Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word
User talk:Waldyrious. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
User talk:Waldyrious, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
User talk:Waldyrious in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
User talk:Waldyrious you have here. The definition of the word
User talk:Waldyrious will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
User talk:Waldyrious, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Hi there. We only have translation sections in the entries for English words. Also, we use the full English name for the language in the translation table, not the short template form. SemperBlotto 09:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
(deprecated template usage) -cede is not a suffix in English. It is a Latin-derived stem. In addition, I dispute that any word has been formed in English by the process of adding a prefix to it as stem. The words you marked as having been suffixed with -cede were derived from Latin as the English etymology indicates. I believe that it is not a stem in any Latin-influenced language. Please remove it and all the associated changes.
Your treatment of (deprecated template usage) -ceed is similarly erroneous. DCDuring TALK 11:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Lastly, I hope, {(deprecated template usage) -seed is not a suffix. It is a stem. Unlike the others there is at least a chance that it has been used to form words in english, but by compounding, nut suffixation. DCDuring TALK 11:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
We don't normally use redirects here. See WT:REDIR. Thanks --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
You just added a bunch of unsourced etymologies to Portuguese entries, and I've now finished correcting or removing a lot of them because sources disagreed. Please list references. Polomo47 (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you for the corrections, and apologies for the inconvenience! I was indeed unsure about how to indicate the composition of words like sul-coreano, and even looked up norte-americano as I expected it might have the proper syntax as an example I could build off of, but I didn't find any examples and ended up improvising — in hindsight I should have listened to my gut and not made the edits I was unsure about.
- Regarding Arqueano, I was also not very confident, but based my edit on Portuguese Wikipedia's Archaea article, which lists the alternative names "arquea", "arqueia" and "arquaia". That said, I do agree that it's a weak argument to add that etymology.
- As for not adding etymologies for alternative forms of words, thanks for the heads-up — I wasn't aware of that rule. I wonder, though, how one is supposed to allow those words to be categorized in the appropriate suffix categories, e.g. Category:Portuguese terms suffixed with -ano. Should I add the category directly to the page?
- Cheers, Waldyrious (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- The idea is precisely to not fill categories with alternative forms/spellings, and instead only categorize the main forms: see WT:Etymology#Lemma. The cases where I've seen (and support) including etymologies is when the derivation type is different between the main entry and the alternative form, like placar and placard.
- Regarding Archea: unfortuantely, the PtWiki article’s sources have all gone down. I really doubt the spelling arquea sees anything close to common use, but arqueia does make sense. From arqueia + -ano... Maybe that's it. Polomo47 (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- I see, thanks for the clarification. As for "Arqueano", I'm happy to heed your judgment on whether to add that to the entry or not. Cheers, Waldyrious (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply