User talk:Widsith/archive3

I added a quote as you seemed to question its validity. Also, it appears here : ] zigzig20s 10:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, I think you're confusing me by spelling it tsunis in the citation (and here). I've found some other cites myself now, so it should get through RfV OK. Widsith 10:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Should we remove the verification tag then?zigzig20s 14:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure about your symbol for the first syllable of "belli" in the transcription? It seems to me you used a depleted form of the "bird" sound instead of the "bed" sound. I hope this is clear enough - unfortunately I don't know how to use the IPA symbols on my computer, so I can't type the transcription I am thinking of...zigzig20s 14:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, the vowel in bed is /ɛ/ and that in bird is /ɜ:/ replace : with ː, invalid IPA characters (:) (the other way round). In actual fact these days the latter is more like replace : with ː, invalid IPA characters (:). Widsith 14:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Erm, I thought it was a symbol resembling the letter 'e'. That's what I learnt in phonetics/phonology class, and that's what dictionaries seem to use...I am mystified.zigzig20s 14:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how else to explain it to you. The vowel in bed is called an w:open-mid front unrounded vowel and the one in bird is a long w:open-mid central unrounded vowel. Both symbols are based on typographical forms of the letter E, but they face in opposite directions. Widsith 14:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

For example here you have the transcription of the word bed' : ] and the symbol resembles the letter 'e' as it does when I type it with my keyboard...zigzig20s 15:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's not IPA, it's just sloppy amateur phonetic notation. /e/ is a completely separate sound, found in French and Spanish among many other languages – but in English it only exists as part of diphthongs. See w:close-mid front unrounded vowel. Widsith 15:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Humph zigzig20s 15:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure of the etymology. I couldn't find any reference to them containing halogen atoms. SemperBlotto 12:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

No not really, I just couldn't see what else it could be. Could it be halo-#Etymology 1? Widsith 10:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please see the archived discussion concerning coördinate before reverting the entries again. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I remember the conversation well. The consensus seemed to be that the forms with diaereses are archaic, or dated at best. At any rate, it seems neutral enough to include all information on both pages. Widsith 14:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Very well. Agreed. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please would you look over this for me, since

• Pedia claims the original was writen in Anglo-Norman verse, but with some ME songs ... I've assumed this one was ME since it contains thorns and it looks much more English than French to me ... but AFAIK, I've never seen anything in Anglo-Norman to compare it with.
• I had to guess which special chars to use for thorns and some other character I don't know ... they look a bit strange in the typeface I have
• The book I found it in is at two stages (two authors) removed from the original, so I can't be certain that the original (whose date I'm claiming) is faithfully reproduced.
• We seem to have very few ME entries, so I don't even know if that's the right heading.

Thanks in advance --Enginear 22:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hiya, it's definitely a word in English and the cite is also English so no worries there. I can't see the special characters on the machine I'm currently on, but I'll check them when I get the chance. I've moved the whole section to the =English= heading - I don't like Middle English as a language header because it really isn't a separate language, and there is no clear division between ME and modern English. In this case it's not a hard decision anyway, as site was still in use well into the sixteenth century. Widsith 10:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That explains the paucity of ME entries. Yes I saw it was in OED with those dates, but didn't come across any later independent cites. No doubt others will appear online as more work is digitised. --Enginear 11:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

As an editor who apparently has some knowledge of Ancient Greek, I'm just making sure you're aware of the Wiktionary:About Ancient Greek page, and that any contributions you'd like to make would be most welcome. If you've already looked and have nothing to add (or simply don't feel like looking), please accept my apologies for this nuisance. Atelaes 00:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've been watching it, but I'm not an expert so have little to add. The only comment I have is that I feel Mycaenean forms should be marked as cognates rather than alternative spellings. Widsith 08:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, well did you know that a discussion was just started on that particular topic? It's rather a complex and interesting topic, and we need all the help we can get to sort it out. Atelaes 19:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Greetings Widsith! Some time ago you moved theion to θείον. However, I believe that iwe should have a separate entry for theion based on the substantial usage of this transliteration in English-language theological writings (645 Google books hits, the bulk of them meeting this description), including the examples in the entry. What do you think? bd2412 T 00:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, sounds good to me. I've never come across the word in English, but it does seem to be out there. Widsith 09:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done - since the cites were to the English, I've moved those as well (and added a bunch of others). Cheers! bd2412 T 11:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Could you help with the etymology (more than one?) of the word round. It was part of the WT:COW, but no one added the etymology. My dictionaries are vague about the relationships between the adjective, noun, and verb forms, and whether they had separate roots in ME. and French. --EncycloPetey 19:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, yeah I suppose I have been pretty quiet for a while. (That's real life for you...) I've had a look at round, yes it's a bit complicated but essentially everything developed from the adjective so I've tried to make that clear. I also added an adverb sense (which could probably be expanded) as well as another (etymologically unrelated) verb. Widsith 19:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Widsith, you’ll need to wikilink Jèrriais if you add translations to that language, since it is not in the WT:TOP40. See price. Cheers, H. (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bah, I hate that policy. Is it a policy? Anyway, I have no objection to others wikilinking Jèrriais but I won't be doing it myself, I think it looks messy. Widsith 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think it is a policy, but it is not entirely clear which languages should be linked, see the link above. OTOH, there is no doubt that Jèrriais belongs to them. It really is a good thing from the point of view of the curious user, which I was when I saw your translation: Jèrriais is not generally known, so one will want to know what it is. A link is the perfect service for that. (I had to copy the word and paste it to the end of the link in the address bar, which is much more work...) H. (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I'm sure it makes sense.. It just annoys me for some reason. Widsith 16:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

On Stephen's talk page, you mentioned that we're using 1st person PAI as the lemma instead of the infinitive in Greek.

How come? Widsith 12:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, the primary reasoning behind this is that, from what I've seen, it's the standard within the world of Ancient Greek. The LSJ, the Bauer, and most other lexicons I've seen use the 1st sing PAI as the dictionary form. I suppose I don't have any grander reasoning than that. It may interest you to know that Latin is also taking this approach. Atelaes 18:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I undid those changes. Thanks for correcting me.--Hauskalainen 11:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC) ps despite the speed of this correction I am also a skillful procrastinator!Reply

I've been cleaning up some etymologies lately, as a lot of our etymologies are kind of....embarrassing (I'm sure you remember Kassios). One thing that I wanted to talk to you about is the distinction between Category:Greek derivations and Category:Ancient Greek derivations. I've been switching a lot words which claim to be Greek derivations to Ancient Greek, but I noticed that you had put a few as Greek derivations which were rather clearly from Ancient Greek. Now, you seem to be kind of the etymology master of Wiktionary, and so I certainly don't presume to lecture you about this (you were actually the one who corrected my very first attempt at an etymology on plutocracy). But I was wondering what your thoughts were on the matter. I guess I think that if we are going to retain the distinction between the two as languages, our etymologies should reflect that. Your thoughts? Atelaes 06:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this is totally me being a bit behind the times. I have always made the distinction between "Greek" and "Modern Greek" (probably because this is what most etymological dictionaries do), but I have noticed recently that most people here do it the other way, distinguishing between "Ancient Greek" and "Greek". I will happily start using "Ancient Greek" if that will cause you fewer problems. Widsith 16:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Atelaes 18:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Greetings! Since you participated in the discussion at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Use of ® and ™ in entries, I thought you might want to cast a vote at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-02/Trademark designations. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

You know that really did come out the wrong way. At any rate, you might be interested in my latest revision, with much better filtering. User:Connel MacKenzie/Gutenberg/2007/4/1-100 lists lots of red-linked words that are archaic or Middle English, if you are still interested in that sort of thing. --Connel MacKenzie 06:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks for commenting. I think I was just in a bad mood when I read it... Widsith 08:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The definition is concise, even if it's difficult to understand. An understandable definition would require a chapter in a textbook (and usually does). --EncycloPetey 17:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, well looking at the Wikipedia page it seems to me that one definition could be "a factor of multiplication representing the extent to which a vector is deformed in a given transformation". I'm no expert though. I'm looking at the OED now, which defines it as "One of those special values of a parameter in an equation for which the equation has a solution", which also seems a bit less opaque than what we have. I have a maths A-level so if I can't understand it I don't have much hope for a casual user (if any casual user would look this kind of thing up..!) Widsith 14:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia page is using a particualr application of eigenvalues to define it. It would be like defining apple as "a product of vegetation representing the seed-carrying vessel in a reproductive event." It's an understandable definition, but it tells you more about the perceived purpose of the apple than what it is. It's too specific because eigenvalues turn up in situations other than vector products. The OED definition is appallingly vague, but I suppose something like it could be used as a supplementary gloss to our current definition. --EncycloPetey 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, but our definition seems to be using a particular application of eigenvalues as well, that of linear algebra. Further down the 'Pedia page we have "The eigenvalue of a non-zero eigenvector is the scale factor by which it has been multiplied" which also seems a good working def. Your apple comparison is not very convincing I'm afraid! You obviously understand this better than me, but surely you can see that we need some definition that allows non-mathematicians to grasp the concept? Widsith 08:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, because that definition requires that you have a non-zero eigenvector. The concept spans several areas of mathematics because a vector is actually a form of matrix. A vector is simply a matrix with just one row (or column), so the matrix definition is actually broader than the vector-based definition. Any definition based on vector deformation will therefore be more restrictive because it eliminates the broader picture. The difficulty lies in creating a concise definition that is (1) accurate, and (2) accessible. The concept of eigenvalue is one that even I as a mathematician have had trouble with. It took me more than a week to comprehend what was going on when I first learned this word, and I had already had two courses in matrix algebra and differential calculus at the time. I hate to say it, but I haven't yet come across a good way to define the term eigenvalue so that it could be easily understood. We have have to just stick with a complicated efinition for now and refer readers to the WP article for deeper understanding. --EncycloPetey 22:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you say so. I'll copy this discussion to the talk page. Widsith 07:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering if you'd care to comment on Wiktionary talk:Etymology#Bold vs. Italics. Also, I saw your new word, and added ἀμφίσβαινα, thought it might interest you. Thanks. Atelaes 02:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Great, I love it when links in an Etymology section go blue! I've commented at the discussion; thanks. Widsith 08:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed a bit of inconsistency with specify the name of Old English (I've seen both Anglo-Saxon and Old English) and I'm wondering if there's a particular preference on this. I'd tend to steer toward the latter myself, but word is you're the resident OE editor.

Additionally, I've come across the word "seþeah" in doing some translation work, which appears to be a form of "swa þeah", "nevertheless". Bosworth and Toller says this latter (and by extension the former) is an "adv. conj.". I'm wondering if you have a particular preference as to how to specify part of speech on this. Adverbial Conjunction seems like a good start, but I wanted to double check. (I have difficulty with Be Bold.) Thank you for your input! --Leftmostcat 06:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

No I think what Bos & Tol mean is that it can be used either as an adverb or as a conjunction. That's certainly the case with swa þeah – I haven't come across the contracted form but I imagine it's the same thing. As for the name of the language, we call it Old English - Anglo-Saxon is a very outdated term for it. For more, see Wiktionary:About Old English. Widsith 08:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert my edit to Prince Charming? And why didn't you give a reason for it? __meco 11:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oops, sorry – I was trying to take out the disambiguation bit, I didn't mean to take the word out altogether! I'll put it back in. But you should have a look at the entry: you can't ask for a translation to be split into tables when there is only one definition. Widsith 12:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

What is the reason you changed your mind to edit my definition?

Neil zusman 15:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since Widsith appears to have gone offline, I've explained on your Talk page. --Enginear 18:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Apart from the fact that you've removed a probably more accurate definition that I added, you've also put back the spelling mistake that was the reason I went into the word in the first place.

Do you just revert edits by newcomers on principle?

And why don't you add an explanation for you bizarre behavior? — This unsigned comment was added by 87.113.82.204 (talk).

Because that's not what it means. Apologies for the spelling – I'll change that back. Of course I don't revert newcomers on principle; you're very welcome here. Widsith 15:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not planning to rewrite the etymology format page, just updating the one reference because it used the Gr. template instead of the AGr. template, and then it seemed like I had better format that one the way the other ones using AGr. are done. There's several hundred of these all using the wrong one, and I might as well do cleanup on them while changing the template reference. (They're not in any standard form; some have italics, some plain text, some with quotes around the transcription if there is one, etc.) ArielGlenn 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think the reason the Pronunciation section was above the Etymologies is because it applies to both Etymology sections. Isn't that the way we do it? Or are we supposed to be duplicating the information? Widsith 12:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

But it wasn't, it was after the first Etymology 1 header. If it applies to both it should indeed be before. Does it apply to Ety 2? Robert Ullmann 12:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, you were editing at the same time I was, I was already working from the edit before. (why this didn't cause an edit conflict is an odd WM bug.) Robert Ullmann 12:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why does wine have cat Greek derivations? Robert Ullmann 13:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, shouldn't be – I'll take that out. Widsith 14:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I recently made an addition to the etymology of metaphysics, but Wikipedant expressed some reservations about it here. I was wondering if you would be willing to check some of your sources and see if you can find anything to support or deny what I've written. Many thanks. Atelaes 16:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I didn't know the meaning of that phrase and, searching through Google books, I haven't yet found a usage outside of the US. I wonder why that is? SemperBlotto 08:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it's weird, I agree. I had heard of it before, but now I come to think of it maybe that was always from US sources too. Because of America's religious history, they have always been partial to a good Biblical idiom. I am loth to mark it (US), but maybe that's what the citations indicate. Widsith 09:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I don't know if you're even aware that this page exists or not, but I've put a few entries on here for the etymologies on some upcoming WotD's. If you have some spare time, it'd be neato keen if you could write the entries for some of them. Thanks. Atelaes 00:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for doing all those, and thanks for the etymology on μήν. Unfortunately I don't yet have any good PIE materials, so if you ever feel like adding the roots of some of the more primitive A. Greek words, I'd be much obliged. Atelaes 21:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Widsith (re ): are etymological discussions welcome on wiktionary, or are they not? Is there some official consensus on this that can be cited up front? I tended to delegate detailed discussions of etymologies from Wikipedia to Wiktionary, since, after all, Wikipedia isn't an dictionary. On the other hand, material placed on Wiktionary seems to be in permanent danger to just disappear: the attitude prevalent here is clearly one of cavalier deletionism (which has prevented me from investing time and expertise in this project). If there is an official consensus that scholarly discussion of etymologies is not wanted on Wiktionary, this is fine: I will not even bother to upload them. It's just important to know, because it will serve to defend articles like w:Witch (etymology), w:Perkwunos, w:Etymology of the word Arab on Wikipedia. 130.60.142.151 07:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

A vote was taken recently on whether Wiktionary should include detailed Word Histories, and the community rejected the idea. You can see the results at WT:VOTE. That doesn't mean etymological discussions will always be inappropriate. But generally we look for ways to fillet that kind of discussion down to its most efficient form. Full discussions of that kind are (in my opinion) best left to an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. There is more on this at Wiktionary:Etymology and its discussion page. If you disagree, feel free to create an account and contribute to the debate. Maybe you will change people's minds. Widsith 07:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

PS as for the specific edit you referred to, I took a call on it at the time as an admin interested in that area. But my word is hardly law, this is just a Wiki. If you disagree, raise it with me or elsewhere. Widsith 07:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

thank you -- this is more or less what I expected. In my book, this completely defeats the purpose of Wiktionary (you should think the community would aspire to a full-blown dictionary, looking at the OED as WP looks at the Britannica). I will not contribute to this debate: thank god Wikipedia allows "(etymology)" entries, I will at best return here for edits such as this one. regards, 130.60.142.151 08:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Precisely, and you will notice the OED does not engage in this kind of hypothetical discussion; at most, they give pointers on books or articles where it can be researched further. Our etymology section for witch, even after I cut it down, is much fuller than that of the OED. Giving the details of longwinded academic disputes is not the job of a dictionary, however complete. It belongs, if anywhere, in an encyclopaedia: a dictionary should just show any conclusions such academics come to. Widsith 08:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

precisely -- what I meant was "go beyond OED, as WP goes beyond Britannica". I am not arguing: I just state that in my book, this attitude defeats the purpose of WT (which would otherwise have great potential as a linguistic resource), but I am perfectly happy with editing w:witch (etymology), no problem at all. 130.60.142.151 08:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do you know where I can request a name-change here? I'd like it changed to Takamatsu. Thanks --Takanatsu the Frippant 21:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think you need to ask a Bureaucrat. Widsith 21:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The page for this is at Wiktionary:Changing username. However, if you're in a hurry, you may want to grab a 'crat on IRC or leave a message on one of their talk pages, as I have no idea how often they check the page. Atelaes 04:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

(from User talk:Beobach972)

Why the formatting changes? It's well-established here that most foreign words should just show glosses in English, not full-sentences. Widsith 07:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

(Just to be inconsistent, I replied to your other comment on my talk page. No, really I just didn't realise you had left two comments until replying to that one. — Beobach972 05:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

My mistake, I was unaware that there is a specific convention against full sentences in foreign language definitions. (I knew that we didn't put full definitions — defining definición as a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol — of course.) I don't see either noun sense or the adjective sense as being full sentences, though... for the first noun sense I just used a majuscule letter, which (counter-intuitively for me) seems to be the convention for definition lines, and for the second noun sense, I think that saying ‘(poetic) (living) body’ is very confusing (as though living were another category tag), so I inserted the article, and there's a difference between ‘especially the torso’ and just ‘torso’, thus my edit. You can revert it if you that's best, though I'd ask that you leave the article between (poetic) and (living) for clarity. Incidently, perhaps we ought to wikify living, what do you think? — Beobach972 05:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

PS- Did I get the diacritics (or lack thereof) right on the adjective sense? — Beobach972 05:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The diacritics are fine, although usually we also add a dot over the C to show that it is pronounced /tʃ/ and not /k/. So, the problem with defining e.g. chien as ‘a dog’ is that it doesn't actually mean ‘a dog’, which in French would be un chien. (In OE it's a little more complicated, because they didn't usually use an indefinite article, so in a sense lic does mean ‘a body’ as well as ‘body’ – but that's just complicating things...). That is why, because we are usually just giving a word or two as a definition, it looks better without majuscules or full stops. You will see this is the convention on most foreign language entries. If more explanatory comments are called for (which may be the case with lic, I take your point about the clarity) then of course fuller sentences may be necessary. I hope all that makes sense Widsith 09:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, that's what I meant (I'm counting the dot over the C as a diacritic). I see now that it was ġelīċ anyway! — Beobach972 16:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

thank you for the welcome message, and hope that I would be a Wiktionarian.

Haytham^Abulela 09:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well not certain - hence possibly :) - my Greek dictionary give from Italian. Our birra gives Germanic. —Saltmarsh 10:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean:

possibly via Germanic *bior or *bier

Saltmarsh 10:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've shortened the entry to my source and leave any inter/extra-polation to others! Saltmarsh 13:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

both my sources (ΛΚΝ, Μπαμπινιωτης) give μπίρα < (Italian) birra < (German) Bier, and one goes on to give < (Old German) bior, is that good enough to add it back in? ArielGlenn 23:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

That sounds much more plausible. Go for it. ("Old German" = Old High German.) Widsith 12:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm wary of listing English terms as Descendants of a Latin word (as I see you did with caseus > caseifaction). Descendants are etymological - well, descendants of a word as it ‘becomes’ a different language. As I'm sure you know, it's very important in etymology to distinguish such words from borrowings. The classic case is the two Spanish words palabra and parabola, both from Latin parabola but one borrowed and one a natural descendant. So I really think Latin =Descendants= should be limited to the Romance languages, whereas other terms should go under =See also= or maybe =Related terms=. Widsith 11:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

They couldn't go under =Related terms=, since that header is only for words in the same language as the entry. See also is typically used for same language words that have a related concept, but are not etymologically or morphologically related, and which can't be classified as a synonym or antonym. Descendants is really the logical location for such words.

I don't see that it's as important for us to distinguish between descendants that evolve within a language from those that are borrowed wholsale. Borrowings change too, especially in terms of inflections. That said, English is the one language where I really feel we should include descendants that have "jumped" the boundaries of language families. This is the English wiktionary, and it is very useful for users to be able to relate English words using those roots. --EncycloPetey 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with EncycloPetey on this one. Regardless of whether a word arrives in a language via normal language evolution or via borrowing, it still traces its descent back to the etymon, and should thus be listed as a descendent. However, what we could do to make the distinction clear is add a qualifier that could possibly look something like this (I can't think of proper terminology here, but I imagine my idea is conveyed nonetheless):

• palabra (Linear descendant)
• parabola (Borrowed from Latin)

Atelaes 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Believe me, it is important to make the distinction. Etymological dictionaries do not even include borrowings, because they are extremely confusing when you're tryiong to make comparisons between the way a word has evolved in different languages. But as long as some kind of distinction is made that would be fine. I suggest just something simpler like:

• palabra
• parabola (borrowing)

...or maybe putting borrowings in brackets? Widsith 14:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, this is getting to be a policy discussion. We ought to start a page for Wiktionary:Descendants and copy a note to the Beer Parlour regarding the discussion. --EncycloPetey 15:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Widsith, I think your version is distinctly superior to mine, and I could quite happily live with that. And yes EncycloPetey, it might be good to take this discussion somewhere more public. However, concerning Wiktionary:Descendants and all pages similar to it, perhaps we should create links to them on WT:ELE, so that they're not so hidden. I didn't know about Wiktionary:Etymology until rather recently. Atelaes 19:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sarcastic comments like that on RFV are...ill-advised to say the least right now. Widsith 15:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

for Pete's sake, I can't even be sarcastic now! Just pointing out what is so obvious to me, that Connel just hates any word to do with sex.

But how about making some comment about CM's blatant disregard for policies; his quoting policies and votes that just don't exist. No wonder I get damn frustrated. Does everyone else live in fear of the guy or something ?--Richardb 15:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, you can be as sarcastic as you like. I just don't think it makes you look particularly good. Widsith 15:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well why doesn't someone else also take the argument up against CM's behaviour instead.--Richardb 15:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just might. His dogged refusal to give up in this debate is utterly ludicrous and obviously done in bad faith. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Checked, formatted (present active infinitive > present active indicative, 1st sing.), blued. Atelaes 21:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ta. I'll get used to the whole 1st singular thing one day... (Swigian is such an awesome word...why did it die out?? We don't have any way to say it in modern English..) Widsith 21:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tips; makes it a lot easier. My bad; out of interest, what Spanish dictionary do you use? CloudNine 13:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

No worries. I have a fat Collins, and a copy of the RAE. Widsith 13:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

You seem to have disagreed with some of my pronunciatory changes to résumé. Firstly, according to w:French phonology, /ʀ/ is a dialectal pronunciation of the French ‘r’ grapheme; /ʁ/ is the standard form. Secondly, why are stress markers not given in IPA transcriptions of French words (apparently)? Thirdly, the two ‘é’s indicate that they are pronounced as /e/, and not as /ɛ/ & /eɪ/ invalid IPA characters (/&/) as you edited (you transcribed the theoretical French word “rèsumée”). Fourthly, why did you change the transcription for the ‘u’ from /ʊ/ to /uː/ — surely you don’t say “reh-zoo-may”? These questions/criticisms notwithstanding, thank you for correcting me concerning the French /y/ vowel. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. /ʀ/ and /ʁ/ are equally correct; I prefer the first because it's less weird-looking for newcomers, and because being the Parisian form it's proportionally more often encountered on French radio/TV broadcasts, and because it's used by all major French dictionaries. Change it back if you really feel strongly about it.

2. French words are not stressed; syllables are given equal stress. (If you want to be really picky, some linguists argue that true stresslessness may only be hypothetical; but at any rate stress is certainly not phonemic in French.)

3. I'm well aware how the French word is pronounced. What I was changing was the English pronunciation. /e/ is not a phoneme in English (except as part of a diphthong).

4. I'm more open to persuasion on this one. I've heard it pronounced either way. Widsith 21:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I’ve replied to you on my talk page. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I’ve replied to you twice on my talk page (in re résumé and dénouement). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I’ve replied to you twice on my talk page. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 22:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Could you continue discussing it on my talk page please? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

How does my pronunciation for intercrural look now? I've split the RP and US versions.

BTW, since Atelaes seems to have vanished (at least for a time), I'll alert you to the fact that the July WOTD entries have been selected and many of them have Etymology sections that could use expert help. --EncycloPetey 22:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me, well, as long as you don't mind the /r/s.... I will definitely have a look at the WOTDs. Widsith 22:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have rewritten and restarted the vote, having attempted to reword the proposal to address the issues that people have raised. You may want to reread the proposal and reconsider your vote. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry this took me so long. Atelaes 22:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, concerning -machy: The etymology looks fine to me, but is this really a productive English suffix? Because, I guess it seems to me that it should only get an entry if it is. Atelaes 22:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think so. sciamachy and theomachy are two that come instantly to mind, and certain writers coin words based on this suffix quite a lot - Will Self for example. Widsith 09:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I know it for sure for Chile. RAE says Chile (but might be incorrect).Matthias Buchmeier 17:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The term originates from Lunfardo (Buenos Aires gangster slang of the 19th century). I dont know exactly which forms are today in use in which countries, but I have done some googling and have added the possible countries I found.Matthias Buchmeier 11:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is currently an active vote at ] regarding whether regular possessive forms of modern English nouns should have their own entries or not. As part of this it has been suggested that the {{en-noun}} template might be modified to show the possessive forms in the inflection line of modern English noun entries (irrespective of the outcome of the vote). Your comments and/or votes are welcome until the end of the vote on 5th August 2007. You are receiving this note as you have edited template:en-noun and/or template talk:en-noun Thryduulf 17:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why you think this is OK. Is your assumption that you can't be prosecuted in England? What you are doing can undermine (destroy/eliminate) all of en.wiktionary, even if that assumption is valid. --Connel MacKenzie 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, what's the problem exactly? Widsith 09:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia used to have lists like these on topics it was missing from EB, Encarta, etc. However, a while ago (back in 2005, actually; should I be embarassed for remembering this?) they were all deleted as copyvios, and particularly dangerous ones, at Jimbo's recommendation. I can't find a great diff, but this one should do: . Basically, not only is this taking a word list unique to a particular copyrighted work (and therefore probably part of their creative work), we are taking it from a competitor and improving our competing work based on it, so they can easily claim monetary damages. Note w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles only draws on public domain lists now. Dmcdevit·t 10:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see. Well, we'd better remove it then. I've also asked BD what he thinks of it all, as he has legal training. Widsith 11:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I'd like to apologize for my harsh tone at first. You very clearly thought that adding that list would be helpful. That is, after all, an understandable error. --Connel MacKenzie 21:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

No worries. Widsith 07:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Wiktionary:About Old English, q.v., indicates that it'd be a lot of work to add duplicate articles with eths and wynns. I'm more familiar with WP than with Wiktionary, so maybe bots aren't used here, or not much, but on WP something like that'd be a great job for a bot. What about here? —msh210 14:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's a possibility. Maybe all words with thorns in could generate an eth entry which used an {{alternative spelling of}} template. As it happens though I'm about the only editor working in OE, and I know nothing about bots. But if you'd like to get involved, feel free - come up with a bot proposal and then I think you have to submit it for approval at the Grease Pit. Widsith 07:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not me. I know nothing about writing or running a bot, and haven't the time to learn. But if having duplicate articles interests you enough, you can put out a general call to those who know how to write and run bots, I suppose. (It does not interest me enough.  :-) ) (You can respond here instead of at my talk page: I'll monitor this page for a couple of weeks or until you respond, which comes first.) —msh210 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, I don't think it's really a priority. Most OE users are used to using thorns for eths etc. because that is how all the print dictionaries work. It's probably something for a future date; I'm not going to worry about it until we've got much more of the basic vocabulary in the system. Widsith 07:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove this word? Just because you live in England it doesn't give you the right to delete legitimate USA English slang terms.

Quite. I did a search for the term on a few websites and found little apart from Urban dictionary. I therefore suspected it didn't meet our criteria for inclusion. But if you feel strongly about it I'll reinstate it and offer it up to the requests for verification process. Rather obviously where I live is not relevant to any of this by the way. Widsith 16:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I live in the USA. This is not a "legitimate USA English slang" term. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have re-deleted this term. As an American, I think it is beyond specious to defend your actions by claiming that someone from the UK is ignorant of US slang. Widsith most certainly is not. --Connel MacKenzie 17:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Seeing as you added dezh to the edit tools, could you add tesh (ʧ replace ʧ with t͡ʃ, invalid IPA characters (ʧ)) too please? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK. Widsith 15:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please do not add combination characters to the Edittools. Their existence and use will screw up both pronunciations and rhymes links, as well as text searches. --EncycloPetey 17:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Eh? How will it screw up pronunciations? Or text searches?? Widsith 17:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please see the lengthy discussions we've been going round and round on. I don't understand all the technical issues myself, but Dijan does as he's had to campain over and over again with this in regards to Dutch and Croatian combo-letters. The Rhymes pages use IPA in their page names. If we use two different possible sets of IPA charatcers for the same pronunciation, we're going to run into all kinds of linking headahces. I've already had to deal with this a number of times, where a character in an IPA pronunciation wasn't the precise one used on the associated Rhymes page, and it is a pain to figure out which one it is in order to get the links to work properly. As far as searched do, the search functions do not recognize dezh as the same as its component parts. A search for one string of IPA characters only yields returns for an exact match. If we use two different strings of charatcers for the same sound, then each search has to be doubled or more with each possible string of characters, even when the appearance of the synmbol string looks the same to the user's eye. --EncycloPetey 17:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Widsith 17:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

EncycloPetey, I really don’t think this is as big a deal as it is made out to be. Tesh and dezh are sufficiently different from “tee + esh” and “dee + ezh” to be noticeable (consider: replace ʧ with t͡ʃ, invalid IPA characters (ʧ·) & replace ʤ with d͡ʒ, invalid IPA characters (ʤ·)) — something which, I grant you, cannot be said of the Dutch and Croatian ligatures (consider: & ; & ; & ). (–Hmm… seeing them now, LJ/LJ and NJ/NJ are also notably different…) Furthermore, note that we already have — can that character honestly be said to be more different from than tesh and dezh are from their digraph equivalents (consider: invalid IPA characters (·))? Sure, this is a matter of technical correctness, in which case we ought to be proscribing & , not tesh and dezh. Finally, consider just how similar some English letters are to one another: , , and , for example — learning to distinguish them is just a matter of practice. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 18:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree you probably don't think it as big a deal as it is. Ligatures that actively break searches and linking cannot be used in entry titles. While some progress has been made not to break XML dumps (for example) due simply by the presence of the nj ligature in an entry, most ancillary software (like various special pages, almost all external software on the toolserver and almost all external software on mirror sites) does now break as a result of those being passed through in the wrong Unicode code-set, or truncated. I appreciate that you'd like to disrupt as much of that as you can. I applaud your copious use of diacritics, macrons and ligatures in your own comments, to foil topical searches of discussion pages. You cover your tracks well. I'll admit, it wasn't obvious earlier, that that is why you usually do that. --Connel MacKenzie 16:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

EncycloPetey’s argument against these ligatures is different from yours. Whilst he cites human error as his chief reason, you argue that there are technical problems (which I do not understand, and which I do not expect that you will endeavour to make clear to me). I have answered his concerns (I’m unsure if I’ve addressed them — I await a reply to find that out) hereinbefore. As for yours: you have yet to prove that the use tesh ( replace ʧ with t͡ʃ, invalid IPA characters (ʧ)) and dezh ( replace ʤ with d͡ʒ, invalid IPA characters (ʤ)) cause any more technical problems than , (both of which would need to be used in place of tesh and dezh), or any other IPA characters do; until you prove that, your arguments are invalid against their being used. The rest of what you write is addressed by User:Doremítzwr/Connel 1. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

EncycloPetey's argument is also different from mine. Tesh and dezh are also very anglo-centric. You know more about pronunciations than I do, so you should know that other languages (Mandarin that I know of) have numerous tee and dee combinations. Just leave it simple. DAVilla 08:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I was wondering if you'd consider accepting a nomination for CheckUser. It's a fairly technical role, but we need trustworthy people to occassionally accept responsibility with that kind of information, and you are someone whom the community can trust. Let me know how you feel about it, and thanks! DAVilla 08:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

CheckUsers "are able to inspect certain IP information pertaining to accused sock puppets and other disruptive use". They complete requests to identify such users. DAVilla 08:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks but I'll say no. Personally I think users should have the right to create "sockpuppets" if they want to and I've never been entirely sure why it's frowned upon. Obviously I support any attempt to block disruptive users, whether they are socks or not. Also I'm not sure I'm comfortable looking into people's details like that. But why not nominate yourself? The community trusts you; I'd certainly vote for you. Widsith 09:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Besides the curse of self-nominations, I feel there are several people here who would vote in opposition, so I'm not pushing for it.

Actually, sockpuppets are allowed. What's frowned upon is thier use in disruptive behavior ranging from a foolishly silly staged argument with oneself, to a more serious breach of double voting, to the vandalous circumvention of blocks via new account registration. A CheckUser determines if two accounts belong to the same person only if there is good reason for doing so. Other requests are simply rejected. Somehow I would doubt that anyone has ever been blocked for talking to themselves.

Let me know if that changes your mind, although I really haven't got any answer for uneasiness with personal information. DAVilla 10:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I replied to you on my talk page. ᏁᏍᎧᏯֶ _talk 10:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I placed the link to Wikipedia that way because it was advised on my talk page. :) Best regards Rhanyeia 13:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

So a question for you. I'm sitting at my computer basically thinking of what to do, and my mind is telling me that sae would be the correct spelling for Scots for so. However, with the finickyness that Scots spellings can be and the way people caa over them when they aren't quite the right way, I was reluctant to add the entry. Perhaps you could let me know if this seems like the right spelling to you? --Neskaya ^talk 07:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It would looks about right to me, and it can be references also to the DSL, BTW I created a reference template {{R:DSL}} to use for any entries where we references the DSL. --Williamsayers79 07:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yep, sae is definitely good! Of course, Scots uses so as well, although it seems to be in different contexts - mainly in collocations like "he did such-and-such, so he did" and things like that. Widsith 10:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I sometimes confuse adverb and adjective forms in these kind of phrases. Especially if I'm working in a hurry. Thanks for the correction. ;-) -- Algrif 15:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hehe, no worries. Widsith 15:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, as per this edit, I was wondering if I could ask you not to change {{top}} into {{trans-top}} without also providing a gloss, even if there is only one definition. Category:Translation table header lacks gloss is not supposed to have any entries. Thanks! DAVilla 19:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh OK, I won't bother with it. Widsith 08:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Where did you get the pronunciation for menorah from? That's one translation of the Hebrew word (used by some w:Ashkenazi Jews), but I doubt anyone would pronounce the English word that way.—msh210℠ 18:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Oh, nevermind, I misread the lengthening colon as a vowel (front mid-high unrounded). Sorry.—msh210℠ 18:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Widsith, you seem like an intelligent sort of user. Could you tell me what the deal with proper nouns is in Wiktionary? Other dictionaries have all sorts of different criteria for which proper nouns are included or not. Thanks, --Istolethepresidentslunchbox 09:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

You will be OK with well-known cities. After that things get into a grey area. On place-names, see the recently-suspended vote at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-05/Placenames_2. Whether or not to include brand names is being voted on at the moment - see WT:VOTE. If in doubt, just stick it in and if there is a problem it will go through our WT:RFV process. Widsith 09:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Widsith. Please reply to my question here. Also, to me, obsolete means “superseded by a more recent sense wherewith the older sense is likely to be confused if used” (like wold and committee). Creäture has a specific, chiefly literary, usage, and one not served by any other word. Granted, it may warrant an “archaic” or “chiefly archaic” tag. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I and Ruakh (who initially agreed with you) have come to agreement regarding the usage note. However, he has explicitly asked for, and I would also appreciate, your expressed agreement (or otherwise). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 01:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Korg recently changed the IPA pronunciation transcription given for guillemet, claiming that the terminal vowel in the French French pronunciation is , as it is in Québécois French, rather than . I initially added those pronunciations as they were given on Wikipedia — which source he also changed to match shortly thereafter. Is it he or is it the information originally given in the Wikipedia article which is correct? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Certainly it is pronounced as /gijmɛ/ replace g with ɡ, invalid IPA characters (g) in French, yeah - but how you'd do the pronunciation in English I have no idea. Is this word ever used in English? I've never come across it. But yeah, in French that looks OK. A good place to check French pronunciations is the Trésor. Widsith 08:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I now have Trésor de la Langue Française bookmarked for such events in future. It is used in English, albeit not always correctly, but I don’t know of any extant Anglophone pronunciation. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 09:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, now what is wrong with the wiki link on the NT page? — This unsigned comment was added by 68.55.199.32 (talk).

It's just not what we normally do. I've added a Wikipedia link to the definition line, hopefully that's a suitable compromise. Widsith 11:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, I have a long list of pages that you have allowed to have a full dedicated page just to that company just because they have a few exceptions; you could at least give me the ability to put a wiki icon on the page to make it look nice. 68.55.199.32 11:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

We normally only add the wiki icon when the whole page is about that particular thing. For initialisms, it gives undue prominence to one meaning over the others. You've already put it at the top of the list! There is no problem with linking to the 'Pedia entry within the definition so I suggest you leave it at that. It would also help your case if you registered an account here. We are not picking on Nortel, we are just trying to apply the tenets of WT:CFI. It is a continuing debate which you are welcome to contribute to, but taking offence and reverting admins is not a good approach. Widsith 11:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I had an account - You (a admin) blocked it, I have also had several IP addresses blocked during this debate.

Oh, ha! I didn't realise. Obviously I'm not up to speed on the history of this. I can only reiterate that we are going by our Criteria for Inclusion, and Nortel probably does not qualify. Again, linking to the Wikipedia article is fine within a def line on NT, but a box is not suitable here. I hope you'll rejoin the debate once your block has expired. Widsith 11:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

So correct me if I am wrong - an Initialism page should not have a wikipedia icon when other items are also listed on that page. Is this correct?

If that is true - than what about AOL page? While you are correcting pages; look at JBC, ARM, and IBM.....

They can link to Wikipedia pages of the relevant initialism. It is fine to link NT to w:NT, just not to w:Nortel. AOL is a separate case, because it cannot stand for anything else (the other two defs are just jokes based on the company, and should probably be deleted). Widsith 13:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Great, can you fix them? — This unsigned comment was added by 216.9.250.64 (talk).

I've fixed the ones you mentioned, if there are any others then just let me know. Widsith 14:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for fixing the companies that I identified. Ok I am a happy wiki user again. If I find others I will let you know.

Is this a British thing, or a dated thing, or something? I've only ever seen "intercontinental ballistic missile" abbreviated ICBM. —Ruakh_TALK 15:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

For a moment there I wondered if I am, in fact, going mad – but having checked I see that this is also listed at the OED, so I didn't make it up! Even to me, ICBM is commoner though, so maybe this is an older form. Widsith 12:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow! You are fast! I barely noticed my typo when you fixed it within 90 seconds of the erroneous posting. Thanks! Ben 13:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Widsith, I'm planning to feature hello as WOTD on the 19th. While doing some research, I've discovered that there are several different and incompatible etymologies given in some of the major dictionaries. Some have it from a Germanic origin, and some from a corruption of Latin (deprecated template usage) illāc. Could you have a look round and (1) determine if one of these etymologies is considered "correct", or (2) provide a summary on the page of the different possibilities? --EncycloPetey 23:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC) PS - The RAE was no help, since Spanish hola apparently derives from the English!Reply

Oh, I'd I've found a Mark Twain quote using the word in 1876, which predates the 1884 currently given in the etymology. See the citations page I've started for the word. --EncycloPetey 01:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

And now an 1870 citation, so the accreditation to Edison and the use of the telephone is clearly not true. --EncycloPetey 01:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow, you seem to be having a whole conversation on your own here! The history of hello gets discussed a lot; the Edison story is definitely just a myth but beyond that people disagree. Sticking with what's known, it seems like it's a variant of hallo (or halloa) which is attested much earlier and was used as a kind of exclamation of surprise, as well as a hunting call and in various other circumstances. The OED link hallo to OHG halon ‘to fetch’, but that is by no means usiversally accepted. Widsith 10:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Where did you get the Anglicised transcription? Is it a UK pronunciation? Are you sure it’s correct? – seems more similar to between replace ʧ with t͡ʃ, invalid IPA characters (ʧ) and replace ʤ with d͡ʒ, invalid IPA characters (ʤ) than to ; conversely, the spelling (without knowledge of Mandarin) implies /ʤɪŋʒe/ replace ʤ with d͡ʒ, invalid IPA characters (ʤ). By the way, please correctly format pronunciation sections in future as per WT:ELE#Pronunciation. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, you can change it if you like. I think you should list the Anglicized version before the Chinese though... Widsith 12:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don’t think that there really is an Anglizised pronunciation. Nonetheless, I recognise that most of the IPA characters used for the Chinese pronunciation will be undecipherable for most readers. Furthermore, tonality doesn’t tend to persist in English borrowings from Chinese. Therefore, an Anglicised pronunciatory transcription is necessary. I’ve tried to keep the Anglicised pronunciation as faithful to the original whilst only using characters that appear in English pronunciatory transcriptions (except for the tacks, which aren’t distracting anyway) — what do you think? (Of /ʧ̝iŋˈʧ̙ʌ/ replace ʧ with t͡ʃ, invalid IPA characters (ʧʧ)?) I list pronunciations in alphabetical order of language; in the case of Jingzhe, I think the order is appropriate, seeing as the Anglicised pronunciation is clearly secondary to the original Chinese. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please blank the content was: on offensive or personally directed deletions? There is a website out there that archives our deletion log, and anyone will see it if they try to edit the entry title again. There is an option in WT:PREFS to do this automatically. Robert Ullmann 14:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, OK. Widsith 15:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's correct that toloache is from toloatzin, but I'm not entirely certain that toloatzin is from toloa "to bow the head". --Ptcamn 13:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tips on the translation headers. I was wondering how to do that! :D Phantommine 16:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

After talking with Versageek, I have left him a warning about the continued use of his outdated etymology source: User_talk:Athang1504#Content_and_format_of_Ancient_and_Modern_Greek_entries. If you think this is not appropriate, please let me know. Thanks, ArielGlenn 21:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello... I saw that you've blocked the user "Webster boy". Based on his behaviour on the English Wikipedia (see w:User:EverybodyHatesChris and w:User:67.53.130.69) you'll need to block the underlying IP as this user will otherwise just return with a host of alternate names. (Sadly, as Robert, HiDrNick and I among others have learned, you may well be the next target for this user's abuse.) Sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news - please feel free to ask if you have any questiosn about this. I can be reached at w:User talk:Ckatz. Thanks. --Ckatz 10:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I had already reblocked the IP for 6 months. It is on the Road Runner ISP, which fortunately assigns IP addresses semi-permanently. Robert Ullmann 10:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK thanks for the update Rob. Widsith 10:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

• My apologies. I was unaware, as this was the manner of description used in the Collins Dictionary. Black Velvet 10:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you fix / tart up hart, vewe‎, and sodayne‎ as examples of how to do Middle English words on Wiktionary properly.

I am using those words on s:The Burning Babe as an example of how Wikisource can "use" Wiktionary to host the annotations that would otherwise be necessary to help a predominately Modern English readership understand our Middle English works. We have a new Wikisource contributor who looks seriously motivated to expand our coverage of Middle/Old English poetry, and is looking for options on how best to do this. The user has already started putting images on commons, and I think they will also dive into Wiktionary if shown the way and the benefits.

p.s. I found your username Widsith very interesting, and have started s:Widsith. Godspeed, John Vandenberg 07:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply