User talk:Widsith/archive

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Wiktionary Tutorial
• Community Portal
• Entry layout explained
• Criteria for inclusion
• FAQ
• How to edit a page
• How to start a page
• Wiktionary Sandbox (a safe place for testing syntax)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

--Stranger 03:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC) Reply

Could you please verify that the second etymology of quell is indeed an English word. We only use four dashes (----) to separate words from diffenent languages, not between different etymologies of the same language nor anywhere else. Ncik 23:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi

when you added the Old English translation of occupy, you didn't mention of which of the senses the word buan is the translation. Sure, the entry buan tells me which you meant, but I don't think it would be much of an extra job for you to add at least a number to tell which sense you were thinking of, ok? Especially would that help others when the target article is not yet written... \Mike 15:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sorry...truth is I wasn't sure which of those senses (beyond the obvious) would be correct. I am doing some research currently to confirm. Widsith 08:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that's good. But I don't think it would hurt if you just started by adding the "obvious"... :D \Mike 11:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've added a ton of Old English words to the (English) Wiktionary, and a couple of times things have been moved on account of accents. Example: I wrote an entry for OE ‘is’, meaning ‘ice’. I put it on the "is" page — but under the Noun heading I spelled it ‘īs’, which is a common convention in OE dictionaries and study texts to show vowel length. The entry was moved by someone to a new ‘īs’ page.

Now as I see it, accents in Old English are not like accents in, say, French, where "mange" (for instance) is an entirely different word from "mangé" and everyone writes the two words in the two different ways. The Anglo-Saxons did not use accents: they spelled "maga" (stomach) exactly the same as "māga" (relative), and therefore the two words should in my opinion be on the same page. It's worth using the accents within the entry, because they are so familiar from dictionaries and study texts etc, but it's surely wrong to think they are a part of the language proper, especially since some editors use macrons and others use acute accents.

So my question is really whether there is any kind of official policy on this. It is an issue which affects a lot of ancient languages (eg Old Norse has a lot of entries in already with acute accents, but personally I don't know enough about the language to know whether that's correct or not). Widsith 10:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

IMO (I moved is, btw), the entries should be on the accented pages if that is the modern-day convention of writing them, but with references from non-accented versions on the "See also" thing on top of the page ({{Seealso|īs}}). Having accented letters in the entry when the entry word (e.g. title) does not, can get confusing. Jon Harald Søby 17:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if there's an official policy for Old English on en:. On la: the practice is to put the article at an accentless spelling, but use accents in text—both because, as mentioned, the Old Angles didn't use the accents, and because of the variance between whether acutes (á), macrons (ā), or apexes (â, roughly) should be used. (la:Categoria:Lingua Anglica Antiqua) On en: similar is done with Hebrew and Arabic: we don't put articles at pointed spellings, which appear in the headword but not the article title; with Russian, acute accents are used in the headword but not the article title; I personally think that moving ís/îs/īs from is was a mistake, unless we care to put the same entry on all three pages... —Muke Tever 17:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm inclined to agree with Muke on this. With three accentuation possibilities available it doesn't seem as though the "modern-day convention" is very stable. The "see also" technique may be useful if we ever need to split up the article, but that's not an immediate problem. Eclecticology 01:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

We should have an FAQ or formatting page on this subject. It applies to all languages which have (systematic) optional pointing, vowels, accents, or diacritics: Arabic, Hebrew, Latin, Old English, Russian, Turkish.

Words in such languages use the most minimal spelling with all optional marks omitted as the page title, and the most maximal spelling with all optional marks included in the headword section/inflection line. Subsequently, it's a good idea to create a redirect from the fully "pointed" or at least other common spellings (Arabic and Hebrew can be pointed to varying degrees) to the minimal spelling. Except in the case of Russian, where Stephen vehemently argued against it - which I still don't understand. — Hippietrail 16:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't this page be moved to Xerxis? Ncik 17:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well I had nothing to do with this page myself, and I must say I think entries like this are pretty pointless. Anglo-Saxon manuscripts were not consistent with capitalising personal names though. However, other entries on Wiktionary, like Woden, do have capitals so I suppose to bring it in line with those it might be a good idea to at least copy the content to a Xerxis page. The chances of anyone needing to look this word up seem to me to be about zero! Widsith 10:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Great! I'd love any help you can offer. Just click on the "nominate new word" icon at the word of the day template:

And add your word for nomination. Iamnotanorange 16:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for the submissions! Would you mind resubmitting your words in the format of one word per title with an explanation underneath? Thanks Iamnotanorange 22:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I've replied to this on my talk page. — Paul G 12:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I haven't looked around, but something that is invaluable and often difficult to look up are local onomatopoetic expressions. I know I've heard that ducks go "bat-bat" in Morocco (or was it North Africa in general?), but other than that I know little about Arabic sound imitation. If you're up to it, why not go around and ask about the most common animal sounds for some articles? It's exactly the kind of material that people might be looking for in a wiktionary.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

What a great idea! I love that stuff...I remember being fascinated when I started reading French to find that guns went "pan" and pigs went "groin". I'll do that, thanks. Widsith 10:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The quote you included is still in the entry, it's merely enclosed as a comment right so, so that it doesn't show up in the entry. If you go to edit the entry, the quote and citation will show up in the edit window -- you merely have to remove the "left bracket-exclam-dash-dash" markings from each end of the quote.

I did this because the sense of the word in the quotation has nothing to do with the definition you wrote (and which I edited). This quote seems to relate to human intercourse and female anatomy. I did not want to have the quote placed under the only current definition, so I made it a comment until someone can provide an appropriate definition to precede it.

Again, the full quote will show up in the edit window automatically, so it won't require a reversion edit or the like. It merely needs a suitable definition, and I wasn't able to provide one myself. --EncycloPetey 11:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

In that case, I've gone ahead and added a rather inadequate definition of the figurative sense of pericarp. The quote you used is not an example of the word as used in the definition provided, and it would be misleading to leave them clustered together as the were. --EncycloPetey 11:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Pseudo-Arabic Template:ARchar (aš-šāhīn) ‘the falcon’ < Persian شاهین (šāhīn) ‘falcon’ or ‘pointer of a scale’. That's the best I could come up with right now (4:23am).  :) --Dijan 09:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

They do not link to each other because they are in fact written with different letters.  :) The difference here is with the "ye" character. If you look closely when typing, in Arabic, the "ye" character sort of bends upwards to connect to the "nun" letter. In Persian, the "ye" character, does not do that (it is a different unicode character) which connects simply (without the bending) along the imaginary line along which the characters are written. --Dijan 09:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I know they appear slightly differently but the fact is it is the same letter! It seems totally counter-productive to have Template:ARchar and شاهین on different pages?! Widsith 10:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

LOL! Persian and Arabic are written with different scripts. Most letters appear to be the same, but there are some that are not the same. Because of this, Persic and Arabic scripts are considered two different scripts. Therefore, technically, it is not the same letter, even though it sounds the same. --Dijan 10:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Urdu too! But as you can see, in Urdu, it is spelled the exact same way, except for the fact the the "h" character looks different from the Arabic and Persian one. --Dijan 10:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

(Note to self. Arabic: Template:ARchar, Persian: شاهین, Urdu: شاہین.)

Hello again. I'm curious why you've removed the Arabic derivation templates from several star name pages. Doing so also removes the category "Arabic deivations", which is a useful one to have on those pages. --EncycloPetey 11:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The categories are already back in on some of the pages. Given your interest and knowledge of Arabic, I assumed that you'd want the cat linked. An by the way, thanks for tidying up the etymologies on those star names; I've had to rely on cut-and-paste from Wikipedia for those, since I can neither read nor write Arabic script. This means that (if you haven't already) you might want to make changes to the appropriate Wikipedia pages as well. --EncycloPetey 11:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Curiously, the reference you have taken from Arthur Conan Doyle shows that a brougham could've been drawn by more than one horse. Or what did Sherlock Holmes mean by 'a pair of beauties'? :-) Dart evader 12:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed the same thing as I was entering it! It's a bit annoying, but I suppose any citation is better than none. I am rereading my Conan Doyle at the mo, so hopefully I'll come across a better quotation in due course. Widsith 12:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why, the quotation is excellent. There are other sources stating that a brougham was not necessarily 'one-horsed':

"1897 Victorian Brougham Carriage. Usually pulled by two, but sometime four, horses."

Dart evader 12:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmm...OK, I've reverted the definition to just say ‘horse-drawn’. Widsith 12:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Note that Semper modified the original rules. Hyphens, spaces, and other synmbols count as "letters" as I understand the new rule, which is why I dropped part of my original entry. --EncycloPetey 12:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I got it. I am taking Japanese words from Sgt. Frog manga. I will keep it up. M. Powel 18:03, 6 April 2006(JST)

Well, thank you, Widsith, for advice. I will write Romaji article in the way you showed me. By the way, I'm a male. M. Powel 19:09, 6 April 2006 (JST)

Could you look at this. I don't think it is formatted correctly, but I haven't the knowledge to correct it. SemperBlotto 09:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also souchou

User Izumi5 seems to be having difficulties with entry format. I've made edits to convert the header Japanese Noun to simply Noun, but he (she?) reverts them and continues using them. Also, isn't there some special way to note Romaji entries? If you can help, could you send some advice that way? I'm not familiar enough with Japanese entry formatting to offer direct advice. --EncycloPetey 09:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am very ashamed of my carelessness.M. Powel 19:19, 6 April 2006(JST)

Yes, I did mean that. If I had been more certain of the phrase, I'd have created an entry instead of requesting one. Still, if persona non gratis is a corruption of the Latin, then it's certainly a common one, common enough to merit a misspelling or cross-reference entry if we're doing such things this week. It Googles and even pops up in a couple of online dictionary/glossary sorts of things. I'll trust your judgment on this one. --Dvortygirl 09:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

In my English-English dictionary, it is explained as movement in art rather than artworks itself. And 浮世 means transitory world. M. Powel 10:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Did your etymological info come from the OED? Are you sure you interpreted it correctly? I'm not familiar with the word urere, and cannot find it in any of the usual Latin dictionaries. There's an entry for ustulo in them all, which would be the first pers. sing. pres. act. indic. form, with infinitive ustulare, but nothing about urere. Do you have addiitonal info that I haven't been able to find? --EncycloPetey 09:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hiya EP. Yeah, I'm looking at the shorter OED here, which says that ustulare is itself from the past participle stem of urere ‘burn’. I must admit I have never heard of it either, but then Latin is really not my strong point. If you have doubts, I don't mind if you want to remove it till it can be confirmed. Widsith 09:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK. Found it in Smith's on a re-examination. --EncycloPetey 08:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you please take a look at the etymology for the name of the star Rigel, which is Arabic? Thanks! --EncycloPetey 07:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! --EncycloPetey 08:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok, exactly how many of my 270 etymologies are "unsubstantiated replacements"??? Or is the similarity between Ancient Greek and Old English words without the mediation of Latin just a kind of miraculous coincidence? Don’t take me wrong, I do understand how crazy some of my etymology sections must look to anyone who obviously had establishment education and just keeping it on that level without use further critical thoughts around it.

But please take a look, I am the one who use actuall attested words in my etymology sections, not hypothetical ones!! So, until the day that an ancient inscription is actually found with "PIE" or "IE" words on it, I have the clear right to use attested words as etymons!

Now about the term "Latinized": As I answered to Andyluciano, the term is perfect, since its used exactly for what it means: for foreign words that are translated to Latin, in this case, "Latinized Greek", hence, words from Greek translated to Latin. And I believe that’s different that an actually original Latin word.

And finally which exactly is the "common ancestor" of both Greek and Latin???  :) Kassios 18:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

The common ancestor of Latin and Greek is Indo-European. Do you not believe in its existence either? Textbooks in their thousands from scholars around the world support the very clear inference that such a language existed; such authorities are not there to prop up ‘the establishment’ but to further human knowledge. Your theories on the other hand are apparently based on nothing except a misplaced desire to show that Greek is the source of every language in Europe.

The Greeks were literate whereas the early Germanic tribes were not. You should not infer from this that they did not exist. Proto-Germanic and PIE were probably never written down; but it is a nonsense to conclude that they are made-up languages. The very clear relationships between the Germanic languages make the case beyond any possible doubt. You are pointing to attested Greek words, but the fact that a word exists does not prove that it is the source of another word in a different language, even if the Greek word is considerably older.

Also, it is not me that posits a ‘miraculous coincidence’ for Old English cognates in Greek, it is you. I make the case that they descended from a common ancestor (PIE), a descent which is in fact amply demonstrated. You however seem to believe that the Greeks influenced the Germanic languages despite having virtually no contact with them. How?

You are entitled to believe what you like about etymology; but you should not enter such unsupported theories on Wiktionary. The weight of evidence is vastly against them. If necessary I and other contributors can cite many reputable sources for our views; what sources do you have? Eventually it will be taken as vandalism and dealt with accordingly. Widsith 18:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Widsith, I will try to make a long story short:

You seem to overlook the obvious central issue of the dispute: IE and everything around it is just a linguistic theory which -despite the huge amount of work written about it- is based on weak arguments and certainly not facts, (otherwise, it wouldn’t be a theory) trying to explain the obvious similarities between Greek, Latin, Persian and Sanskrit and all the other languages cognated with them. But there has not been found, whatsoever, any proven evidence of the existence of these IE, PIE etc. languages. Yes, there is an IE ομογλωσσία, literally "speaking a similar language" but not a language. I am really sorry if you are not familiar with that!

On the other hand, etymology, even if it is a part of linguistics, it is also a separate science, dealing with the origin and historical development of words. Furthermore, the obligation of etymology is, by definition, to trace the word back to its true origin, the etymon; hence, the oldest attested form of the word. (See the definition of etymon and its etymology, in case you are not familiar with it).

Consequently, there is an actual huge difference between the IE linguistic theory and the science of etymology, since the first relies on hypotheses while the second has to be based on facts! Any (real) etymologist will tell you the same thing! However, the truth is that there is a misunderstanding about the above, which also misleads, simply because, unfortunately, some linguists (rather than etymologists) use unattested, theoretical, hypothetical, supposed, guessed words as etymons!! Even worse, some times they replace attested etymons with them!!! How unscientific! Honestly, I don’t know what could be hidden behind that tactic. Personally I can only accept hypothetical words as etymons only and if there has never been recorded an etymon for this word; even then, only until a reasonable level. However, if there is an etymon of the word there, an etymology section has to use it as the actual, true sense of the word, because, otherwise, that’s not etymology, its "theoreticology"!

Now the reason and the way by which some words of a certain language are found in a different language without an obvious relation between them, is a subject of research of comparative linguistics, together with history, archaeology, mythology and even paleoanthropology and geology but not etymology.

I really feel sorry for what you are saying: "Your theories on the other hand are apparently based on nothing except a misplaced desire to show that Greek is the source of every European language", because it just shows how much you are misunderstanding, not to mention your lack of knowledge on European languages and their development and even worse your not so well hidden bias against Greek… Of course my main contribution to Wiktionary will be around the etymology of English words from Greek, since that’s what I am: an etymologist of Greek with a good knowledge of English. And certainly not all of the English words came from Greek, but the ones that did, did so! How (and why) should we change that?!? I dont know why you have a problem with that, but you seem to. But that’s your prerogative and I respect it; however, it should not stop others from seeing the true etymon of a word.

Why don’t you try to increase your knowledge and understanding from my sections instead of unsuccessfully accusing me for using "unsupported theories on Wiktionary", while at the same time you replaced facts (Foinos, kusso<kuso<kuneo) with hypotheses? So which of us two is a "vandal", a real good etymologist could tell…!

If Wiktionary wants to be one of the (unfortunately) many online and printed dictionaries that lack (or purposely mislead) on their etymology sections, especially about words from Greek origin, its fine with me. Just tell me, so I wont waste my time anymore.

To conclude: I am asking all the administrators or contributors of Wiktionary with a good knowledge on etymology and Greek language, to please take a look at my edits and then make a "meeting" and decide whether they want me in Wiktionary or not. Kassios 14:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am curious about where Sanskrit fits into your view of European history. Vedic Sanskrit is attested rather earlier than Ancient Greek; do you therefore conclude that Greek descended from Sanskrit?

Look Kassios, I really have no desire to argue about this with you, just as I don't have the patience to defend evolution to a creationist. You are perfectly entitled to your own views about the matter. You asked me earlier how many of your edits I am unhappy with. The answer is, not many. Most of your contributions to words which are obvious borrowings from the Greek (sympathy etc.) are helpful. There is also a lot you could be doing with Greek entries themselves, which are still relatively few in number here. But please don't push your unusual theories about the Greek provenance of Germanic languages here, because it is just likely to be overwritten. Also likely to annoy people is your refusal to acknowledge that words like machine reached us from a language we call Latin, not ‘latinized Greek’. Etymology sections deal in language names, and ‘latinized Greek’ is not the name of a language.

Wiktionary is not here to provide a platform for unsupported minority views, it is here to show visitors the main thrust of scientific opinion about a word's origins. If you do not agree with such opinion, that is a battle you should be fighting elsewhere. Widsith 08:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy that nestorianism may be a noun, but does it have a plural? Andrew massyn 17:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't see why not! I can conceive of sentences where you might use it. Widsith 19:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately in the course of responding to the less than stellar motive of the sysops which now appear to run the Wiktionary this word was formulated. The only difference it makes to me whether this word is allowed to be part of the Wiktionary is in the amount of financial donation I can possibly make.

However, I fully disagree that a wiki of any kind be so blatantly restrictive that it is closed to new words and its rules are so strict that there is no point in it being a wiki at all. Its just hard for me to accept suicidal policies. If you get my drift.

We are not in the habit of securing donations by filling the site with rubbish. The Wiktionary is not closed to new words, only to unattested words. This policy is neither suicidal nor dependent upon your acceptance. Widsith 13:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

My donations are the only thing dependent upon your polices. I can think what I want whether I am allowed to publish it or not.

[email protected] 14:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Interesting one, indeed. Seems to be correct, apart from snee being a noun, meaning "a cut". Could it be then that the snick is also from the noun steek, instead of from the verb? Or perhaps both are from verbs? — Vildricianus 14:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

(Pasted from talk page) Your comments on the Talk page indicate that you don't understand what Wiktionary is for. We are not here to record every word that a person wants to invent, but to record words which are an accepted part of the English language. Our Criteria for Inclusion demand at least three printed sources. Your grievances over other matters shouldn't lead you to start adding nonsense to the project. Widsith 13:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

To the contrary it is sysops who do not quite fathom the purpose of a wiki. Its not to serve sysops. Otherwise you would have to call it a sysoptionary. How do you think words that you use everyday originated? Every single word you use everyday and accept for publication in the Wiktionary were at one time neologisms. My grievance is that sysops are not generally lexicographers. If they were they would long since have added both a new word page and a coinage or neologism page to the Wiktionary preliminary to the establishment of Wikineologinary instead of deeming such activity to be vandalism and using this as an excuse to block anyone and everyone who may post a coinage to the Wiktionary.

[email protected] 08:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please do not lecture me about word origins, I am very familiar with how neologisms can enter the language. But until they enter the language it is wrong to represent them here as if they already have. The fact that you think you have invented a word does not make it so. Perhaps if it fills a useful niche in the language it will be picked up and gain widespread useage – at that point it may be eligible for inclusion. But 99.99% of such words disappear without trace, and that is why it is silly to include them on Wiktionary. It is unfair to people who have a genuine interest in the language. Such words may be added to our list of Protologisms, as Connel pointed out to you on the Tea Room. You seem to think that I am a sysop, but I'm just a contributor like yourself, albeit with a rather better understanding of how best this project can usefully function. If the only way you can contribute is by adding made-up words, then you are not likely to be welcomed with open arms by the community here. Widsith 09:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

My apologies. I had not yet visited the Protologism page since it was not a familiar term to me while the terms coinage and neologism were. Interesting however that the word "Protologism" originates as a neologism of possibly another sysop, but certainly a Wiktionary user, and was adopted by the Wiktionary community prior to being adopted in the world! What a perfect example of hypocrisy! I can now imagine that the true purpose of the Wiktionary according to the current “Wiktionary community” is not to serve the user’s of language in the world at large but only to serve Wiktionary sysops and favored users. Give me a break! Definitions can not be so restricted without making their validity suspect. Remember that wherever Wikimedia goes it must be granted a charter by entities outside of the Wiktionary community who may frown upon a special interest that practices such hypocrisy. A word to the wise.

[email protected] 10:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

How does it ‘favour’ sysops?? All they gain is a more efficient and useful website, which is what we all want. Widsith 10:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Consider the role and position of a nighttime desk clerk at a motel. How might reserving a room instead of renting it out help him and his wife? There are many self serving opportunities presented by various roles and positions in society. No one has to spell it out, do they?

[email protected] 11:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ha ha! You really are a very silly person. Please leave me alone. Widsith 11:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey you started bub. Tell that to the police the next time you are incarcerated. [email protected] 11:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I thought you were just replying to him, I didn't want to offense you. Though, the discussion was obviously deviating, and my link was disappearing from view. I'm rearranging that right now. I hope it's ok now (otherwise, rearrange it yourself, I'll not blame you). Kipmaster 17:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've benn helping with Spanish requested articles but no entries are created, just comments. Perhaps you could help--62.175.97.149 10:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

You've just created this entry, and lots of others of a similar ilk. But, you forgot to put any defintion in, in English. Not very useful without it

--Richardb 11:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for checking the French. I knew that "rênes" was the right word for "reins" but did not know whether the French actually use the same phrase literally translated (which indeed they do). I'll add a comment to this effect to show that this has been checked. — Paul G 15:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

No worries. Widsith 15:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

In case no one else commends you, thanks very much for all the work you do to improve upcoming Words of the Day. It makes all of Wiktionary look that much better ! --EncycloPetey 10:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

mâtineau is defined :-), it's the same (and common) transformation as in éléphanteau (young éléphant), lionceau (young lion), chiot (hmm, this one has a strange orthography) Kipmaster 09:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

D'oh! Should have guessed really... Widsith 09:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

A couple of queries about this:

• Pronunciation - standard IPA for the "i" sound in the first syllable is /aɪ/. I believe that the latest SOED updated this to /ʌɪ/, which is more like the way most English speakers do pronounce this syllable. However, elsewhere in Wiktionary, we have used /aɪ/, so I think we should stick to that.
• Inflections - can "more bimetallic" and "most bimetallic" really be said to exist? Going by the definitions, they don't: "relating more to gold and silver..."; "most consisting of two metals".

What do you think? — Paul G 09:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Paul. I saw your change of the IPA – I have tended to prefer /ʌɪ/, but I didn't realise there was a standard here and I'm more than happy to use /aɪ/ instead. (Are there any other things like this? – e.g. I have always used /ɜ:/ where I know some people like /ə:/). As for bimetallic, I can conceive of sentences where a creative writer might use a comparative or superlative, but yes I suppose it could be generally reagarded as incomparable. You can change it if you like. Widsith 09:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Can you tell me if overmoed is a word in Dutch? And if so, what does it mean – and if not, how would you interpret the word if you saw it? The reason I ask is that there is a famous word in Old English (ofermōd) which no one is entirely sure how to translate (it is only attested once). I know German Übermut means ‘high spirits’, and I was curious about what the Dutch equivalent might be. Thanks! Widsith 17:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely; it means "overconfidence", more or less the same as the German noun. I'd say that it's a contraction of over and moed ("courage"), but seeing that there's this OE cognate makes it more interesting. — Vildricianus 17:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Widsith. Would you mind having a look at the Appendices for Appendix:Months of the Year and Appendix:Days of the Week and be sure that both pages include the appropriate ANG entries? Also, some of these basic entries may be missing from Wiktionary. Kappa has already helped to created the Korean ones, and I'll be looking for others to help in additional languages. Thanks for whatever help you can provide. --EncycloPetey 09:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

... for putting θείον in the proper alphabet. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem! Widsith 07:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, and thanks for filling in the Old English months of the year! It's so nice to see this information finally showing up on Wiktionary. Second, could you help fill in the Old English information on Appendix:Units of time? If you can check the French as well, that would be great! --EncycloPetey 12:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding the Old English terms. Will you be adding entries for wice and wucu? --EncycloPetey 11:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

...do not feed the trolls :-) —Vildricianus 17:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for starting the reverts, but keep in mind that if you post a request for blocking as a comment on a revert, it may not show up for some of us. If the "recent changes" settings are set for certain values (as I have them set), then all recent changes to a single page will show as a single edit line, without any of the comments. --EncycloPetey 11:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Really? OK. Widsith 11:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you want someone blocked, post at WT:VIP (it should get more in use again). Alternatively, accept to be nominated on WT:A, so that you can do it yourself. —Vildricianus 13:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Voila. —Vildricianus 13:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this edit:

http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=English&diff=next&oldid=981023

Needlessly adding subsenses that are not distinct from each other only ruins the translation sections. 1.2 and 1.3 are identical, 1.4 is part of 1.1. And 1.2/1.3 truly are not distinct from 1.1. The third noun sense (the billiards use) should be labeled correctly, and never appears in lower-case (as english) unless written in error.

Should I add this to WT:TR so we can have some help cleaning this up? Or do you feel you can do it adequately yourself?

--Connel MacKenzie T C 15:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tricky word. Isn't ‘young’ the same as sense 1, recently made or created? Also sense 11 is the same as sense 9. Widsith 16:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

No to both. The definition of "young" refers to age in a sense that isn't quite carried by def 1. No one would talk about a "newborn album" or a "young scratch". It's a subtle difference, yes, but it's one that's carried in the original Latin. As for 9 & 11, there's a very big difference that may not be worded as well as it should -- I can see why you think they're the same. Look at the sample sentences to see that these are not the same. An idea can be new in the sense of unfamiliar, but a person would be new in the sense of inexperienced. An idea cannot be inexperienced. --EncycloPetey 16:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for keeping an eye on it. I've missed it twice now, but that'll be due to my "break" I think. Cheerio! —Vildricianus | t | 15:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've put up a mild warning on his talk page. —Vildricianus | t | 19:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for alerting me.

do you know the answer.

I'm going to leave off now, as it's 3:15am for me now. Should have gone to bed hours ago. Hven't got time to sort that conundrum out right now.--Richardb 17:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re: Any word can be used sarcastically: No! ;-) I see your point.

Also, sorry for getting so excited about your relating witing to witting the other day that I added unwitting as an antonym of a noun! --Enginear 17:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Widsith, after an argument I had today with scholars of Greek, I have to admit that there is another option on panther’s etymology: from πάν + θήρ, "beast"; however, that’s uncertain. Anyway, if you have a First-class degree in the area of etymology, please answer to me the question I have already asked in panther’s discussion page: How in your opinion the Ancient Greek πάνθηρ (“total hunter”) is “probably of oriental origin” instead of πάν + θήρα, while the Ancient Greek πανθήρα (“whole catch”) derives from the same Greek etyma, πάν + θήρα? Keep in mind, πάν is the neutral of πάς “all, whole, total, anything”, θήρ “wild beast, beast of prey, any fabulous monster ” and θήρα “hunting of wild beasts, the chase, the caught or captured animals”. (I.Stamatakos: Lexicon of the Ancient Greek Language, I. Pantazides: Homeric Lexicon, Tziropoulou-Eustathiou: Logos within the word, Liddel-Scott: A Greek-English Lexicon, Autenrieth: A Homeric Dictionary, Slater: Lexicon to Pindar, etc.)

To conclude, as I said to Vidricianus: The existence of the (indeed not commonly known) Ancient Greek word πανθήρα (“whole catch”) that derives from πάν + θήρα, linguistically justifies the etymology of the word πάνθηρ from the same roots, πάν + θήρα. Therefore, because I am an etymologist, I cannot accept the “probably oriental” origin of the Greek word πάνθηρ. The only reason I can give to why some etymologists trace πάνθηρ to a “probably oriental” origin is their possible ignorance on the existence of the Greek word πανθήρα.

PS: I already have in mind to work more on Ancient Greek as you suggest and I will do so in time. Kassios 19:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

The one entry I can find in Google Books is a book BeoWulf, edited by Walter John Sedgefield, and appears to be some dictionary or concordance. In this it is indicated to mean "mead hall".--Richardb 02:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, it means mead-bench, but it is often used by metonymy for the mead-hall. Widsith 07:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Does that mean Walter John Sedgefield's book is not authoritative ? What is your source that is more authoritative ?--Richardb 02:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rich. In Old English poetry, metonymy and synecdoche are very common as rhetorical devices. They talk about destroying a throne and it means they will bring down a king. Medusetl is along those lines; it means literally a mead-bench, but very often when it is used the entire mead-hall is meant. You ask what my sources are, but the word is not an obscure one and it's very clear what it indicates. Medu means ‘mead’ and ‘setl’ is the English word ‘settle’ = seat, bench. However, checking in Sweet's Student's Dictionary of Anglo-Saxon I see he gives the meaning as ‘mead-seat’; Bosworth & Toller, which can be checked online somewhere, defines it similarly as ‘A mead-seat, a seat in a banqueting hall’. The word (and the related medubenc) comes up a lot - the citation from Beowulf is just the most famous. The source you have seen is probably glossing the word in a context where it indicates the hall in general; but that is something which a reader of Old English will understand from context, since very many terms are used in this way. Mead-benches and halls in general were very important in Germanic society and that's why their destruction or otherwise was always thought worth commenting on. The English always did like to drink... Widsith 08:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Boy, Widsith, that was a lot of effort for my little "rhetorical question". At least I learnt the word metonymy. But I was only medusetl it as an example to attack the current CFI, which I think is ridiculously tight and restrictive when it suits people.--Richardb 10:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

In the rough breathing dialects of the Ancient Greek (Aeolic, Attic, etc.) the letter H declared the exact sound that the same letter has today in English (in Ancient Greek scripts you'll see HELLAS, HEROS, HERAKLES, etc.) In the smooth breathing dialects (Ionic, Lesbian, Cyprian, Cretan etc.) and especially in Minor Asia’s Ionic, the letter H used primarily to declare the long e, which in the rough breathing dialects was only declared with the letter E. However, the Ionic alphabet started to take the place of the Attic alphabet in Attica in about the middle of the 5th cent. BCE and it was officially replaced by it in 403 BCE. Kassios 18:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

What a great word! Are you certain that hunting pinks is specifically a hunting jacket? I've been looking at some of the quotes on Google Books and the term seems to be used in the general sense of ‘scarlet hunting clothes’ (ie plural). Cheers, Widsith 09:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi you sent me on quite a mission. As far as I can tell, the colour is hunting pink but the clothes are hunting pinks. Just from watching TV it seems that breeches, riding hats and so forth are not "pink" and that it is just the jacket that is. It seems that the right to use pink comes from Royal perogative - see discussion at the article - it is the right to use royal (scarlet) livery when hunting. I have still not found out why it is called pink. Perhaps we should get HM to become a wiktionarian? She could probably resolve it. Regards Andrew massyn 12:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I'll add the link to the Sanskrit one. --Dijan 08:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've just made you a sysop. Congratulations! Enjoy your new responsibilities. If you need any help, contact any of the other sysops at WT:A. By the way, can you put your timezone on your user page so that we can enter it into the table at WT:A. Thanks. — Paul G 07:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Better still, now that you are a sysop, you are able to edit this page yourself, so could you enter it in the table, please? — Paul G 07:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good luck! —Vildricianus 12:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, very exciting! Widsith 14:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations!  :) --Dijan 15:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I am trying not to get too excited and delete everything! Widsith 15:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

the post in question was tantoblin which you refered to as tosh perhaps you've allready looked at my source and found it to have been incorrect if so i appologise if this is not the case then i suggest you look at my source Unregistered text offender 17:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you have a look at its etymology? I ain't sure it has two different ones. Thanks. —Vildricianus 14:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh, I would have agreed with you, but having checked it, apparently the verb and the noun are from slightly different (though related) sources! Widsith 14:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Your explanation is much clearer than the SOED's. —Vildricianus 14:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's one example of such copies. This is a small one, but there are bigger ones out there. Can you fix it? —Vildricianus 18:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Found this amazing website and wasn't sure who else to share it with. Or maybe you already have better references. It's not my turf. Davilla 14:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have just found this entry, defined only as a well watered meadow and noted as a protologism (which seemed odd as it didn't seem like a concept that someone would invent a new word for). It seems pointless to google because of the number of personal (and town and publisher's) names. In a quick web dictionary search I couldn't find that def anywhere, but there was a def as wily from ME wiley. So, before the word is dumped into the Protologisms section, please would you check OE, in case there is something interesting. Thanks Enginear 17:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Here's Wikipedia. This is more interesting: . I've never seen it, I'd very much like to. I don't know how many copies there are, but it's already out of print - only cd-roms available. It has damn 1,700,000 cites in it! I'm wondering whether it'll take Wiktionary that long to complete :-(. The most interesting bit is that until its completion in 1998, they adhered to the antiquated Dutch spelling of 1921, in order to remain consistent. That's what I call a good example for us! —Vildricianus 21:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It has, compared to English. The difference is though, that Dutch doesn't have an "Old Dutch" variant like English has. It has, but there's little to nothing known about it - no sources or writings in it. The WNT then includes everything from the earliest known words, some of which it is highly speculative to say whether they are actually Middle Dutch or just one of the German dialects. Compare the WNT to a dictionary that would include everything from Beowulf up to Harry Potter. That would be much bigger than our Dutch one of course. —Vildricianus 21:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

thank you for the entries, you clean up that full page. If you need me, just tell it, I can help--62.175.86.96 22:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Widsith. Could you use the various gender templates instead of plain text, that is, {{m}} instead of ''m''? Thanks. —Vildricianus 17:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

1. You can hover across it and see masculine gender displayed.
2. People like me can have a {{gender period}} there.
3. The future may bring us more options to take advantage of them. Compare the {{transitive}} templates; they were useless. Only now with the {{italbrac}} stuff they've proven their value.

Cheers. —Vildricianus 17:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)