User talk:Thrissel
Welcome!
Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- How to edit a page 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.
- Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
- Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
- The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
- We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.
Again, welcome! 50 Xylophone Players talk 11:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Your description and examples make this word look more like a determiner than a noun. --EncycloPetey 22:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but (1) all the dictionaries I have give it as a noun and (2) I don't think a determiner would have a genitive, as in "beagan làithean - a few days" vs "an ceann beagain làithean - at the end of a few days". --Thrissel 22:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- In that case, you might want to look for additional or alternative English translations, like bit (small amount). --EncycloPetey 03:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sound advice. It's better now I suppose. --Thrissel 09:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- In that case, you might want to look for additional or alternative English translations, like bit (small amount). --EncycloPetey 03:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes that was clearly bollocks, thanks for changing it. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ay, even as a beginner I found it hard to believe ;-). --Thrissel 15:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Just said I'd give you a welcome (better late than never ;-). Anyway, can you look at the translations in the entries in this category and see if you can figure out if they are Scottish Gaelic or not. 50 Xylophone Players talk 11:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, the first two were Gaelic but the third was Scots. I treated them all. --Thrissel 18:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and thanks for the links at the top of the page - I went straight to the latest edit so I only noticed now. --Thrissel 20:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. :) 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and thanks for the links at the top of the page - I went straight to the latest edit so I only noticed now. --Thrissel 20:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Demi, demie? (French)
Hi! I've added another example to show this adjective ( which may be something else than an adjective …). Cheers! ৵ Kąġi Oȟąko Ƭ 15:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, made it clearer to me. (= that it's a debatable word ;-)). --Thrissel 18:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry about the fact that it is not so clear. This is one of these words even the French even use and write mistakenly. As I have several very good French dictionaries — among them, the “Quillet” encyclopedia, based entirely on the works of the French Academy —, I will add much more explanations and examples as soon as possible.
- Now, could you explain:
- What is the “numbering” thing (you wrote « repaired the numbering»)?
- Which talkpage are you talking about (many people prefer to continue on the talkpage where etc.)?
- Sorry for being so stupid, but there are many things I don't understand on the Wikis.
- Cheers! ৵ Kąġi Oȟąko Ƭ 21:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Re 1: I meant that after you added the sentence, the definitions were numbered 1 - 2 - 1, so I put it back to 1 - 2 - 3. Only a matter of format, nothing important.
- Re 2: I mean when e.g. you start some topic on my page, I answer on my page as well, you (maybe) continue on my page, somebody else butts in also on my page etc. (Similarly if I start some topic on your page, you answer me on your page, because you suppose that I'll notice it etc.) Like this the conversation is all at one place and when you possibly need to read it again after some time you don't have to "skip" from one talkpage to the other and back again. It's a matter of personal preferences, though, not everyone does it like this.
- Don't worry, there are many things I still don't understand here either. --Thrissel 22:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure I understood everything, but I will read it again until I achieve to get it.
- Many thanks for your help, anyway.
- Good Night! ৵ Kąġi Oȟąko Ƭ 22:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Please, could you create this entry? The English entry (deprecated template usage) parrot and its subsidiary pages are used as a model for new contributors, so the best entry you can provide will help many other members of the community. Thanks. --EncycloPetey 01:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Done. But then you know that :) --Thrissel 01:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks. --EncycloPetey 01:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Talkback: Nbarth, ’s
Thanks
Thanks for all your work on Gaelic languages. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the praise (although I'm only doing Scottish Gaelic, being ga-0 and gv-0). I use en-wikt so often as a reference work that I like to feel I'm doing something in return :-). --Thrissel 19:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
We are all persons
And that is the starting point, first and foremost, we are all persons. Also, we are all members of the same project, WM = wikimedia. -- Bugoslav 16:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm a person from a country which is a member of the same project, the EU = European Union, yet I can't vote in other member states. So what? --Thrissel 16:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with this project, which is a lexicographical project in many languages, and denying the chance of some influence over what is happening here on en:wikt is needed because the Internet is not particularly developed in all parts of the World (and most certainly not on the same levels).
- Your comparison is something like declaration of independence, this doesn't exist in a WikiWorld. It is the same project with one goal = sharing knowledge.
- We all know that the current sittuation on en:wikt may pressure for some orthodox solutions regarding certain four languages, and that en:wikt is currently uncappable of protecting those languages from a dozen users of this project.
- There is no consensus in 57-34-7. This doesn't guarantee long term stability of this project.
- Thanks for your comments.
- Bugoslav 12:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- "denying the chance of some influence over what is happening here on en:wikt is needed" - I think you don't mean this the way I read it.
- EU too has one goal, but it still leaves its member states some amount of independence.
- Slavic languages will thrive or wither regardless of the way they're formatted on en-wikt.
- 57-34-7 isn't consensus, but the numbers would be different without people never showing any interest in en-wikt outside of the SC vote. I'll give you another comparison: I firmly believe that w:Scots language is a language in its own right, while many others are firmly convinced it is just a dialect of English. But if there was a vote on whether Scots should or shouldn't appear as a language on, say, hr-wikt, I would think it arrogant of me to go and vote there in Scots favour. --Thrissel 15:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your hard work!
Thank you for all the work that you've put into Scottish Gaelic words! We really appreciate all the work you've done! Razorflame 16:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Tapadh leat! Just doing my bit... :-) --Thrissel 16:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- No problems :) You deserve it :) Cheers, Razorflame 17:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey there. I've been adding information about prefixes to Irish entries, and creating new entries for words that have a given prefix, which somehow got me over onto Scottish Gaelic entries with the same prefix (fo-, in this case). This got me looking around at different prefixed Scottish Gaelic words, and I noticed that a few that I'd added the prefix template to in the past had been changed (by you) so the prefix was shown as bana-, rather than ban-. Pardon my ignorance, but is there actually a difference between these two prefixes, or are they the same prefix manifested in different phonological environments? If the alternation between ban- and bana- is predictable based on the word being prefixed, they should probably be listed as variants of the same, and there should be a single category for words so prefixed, with an explanation on the entry for ban- (if that's the underlying form) as to how one knows when to use bana- instead. embryomystic 12:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well they are in principle the same prefix, with bana- usually prefixed to words beginning with b, c, g, m and p, which it lenites, and ban- to the others, of which it only lenites f (although there are exceptions to the rule, eg priestess - ban-sagart but female servant - bana-shearbhanta). I made the changes because I thought the custom here was for each orthographic variant to have a category - I suppose that English co-, com- and con-, are in this aspect analogous to ban-/bana-, but as you deal with etymologies about a zillion times more than I do, I'm quite willing to go by your judgement. --Thrissel 15:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you've got me wondering. I've been unable to find any real guidelines in Help or ELE. You may have a point about (deprecated template usage) co-, (deprecated template usage) com-, and (deprecated template usage) con-, though it's a bit tricky because that's a loaned prefix, extrapolated from multiple words that have one of those variants (or others, like col-) that developed in Latin or French before English got its grubby little hands on them. So it may make some sense to have them as separate, where ban- ~ bana- is a variation that developed within the language itself. I may be influenced unduly by speaking Irish, as well, as Irish has only got ban-, which lenites the prefixed word, but doesn't really vary itself.
- Do you suppose the fact that searbhanta begins with a slender S might account for the fact that it's prefixed with bana-? The other example of a bana- followed by an S that I can find is bana-stiùbhard. And all the examples of ban- + S that I can find feature a broad S.
- I've had a look at French categories, and although in- and im- have separate categories, there are a number of im- (as well as il-) words in Category:French_words_prefixed_with_in-. That more or less settles it for me as far as precedent. I'll edit the entries. embryomystic 22:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, making difference between loaned prefixes and ones originating in a language sounds reasonable to me. This is settled then. I added a note to Category:Scottish Gaelic words prefixed with bana- to that effect.
- As regards prefixing slender S-, there's for instance ban-sith, ban-Sgitheanach or ban-sheinneadair, which latest is moreover lenited, and indeed, bana-stiùbhard has the alternative form ban-stiùbhard... I suppose that S- just follows the pattern more loosely than other letters. --Thrissel 15:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Why is this capitalized? Shouldn't it be semi-open game? SemperBlotto 17:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC) (ditto (deprecated template usage) Open Game)
- If the truth be told, I just followed Wikipedia's usage, because Google Books gave quite inconsistent results (same gooes for Open Game when you add a particular opening's name, eg Scotch Game to avoid unrelated stuff) and I haven't found it in the OED. I don't know whether lower-case entries would be preferable, or whether it would be best to simply add them as alternative spellings (or forms, depending on the outcome of the current vote). --Thrissel 17:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Why doesn't headword match inflection line? It should. DCDuring TALK 15:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- To emphasize the fact that an Ruis is always used with the article (while eg Ruisia is used without it). But if you feel the Usage note is enough I won't contest it. --Thrissel 15:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've been working to improve the exact correspondence of headword, inflection-line, and bolding in entries. My most-preferred look is that all three exactly correspond, except for inflected forms of the lemma being bold on inflection lines and in usage examples. In part, I have been doing this because it seems to me that there is excessive and confusing use of bold in many entries. By itself, the exact correspondence leads to no difference in appearance between a word which requires a particular article of type of complement and one which does not. For a PoS with multiple senses with different syntax, a usage note is not fully satisfactory due to the problem of indicating to which sense it is applicable. Thus, in such a case I prefer a brief syntax note where context tags go. For syntax notes that apply to all or many senses, the usage notes may be better. But if the article is not bold in the inflection line and in any quotes or usage examples, keeping the article on the inflection line is also OK by me for the excess-bold problem. I still prefer the context tag/usage notes approach to train users to pay attention to those parts of our entries. Finally, usage examples showing use with articles (not bolded !) are apparently helpful to users. I will probably try to work to create uniformity along these lines among all the English proper nouns that have some special need for use with "the"
- Wiktionary:Todo/bolded_spaces_in_single-word_entries shows a large number of entries in Gaelic with the article in bold. That is how I came to Ruis. I do not feel the need to "clean up" every one of these in Gaelic or in any languages other than English in the near future and may never. But I'd appreciate your giving this presentation question some consideration as I wouldn't want to do violence to the entries. DCDuring TALK 16:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Trouble is, there are words like Cuimrigh. In the nominative the article causes lenition, so you get A' Chuimrigh. In a way even the nominative is "inflected". To have a match you can either have Chuimrigh as headword, or Cuimrigh as the inflection line nominative. Both seem unhelpful to me. This doesn't apply to (an) Ruis which is unlenitable, but I treated it similarly for the sake of consistency.
- I don't much care whether the article is or isn't bold, but it seems better to me to have it there in the inflection line, it belongs to the nominative as much as the suffix to the genitive. (Btw I wouldn't know how to "unbold" it within the template anyway.) --Thrissel 17:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
an- ~ ain-
Is ain- a variant form of an-, or an entirely separate prefix? I ask because the meaning(s) seem(s) not to differ much, if at all, and because ain- seems to be used exclusively before words beginning with slender letters, so it makes sense as an orthographic variant. Irish only uses an-, and the N is slender when the prefixed word begins with a slender letter.
If they're synonymous, maybe we should treat them like ban- ~ bana-. I'll do the legwork if so, I just wanted to get your opinion on the situation. embryomystic 14:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's a tricky one. Trouble is, an- and its alternative form ana- are sometimes used for making a negative, but at other times they are paradoxically used to emphasize, so that an-mhòr doesn't mean "not big" but "very big". AFAICT ain- is only used for negating. Maybe it would be safer to have one category for ain- and one for an- and ana- and just put a "see also" link from each of them to the other. --Thrissel 15:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've just checked my Irish dictionaries, and it appears I spoke too soon; they list ain- with a negative meaning, and the two different an- prefixes are listed separately. I think I'll edit the page for Scottish Gaelic an- similarly, treating the two as separate prefixes, with ain- as an alternative form of the negative prefix. Is ana- a variant of the emphatic prefix or the negative one or both? embryomystic 04:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that may be the best solution. Ana- is a variant of both, eg ana-miann "extreme desire, lust" and ana-caitheamh "prodigality, waste" but ana-blasta "untasteful" and ana-cothrom "disadvantage, unfairness". --Thrissel 05:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Gaelic
Thanks for all your work on Gaelic on Wiktionary. It’s enormously helpful for everyone with an interest in Celtic languages, thank you so much. Keep it up! --Lundgren8 (t · c) 15:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's very kind of you. I use WT (& WP) a lot as reference so I try to do my bit as well. And it's always flattering to know that people notice :) ! --Thrissel (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Gaelic and Scots
Hi Thrissel
I mostly work at nl.wikt and I just tried to clean up a whole bunch of translations that claimed to be sco but were actually gla/gd. I think they may well have been copied from here. In fact I found a few here that were wrong e.g. at muskrat. see Could you check? My Gaelic is almost non existant (I know a little Irish, but it is not much) so it is hard for me to be sure. what is whatJcwf (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Grrrr, I'm not surprised. I've come across this several times before - it starts with somebody not knowing there's a difference between sco and gd simply writing Scottish, later somebody who knows that's ambiguous deciding on one of them but picking the wrong one. Trouble is, there's no way I know of to find these instances except incidentally.
- I did some research but could find no gd word for muskrat - this isn't unusual, given that it's not a native Scottish species. The only source citing it, indeed as "radan molach", is Webster, but in my experience it's a quite unreliable source, and indeed this very "muskrat" page of theirs has eg Czech as two languages, "Czech" and "Bohemian", and translates the word into it/them by the correct "ondatra" but also by the Croatian "bizamski štakor" and some unidentifiable "mošusni štakor". So I'm deleting the gd "translation" from our page altogether.
- Anyway, good catch, and don't hesitate to tell me if you come across others you want checked! (Btw, the name "Scots Gaelic" you used is perfectly correct, but the established form in en-wikt is "Scottish Gaelic".) --Thrissel (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well if you would be willing to check my corrections on nl.wikt, I'd be much obliged Thrissel. We do not have much expertise on the subject there, you see. Besides it might help to trace problems here. If you look at my changes on may 13 from 15:03 (kameel) to 16:39 (càmhal) and click on "wijz" (=change) you can see what I have done. I think much of it must have originated from en.wikt, so you might want to check the corresponding pages here. Most of them seem to be animals, birds and the like. I hope I've done it right: I'll gladly stand corrected!
As nl:radan molach is concerned (shaggy rat I think?) do you think I should delete our page? Jcwf (talk) 01:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, shaggy, hairy, furry rat... I looked at your page's history and as the author used the code sco, he probably just took it from en-wikt or the Webster site. It's up to you but IMO deleting the page would be sensible, obviously nobody's going to come across "radan molach" anywhere else than on pages mirroring Webster and WT. --Thrissel (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Langcodes
Please be careful when using language codes - {{gd}} is Scottish Gaelic, but {{cs}} is Czech. Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. Force of habit... --Thrissel (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
When creating inflected forms, could you please not add {{l/gd}} and such into the word? It's not necessary and it's being phased out gradually. —CodeCat 18:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, will do. Thanks for telling me. --Thrissel (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)