words. I run a Google search on each of them and I got a very small number of hits, and even those few are from net-based dictionaries. Thus it appears that someone has added the word in his dictionary and then the others have copied it. Unless you disagree, I would like to delete these entries. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Hekaheka: I have no objections. I created them based on the translations added to xerocopy, so they should be removed there as well. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 16:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I did already. They seem in fact to be my earlier additions. I was much less experienced at that time. Nowadays I always try to check the usage before inclusion. Being a Wiktionarian is a constant learning process! --Hekaheka (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I usually don't use {{plural of}} -template for Finnish nominals. This is because Finnish nominals have 14 different plural forms. In order to be precise, I prefer to use {{fi-form of|WORD|case=nominative|pl=plural}}; see e.g. kärsämöt. As far as I know, other Finnish editors do the same. Other than that, keep up the good work. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Hekaheka: I went in to fix this now and noticed that a lot of entries do use Template:plural of, kissat and koirat just to name two. Wonder if it'll be possible to replace them automatically somehow. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 16:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I guess it should be possible, but I never learned to write bots. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do you know how to make a list of these entries? If they are, say 200, it's not a big deal to do them by hand. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Hekaheka: I know how to get the list of articles using Template:plural of... just not sure how to restrict that to uses in Finnish only. We'd need to be able to search for all instances of the plural of template with the parameter lang=fi. I don't think the search allows you to search for the source code of the pages though. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 21:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Hekaheka: I'm downloading the Wiktionary database now, I'll see what I can do with it. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 13:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

The list is fairly long: see User:Surjection/Finnish plural of. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 14:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I would never have believed that they are so many. Even if one could do one entry in 10 seconds, it would take 16 hours to fix them all by hand. The best I could do was 3 per minute, which means that I would need to put in a full 40-hour working week if I wanted to finish the list.--Hekaheka (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Hekaheka: I started a discussion over at the Grease pit about using a bot for this. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 16:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Where did you find the information that the liturgical vestment would be "rationaali" in Finnish. Its kind of obvious that if there was a Finnish translation, it would be "rationaali", but I was never able to find any actual usage to prove it. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Hekaheka: From a dictionary I found on the web site of the University of Helsinki's Faculty of Theology. There is an online version too here. (Not impossible that I misunderstood it though) SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 18:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well done! I'm amazed. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for all of the work you have been putting into Wiktionary lately! Our Finnish material is noticeably growing thanks to your efforts. - TheDaveRoss 16:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do you have sources for "X-kerroin"? I have not been able to find any evidence of this term being actually used in the Finnish texts of astrophysics. In case you have no sources, throwing a likely translation out for other users to verify is not necessarily a good solution. It is quite unlikely that any of the probably very small community of Finnish-speaking astrophysicists would be in Wiktionary. It is possible that there is actually a Finnish term for this factor but Wiktionary's "translation" gets quoted in the numerous web dictionaries that copy our content. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Hekaheka: The only source I have is very much anecdotal evidence: a semi-acquaintance studying astrophysics who advised me to translate it like that. I have failed to find any written sources of it being used though despite trying to do so for longer than most people would believe. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 12:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

If the student can confirm that the term is actually used among the astrophysicists, I would probably believe him. BTW, congrats for all but eliminating the requests for Finnish translations. "Trong" is a tough one. I have asked many people in the restaurant business and they don't seem to know it. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, if he's ever able to find a written source, I'll be sure to remove the -check from the template. The lack of such was the reason I made it a t-check rather than a t. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 18:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

As someone who shows a bit of energy in undoing vandal edits, are you interested in being an administrator on en.wikt? It might be better to run the vote in a few months because you're quite new, but what is your feeling? Equinox ◑ 22:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Honestly it will probably depend on how active I can be in the long run. There is a somewhat reasonable chance that I won't be able to carry out my responsibilities to this degree in the future, but if I end up being voted in, I might as well try to accept the role and employ it to the best of my abilities. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 22:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK! Tap me on the shoulder in a few weeks if you want. Equinox ◑ 22:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

How about now? Save us all from having to do "mark as patrolled" on your undos. <3 Equinox ◑ 22:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you want to nominate me, go ahead. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 23:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't think I've ever got the admin vote process right. It's very hard for my tiny brain. On the other hand I think everyone I've nominated has passed. Equinox ◑ 23:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. You are now an admin. Please add yourself to Wiktionary:Administrators. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Translations" of given names usually mean equivalents (like Matti for Matthew) or transliterations when the script changes. I wouldn't say that Ryan or Genevieve have Finnish forms at all, it's just code-switching. The have been arguments to the contrary, but I'd at least add a qualifier like "said of English-speakers" to them. P.S :by and large your edits are incredibly good for a newcomer.--Makaokalani (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

You are right about the names, I was in the wrong for them. I have been more careful since those edits, though. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 15:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

In the book Vaaguno! Suomen romanikielen alkeet, Granqvist wrote "...kirjaimella ȟ merkittävä soinniton velaarinen affrikaatta...". I assumed he meant voiceless velar fricative, but still decided to write it as affricate. I have no other sources. Τέσσερα (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

- Amgine/ ^t·e 22:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Mistakes happen, I guess. And I thought I was the fastest gun in the West when it comes to undoing/rollbacks. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 22:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for undoing vandalism on a regular basis. You can now use the "rollback" feature to undo multiple bad edits with a single click. Please use it wisely. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why should the numbers not be linked? Eli355 (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Eli355: The numbers there don't actually represent 1 and 500, but the number 1500, which in turn does not have an entry (primarily because it is not an interesting or that round of a number). It is written separately due to orthographic rules. Linking the 1 and 500 separately would only serve to confuse readers. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 09:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I added many common definitions to en:visitation. The term is not exclusively religious. Justinacolmena (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Justinacolmena (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Justinacolmena: You did not add them to visitation, you added them to Visitation. The letter case does make a difference. You also did not format your additions correctly. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 22:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see that. Those are more indeed the definitions I was looking for, although I would have expressed them somewhat differently myself. All the same, that is too fine a distinction. The capitalized version is the same word, and belongs in the same article, with a little note, "when capitalized." It is an instance of the same word. When the Finns hold Korkea Messu, publish a Catholic Bible, and insist that they are Protestant and not Catholic, I have a difficult time believing what they say. Justinacolmena (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Justinacolmena "All the same, that is too fine a distinction. The capitalized version is the same word..." It decidedly is not; the capitalized word is always written capitalized, while the non-capitalized one is not. "... belongs in the same article..." again, no. This is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Visitation already has a "See also:" at the top of the entry, pointing you to the non-capitalized entry. As for the last comment, I fail to see how that is related to the discussion at hand in any way. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 10:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Why did you revert my edit? Many major dictionaries say it's old-fashioned. Adam9007 (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Adam9007: "Many" is a bit of a stretch. Out of the five I checked, only two said it was an old term. Beyond that, on Ngrams, tavern is about half as common as inn or pub, so it is definitely not a rare term, even if extrapolated to the current year. Reading from Wiktionary:Obsolete and archaic terms: Still in use, but generally only by older people, and considered unfashionable or superseded, particularly by younger people. It does not seem like this would be the case based on the statistics. I also tried Google searching the three different terms from a few different news sites on articles from the past week, and the numbers matched the Ngrams usage statistics. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 21:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Of the 5 I checked, 3 said it is an old term: Cambridge, Collins, and Oxford (in fact, this says Archaic). I did notice that these are all British, so maybe it's only dated in the UK? Adam9007 (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

That is possible. Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary actually says tavern is old-fashioned as a synonym of inn, but not as a synonym of bar. Regardless, if the usage keeps dropping slowly, perhaps in a few years one could declare tavern as dated. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 21:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I suppose we could. I remember that our entry for queer (in the sense of strange) was not so long ago marked as slightly dated. Maybe we could do that instead? Adam9007 (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

It seems like a reasonable option based on what the dictionaries do say, albeit I would not be surprised if another editor will disagree with that assessment too. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 22:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hmm... It's just that I don't think that if three major dictionaries say something's old-fashioned, we should just ignore it entirely, especially as over on Wikipedia I think I was once told that if just one says it's old-fashioned that we should avoid using it (on there at least). Adam9007 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The safest option would probably be to add an usage note describing how many dictionaries consider the term old-fashioned. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 22:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

As an American, I say that tavern is not "dated", though certainly less commonly used than bar.Aearthrise (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Could you please justify your revert? What's so "disruptive" and "vandal" about my additions? 188.225.75.249 19:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why the edit is counterproductive: "Papuan" can very well refer to Papua, the island, not Papuan people. The "non-Austronesian" is an excessive detail. It has turned into disruptive and vandalism ever since you simply kept edit warring instead of actually using a talk page, like you are now. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 19:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Not to mention the block evasion using a VPN that you are doing. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 19:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to produce vandalism.

To clear things up: there is no island called "Papua", at least not in common English usage. The island is called New Guinea (and New Guinean is the adjective); Papua and West Papua are Indonesian provinces that cover a mere portion of it. "West Papua" is also used in the sense of "the western half of the island of New Guinea" (the eastern half forms an independent country - Papua New Guinea). The phrasing "From, or pertaining to Papua or Papua New Guinea" looks faulty to me because it excludes a part of the Papuan territory (the province of West Papua).

"non-Austronesian" is not an excessive detail in my book; that's basically the essence of the term. "Papuan" refers to the languages of New Guinea and its neighbouring islands which aren't classified as Austronesian (and there are plenty of Austronesian languages in this area). I'm not going to insist on this addition though and will let you decide on what merits inclusion. 188.225.75.249 19:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

"To clear things up: there is no island called "Papua", at least not in common English usage." Agree to disagree: I often read Papua as a reference to the island, and it is the Indonesian name for the entire island (not just the western half, albeit to distinguish from the province, "Pulau" (lit. "island") is sometimes added).

"because it excludes a part of the Papuan territory (the province of West Papua)" ...but it doesn't, since Papua is a common name for the entire western half, if not the entire, island. Replacing that part with "people" does not help anyone.

"that's basically the essence of the term" And one could argue to also add "non-Australian" in there as well due to the fact that Wikipedia mentions it. The Papuan language group is a geographical grouping, and that is enough; we do not need a rigorous definition of it, albeit if you feel it really needs to be pointed out, an usage example could be added. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 19:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the explanation. That pretty much clears it up.

I would stil suggest replacing "on the island of New Guinea and neighbouring islands" with either "on New Guinea and neighbouring islands" to avoid the clumsy word repetition, but thats a mere nitpick. 188.225.75.249 19:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I would say repetition is not a major issue here, as readers may not be aware of what New Guinea actually even is. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 20:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. That sounds reasonable enough. 188.225.76.181 20:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Another issue: you shouldn't change the gloss on an existing translation table, because the translations were added to match the old gloss, not the new one. The proper thing would have been to use the {{ttbc}} template instead of {{t}} or {{t+}} to mark them as translations to be checked. Otherwise, you're putting words into the mouths of those who added the translations. That doesn't apply, of course, to any languages you speak well enough to independently confirm. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

In toilet roll, I tried to link to similar article name in Wikipedia . BoldLuis (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@BoldLuis The end result looked weird due to using a See also heading with a floating template. If you use a floating template, place it directly after the part-of-speech heading or the language heading, or even better, use an inline template instead for "See also": Template:pedia. (Don't forget to put a * before it to add a bullet point, that looks better!) SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 23:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here is an example: Special:Diff/49934707. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 23:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK. Thank you a lot!!!👍.BoldLuis (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is useful, but could you leave the content on the page, so add the tag rather than replacing all the text? It makes it easier to confirm that the content is deletable, without digging in history. Thanks. Equinox ◑ 00:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'll do that more often, although usually I have removed content if it could possibly be damaging. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 00:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

How is it not correct? It has three cites for the word "McShittles". Equinox ◑ 21:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox The article you replaced the content into is McShittIes with an uppercase I, not a lowercase L. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 21:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. BTFO was indeed a band in Estonia. The slang acronym BTFO has soiled the memory of this once iconic eastern European band and the world should know that vulgarit is not the origin of this acronym. — This unsigned comment was added by 2600:8801:1889:f000:144f:6714:8d34:dfd (talk).

Given the fact that BTFO very often refers to the vulgar meaning rather than to a band most people have never even heard of, it is a bit ludicrous to add it as a dictionary entry (and don't even get me started on how you formatted it). SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 00:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello - I believe the rollback of self is in error. Thewolfde (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

There was the incorrect formatting and also adding it to the wrong place (shifting a citation to the wrong meaning). What is your source for that definition in the first place, though? I have never heard of the word being used like that, and some of your other additions too are... unique to say the least. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 12:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The references are for proper interpretation of a scientific handbook that I am soon to publish, and Wikipedia is truly the best place for it. I respect your view however I maintain that a lack of exposure to a particular use of the word is not grounds for minimising exposure to Others. Please offer some grace in my activities and stay tuned in the coming days. Thewolfde (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary is not the place to promote words you have invented (see WT:CFI). If you really want the entries to be documented, do so on the list of protologisms or perhaps your user page (assuming it won't get deleted because of your inactivity on the rest of the site). If all the words you recently added are such new coinages, I would rollback all of them. Can you confirm this is the case? SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 12:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

All words are made up. I have read carefully through Wikipedia policy and I am adhering to this policy. I caution a neutral point of view. Please undo your changes made. Thewolfde (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Regardless, Wikipedia too has a policy about this, and you should probably have a read. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 12:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree with your point of view entirely. I leave with you a choice between maintaining your actions or allowing me to continue in the way that I believe is best - perhaps your attention is best used in addressing vandalism. Ultimately I feel you are acting as an obstacle to progress and I offer you the opportunity to demonstrate why this is not the case. Please revert your changes. Thank you. Thewolfde (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am simply adhering to Wiktionary policies. Don't discuss it with just me - discuss the words you want to add on the Beer parlour in detail and see, what the community thinks. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 12:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I too am adhering to policy. I don't understand your motive or reasoning behind removing my contributions. Please explain. Thewolfde (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

How about you cite the part of the policy that states that one is allowed to coin new words and add them to the dictionary? WT:CFI is a fairly extensive rebuttal to that. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 14:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Thewolfde: Hi, admin here. You are not adhering to policy. Please see WT:CFI. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 14:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

We generally avoid redirects whenever possible. It looks to me like if this is attested, it should have an entry an as alternative spelling. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I added it initially as a redirect due to its somewhat unconventional spelling and because I thought the lack of its existence was a hint that the spelling was a problem. I can expand it into a full entry though. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 18:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can you edit the page for me, then? I want to add the traditional definition of # as denoting weight in pounds. Thanks! — This unsigned comment was added by 129.110.241.78 (talk).

Already done. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 21:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

hi you creating many finish words but have many red links example varavoimakone Declension have red links

Is it okay to create them? — This unsigned comment was added by Amirh123 (talk • contribs).

It depends, really. Ideally only fairly fluent Finnish speakers should do them, since the inflection tables on those pages may have errors (I think I checked mine, but may have missed something). SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 14:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I try a few

I think you'd better let him have his way for now. Per utramque cavernam 11:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Given the vandalism and the threats (including death threats) the IP has done, I have no reason to do so. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 11:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

For the record, I have also contacted WMF about these threats with the diffs. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 11:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

A block is entirely warranted of course. What I mean is that when you don't have the block tools and no admin is around, you run the risk of engaging in protracted revert wars (which pollute edit histories). I tend to avoid doing that, but I guess that's just a personal preference. Per utramque cavernam 13:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I can perfectly understand that argument, and that is what I do for most vandals. This one was an exception. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 13:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

hi I creating many finish Declension I want list of finish Declension with red links to creat them — This unsigned comment was added by Amirh123 (talk • contribs).

I don't quite understand what you are saying? SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 10:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

see https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/balkaninmyyr%C3%A4#Finnish see Declension table have red links I want see all red links in one list — This unsigned comment was added by Amirh123 (talk • contribs).

Unfortunately, I don't think there is a single list of all missing nominal forms. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 10:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

do can creat finnish Declension with bot example NadandoBot https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/User:NadandoBot

Because their creation is usually very hard and time-consuming — This unsigned comment was added by Amirh123 (talk • contribs).

I understand that a bot may be useful, but I feel the creation of all inflected forms would mostly cause issues to anyone trying to read recent changes, and most of the time the inflected forms can be searched to find the original form. Also, please remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes to the end of your comment, like this: ~~~~ SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 11:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think run bot very slow to creat them 6 for minit Amirh123 (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can you please check his contribs? I'm concerned, because he doesn't seem to know any Finnish. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

There are some mistakes, although I also have to take blame for actually adding wrong inflections. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 15:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey. You're making Finnish entries way too fast! I'm trying to get Spanish ahead of Finnish in Wiktionary:Statistics in gloss definitions and you're not helping at all --New WT User Girl (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't aware this was being made into a competition. I just create missing entries whenever I have nothing urgent to do. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 21:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

It being a competition makes it more fun for me. Especially after being around here for 14 years. --New WT User Girl (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this would be a competition. How does it feel to get beaten by someone who hasn't even been here for a year? SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 21:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's not YOU who's beating ME, just "your" language beating "my" language. --New WT User Girl (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

who're Equinox ◑ 22:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

That is a fair enough argument, but although there are no statistics that I know of that could back the following claim up, I am the one who has created the majority of Finnish entries (but not all of them) that have been created within the past two or three months. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 22:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Not many have created such a hecka lot of entries. Equinox ◑ 22:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

There was one user who hasn't sadly edited in some years, but he created a jyrillion entries during his time. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 22:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The other Q-word is important, too. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wait, which thing are you referring to? I feel stupid for not understanding the context. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 17:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Quantity and quality, I would presume. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

So I was correct in feeling stupid. Either way, it's not like I don't put effort into my submissions (my average submission has an etymology, IPA pronunciation, hyphenation, meanings and inflection!). SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 19:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for the correction of my articles about Tierra del Fuego in Japanese :).

I am new to Wiktionary and I apologise for my bad initial content.

Kiitos avustasi ;) !

--91.91.49.106 16:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)91.91.49.106Reply

I wouldn't say it was bad content, just unformatted; that is to be expected, since learning the Wiktionary entry layout may take some time. In either case, welcome to Wiktionary! SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 17:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I changed the page https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/tese to "Quasi-Synonym" because in Portuguese "Dissertação" is not a synonym of "Tese".

Dissertação is a written essay submitted in a university in order to obtain a "Master of Science" (MSc) degree, therefore, it is not supposed to present original and new results. In the other hand, Tese is a much more complex written essay (longer and containing unseen results) because it is used to obtain a PhD.

According to Wikipedia, in USA "at most universities, dissertation is the term for the required submission for the doctorate, and thesis refers only to the master's degree requirement". Thus, it is the converse in Portuguese.

I understand that "Quasi-Synonym" is not a valid section name, but what we have now is wrong. So, if you can tell how we can fix it, I will gladly change the page accordingly.

Thank you. --Lp.vitor (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The ideal solution here would probably be to move it under a "See also" section, i.e. in this case, rename "Synonyms" to "See also" and, per the linked WT:EL, move that renamed section under the Related terms section. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 13:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I would probably also change the sense template into a q template and move it after the link to ] to give something like ] {{q|written essay}}; the "written essay" can be changed, if it doesn't match the definition of dissertação, but should be kept relatively short and concise. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 13:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

<butting in>Synonyms don't have to be exact here. You could keep them where they are but add a gloss to explain the differences. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto, I understand that, but in this case, they are not really synonyms in Portuguese. Even if a tese is "like" a dissertação used to obtain a PhD degree, people will never say dissertação de doutorado (word by word: dissertation of PhD) nor tese de mestrado (word by word: thesis of Msc). Furthermore, saying tese de doutorado is considered a pleonasm because a thesis (in the sense of a written essay, in Portuguese) is always for a PhD. --Lp.vitor (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Why should we tell people that the past tense of mithe is "mithed" when we don't know that? And isn't there someplace we can look it up? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

That I don't know, but your edit that got rid of the head template does more damage than good. If you can find a reliable source stating the past tense is something different, you should modify the head template accordingly. (If you're not sure how to, just ask) SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 21:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

care to explain ? Glover (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't add much of anything, also seeing that the Mongol Empire existed centuries before the quote even existed, which makes it even less relevant. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 12:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

"As the largest continent, containing several climatic regions, deserts and mountain ranges, central Asia is a very difficult area for military manoeuvres." this is clearly in error as the largest emipire in human history included this area, that being the mongol empire. Glover (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The fact that several recent generals thought is was difficult does not preclude the notation that an older, very successful general took this area. Glover (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is a dictionary. None of what you had said is relevant to the phrase in a lexicographical context. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why you describe pro your revert darkë (who mean dinner in Albanian), darkë is hypothetical etymology, the term is dasma (Tosk variant) & the Gheg (original) term is darsma, so ars cognate... Don't edit Albanian you are not Albanian & you not speak it... Good bye. 46.217.55.207 19:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The difference is that it's actually sourced, unlike your cognate. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 19:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sourced by a Russian, who use in his book deformed dialect made by communist called Standard based on Tosk (Toscane) imposed in 1969, don't use your stupid argument with me, you are not Albanian don't make edit, you don't have any knowledge of it, so stay far... Good bye. 46.217.55.207 19:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The source is probably more authoritative than the anecdotal evidence of an anonymous contributor with condescending behavior. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 19:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Anonymous contributor have the right to edit... I will not spend my time talking with you, trying to convince someone who have this kind of reverting action... Don't edit Albanian you are not Albanian, and majority of Albanian are Muslim and many term have Arabic root... It annoy you but I don't care. You prefer the Russian supposition, who is only hypothetical, and not authenticated by Albanian academy of science of Tirana. It annoy you because it's Arabic and you are a racist. Farewell. 46.217.55.207 19:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The religion doesn't really matter; Albanian is an Indo-European language, while Arabic is a Semitic and Afro-Asiatic one, and they're not really related to each other. Sure, maybe religious terminology is taken from Arabic, since it's the main language of Islam, but given a fairly authoritative source has stated that the word has nothing to do with Arabic, I'd say pretty much everyone would trust that more than an IP editor. Also note that personal attacks like "you are a racist" above are block-worthy offenses, so you might want to refrain from writing those. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 19:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

That is a mixture of nouns, proper nouns and prepositions. It needs quite a bit of work. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

It had the Noun L3 already somehow, but yes, someone should really clean it all up. (I don't personally have the time to) SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 09:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I found the time to now. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 16:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Appendix:Emoticons&oldid=prev&diff=50196367

I'm not too familiar with the policy of this wiki, but does this not need a source? Benjaminikuta (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Source or citation markings aren't used like that on Wiktionary. Besides, since it is in an appendix, if you want to dispute the "tear of joy" entry, you cannot use RFV or similar either, so I would probably suggest using the Tea Room. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 09:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I generally only hide user names when the user name is part of the vandalism, or if they're deriving some kind of benefit from people reading it. Leaving that aside, though, there's no point in hiding user names if you leave edit summaries of the reversions visible that mention the names (you can hide edit summaries even on the current revision). Chuck Entz (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am aware - in hindsight, it didn't make much sense to hide the user names in this case anyway. Note taken on that though. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 10:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Maybe we should make it editable by auto patrollers only? Per utramque cavernam 10:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

There's no protection setting for autopatrollers; the closest is allowing autoconfirmed users and above. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 10:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh, ok. Too bad, because this egomaniac is frankly irritating. Per utramque cavernam 12:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's probably easier and results in less huge tables, if the possessives are handled like they currently are for Northern Sami nouns, e.g. viessu. The possessive form goes on its own page with its own inflection table. —Rua (mew) 15:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

It does indeed seem like a better idea than having a massive table of possessive forms. In that case, the declension module would just need to be updated to handle possessive forms directly, and it's better on the Lua resources too since there is no need to generate all the possessive forms when viewing a noun page. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 15:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

You can't just steal quotes from movies like that 83.216.82.173 08:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

That is not how it's done. You're free to convert the usage example into a quote though, see Template:quote-video. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 08:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

K that's definitely not my job. I'm going to remove your plagiarism

I thought ‘what’ was a predeterminer. —Osbri 17:05, 07 September 2018 (ET)

"Predeterminer" isn't really an actual L3, see WT:EL. The added section also lacked a head template. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 21:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think I see. I thought I’ve seen that before. — Osbri 20:04, 08 September 2018 (ET)

I noticed that Module:User:Surjection/fi-nominals-multi contains some outdated code. Namely, acceleration tags for WT:ACCEL are not provided with a span tag anymore, but with a parameter to Module:links. —Rua (mew) 14:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Module:fi-nominals contains the exact same code, which I added some time in mid-June. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 15:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that will need to be fixed too, I'm just not sure how yet. Maybe it can be done just by changing the tags so that they match the names of the forms, e.g. all_sg-form-of instead of singular-allative-form-of. I've done it that way for the Sami modules, look at Module:se-nominals for example. The only difference is that for Sami I used | as the separator, so that the acceleration tag can be given straight to {{inflection of}}. But Finnish doesn't use {{inflection of}} so that doesn't really matter. —Rua (mew) 16:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for contribution and your work! I have added an abbreviation of a new existing concept (Community Driven Real Estate) related to blockchain technology. As I can see, you have revised it from the CDRE page. May I know the reason of revision? If you just revised it for future discussion, let's discuss it or let's return the last revision 21:08, 12 September 2018. — This unsigned comment was added by Qamaba (talk • contribs).

"cdre" "community driven real estate" gets zero results on Google. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 15:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is a new definition. Here is the link to the article: https://medium.com/@q.bakir/cdre-blockchain-based-model-of-community-driven-real-estate-ownership-17ff0d078f5b

And Wiktionary is not the place for adding definitions you have invented. Please read WT:CFI. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 13:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

It seems like our case is that you "fail to see" the difference between my definition and the long standing and not fully correct current one, so let me explain:

The current definition: "# Having unlimited power, force or authority." suggests that possessing or being a "force" (whatever that could imply) and "authority" are "traits" of an omnipotent being, lets say (and by the way, they aren't). I specifically, in my definition, implied that being omnipotent means being "...illimitable, even by the universe" which a "force" and an "authority" are not. Forces are restricted by the laws of the universe and an authoritarian power in a human society is sure as hell restricted by the universe; they can't (through their power) construct a weapon that fires projectiles faster than light etc. because they are restricted by the universe.

Also, to have "unlimited power" (which then again, what does that even mean?) is not the same as "... be capable of doing anything imaginable...". A super-ultra advanced battery could have "unlimited power" but an omnipotent being does not necessarily have "power", they are omnipotent, and that must not be quantified.

Apomimi (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Unlimited power, force or authority" quite clearly reads "unlimited", as in not limited by anything and therefore being capable to do absolutely anything. It's simply pedantic to claim otherwise. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 15:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

It suggests that an omnipotent "power" or being has an infinite quantity of power, force and authority (which is not limited by anything) which is not true, you can't quantify the concept of omnipotence.

Apomimi (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

That is with the implication that unlimited = infinite. Besides, how exactly is your definition different in that case? It pretty much boils down to the first definition of having unlimited power, force or authority; that is being capable of doing anything. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 15:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

My definition makes it clear that something omnipotent is not restricted by the universe.

Apomimi (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

The existing definition already says "unlimited", as in not restricted by anything, not even the universe. One thing is for certain - having it as a separate definition is pointless, but the existing definition can be amended. But even that still seems pointless, because the existing definition already contains all the necessary information. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 15:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

No, the current definition contains "force" and forces are limited by the laws of nature and "authority" mainly follows ideas of humans and how we manifest everything around us and that is also limited. The current definition even says "or" like something omnipotent isn't capable of being anything and everything.

Apomimi (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I fail to see how the definition of "force" implies it is limited by the laws of nature: "strength or energy of body or mind; active power; vigour; might; capacity of exercising an influence or producing an effect". Same could very well apply for authority, which is not at all necessarily restricted: "the power to enforce rules or give orders", unless the actual idea of having authority or the power to do anything in the first place is in itself a concept made up by humans. As for the "or" part, it is an inclusive OR rather than an exclusive OR, so a being that has unlimited power, force and authority would still be considered omnipotent; it's just that all three aren't necessary, since they partially overlap and having just unlimited power would imply the others as well. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 15:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Forces are limited to our universe, now if you want to, you can explain how a human may transcend the universe and use their "energy of... mind" outside of it or disconnected from it, it doesn't even have to be humans, just anything. Nobody has successfully defined how transcending the universe or reality is etc. and therefore telling me that you cannot see how "energy of body..." etc. is limited by the universe, in which those laws and rules of how energy and particles work reside in by the way, is currently beyond me.

From current evidence we can know that humans did define the concept of "authority" meaning that which you said and even if humans weren't first and some other animal was then they're still limited by the universe.

I do not quite understand what you are denying.

Apomimi (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Forces are limited to our universe" No part of the definition of force implies such. I feel I don't need to explain how a human may transcend the universe since this dictionary likely will not either. Note that the definition of force uses several different decisions separated by semicolons to represent identical or nearly identical smaller definitions of that particular meaning, and the one that would be best considered here would be "capacity of exercising an influence or producing an effect". Indeed, thus the current definition of omnipotent would equate to "having unlimited capacity of exercising an influence or producing an effect". By the way, there is absolutely no need to discuss this solely with me - you can use the Tea Room to discuss specific words. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 16:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Don't forget, this is a dictionary: we deal with words and phrases, not concepts. For someone speaking the language, your definition and the current definition are linguistically the same. It requires clues from the context or explicit explanation for someone to tell the difference. Absolute rigor in abstract philosophical details isn't something we should even pretend to provide. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am discussing it with you, Surjection, because you locked the page.

My definition is not "abstract", Chuck Entz, unless we won't accept the word "imaginable" in a sentence that defines something. The definition I provided clearly explains what something omnipotent is and what the relationship between the nature of the universe and the concept is. Now you said we don't deal with concepts but being omnipotent has to follow the same rules as the concept of omnipotence, they are actually very similar things.

Apomimi (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Me locking the page does not mean nobody else gets to decide what it contains. I'm not even the only person who can edit it in this locked state either. (By the way, it was locked because you kept re-adding the definition, which resulted in an edit war.) And I said earlier, the problem with that added definition, as stated above not once but multiple times, is its effective equivalence to the existing definition; having unlimited power, force or authority <=> being capable of doing anything. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 16:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I truly do not see the similarities because of vague definitions on e.g. Wiktionary. But that which I am sure of is that the current definition does not speak the full truth and that it is a disparagement to the concept or idea of omnipotence and everyone who wishes to learn about it. The current definition poorly defines "omnipotent", mine does not.

I also re-added my edit because I changed it, instead of locking the page for me and everyone you could tell me to not undo your actions of undoing mine before I make my reasoning clear to you, and before you (or someone else) accepts it.

Apomimi (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

And your explanation of how the current definition exactly is bad has not convinced me nor a few other people, hence why I suggested asking at the Tea Room to see if anyone else would understand your viewpoint better, because I cannot really see any justification for how the existing definition and the one you added would be any different. As for readding definitions, you already did it once even before "changing" your definition (which was a minor change either way, and you also managed to re-add it under that guise). I can unlock the page, but if you re-add the definition again without gaining consensus to do so, the only remaining option would be to block you temporarily for edit warring. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 16:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

One day you will see.

Apomimi (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Worthy, I (2409:4061:507:6fc3:acb2:96d1:3d0f:8583), having edited lollipop (→‎Etymology) on 19 September 2018, would like to ask if it is a sore wrenghth to further the history behind any etymology, or put more lexical tidings in the Wiktionary. You have ever and anon unwrought my edits, much to my sorrow. One should be but ever unfettered to put knowledge that is right and unfoul. Further, Wiktionary needs all kinds of register in its bywords, therefore tidy or beseeming archaisms has nothing to do with vandalidm. Hence may I now beseech you all the boons ever wrought by me to Wiktionary , be brought again. — This unsigned comment was added by 47.11.137.191 (talk).

Your attempts to flaunt that so called linguistic prowess of yours by replacing words with their Anglo-Saxon equivalents are disruptive and you have been warned several times to stop them, yet you have not listened. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 08:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't think -pohjainen is actually a suffix, but rather an adjective, just like -vuotinen and many others. Therefore, there shouldn't be a category for words suffixed with it. The entry is originally my creation, but I was a newbie then (2008). --Hekaheka (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is a bit difficult to decide whether it would count as a suffix or a component in a headword; I can't think of any rigorous definition off the top of my head. I'll still delete that particular category due to it being empty. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 14:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

When I first wrote the article for -pohjainen, one of its English equivalents, -based, was treated as a prefix. After a discussion it was decided that it actually is an adjective, and the content was moved under based. Since then I have treated similarly used Finnish words as adjectives, but with a small twist. To indicate that the adjective is only used in compounds, I write the header of the article with a hyphen, e.g. -pohjainen, -pitoinen. Maybe we should need another new category: "Finnish adjectives only used as headwords in compound terms" or something like that. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

But say, what would separate -pohjainen from -lainen, or would -lainen too not be a suffix but instead an adjective? SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 22:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

You think no information about pronunciation is better than linking to the French part? 83.216.94.7 20:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's fairly unlikely that the English pronunciation would be the same as the French one. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 20:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why? 83.216.94.7 20:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

The languages have fairly different phonologies. For instance, neither RP nor GA has /y/. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 20:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Arabic word "tarjuman" is originally Arabic language word its not a borrowed. Wakeel Ahmed znjry (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not the one to argue about that, but I know that the entry itself is not the place to discuss that. You should bring the topic up in the Etymology scriptorium. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 11:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Iberian was an actual name designation for Georgians. Sources abound. Iberia was not just the peninsula but a kingdom. Bests,

I don't think the term was ever used specifically of Georgians, but if you can quote it, that also works. (Also, it's best to not add archaic and historical at the same time, or if you do, don't place them as two separate lb templates but a single one, like {{lb|en|archaic|historical}}). SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 17:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey. So, I got really frustrated with myself after making dozens of stupid mistakes. And instead of deciding to clean these entries up, I decided to be really pissed off and go on a vandalism spree (it feels good, you should try it sometime). Anyway, then I thought against it and decided to talk about my feelings to someone instead (it doesn't feel so good, but it's worth a try) and ask them to block me. Having spoken about my feelings, I have now decided that I will be a responsible Wiktionarian and actually clean up my mess and kindly ask not to be blocked. Thanks for your time. --XY3999 (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

So, it turned out that the "corrections" I made weren't quite right and need to be corrected again. I can't manage to be that responsible, and hence my original idea to go on a vandalism spree is back. Sorry in advance. --XY3999 (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dearest Worthy, the etymology of ruffle that I wrote is most trustworthy and authentic. Why cut you that? I am sore keen on learning your grounds for the same. — This unsigned comment was added by 2405:205:6413:df00:f034:b614:cda7:ddb5 (talk).

The fact that you still write like that is enough of a reason. Again, this dictionary does not need you trying to purposefully write archaic language. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 13:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

         Be that as it may, I strongly will to know why the following etymology has been mistrusted by you:

About 1250–1300; from Middle English ruffelen (v.), "to fret the smoothness of", mayhaps from Old Norse hrufla "to scratch,"; cognate with Low German ruffelen, "to crumple, rumple, wrinkle, curl,". The meaning "disarrange" (hair or feathers) was first recorded in late 15th century, and the sense of "annoy, distract" is from the 1650s.

If Wiktionary is unready to have such a good etymology, it can never be a good wordbook. I myself feel sorry for that. Furthermore, cutting the said etymology again and again but leads to leaving the origin of the word ruffle empty. Is that fair? 2409:4061:611:20EE:CD20:20C5:4E85:52ED 12:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC).Reply

It's not a good etymology nor is any text good when it intentionally has archaisms. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 14:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am fumbling about seeking any archaic words. Where is the archaicism? I find none. And, for months you have accused me of archaicism as a lame ground to block and harrow me. 2409:4061:611:20EE:CD20:20C5:4E85:52ED 15:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC).Reply

It is a completely valid reason since you have been repeatedly ask to stop it yet have refused to listen. There is no reason whatsoever to artifically include archaisms in definitions, etymologies or anywhere. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 20:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revertmy edit on booboisie? --ElNuevoEinstein (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Coiners of words would go under the Etymology section; besides, it seems Mencken did not perhaps originally coin it. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 12:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is literally no basis in fact whatsoever for the speculative Japanese origin for this expression. No trail of citations, no cultural exchange, nothing. There's the vaguest similarity in sound and meaning, which is the amateur etymologist's most common mistake. Do yourself a credibility favor and leave that speculation deleted. I have added an antedating, too.

Is this really a suffix in Finnish? I don't know enough to confirm, and it was created by that IP user you've reverted a lot in the past. —Rua (mew) 22:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's at best a variant of -ias and most of the l's can probably be explained away in some other way than assuming -lias is a real suffix. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 22:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

So it would be a sub-heading of "English" and there might be more than one if there are see alsos pertaining to words with multiple languages? Ranze (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, "See also" is intended to be a subheading of the language, with one section per language (or in some more uncommon cases, one section per etymology, if the words has multiple etymologies). It is also worth noting that there is usually little reason to have "See also" sections under non-lemma forms. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 20:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, this is with regards to the significant edits you have rolled back. I reversed them back, and yet again you undid them. JainismWikipedian (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's like you don't even read your user talk page or the Information Desk thread you posted. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 12:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I edit on mobile, so the notification is a bit slow. Also, only after writing here, I realized you had already written on my talk page. :) JainismWikipedian (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't particularly care but it looks like you rolled back my entry on Bulldoze even though all it did was (a) linked to the Wikipedia entry and (b) linked to the Oxford English on the topic. Seems silly to have reverted that but not worth getting into a fight over. Don't want you to.... bulldoze over me. HighAtop94 (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

You added a repetition of the already stated etymology, under a definition line no less, which isn't where etymologies belong unless they're very specifically related to a particular meaning. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 20:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

But why not keep (a) the link to the Wikipedia entry on bulldozer which provides detail on the history of the word and (b) the reference to the OED discussion of the word. Aren't Wikis stronger when they have citations and cross reference each other? HighAtop94 (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sure, if you want to add the Wikipedia link and OED link under a Further reading section, I won't oppose that. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 15:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I made the change. I think it's great that there are users like you who look at edits people make and try to maintain standards and quality in this dictionary. But I do notice you seem to do a lot of just reverting edits and saying "if you don't like my reversal contact me". That might have the effect of reducing the voices in this dictionary; what kind of fool (except me) want to then ask for permission, get it, and repost the entry. You've clearly put a lot of effort into making the dictionary great, even if you are objectively "wrong" in this behavior it's a small price to pay for your overall contribution. And you also deserve credit and respect for not just reversing but saying in your comment "contact me" and even more credit because when contacted you respond promptly. Take this as well meaning feedback from a stranger. HighAtop94 (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ideally, the {{comparative of}} and {{superlative of}} templates should not categorise at all, and this should be left to the headword template instead. Now that things are being changed, this is a good opportunity to fix this. I suggest that for all entries where the headword template currently already places the entry in the right category, nocat=1 is added to these two templates to indicate that their category is not necessary. Eventually, all instances of these templates will have that parameter, and then it can be removed altogether. —Rua (mew) 18:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

None (at least basically) of the current head templates have the correct category right now; they should be "comparative adjectives" for "lemmas" (not considered lemmas technically with the current structure, but let's imagine they were) and "comparative adjective forms" for "non-lemmas", and so on. The eventual goal is to get rid of "adjective comparative forms" entirely (similarly for superlatives and adverbs and all such combinations). SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 18:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I understand, but I was suggesting that as part of the effort to fix all these, the nocat=1 parameter be added as well where possible. —Rua (mew) 19:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what the standard for most templates is - if the standard is to not categorize from the definition line template, it's definitely possible to get rid of the categorizing in comparative of and superlative of as well. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 20:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

There has been a slow move away from letting definition templates categorise, though it's far from complete. {{plural of}} once categorised, but now it no longer does. —Rua (mew) 20:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

To continue the discussion under vaa'ata, you are correct that Unicode 2019 is used in many Finnish words instead of apostrophe, but the use appears to be inconsistent. I was able to find 23 words that use it plus several dozen of their inflected forms. On the other hand, many Finnish entries use the normal Ascii apostrophe instead, e.g.: vaa'alle, vaa'atta, vaa'asta, vaa'alta, vaa'aksi, puoliraa'at (but there the head tag uses Unicode 2019), raaka voima (inflected forms inside fi-decl), franchise (inflected forms in fi-decl), ge'ez, ge'ezin, poi'innan, rei'itteet, rei'ittäjä, oi'istaa, oi'istua, oi'istus, i'issä, i'istä, i'illä, i'iltä, i'ille, i'iksi, i'in, i'ittä, luo'on, riu'un, tiu'un, liu'uttu, liu'unnan, liu'unta. The fi-decl-parfait template generates entries with the normal apostrophe. The Unicode apostrophe also seems to be used extensively in English language examples and glosses in Finnish entries, but only about 4% of apostrophes in English entries are Unicode 2019 (I suspect non-native writers with international keyboards may have written them). A rather minor topic, but probably each use is widespread enough that any code using the data has to handle both. Wouldn't it be so nice if things were consistent! Tatu Ylonen (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

U+2019 is supposed to be used everywhere when it comes to Finnish, so Finnish entries using the ASCII apostrophe are the ones that are mistaken. English is fine to use the ASCII apostrophe though. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 13:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox Is the block you gave me intentional? SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 15:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, thought it was the Talk:updation vandal. Equinox ◑ 15:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

In case you weren't aware: it's an odd quirk of the way things work with Wikimedia that admins can unblock themselves. If it's obvious that the block was an accident and you don't hear from them, it's okay to remove the block. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think it is an error because here it says the Russian word was borrowed from Turkic languages: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82#Etymology_2 --185.134.130.69 16:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

You would imagine the word for a currency of a country that uses a Turkic language would be borrowed from Turkic into other languages. However, none of that implies монета (moneta) would be from the exact same source too. Instead, it seems монета > manat > мана́т, which makes the latter Russian term a reborrowing. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 17:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

thanks for guidence!
شہاب (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why you reverted the changes? کات in Persian has no meaning actually it is a dummy word, in the other hand we have قالماق in Turkic according to sources the Arabic word قلعة is derived from قالا (means stronghold) then قالماق (means remain). I think it would be better to add source? the source is a Persian book which talks about Turkic origin words in Persian language. — This unsigned comment was added by Zeos 403 (talk • contribs).

قلعه wouldn't make much sense as a "reborrowing" if it were Turkic -> Arabic -> Persian; besides the etymology of قلعة seems to not be as clear-cut as you are making it seem. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 22:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

How it makes sense from a non-existence word کات? also it is not like Turkic -> Arabic -> etc,

It is like this: Turkic (قالماق - kalmak - t=remain) -> Azeri/Turkish (قالا - Kala - stronghold) -> Arabic/Perisan (قلعه)

Also I am not making it bro, This is written in a Perisan book.

this is also same for "Gul/Gül" which you also reverted. — This unsigned comment was added by Zeos 403 (talk • contribs).

Just because it is written in a book doesn't mean it's automatically true. Also, your edits on قلعه were suggesting it was Turkic -> Arabic -> Persian and not the sequence you're proposing now. As for گل, I have to admit that I'm not any kind of expert on Indo-Iranian and Turkic etymology, but the semantic gap alone makes it very much unlikely. I suggest you bring up the book and its theories on the Etymology Scriptorium. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 22:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Bro It is not only mentioned in only one book, it is mentioned in several different Persian/Arabic book, but I can bring you the newest one which is written in Perisan and is published in Iran, also bro I am native Azeri and Perisan speaker, What's the point of accepting a non-existence word کات and rejecting my edit which is logical and rational? also about "gül" how it can be Persian while we have a verb "gülmak" which is pure Turkic? you think this is true? you accepted all Persian things without any source but reverted my edit. I am really disappointed. — This unsigned comment was added by Zeos 403 (talk • contribs).

Again, I recommend the Etymology scriptorium, but I consider it strange that it's supposedly mentioned in multiple books yet you haven't named a single one. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 23:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The name of the book I was talking about is: "فرهنگ واژگان دخیل ترکی در زبان های فارسی و عربی" the writer is "پرویز زارع شاهمرسی" the book itself has several other sources in Arabic and Persian (more than 20). I can't understand how you guys accepted that non-sense Perisan edit but not mine... — This unsigned comment was added by Zeos 403 (talk • contribs).

An online search with that book title returns no results. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 23:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

You found the book? (It seems there is a limit for these nested comments)

It would not harm to add such a book, properly formatted with {{cite-book}}, in the reference section of the Arabic article. However if you add etymologies they need to make sense somehow. If you add to the Persian گل (“rose”) that it comes from külmek (“to laugh”) this does not look fine in comparison to what was written before, because a verb “to laugh” does not just become a noun “rose”. @Zeos 403. But note that the Arabic قَلْعَة (qalʕa) has been derived from کلات‎ (kalât) and not کات. Fay Freak (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just a small remark, Old Turkic is not an ancestor of any of the Turkic source languages that Persian has borrowed from, to my knowledge. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

For this word yes, but not alwats, if you read the full talk, I wrote the full path how the word is camed to Persian.

There are some words that came to Persian from Turkic more before Islamic era. like گناه or گیاه.

Bro... rose is a name for special type of flower, but گل/gül is general and means flower itself, how it makes sense that the verb gül came from Persian while in Turkic we have gül verb itself which is pure Turkic?

Sorry کات where a typo, I was meaning کلات as you mentioned.

What you write does not make sense, at least in parts. You say “verb gül came from”, but nobody claimed that. Currently as it stands Turkish gül is borrowed from Persian while “gülmek” is of course inherited. This does not exclude however that the Persian word is a Turkic borrowing instead (the same way Persian غاز is a Turkic borrowing displacing an earlier native word.)

I don’t know what you want with the meaning of گل. You see at its page that it means both “rose” and “flower”. But still you have not written how it would come from Turkic. Fay Freak (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I told you "rose" is a name for special flower, so forget that please, also how do you know no body claimed that? so many books proves that these words are Turkic also it is logical that these words be Turkic not Perisan. let me write you the path for gül/گل:

Turkic (gülmak - laughing - gerund) -> Turkic (gül - laugh - verb) -> Turkic (gül - flower - noun) -> Persian (گل - flower - noun)

a flower is always like a laughing face. this is the true etymology.

> a flower is always like a laughing face.

Doubt – it sounds like a classic folk etymology. And why do you claim that I claim that nobody claimed that? I have not written that. You do not seem to read carefully. Now you say the Persian is from Turkic while before you claimed it is from Old Turkic. You seem not to care about details. If you cared, you could use {{cite-book}} as is standard and actually spell out the bibliographic data of the books through this template. Not only |author= and |title=, but |year=, |publisher=, |location=, |isbn= if existing, |pages= or |pages=. But you rather add anything you believe in. Don’t believe in things – look at the evidence! You have not convinced anyone. And believe me man, I am not Persian but rather tickled if it is possible to insinuate that a Persian word is of foreign origin. But for me to accept it as possible or likely you need to bring the material into order. Fay Freak (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

1- I am new on Wiktionary so it is really hard to read/edit for me here, so please accept my apologize.

2- The problem is we messed things up a little, most Turkic words are derived from old-Turkic, same as "gül", so it doesn't matter old-Turkic or Turkic for this topic here.

3- I didn't mentioned the book cause I didn't know how can I do that? but if you let me I will do it now with all the required details. also I wrote the name of the book above you can also check it by yourself.

4- I am not the one who should believe or not I would never edit that page if I didn't have evidence from different sources.

@Zeos 403, bro I understand your confusion, but you should note a few things:

1. The more general meaning of a word is not always the older meaning, it is very common that the meaning of a word shifts so that it becomes more general.
2. We have this Middle Persian word that precedes Turco-Persian contacts, wrd becoming gul may seem like jibberish to you, but it corresponds to the pattern we usually see when comparing Middle Persian with modern Persian: /w-/ becomes /g/ (or sometimes /b/) and /rd/ (and /rz/) become /l/. I suggest you explore Persian terms derived from Middle Persian to confirm that this isn't just something made up for this one word but a real law which governs historical sound changes.
3. *gül- 'laugh' is of course valid Proto-Turkic, but this etymology of flower as a laughing face is very unconvincing, and note that Turkic languages almost never create new nouns from verbs by just removing the infinitive ending. Also note that gül 'flower' is not found in Siberian Turkic nor Old Turkic, which is consistent with being borrowed from Persian.

Feel free to ask additional questions. Crom daba (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

This topic actually was for قلعه but we are talking about گل, anyways:

1- Not always, for example "Çalışmak", we use "Çalış" as noun for "challenge", so it happens (no time to mention them all) also most Turkic verbs/nouns are made up from these nature behaviors, one from laughing one from a noise, like noise of water.

2- It doesn't matter if the verb "gül" (flower) exists in old-turkic or siberian or no, cause we are telling that the word "gül" is derived from the verb "gül" (laugh).

1. Do you know how old this behaviour is? In the 21st century many things are done differently.

2. It does not matter strictly, but it is a clue. We would expect such a formation elsewhere were it formed so early in Turkic as to be borrowed into Persian. Note that you try to explain the Middle Persian gwl and the Persian quoted from the 10th century as a Turkic borrowing, since the Persian is apparently from Middle Persian! This means the Turkic noun you need had to be formed before Turkish even existed, in Common Turkic at least! And if that was the case, such a Turkic word would (at all likelihood) have reflexes in other, more remote Turkic languages. Linguistics is just applied probability. You don’t want to introduce a goropism, right. Fay Freak (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

2- Of course it is formed before Turkish and Azeri, the verb gül is pure Turkic, also how you are sure it doesn't exists in Old books do you have access to all old Turkic books? also how you sure that non-sense Persian word exists in old Persian books? that Persian word doesn't have even "1" source and the etymology seems meaning less. as I told some Turkic words came into Persian before Islamic era, گل is one of them. man anyone who knows a little Persian/Turkic knows that this etymology is wrong, you justed picked up random non-existence word and are claiming etymology. — This unsigned comment was added by Zeos 403 (talk • contribs) at 08:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC).Reply

@Zeos 403 I have not claimed that it is not found in Old Turkic, neither that the verb is not Turkic. What has been pointed out is that the lack of the noun gül ”rose” in remote Turkic languages points to it being borrowed from Persian into Turkic, and that your derivation from Turkic “to laugh” looks like a folk etymology, which both indicates that a Turkic derivation is likely wrong. Do you know what a folk etymology is?

Persian گل does not need a source for its existence to be shown. It is quoted, which is better. Wiktionary is a secondary source, it researches itself early occurences of words. Why don’t you add some Ottoman words and quote them from Ottoman books you have read? This is more safe than etymological derivations, and you can help Turkic with it too.

Middle Persian gwl is found in MacKenzie’s Middle Persian dictionary. The etymology does not seem meaningless. It looks like Indo-European etymologies usually look. Fay Freak (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am not convinced by your derivation of çalış from çalışmak, I still believe this to be a very rare form of derivation in Turkic, especially in the more ancient period we are discussing here.

{{R:trk:Clauson}} is an index of Old Turkic, if it isn't there it probably isn't found in Old Turkic. Another good source for Turkic is {{R:trk:Rasanen}} which also confirms that gül is persian. There's also {{R:TMN}} which doesn't mention the word and {{R:trk:ESTJa}} which analyzes the derived forms of *gül- 'to laugh' and of course don't mention the flower word.

For the Parthian w'r word, you can look under {{R:xpr:DMMPP}}, I am not able to find an original facsimile of the Manichaean manuscripts, but I have no reason to believe that Durkin-Meisterernst would lie about this, the same goes for Sogdian and {{R:sog:Gharib}} and so on. Crom daba (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Guys I will start a new section in Etymology scriptorium with more evidence, but to be clear I have to tell that this is hilarious you accept non-existence Persian word as origin of گل without any sources but you reject my claim with multiple sources and evidences.

As stated now, the discussion continues here. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 14:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey SJ, I love what you do. --Love Young (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

What I do loves you too. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 11:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for contacting me. I can see why you reversed my edit. I forgot to indicate "female" in defining the term/usage as "member of the United States Senate" which I have now corrected. Thanks for the alert.--titiko (talk) 9:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

That actually wasn't why; it's because the "senator" part already contains the part about being a member of the senate and the term itself isn't used only of a member of the United States senate. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 17:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

What I meant by U.S. Senate is that it is used there and in the Canadian Senate, but not really in other Senates like the French Senate, so I wanted to offer actual illustrations of usage. That is to say, my definition offers an illustration of how it is used to address a female senator as opposed to only describing what the term means. --titiko (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

"but not really in other Senates like the French Senate": the definition has a quotation where it is used in context of the French Senate. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 18:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the mistype, as I was just reading about the French Senate in that quote, when I replied to you. I meant to say "but not really in other Senates like the Australian Senate." Meaning, in debates in the US, Canadian and French Senates, the traditional reference to women in olden days -- who just numbered less than 3 before the 1950s -- was "the senatrix" or the "senatrix from Georgia" as we can see from the Senate Congressional Records of the 1920s. Nowadays, the preference in congressional/parliamentary usage/debates is the gender-neutral term, "senator" when referring to a female senator. Just like the US Supreme Court did away 15 years ago with the centuries-old tradition of calling justices as "Mr. Justice" or "Madam Justice" so that now, according to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, they should just be referred to as "Justice".titiko (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

You're still wrong, it seems. I just added a quotation where the term is used in an Australian context. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

You are confusing two things here. In my edit to senatrix, I wanted to show that it is not just a term or noun, the way it is used in the US, Canada, African countries, or even Australia that have Senates. I am citing it as a formal address, the way a senator would address a female senator in olden days (see Congressional Records of the US Senate) in the US, Canadian and French Senate. But Australian senators NEVER ever used senatrix to address female senators in their parliamentary debates and proceedings. It was used in Australia just as a noun, a term of reference. That was my point. titiko (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Naturally, it was not a term of formal address in the French senate, where the addresser would be using the French word sénatrice instead. As for the US and Canada, I don't really see any evidence that it was standard as a term of address. In fact, it seems to be quite rare (as the entry notes), whether in reference or address — and I'd also like to see evidence that there was an implausible split between the two. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

In the same way that the quotation cited there refers to French but the term under consideration is "senatrix". I already cited the reference above: It was more used before the 1950s as repeatedly indicated above and in the definition. And yes, it is no longer often used as a term of address, as you just noted. That is why we put in the definition as 1) "rare"; and 2) "traditionally". —titiko (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

via Indo-Greek Kingdom 180 BC–AD 10. Sirkap/Taxila, Chiniot, Sagala/Sialkot in Punjab were capitals of the kingdom.116.120.135.71 10:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Certainly not borrowed through Modern Greek anyway. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 12:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

This looks quite SOP to me given that we have kaksipuolinen and teippi. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, not sure what was going through my mind when I created that. Deleted. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 09:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Georgian phrase "შიგ აქვს" or "შიგა აქვს" (pronounced "shiga aqvs") is most likely derived from the hebrew word שִׁיגַּע‎ (shigá, “drive mad”). The Georgian phrase is used to denote that someone is insane or acts as if she/he was insane, which makes the Hebrew version of its origin more credible than the one that relates it to the literal meaning of having something inside. Shota59 (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's an interesting theory, but I would raise it up at WT:ES before trying to add it to the entry - after all, the existing etymology was added by a native Georgian speaker. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 09:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip, I am new to this platform. I am also a native speaker.