User talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV

Archives:

• January 2011 to August 2012;
• September 2012 to October 2012;
• November 2012 to August 2013;
• August 2013 to June 2014;
• July 2014 to January 2015;
• February 2015 to November 2015;
• December 2015 to October 2017.

I noticed that you've changed my edit of the "tu" pronoun. I am Brazilian, born in São Paulo and living in Porto Alegre, and feel that simply describing the pronoun as "archaic, poetic or regional" does not fully cover the range of uses the pronoun can have. The closest to a nationwide "General Brazilian Accent" we have is Carioca, since soap operas, films, music and TV show made in Rio are so popular everywhere in the country and it is very much the default accent for foreigners learning Brazilian Portuguese. The point is: people from Rio do employ "tu" quite often in their informal speech, albeit with nonstandard third person verbs, as I showed in the linguistic research I attached to the usage notes. Since I find it rather odd to define Carioca as a regional accent, I decided to edit the article to include "tu" as a possible nonstandard second person pronoun in very informal settings. — This unsigned comment was added by Phastolph (talk • contribs).

When you add a label to a definition, the label applies to that definition alone. It’s the use of tu with third-person verbs that is non-standard, not tu itself.

Now, about your claim that Carioca can be treated as equivalent to General Brazilian, sorry, but that is unacceptable. You can consistently tell that a person is from Rio when they speak Carioca; no one uses Carioca when trying to avoid regional Portuguese in the same way that people use RP or General American. If, when describing “General Brazilian” (which is an abstraction, and not at all a monolithic lect), our goal is to avoid characteristics that are generally considered markers of a regional variety (such as the use of postalveolar coda sibilants or approximant coda rhotics), then words featuring characteristics associated with Carioca must be indicated as such. Not doing so would be tantamount to fooling our users. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hallo, Ungoliant. Please, can you delete this page sìpri, that is wrong in the accent over that ì?! Thank you. In the meanwhile, I'll rewrite the right page without accent. Thank you, --Glo (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

 Done. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

hello, is it illegal to copypaste ipa pronunciations from other dictionaries. thank you. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:219E:66C4:EF6D:97FA 15:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I’m not familiar with American copyright law. Our transcription standards are unique enough that there aren’t going to be many cases where you can copy IPA pronunciations en masse without adaptations anyway. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Ungoliant. I won't get into a reversion war with you. However, I would like to point out that the collocations "subjective pronoun" and "objective pronoun" are not standard English. The terms employed in the context of grammatical analysis are "subject pronoun" and "object pronoun". You may wish to reformulate my "second-person plural object (pronoun)" etc., but I believe that using "subjective" (which in English means "relating to personal feelings, tastes, or opinions") in relation to grammatical case muddies the waters unnecessarily. -- Picapica (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Picapica: (Sorry for butting in) see sense 7 at subjective. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 20:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

No need to apologize, Aryamanarora. But in a way you said it yourself: that meaning is sense number seven! I've been learning and teaching languages for nearly seventy years and never yet encountered "subjective" or "objective" pronouns in anything I've read or heard.

See https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=subject+pronoun%2Csubjective+pronoun&year_start=1900&year_end=2000&corpus=18&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Csubject%20pronoun%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Csubjective%20pronoun%3B%2Cc0

-- Picapica (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Picapica, OK, I apologise. I will revert myself. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 10:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Ungoliant; that is very decent of you. (BTW, I've also converted another instance of subjective/objective on that page, which I missed first time round.) -- Picapica (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Ungoliant ^(falai) Thank you for bothering to thank me: I check each fresh etymology revision once or twice each day from Monday to Saturday. Etymologies are largely conjecture, as you would know, unless the time line of the first evidence of each cognate can be ascertained. For example, if none of the Germanic dialect cognates for oat could be traced back before the fifth century, it would be most likely that a PG reconstruction would be applicable, but not so if they could be traced back to primitive sources around 3,000 years ago; nor indeed from after the ninth century, when they could well have been borrowed from Old English, seeing that there is a Scots Gaelic form "ad" that implies 'corn' which is clearly not borrowed, and may be cognate with Welsh and Breton "id". It would help if new editors took into consideration that certain words in Old English are in fact a hybrid of contemporary and older forms. Kind regards. Andrew (talk)

Add the following line to your custom Javascript pages:

importScript("User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV/synshide.js");

and report problems here. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

The space between a definition line with hidden nyms and the one below is a bit bigger than between two regular definition lines. This is due to the margin of the element that contains all nym lines. I can’t think of a non-convoluted way to solve this without having a single button to toggle all of a definition’s nyms. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think having a single button to expand everything is easier for the user. Perhaps quotations can be included in it as well, but I'm not sure. —Rua (mew) 20:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I’ve just made a major change to the code. Now there is a single toggle link for all nyms per definition, and the margin issue is apparently fixed. Please let me know if you come across any bug, and feel free to fork or meddle with the code (especially if you can optimise it). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This discussion (a shame so few people took part in it) led me to create CAT:Portuguese verb–noun compounds and put an item in it; thought I'd let you know. Three questions:

• would you have preferred an hyphen instead of the en dash?
• would you have preferred "compound words" instead of "compounds"?
• would it bother you to find sacarrolhas (infinitive+noun, if I'm not mistaken) alongside porta-aviões (3rd person+noun)? Personally, I don't like the idea of having French faire-part alongside couvre-chef, since they seem typologically different to me, but I haven't found how to discriminate.

An idea I've just had: {{af}} would be cleverer if, when we add the pos parameters, it could compute the right subcat and add it automatically, instead of adding the mother cat Compound words by language. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know, I’ll add some entries.

• No preference on hyphen vs. en dash.
• Compound is better, since it is shorter. Due to the poor way our categories are displayed, it is better to have shorter cat names when possible.
• Sacarrolhas is not infinitive + noun, but saca + rolhas. The double R is an orthographic artifice.

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks, thanks, and thanks. Another question: how would you translate French window in Portuguese? I can find porta-janela in Collins, porta de janela in fr.wikt. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

The usual name where I live is janela francesa, or janela de varanda if it leads to a balcony. Porta-janela (which is a noun-noun compound) is well attested, though. Porta de janela apparently doesn’t meet the CFI. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I see, thanks. Yes, I chose this example to show that it can be useful to distinguish compounds by the POS of their components (admittedly, there shouldn't be many cases of conflation... porta/porte might even be the only one).

Crap, I've found this: Category:Spanish verb plus plural noun compounds. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

There's some crap in here, but it looks like a good source overall. For a more curated list of literary Portuguese redlinks/orangelinks, my User:Metaknowledge/Português still exists. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Unsurprisingly, most of the Wikisource redlinks are obsolete spellings, even Old Portuguese in some cases, so definitely not high priority, but it’s worth going through anyway. I really need to focus on your list and Requested Entries first, but unfortunately I haven’t had time to do much heavy lifting with Portuguese lately; I mainly use WT at work, and the short time between tasks I spend patrolling the recent changes. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 11:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I understand; your focus on work is commendable. I edit as a form of procrastination, mostly. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I feel ya. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

SOML... --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Merry Christmas! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge Hey, you too! (or was it happy Hannukah?) Incidentally, is the hometown-dialect challenge still up? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, it was a happy Chanukah when it happened. As for the hometown dialect challenge, I gave up on that when I realised how similar it is to GA and how limited my skills at transcribing subtle variations in vowels are. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oh, while I'm here, it would be great if you could do your mass page protection for FWOTDs for 2018. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

 Done (I think) — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

A couple of etymological dictionaries say that the Portuguese word tronco could also mean prison, jail or dungeon or something. Could you verify that? (See also this old dictionary.) Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that’s correct. It is a synechdoche of another sense of tronco that is more closely connected to the primary sense of tree trunk: an upright trunk or pole in prisons or plantations to which prisoners or slaves were tied and flogged. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 11:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I've added "prison, jail" as a sense, but I can't tell if it needs any labels. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Did someone seriously copy the entire transcript of The Bee Movie onto Talk:Wikipedia? That's some really intense vandalism. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I didn’t realise that was the actual script. I better hide that edit for copyright violation. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Bee Movie vandal is a regular. I tried to block them with an abuse filter but perhaps they have found a way around. Equinox ◑ 18:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've created a filter that tags edits by certain Thai IP ranges to entries without a Thai section or Thai translations with "-th". As you know, the vast majority of recent edits like that are either useless or wrong, so I figured I would make it easier to spot the pattern at a glance. Feel free to add any Thai IP ranges that I missed. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Chuck. I’ll keep my eyes open. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please could you do me a favour and delete this entry and hide the original entry I made? I made a really bad mistake. Then I will re-create it. Thank you. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's gone already- phew :D Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Was it really that bad? Anyway, you can thank User:AryamanA for that.

Incidentally, you can replace the content of an entry you create with {{delete|created in error}} and someone will delete it sooner or later. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, yes it was very offensive so it needed to go quickly. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: I saw the page history, I think you did the right thing by getting it deleted. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 17:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think this is one of the worst things, or maybe the worst, thing I have ever done. I feel really terrible about it. I'm very sorry for any offence caused. I can't feel the end of my hands very well because of the cold and it makes typing slow so I usually copy and paste from an existing entry. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: Don't worry about it, I think it was deleted in time. We all make mistakes :) —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 19:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

And if I understood it correctly, it wasn’t something anyone here would give a second thought about. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, please could you hide this revision of my user page, please? Someone is using it as a reference when they shouldn't, really, that is why I deleted it from my page. Thank you in advance. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary I’ve hidden 4 revisions with apparently the same information. Please let me know if I got it right. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: Yes, well spotted. Thank you, it is very helpful. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain why you keep removing this from Module:pt-noun? You keep coming up with some story about genders but this has nothing to do with that. —Rua (mew) 21:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Lol. Nice try. Before your edits, the module produces correct information; after your edits, it produces wrong information. Please stop vandalising the module. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to add the parameters thingy, as long as you do it in a way that doesn’t fuck the display and categorisation of genders up. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

So then stop removing it. —Rua (mew) 21:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

For the love of god, read the bit after the comma. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's not that hard for you to make BOTH your edit and mine. Why do you have to keep reverting mine? Pride issues? —Rua (mew) 21:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Then what the hell are you waiting for? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Goodness, you are such a child. —Rua (mew) 21:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

You can throw a thousand of these insults every day, Rua, as long as you stop vandalising the Portuguese headwords. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Eu desconfio que está faltando mais um significado em também. Ver exemplo:

Pessoa 1: Matemática não serve pra nada!

Pessoa 2: Também não é assim... Matemática tem muitos usos importantes.

O que você acha? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Daniel Carrero, é mesmo. Não me vem um significado específico pra esse uso, nem consigo pensar num bom equivalente em inglês. Outra coisa é que eu só lembro de ter ouvido isso seguido de não.

O que você acha de “used with negative clauses as a response to a declaration that is considered exaggerated”? Isso descreve a impressão que eu tenho desse também. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 11:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Can you please give a couple of examples of the use of the Portuguese suffix -eta? - Your buddy WF

WF is not Ungoliant's buddy, as far as I know. This is getting annoying. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge What is getting annoying? -WF

Pretending to be WF. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK, so I shall cease to do so. --Pas un coiffeur (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don’t know if the second definition should exist. The only word with that sense, as far as I’m aware, is perneta (“lame/one-legged person”), which is an extension of the word using the first sense of the suffix (i.e. perneta (“small leg”)).

I’ll see if I can find some more examples. If I can’t, I’ll RFV it. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Is the /h/ at the end of /ʀəˈpajh/ a mistake? --WikiTiki89 22:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The whole thing was a mess and I’ve changed it to our transcription scheme given Appendix:Portuguese pronunciation; some of them could be readded as narrow transcriptions if anyone cares.

Some dialect have debuccalisation of coda /s/, but not any that is standard enough to justify adding it under {{a|Brazil}} (although such debuccalisation before voiced consonants, especially /m/, is slowly creeping into standard speech). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. Do you think it comes from Spanish influence? --WikiTiki89 16:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don’t think so. It occurs far from regions where BP speakers are in contact with /s/-debuccalising Spanish speakers. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey, is the first-person singular present indicative of "conseguir" "eu consigo" or "eu consego?" Obrigado pela tua resposta do futuro. --Fluorinated (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

And, oh my, I forgot this; What is your opinion on this page? https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/sniperar --Fluorinated (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Fluorinated, e aí véio. É sempre eu consigo.

Não parece que existe evidência da existência de sniperar conforme os nossos critérios de inclusão. Eu vou tentar encontrar umas citações, mas se não achar eu vou abrir um Request for Verification. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is this idiomatic? (I spotted it while trying to see if Portuguese ever used cor de cão que foge, and finding a blog with some speculation about the etymology, although nothing we couldn't already have guessed: that the existence of the same phrase in other languages but with different animals speaks against the idea that it was originally a reference to a specific asinine color.) The first Google Books result offers a definition: "A popular expressão vinho a martelo é usada para classificar um tipo de vinho que foi falsificado, adulterado ou mesmo aldrabado." - -sche (discuss) 16:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yep. Added. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Taking away an s for no reason? Singular is Cheetos. There’s no apostrophe. Please explain. Cody Purvis (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you doubt an entry, tag it with Template:RFV and put the parameter "|lang=en", then start a topic about it at WT:RFV; please do not edit the entry to say something strange. However, Cheeto is definitely attested in its singular form. I can't imagine saying "I gave a dog a Cheetos" anyway; it would be "a Cheeto". PseudoSkull (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Cody Purvis, that’s all true, but Cheeto as a singular exists and meets our criteria for inclusion. Editing our definition to display wrong information won’t change that. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The officials Cheetos account on Twitter entry from 2011 even backs up saying Cheeto is NOT the singular. So just because someone "can't imagine saying" or calls it "wrong information" just means they haven't done the homework others have. HeatherLaney (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@HeatherLaney Twitter is not an acceptable reference here at Wiktionary, especially not in comparison to durably archived sources, such as Usenet. That "homework" doesn't matter; the mere fact that there is such an abundance of durably archived sources using Cheeto in the singular means that the word can be included here. Now...it is possible that the singular form could be considered nonstandard, but I very highly doubt that. Even if nonstandard, it would still be kept; however, sources do not indicate it is nonstandard. You could make a case about this at Wiktionary:Tea room, but other experienced editors here will say mostly the same thing I am, with some added individual comments of course. Bottom line: you're not going to get the Cheeto entry deleted. If you're trying to do that, stop trying. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@HeatherLaney Cheetos can post a thousand tweets, but that won’t make the evidence of Cheeto used as a singular disappear. Talk about doing your homework! Either you didn’t bother doing a quick Google Books search or you didn’t bother reading the inclusion criteria I mentioned above.

The most drastic thing we could do is adding nonstandard or prescribed as a label, or usage notes to that effect (assuming that’s accurate, anyway), but we won’t remove a term just because some company doesn’t like it. I’ll add that Adobe has published that to photoshop is wrong and should’t be used. So, do you think we should delete this widespread verb because of that? Or, doing the equivalent of what you did to the definition of Cheeto, change it from “To digitally edit ” to “Not to digitally edit ”?

If you want to pursue this further, I’ll join PseudoSkull in advising you to bring it up at the WT:TR (or the WT:BP if you want to have a broader discussion about the inclusion of controversial terms). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I wish to you and all users of Wiktionary Happy Easter.

Leonard Joseph Raymond (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

E uma feliz Páscoa para você também! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is Twitter a viable source? It's not super convenient because you have to archive it yourself, but advanced search works pretty well for finding stuff in specific languages. I found a few funny ones for carçudão:

• "ui se já usa roupa maior que você , carçudão "
• Meu filho será: Carçudão,skatista,não vai beber, vai fumar maconha co papai,e vai estuda esse filho da puta se não eu mato esse desgraçado.
• achei uma calça mais larga que aquela tua, to móh carçudão
• é que vc é daqueles carçudao né, e ele é mais playboy e tem um punto amarelo, mais playboy ainda

– Gormflaith (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Gormflaith Now, that’s interesting. I wonder if it’s possible to find out which state or city these people are from. (PS: yep, all from Paraná)

As for using Twitter to attest Wiktionary entries, I’m afraid it is not acceptable at all. As a general guideline, only stuff published in a physical format (books, magazines, newspapers, journals, etc.) and Usenet (not Google Groups! Even though Google’s search engine doesn’t separate its results). The status of digital publications is ambiguous: sometimes they are tolerated, other times they aren’t. Websites are definitely not accepted, even if they have been archived in archive.org or similar services. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oops. I've only been active on here for less than a year, so I'm not 100% on all the policies yet. I've got a list of American and internet slang that I'm trying to attest; I guess I'll have to figure out how to search Usenet. Sidenote: unless my reading comprehension has gone to shit I feel like WT:ATTEST might not be explicit enough in not allowing websites... – Gormflaith (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

You can use https://groups.google.com to search Usenet. Every hit shows the name of the group where it was posted next to the post’s title. Usenet groups are those that begin with alt., rec., comp., humanities., misc., news., sci., soc. or talk.. Other hits are Google Groups or Usenet-like newsgroups that are not archived the same way as Usenet. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Some uncitable American slang is authoritatively recorded in Dictionary of American Regional English. We haven't determined that inclusion there is sufficient for inclusion here. DCDuring (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

We have an almost identical saying in French: quand on n’a pas de tête on a des jambes (fr), quand on n’a pas de tête il faut avoir des jambes (fr). It's not really part of my idiolect and I'm not sure of its meaning(s) though. The one I've heard once was: "an absent-minded/forgetful person must be ready to walk a lot" (in order to retrieve things). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

That’s interesting. Do you happen to know where this saying is used? Near the border with Italy, perhaps? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the delay. I heard it in Brussels, so I guess it's used in Belgium too; what I meant is that it seems rare, at least to me. But this thread says it's "popular" (and glosses it the same way I did here), and this one that it's "often heard". This dictionary gives some English translations, but I don't know what they're worth.

Also, I see some evidence for cabeça que não tem juízo, ... . Is that a thing? (edit: sorry, it must be the lyrics of some song :p) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Re cabeça que : It’s a thing. Unfortunately, it seems that there is no one form that meets the CFI.

Re Italy: I have reason to believe this proverb is a Venetism, like so many other local terms. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is about Flamengo, right? An entry, pretty please? --Cien pies 6 (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

That’s Mengão. What’s the policy on team nicknames? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

They're fine. Check out Oranje, Bleuets, Young Lions, Cobblers, Juve and Barça. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I looked at the edit under my name, and apparently what I had written did not carry across. I had written two short paragraphs pertaining to origin, but this was my first time to add to a definition. Sorry about the glitch, I must have made a mistake in the process. :-) Lee Whitlow (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Don't forget that this is a dictionary and has a very specific format. Mentioning "paragraphs" in the context of an entry isn't a good sign, to start with. Having seen a version that was logged by an abuse filter that your edit set off, I would say that it was more than two short paragraphs, and it definitely didn't belong at the top of the page, where you put it. There's nothing wrong with your essay- it just doesn't belong in a dictionary entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lee Whitlow, sorry about that; I should have given an explanation. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

In fact, there were too consonants before, while in the right page, there is an euphonic vowel "e" which separate them :-) , thank you, --Glo (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Done — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Há dois anos, eu fiz à administração um pedido que foi ignorado; ninguém comentou. Estava olhando minhas contribuições antigas e reencontrei isso. Se possível, gostaria que desse uma olhada nessa minha sugestão. - Alumnum (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Alumnum. Mandei um ping pras pessoas envolvidas na págino. Não que isso garanta que elas comentem.

Vou deixar uma dica: algo que eu recomendo pra todo mundo é colocar esses rule-sets no teu CSS privado. Eu vejo essa página mais como uma demonstração, porque nunca na vida que vai existir uma seleção de bandeiras que agrade todo mundo. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 10:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Favor apagar essa página. Digitei errado e acabei criando sem querer. - Alumnum (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Done — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's perhaps a weird question, but does bolita ever mean "small (ingestible) parcel containing recreational drugs" in Portuguese or Spanish? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo, there are many instances of bolitas of drugs in Spanish, including in reference to ingested parcels (), although it doesn’t seem that it is a distinct sense from “small ball”. The only evidence of a similar sense in Portuguese is this, but the passage with the word looks like it was translated from Spanish. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot. It looks like the Dutch bolletje is influenced by Spanish in this case then.

Do you know a Portuguese counterpart for trefu by the way? The final vowel makes me slightly sceptical of a direct borrowing from Hebrew. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

There are none that I could find. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: We currently have 544 Sranan Tongo lemmas, and none of them have a final /f/. I expect that means that the final vowel was inserted for phonotactic reasons. A direct borrowing from Hebrew still seems to me somewhat less likely than one mediated by Ladino, but w:lad:Kashrut gives "trefá" and merely says that it is Hebrew, not giving any indication of use in running Ladino text. This book sources the word to "Ladino/Hebrew". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your efforts, folks. Yes, your conjecture is correct, @Metaknowledge; traditionally Sranan didn't allow any /f/ in codas. And final vowels were often adopted quite faithfully, which is especially true for nouns ending on /a/ (compare the borrowings from Portuguese). On top of that, stress is normally preserved as well. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can you help me understand the relationship between rádon, radão, radónio, and radônio? Which would you consider the main lemma? Ultimateria (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Before I answer this question (which is much more complicated than it may seem), you should know that I make a distinction between alternative forms and alternative spellings.

• The de facto relationship between radónio and radônio is that the latter is used in Brazil and the former in all other Portuguese-speaking countries. As you probably know, this type of alternation, along with ⟨é⟩ ↔ ⟨ê⟩, is one of the most common alternations between European and Brazilian Portuguese. It is not immediately obvious whether it should be considered a difference in form or a difference in spelling, since the different spelling represents a distinct pronunciation. I prefer considering them alternative spellings, since all EP speakers I’ve asked told me that they use they would employ their usual pronunciation when reading something written in BP (one of them mentioned given names as an exception).
• I would consider rádon and radão alternative forms of one another. However, I wonder if they have different etymologies, one being a loanword from English and the other from French. If that is the case, then using {{synonym of}} or separate entries is also reasonable.
• Another attested spelling/form, radon, is either an alternative spelling of rádon or a distinct adaptation of the French word. My money is on alternative spelling.
• An uncommon Brazilian spelling/form, radom, is clearly an alternative spelling of rádon.
• The relationship between {rádon, radão, radon, radom} and {radónio, radônio} is probably better labelled as synonyms, given the extra content morpheme. Personally, I also consider alternative form adequate.
• My personal criterion for choosing lemmas is that the most common form should be picked (most common in recent decades, and with form understood as a set of one or more spellings), and out of its possible spellings, excluding those that are not standard in the modern language, the one whose entry was created first should be the lemma. So, between {rádon, radon, radom}, {radão} and {radónio, radônio}, I would pick {radónio, radônio} and then radônio since it was created first.
• Thus, the relationship between each spelling and radônio would be as follows. Note the existence of something comparable to the diamond problem.
  • radónio → (European orthography) alt spelling
  • radão → synonym of , or an independent entry
  • rádon → synonym of, or alt form of radão
  • radon → synonym of, or alt form of radão, or alt spelling of rádon
  • radom → (Brazil, uncommon) synonym of, or alt form of radão, or alt spelling of rádon

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 04:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Ungoliant. I want to add some 200 basic words in Guinea-Bissau Creole ("POV"). For this I want to use the term "Guinea-Bissau Creole" and not "Kriol" or "Upper Guinea Crioulo", because that is confusing, as Cape Verdean Creole is also often called Krioulo. Do you think it is possible to use the term "Guinea-Bissau Creole"? HansRompel (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@HansRompel, yes, Guinea-Bissau Creole is the canonical name. It used to be Upper Guinea Crioulo, as per Ethnologue, but I requested the change to the more common name. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Merry Christmas, Ungoliant! I miss having you around more, but I hope meatspace is treating you well. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge hey dude. Merry Chr... uh, I mean, happy New Ye... Happy *checks WP homepage* anniversary of the Battle of Rafa. Yeah, I’ll go with that.

Ah, but I also miss having the ability to spend hours editing Wiktionary every day, and finish all the big projects that I started. Sooner or later, my life will progress in such a way that it will be possible again, but in the meanwhile, I will try to convince myself to spend some time doing at least some minor edits. See you around! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Happy Battle of Rafa to you as well. My life is progressing in the opposite direction as yours, but I plan to stick around. By the way, I noticed that you'd only protected the FWOTDs up to the end of 2018 — did you run a script to do that? If so, it would be great if you could protect them for 2019, but if it's a semi-manual process, I'll hassle someone else with more time. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

You mentioned this as a gesture at Appendix_talk:Gestures, and you didn't know the English name. Can you describe it? Equinox ◑ 02:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Any combination that includes most of the following: upward pout, head tilted downward while still maintaining eye contact, centre of the eyebrows raised, creating a wrinkled forehead. Translatable as puppy face. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

So I assume this is a face that's supposed to get sympathy ("poor me"), like an abused dog? Equinox ◑ 03:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

That’s right. The idiom translates literally to face of “beggy” dog, — Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've seen this called (making or giving someone) "puppy-dog eyes". (I'm intrigued to learn from Wikipedia that apparently "puppy (dog) face" is more common.) - -sche (discuss) 06:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is trivially attestable, but do you know if this term would also be used in the modern era for modern-day two-spirits, or only historical berdaches of past eras? (If it's used for both, citations demonstrating that would be great.) There is a, er, spirited discussion on Talk:two-spirit about that and about whether non-Native languages can have words for this at all. - -sche (discuss) 06:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@-sche, I went through all Google Books and Google Scholar hits and nearly all of them describe explicitly label it North-American. Most authors refer to berdaches only in the past tense, and some claimed they were extinct. Nevertheless, I found one author who used the term in reference to a modern South American tribe (namely ), and a few more who described berdaches with a term that refers to American natives without specifying North America. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. Thanks for investigating (also, I'm glad you figured out I was talking about the Portuguese section and not the English section, which I now realize I didn't make clear at all, lol). If it mostly or entirely seems to refer to historical people, I've tentatively moved the translation to berdache; do you know if Portuguese has any word for modern two-spirits? - -sche (discuss) 15:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

That’s a good question. Is the limitation a semantic property of the word berdache, or is it simply a matter of the authors being wrong about the referent’s nonexistence? (There is no answer; just something to think about).

From what I can tell, the most common way to refer to the concept, other than with the word berdache, is noun + de dois espíritos. The attested nouns are indivíduo (“individual”), pessoa (“person”), but also homem (“man”) and mulher (“woman”). I think this justifies the inclusion of de dois espíritos as an adjective. Lastly, dois-espíritos as an invariant noun just barely passes the CFI (, , ). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

'Sup Ungoliant. I have a large number of word lists on my computer and I am thinking about moving them onto Wiktionary in some form, so that you bad bastards can use them after I die. A few of them are lists that you sent to me (and I have removed some words that I have created). Is it a problem if I upload these? Actually it might be better if you publish them yourself, since you are the creator. But it seems nice to have them available. Let me know what you think. Equinox ◑ 04:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox, go ahead. Let me know when you do it so I can append the in-progress list. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 14:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 17:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I haven't seen requests for Dutch entries from you in a while. How's the learning going? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Slow and steady! I haven’t had the time to sit down and read a full text, that’s why I haven’t come across any new words that I had to request. But I’m still doing something in Dutch every day, whether it be reviewing my Anki cards, doing a Duolingo lesson or attempting to communicate with some online friends. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ah, nice. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions (but I'm not good with recommendations for things to read). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I will keep that in mind. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

As always, hoping you're doing well and may someday return to this fair isle of Wiktion'ry. While I'm here, I was wondering whether mas, que nada (and just que nada) deserves an entry. And if it does, perhaps creating the entry will remind you of how much you love our template infrastructure, or whatever it is that inspires us to stick around. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge, merry Chr... Han... new y... New Decade! Or are you one of the heretics who believe in ##01 decades? Anyway, unless you came across usage that I’m not familiar with, I believe mas, que nada is mas (def 4) + que nada, which Lukenji was kind enough to create with a definition I stand by. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Although Dionysius Exiguus kind of screwed us all over by starting the increments with i=1, I wouldn't like to poop the parties (not that anyone would invite me anyhow). Anyway, I hadn't realised that was an emphatic mas, so thank you. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

January 7 is Christmas for most of the Eastern Orthodox, so it's still Christmas in my time zone for a couple of hours (or would be, if I were Eastern Orthodox). Chuck Entz (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yet again, I'm late, so I'll modify the message. Happy New Year! Hope you're doing well in meatspace. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I think that, two or three years ago, on the Beer Parlour or some other community page, you were looking for contributors to answer requests for translations into various languages. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate that post. Does it ring a bell? Canonicalization (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I don’t remember that. I did post something about delegating patrolling duties based on language. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Peço-te o favor de tambem criar uma conta no wikitionary em portugues deixo aqui o link:

https://pt.wiktionary.org — This unsigned comment was added by 2001:8a0:f258:d301:b00b:76b3:d7a9:ce02 (talk) at 13:08, 8 February 2020‎.

Eu já tenho uma conta lá, só que eu não uso muito porque o Wikcionário Inglês já dá bastante trabalho. Mas se você precisar de ajuda com alguma coisa não muito complicada é só dizer. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can you confirm (and, ideally, add a cite for) sense 2? There was some back-and-forth over whether or not it's valid and I notice pt.Wikt seems to have that sense only at gramatical (where, as another matter, we don't). - -sche (discuss) 06:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

You may also want to look over this if you haven't already; several of the user's other edits have been misguided. - -sche (discuss) 07:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge, gramático is very uncommon as an adjective, and even then the only sense I could find is “relating to” rather than “accepted by” grammar. You can RFV the second sense or both, but in my opinion a better approach would be to convert the whole adjective section into {{synonym of}} given how rare it is compared to gramatical. Also, WTF is wrong with that guy?

@-sche, this one is a big mess. Since it is partly my fault, I’m going to solve this one by BOLDly moving some content around. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

In answer to you question: the plant is, and has been, referred to mostly with the two-word name- it's a mallow that grows in marshes. The confection, on the other hand, is mostly referred to with the single-word compound name. I would guess that it started out as two words and increasingly became one word as people forgot about the plant- but I haven't checked. At any rate, I see this as two separate terms with one that split off from the other, with occasional overlap. By the way: the quote for the plant sense at marshmallow actually has "Marſh Mallows", not "marshmallows" (though we generally ignore Early Modern English long s and capitalization of common nouns). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz, thanks for the explanation. In any case, the translation tables for the plant should be merged. Do you recommend either entry to hold the translations? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

For the plants, I'd go for marsh mallow. DCDuring (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I made the change. If Chuck or anyone else disagrees, I won't edit-war about it. DCDuring (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

No disagreement. I would have made the same change. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey Ungoliant. Thought I'd let you know that this entry you created was tagged for speedy deletion, but it is presumably a real term — it may need a different entry title, but it would be good to save it somehow. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Meta. I’ve removed the speedy deletion template since it was apparently added based on the assumption that Appendix:Sign language entry names is policy. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV! Firstly I would like to thank you for adding IPA for Brazilian Portuguese names. They´re very helpful!

When I saw the Brazilian Portuguese IPA of Douglas, as in the footballer's name Douglas Costa, I wonder if it must be pronounced /ow/ (like ol) instead of /o(w)/ (like ou)?

我是钟哥 (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@我是钟哥, I don’t recall ever having heard /doglɐs/, only /dowglɐs/ (also with /a/ and /ʃ/). It could exist in some dialect, but it sounds unnatural to me and to the people I’ve asked just. I also couldn’t find any evidence in a couple dozen Youtube videos either. Note that in quick speech the distinction between /o/ and /ow/ might be minimal, so it is not always easy to figure out which one is being used.

This fact is hard to explain. Açougue allows /owg/ -> /og/ so it can’t be just the spelling or environment, and it can’t be due to influence of the original pronunciation since it has /ʌ/. Brazilians usually pronounce the English name with the GOAT vowel; maybe it is an unconscious attempt to retain a pronunciation that is incorrectly believed to be the original (compare country). Yet drone, a much more recent loanword, allows /o/ alongside /ow/. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

How would you rate the quality of this audio file? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

0/10:

• unusual intonation; sounds like someone imitating a gay lisp
• the stressed vowel is long; this would only be used if the speaker was feeling impatient towards the hearer
• the rhotic is an approximant rather than a tap; as far as I know, in /fɾ/ this only occurs sporadicaly in some dialects (Mineiro and Caipira), and only in unguarded speech
• the final vowel is also unusually long; in a more natural pronunciation, it would also lose some voice and openness, although a native speaker might avoid that when asked to pronounce it carefully and in isolation
• the /a/s sound ever so slightly more fronted than normal

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Better question: could you record a replacement? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hm I can indeed, but not right now. If there is any other Portuguese audio that needs replacement, let me know. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've heard you usually protect the FWOTD pages. Could you add edit-protection to this year's pages starting from October? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

They already are, or am I missing something? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

The page information for today's FWOTD says that editing and moving is allowed for all users. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo, sorry LBD, I haven’t been able to look into this this week. My script only changed the moving permissions for some reason. I’ll work on it on the weekend. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think it’s working now. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's looking good. Thank you. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Could you run the script again for December? The terms that weren't created at the time you ran it last time were creation-protected, but aren't edit-protected. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Apparently the entries have been protected by an abuse filter since summer: Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2020/June#WOTD_and_FWOTD_Abuse_Filter So you can ignore my previous request and thank you for protecting the older entries. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV again! I saw you transcribe Brazilian Portuguese pronunciations of hall, hobby, host as /ˈʁɔw/, /ˈhɔ.bi/, /ˈʁowst͡ʃ/, respectively. Does "hobby" have to be pronounced with instead of other realizations of /ʁ/ like , ?

And may I ask you the pronunciations of English Hulk (nickname of a footballer) and Spanish Juan (name belonging to several footballers) in Portuguese? Can they be pronounced as any realization of /ʁ/?

2409:8954:D815:AED5:285A:2366:8043:4150 04:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Basically only a small percentage of speakers distinguish between the /h/ of loanwords and the more /ʁ/ -- to the point that I’m not sure it’s even important for us to worry about it in our transcriptions tagged as Brazilian, but I’ve always prefered to err on the side of too much information instead of too little -- so yes, you can pronounce it like you pronounce the initial consonant of {{m|pt|rápido}.

Usually it’s educated -users who distinguish them, or people making a point to pronounce loanwords as closely as possible to the source language.

I don’t know why I added /ʁ/ to hall and host when those who make the distinction would use /h/ (especially in the latter). I apologise for the mistake, I’ll amend the entries right now.

For Hulk, the pronunciation that I’m familiar with is /ˈhuw.ki/, and the more careful /ˈhuwk/ (possibly only for the superhero). As for Juan as Portuguese name, the most common in my experience is /ʁuˈɐ̃/ (with 2 syllables and potential rolled r). You might want to avoid when mentioning a Spanish-speaking Juán. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Obrigado! :) —2409:8954:D821:B785:61AF:C329:654D:EB73 10:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey. I assume this is also an adverb in pt, right? There's a mismatch, you see. Daleusher (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. The existing sense is only an adverb actually. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

These guys need the same treatment as the previous batch of crap I served in the tea room Candle-holding servant (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Gone, thanks. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Colabore com o JBerkel para criar as palavras desse dicionário para aqui Envio o link do dicionárioː https://natura.di.uminho.pt/~jj/pln/calao/dicionario.pdf --2001:8A0:F258:D301:9CDF:C1C3:7D1F:3D08 14:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Since passar bem suggests often a wish to never someone again, what formal phrase would imply a wish to see someone again? --Apisite (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I’d say até mais ver is on about the same level of formality. It too can have undertones of “good riddance”, but not as commonly as passar bem. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I saw your edits in hare for Bikol Central, but you placed the entry in the most bottom. Just wanted to let you know to be careful next time to make the languages alphabetical. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

In note 1, ‘Translingual’ should begin with a capital T. Thank you. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 15:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Inqilābī, the lower case was chosen deliberately to show that our translingual content does not comprise a language in the same way that other level 2 headers do. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

But the term “language header” has already been used, instead of “language”, so I do not see much problem with having the upper case. After all, we use an upper case to name Translingual in our dictionary. Just my tuppence, however; seeing as the lower case was agreed upon by the community, I leave this thing to you. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 18:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, what are your sources for Romagnol language?--BandiniRaffaele2 (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Most of it was La Ludla. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

BTW, the spelling that you are trying to get removed is attested in one of the 2012 editions. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks. BandiniRaffaele2 (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you check what this IP is doing? They're swapping the European and Brazilian Portuguese spelling labels and seem to be doing so incorrectly. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, What's the script that you run to generate Wiktionary:Statistics/generated? I'd love to update the results. Best, A455bcd9 (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I hope this message find you well. Would you have some time to generate the statistics? Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I need you to update these stats, thanx. Shumkichi (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's it! Just some random passer-by's admiration. Geekdiva (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply