. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
you have here. The definition of the word
will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
English is not my mother tongue, but I can see use here. Maybe both "more/most" and "er/est" should be given, though I now, after some checking, agree on "more/most" being most correct (correctest) ;) --EivindJ 14:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Wow! Nice find. Widsith 14:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- No problem, but the comparative "modisher" I don't know about ... I reckon I just took it for granted, since "modishest" existed. Do you know anything about that one? --EivindJ 14:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- It sounds incredibly weird to me. But then so does modishest. I did search for it, but it's hard to find anything useful, since it's also a surname. Widsith 14:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Correct, and if it does exist, it's at least extremely rare. I found one hit here, but it seems they also might be unsure. I also found one hit in those list of words, here. I dunno really. Anyways, do you know how I can make the
{{en-adj}} give this: "superlative more modish or (rare) modishest". Anyways, thanks for helping me out and good you saw it and corrected me. --EivindJ 14:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I don't understand how to duplicate the second character in εἶδος from the edittools Ancient Greek character set. Between the accents and the different shape of the iota (above version has a left stroke at the top but not the characters in the character set) I suspect that the headword was made using a different character set. I hope I am wrong because if it is from a different character set, I wonder how many entries have such a problem. DCDuring TALK 19:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- It's definitely there. It's hard to see it properly -- it doesn't display well, but there's actually a smooth breathing mark as well as a tilde over it -- I usually have to increase the text size a couple of times before I can see it. Widsith 06:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- OK. I was thrown by the three different appearances of the iota. In a heading it appears as a straight line. In the edit window it appeared with curves at the bottom and the top. In edittools, it appears with a curve only at the bottom. I haven't compared with the many combinations of breathings, accents, bold, and size, let alone checked for treatment of other characters. I don't like to have to use a larger font size which squeezes content off the screen, so I may have to leave accented characters (especially Greek) to those with younger eyes. DCDuring TALK 10:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hello Widsith -- Nice job straightening this one out. :) -- WikiPedant 16:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks! Widsith 10:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi again. While checking potter about I came across the following:- potter to move with little energy or direction. I saw him pottering off to see to his canaries Is this correct? If so, we could expand the entry at potter. -- Algrif 16:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Yes and no. There is an OE verb potian menaing "thrust", but its descendant in modE is the verb pote (now only used in dialects). Potter is a later development of pote – an extension with reduplicative effect, so that the original meaning (in the 17th-18th century) was "poke repeatedly". Widsith 16:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi Widsith,
Did you mean to blank out Wiktionary:Languages without ISO codes?
—RuakhTALK 17:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Er...it looks OK to me..? (I meant to add Jèrriais.) Widsith 07:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Ok, that's really creepy. I see a completely blank page. When I look at the dif, I see you removing all the content, and yet the current version has all the content still there. Weird. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Ok, I reverted your edits, and then redid them. Hopefully Ruakh and I can see the page (I can't even imagine why we couldn't and Widsith could). Creepy. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Just thought I'd make you aware of this category. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Also, would you be willing to double-check the etymology on anger? It might be nice to have the Proto-Germanic, as well as the Proto-Indo-European, which I suppose would be the same as the grc.....but I'd feel a bit safer having you enter it. I just don't do Germanic. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. Not sure about that one. Let me dig around for a bit.... Widsith 07:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
The terminal vowel on this side of the Pond is /ɝ/. --EncycloPetey 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- OK then. I have been following the OED in reading /ɜː/ as /əː/ ( is no longer used really on this side of the Atlantic at least). We need to get these conventions down at Wiktionary:Pronunciation so we're all using the same system... Ƿidsiþ 17:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- That would mark another major vowel difference between the OED and Cambridge use of IPA. I think Cambridge is correct in this for the US, although they mark vowel length for US pronunciations, which we've established already is incorrect. --EncycloPetey 17:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- If you have access to the OED, check out any of the new revised entries (essentailly, anything from M through to about Q) – they are now including US pronunciations, though it's not clear exactly by what scheme. Prerogative, for example, they transcribe as /p(r)əˈrɑgədɪv/ replace g with ɡ, invalid IPA characters (g), which certainly makes the T-voicing quite explicit. It's hard to see how Wiktionary can interpret so many different schemes, and giving lots of different transcriptions would be a pretty horrible solution for us too in terms of useability. Ƿidsiþ 17:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Sadly, I don't have access to the new OED. I have the Compact Edition (ancient) and some of the little derivative dictionaries like the Oxford Learner's. For prereogative, it sounds as if they went with the "lazy" pronunciation as standard. That's not a phenomenon standard across the entire US, but I suppose it may now be more accurate for the majority of speakers. I think I need a glass of /ˈwɔ.dɝ/. --EncycloPetey 17:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I've been reformatting entries which use templates like {{PG.}}, {{PIE.}}, etc., to use {{proto}}. This is part of a grander attempt to create a more unified approach to etymon language presentation on Wiktionary, where everything can be done with either {{etyl}} or {{proto}}. It seems like most of the entries which do so are English/Old English (I'm kind of thinking that you were the only one with any knowledge of reconstructed languages before proto came around). Anyway, I just thought I'd let you know, and if you happen to be editing entries which use these templates, if you could switch them it would save me a bit of work. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- No worries; updating to
{{proto}} is pretty much part of my normal routine anyway when editing an entry. I notice you've sorted it so you can have it display without the language at all, which is a good development... Ƿidsiþ 07:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have done a preliminary audit of his edits. However, I only have my understanding of wikt formatting and a basic understanding of Germanic language geneology. I would feel much better about all this if you were to do a double-check. If you feel a block is in order, simply to give you time to sift, I'll support it. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I have been trying to keep an eye on them...I'd made a few changes already, and the only ones I was really unhappy about were the ones you just reverted (you are braver than I am..). I don't think I want to block him, or not yet at least. It is a bit exhausting, but he does seem to have modified his ideas somewhat already. I will sort the Gothic out when I work up the energy.. Ƿidsiþ 19:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Felicitations for the blossoming alliance. Brave is not the proper word for a user with exiguous knowledge of Germanic languages, as he admits, judging about kinship of Scandinavian languages and English. (to Widsith) I understand why you have not dared to make the reversion done by him - because when one is knowledgeable about something, he presumes the possible veracity of the edit, whereas with a "basic" previous knowledge the base is a pure impetus. Regarding this I would like to beg you to describe how you find this blatantly destructive edit which compelled me to quote the ODS again in order to corroborate straightforward similarities. With the above mentioned edit proven to be ineffably and irrefutably inimical to the academic linguistic sources competent in Germanic languages (unlike the author of the edit, as he himself admits) I would also ask you whether and which actions should be taken in order to prevent such POV misdeeds, which aim at transfiguring the Wiktionary to a second Wikiquote? Wherefore is the mentioned user striving at furtively compelling me to quote for every edit I make in languages which are not his cup of tea? Bogorm 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I had just become glad for the understanding reached at Talk:limpan, as you made this edit - would you explain whether the removal of the Gothic word was inadvertently done or the main purpose was restructuring and would you answer the question whether removal of academic linguistic sources is to be considered vandalism? In any case, you have removed the second source elucidationg the transition of the Gothic B to German and English F, was this intentional? I pray you to reinstate the second source since you already intimidated me into not reverting administrators' edits and if the removal of the source was inadvertent, I shall not consider it malignant. Greetings. Bogorm 10:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
As you procrastinated your response, I am going to return the second source, because unlickily for you I have found a third source, stating that behoof is cognate to hebban, which is in full accordance with the Deutsches Wörterbuch von J und W Grimm. So, with two irrefutable sources proving the reduction B -> F I hope that there will be no more objections. Bogorm 10:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I refrained from using the template for descendance for Gothic in behoof, but showing the transition of the consonants corroborated by two independent and undeniable sources is exigent. Why are you so sure that the Gothic is not the antecessor in this particular case contrary to what these venerable researchers think?! Bogorm 10:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- That is your version - this of the mentioned researches and pioneers of Germanistic is straightforwardly expounded in the source you just deleted - das goth. gahôbains continentia, aus enthaltsamkeit bildet sich die vorstellung des mangels und bedarfs (in english: the Gothic gahôbains, continentia, from abstinence has lead to the idea of lack and need). Would you please admit whether you can read fluently German and Latin so that I know which passages to translate and which not? Why do not you accept the alternative version, propounded by the most venerable figures in Germanistic ever next to yours? Besides, we are not discussing hebban and its origin, just the relation of behoof to Behuf and gahobains. Is there any reason why you do not let the other academis version to be present in the article? Bogorm 13:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- The main reason is that they are very old. The Grimms were 19th century researchers, and the ODS seems to have been written mainly in the 1950s (apart from a 90s Supplement). More to the point, we ARE talking about (deprecated template usage) hebban. The "hoof" of "behoof" corresponds to "hebban", whose preterite form is "hōf". Why are you so insistent about this? Gothic "hafjan" is accepted by everyone as being cognate, so why not just leave it at that? Gahobains has at the least a rather speculative connection, so why confuse the entry unnecessarily? Ƿidsiþ 13:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Because it is the classical version and the speculation of the classics is worth being mentioned as having laid the fundament for the further research and as reckoning not only with mechanical transformations, but with the semantical metamorphoses as well, as expounded between the notion of continence/Enthaltsamkeit and Bedarf, Mangel/indigence, need ... Bogorm 13:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Personally I don't object to the inclusion of some information about notable now-discredited beliefs — I leave that for y'all to sort out — but I strenuously object to the inclusion of discredited beliefs as though they were fact, and I heartily support Widsith's removal of such. Anything else would be (deprecated template usage) lying (q.v.). —RuakhTALK 00:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Could you double-check this please? Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, can you check the unsourced susupicious etymology theory in the right? I have already added the correct one and the academic sources behind her and what User:Atelaes did was to remove the etymology and to leave the source below (?!). Anyway, as I am not using belligerent attitude as others, I have left both theories, the certain and sourced one and the new and unproven one. I am too seeking your opinion, but deleting sourced etymology does not seem constructive at all. Bogorm 07:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Bogorm, you misunderstand your source. It does not support any claim that theft is from ON. It offers theft as a related word to the Scandinavian ones, which indeed it is. They are all from the same Germanic word, but not all from Old Norse. Ƿidsiþ 09:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Vraiment? So you think that after mentioning all modern Scandinavian languages the authors have added the nice brackets and put therein exactly the eng. word "oldn. þýfð, þýft (eng. theft (ældre thievery)), þýfi, þýfska" with the only purpose of embelishment? For me the brackets are unambiguous and mean: Descendants of the ON word are the modern Northern Germanic languages and the English and this is corroborated by the fact that in Old Norse there are in summa four words for theft, from which they have quoted exactly these two, which have been undoubtedly borrowed by Old English! The other two are þýfi, þýfska and are situated after the brackets with the English derivative again not for sheer embellishment. Therefore I think the misunderstanding is not stemming from me. I hope strongly that you are able to change the current POV stance in the article and not relapse into "do not revert administrators' edits", although I am not going to make it, the conviction of the veracity and venerability of ODS is irrefutable and unshakeable and I really do not understand wherefore their eluciation of the etymology can be light-mindedly (to put it mildly, since I detest Argumenta ad hominem) removed and am impatiently looking forward to your justification. Bogorm 10:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Think again. The ON word (deprecated template usage) þýfð became (deprecated template usage) þýft by a process known as dissimilation, whereby the final fricative became a stop because it followed an existing fricative . The English form is cited because exactly the same thing happened in Old English. It is simply not credible that the English word comes from ON when we have records of it being used in Old English going back to law codes of the seventh century. Of course, after the Viking invasions, the fact that the ON was so similar doubtless helped matters, as with so many other words. Ƿidsiþ 10:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- How would you prove that it is present in the 7th ventury (until then I can not consider zour edit other than claim for supremacz over ODS)? Please do not remove the (Can this(+) etymology be sourced?)Lua error in Module:parameters at line 573: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "{{{1}}}" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. template. And would you take a look at Talk:plight in lieu of reverting as belligerently as indiscriminately? Bogorm 10:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- For goodness sake. Here are some early uses of the word, as cited in the OED and elsewhere:
- Well, that looks sensible for your theory, but I am sure, the authors of ODS have their reasons too. And I cannot settle for any source claiming supremacy over another. I will soon write a query to ODS and until then shall not return their version. Still no response about plight and its undoubted Middle Low German origin. I am expecting it on Talk:plight Bogorm 10:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
What about this edit? You removed all ancient lanuages (except OE, ??!!) and left the modern ones + OE ? Is there any interdiction of quoting cognates from any ancient language. On my talk page I have read an explanation either by you or by User:Atelaes that ancient cognates are not common for articles about contemporary words, but there is no problem for them to remain. Wherefore then yonder edit of yours? Bogorm 10:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Well, obviously you need OE: that is the direct source. You can put others back in if you like. I was only trying to tidy the entry. Ƿidsiþ 11:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Would you justify removing two academic sources, ine of them unambiguously proving descendance from Template:MLG. in the article? I expect a justification for the deletion of sources wherever is more convenient for you - here or on Talk:plight. Bogorm 11:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Excuse me, we must have been writing simultaneously. Bogorm 11:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
How on earth is Ballbusting a bad entry title? You go onto google and type it in and thousands upon thousands of sites come up. Please explain why you deleted the entry. Chemistrygeek 13:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- It shouldn't start with a capital letter, unless you're saying it's German. Ƿidsiþ 13:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Please refrain from facetious remarks about the German language. Bogorm 14:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Or what? Ƿidsiþ 14:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- That is just a
prex (Latin), an Ersuchen (as it is in German, I do not know the English equivalent)polite request - you see very well that there is no way for a noun ending in "-ing" to be from German origin, that is a suffix typical for English. And, well, if you are going to deride the greatest and foremost language of Western Europe, I can complain where necessary. Bogorm 14:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I don't know if you are deliberately looking for fights now or something. My point is that German nouns start with capital letters whereas English ones do not. I'm not sure why you think German is the foremost language of Western Europe, but at any rate I wish you luck pursuing your complaint. Ƿidsiþ 14:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- And my point was that it is facetious to suppose that any noun ending in "ing" could stem from the German language. The rule about the majuscule goes without saying for every novice in the language. I am not going to complain yet, since I do not yet suppose that your remark was derisive and am assuming your good will. As soon as such one (derisive) appears, my complaint would follow. Wikipedia is not a forum, and since I presume that Wiktionary is not either, I shall not be expounding wherefore German is the foremost language of Western Europe. Greetings. Bogorm 14:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I see. Well, as it happens I love German. It's Danish which I find so loathsome. Ƿidsiþ 15:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Noooooo! How could you seriously utter such thought? I can express too misgivings about languages you like, but do not make it since I find respect towards my collocutors indispensable and abstain from exposing them to the publicity of Wiktionary. Anyway, Danish, German, Russian, French, Latin, Japanese are languages, about which I can not tolerate any facetious or derisive remarks. Let's however concentrate on expanding etymological information about ancient languages and cease commenting on foremost European languaes, milestones of our culture - despite certain skirmishes between us (concerning behoof and plight) I find the collaboration as a whole productive. Greetings. Bogorm 15:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Haha, relax Bogorm, I'm just joking with you. Go and have a coffee or something. On second thoughts– make it a decaf. Ƿidsiþ 15:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have recently created an article about this Ossetian word. However, as I wrote Category:Ossetian nouns, the category below appeared red. Since I was strongly urged here to let myself be taught by experienced users and since a possible creation of category by a novice would be considered "disruptive edit" by some users (same link, not you), I am thereby asking you whether there are any categories for Ossetian types of words whatsoever (e. g. category name Ossetic in lieu of Ossetian or with one "s" or in any other written form) and if there is any problem in me creating the category. Bogorm 18:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- After User:Ruakh'a intervention here the topic is to be considered superfluous. Notwithstanding, I hope you understand my intimidation and precaution after such slandering(not by you) and the deed which followed. Bogorm 19:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Coll. is for collective. For example derv means oaks. From a collective form we can add the suffixe -enn to get the singulative (sg.) form: dervenn (oak).--Yun 09:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, it is different from a plural. You could speak of some oaks and say dervennoù with the plural suffixe added to the singulative form.--Yun 10:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I added some comments in Stephen's talk page, and reorganized the entry. cheers Hakeem.gadi 17:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Lovely, thanks. Ƿidsiþ 17:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
That last edit seems to work. I'm not sure why the previous previous wouldn't show the vowels; the syntax looked fine to me. --EncycloPetey 20:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm back at editing the conjugation templates. Right now I'm editing away {{fr-conj-ier}}. While those verb do have a peculiarity in having two "i"s, they don't need a separate template. There's definitely something that needs to be done regarding French reflexive verbs, and I started a discussion on User:Robert Ullmann's talk page about it. Just thought it would be nice to have more editors involved. Circeus 19:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- In writing, as you say, they're just normal (deprecated template usage) -er verbs; but in speech, they have the irregular alternation between /i/ and /j/. Whereas (deprecated template usage) aimer has one more syllable than (deprecated template usage) aime, (deprecated template usage) étudier has the same number as (deprecated template usage) étudie. Also, whereas (deprecated template usage) aimions ends in /-jɔ̃/, (deprecated template usage) étudiions ends in /-iɔ̃/, apparently under some sort of /j/ + /j/ = /i/ transformation. A lot of this is guessable from the spelling, but I nonetheless think that some of it should be mentioned in a conjugation note — especially since I believe there are exceptions, such as (deprecated template usage) nier, that are pronounced like normal (deprecated template usage) -er verbs. This suggests that (deprecated template usage) étudier should use
{{fr-conj-ier}} and (deprecated template usage) nier should use {{fr-conj-er}}. (By the way, question: is the future stem (deprecated template usage) étudier- pronounced /etydiʁ-/, or /etydjəʁ-/?) —RuakhTALK 22:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi Widsith. I'm a Thai user, and had found your message at Laos Wikipedia. This word depends on what language it is:
é in French...
In Thai: เถรวาท (Té ra wād)
In Laos: ເຖລະວາດ (Té la wād)
ເຖ for té and ລະວາດ for la wād.
That website is wrong, for there is no such sound as "thl" in Lao or Thai language. This word in both languages required to be pronounced in 3 syllables. Best regards,--125.24.24.243 10:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC) (Contact me here)Reply
- I do not have evidence in Laos, but I do have a website of Royal Institute of Thailand. You must be able to read it if you can read Laos. and type the word เถรวาท. In Laos, it is different just the syllable "ra", in which they pronounce "la". Anyway, you may ask Lao people for an evidence. --125.24.56.236 13:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
For your infomation, Lao words within most templates, including the one on your Babel Box, do not look right on any computers that I have tested so far. They split strangely and are very difficult to read. Best regards. Tuinui 11:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I tested them on Firefox and MS Internet Explorer with Phetsarath OT and Saysettha OT on XP and Vista. Looking forward to any advices. If this can be fixed I am thinking of enlarging Khmer words which are much smaller than Lao ones on lo.wiktionary.org Tuinui 12:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- They look perfectly right now!! Thanks a lot Ƿidsiþ. I will certainly try to make use of this template at lo.wiktionary as well. Best regards. Tuinui 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/User_talk:Tuinui"
- To me these sorts of things (Hebrew diacritics, Devanagari ligatures, Lao tone marks, etc.) tend to look broken on my work computer, but to work fine on my home computer. As I recall, the relevant difference is that on my home computer I have turned on XP's support for “complex script and right-to-left languages (including Thai)”, which one can do through Control Panel > > Regional and Language Options > Languages > Supplemental language support. I don't know how this is done in Vista. —RuakhTALK 15:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks for the advice Ruakh. Turning on complex script and right-to-left languages doesn't seem to be the cause in my case because they are always turn on in computers that I use regularly. Regards. Tuinui 01:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- *checks further* Oops, it turns out that affects Hebrew diacritics and Devanagari ligatures, but not Lao tone marks. Sorry about that! —RuakhTALK 12:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Had you asked that many times? I have many fonts, but it would be best if the template is fixed so that every user may see them displaying properly (as all the entry titles do), without having to write to the entries' creator to ask for them. I display Lao fine as far as the entry titles go. 24.29.228.33 17:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I don't know how many other ways I can say this. I need to know what fonts you are using so I can make sure they are included in the Lao template. The fonts display correctly on Firefox and Safari and IE from where I am sitting; if you can't see them I suggest you download a font like Phetsarath, or give me some more information about your fonts/browser. Ƿidsiþ 21:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- It might be a lost cause. I listed all the font families that I have at ]; only one of these font families, Arial Unicode MS, actually contains the Lao range, and it has this problem. Funnily enough, each of my browsers handles that page differently: Firefox falls back on Arial Unicode MS for every line, the only variation being in whether or not it bolds the text (since some of the font families are inherently bold); Internet Explorer shows Lao for the Arial Unicode MS line, and the rest show either boxes or, in a few cases, weird random stuff; Safari pretends the Lao doesn't exist, even on the Arial Unicode MS line, and shows the "abc 123" right after the bullet point. So for me at least, there's no value of
{{Laoo}} that would display Lao text correctly (without my downloading a font that I don't currently have); and I'm guessing I'm probably typical of Windows-XP-ers. —RuakhTALK 00:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Ah, fair enough. So basically Arial Unicode MS doesn't really work; in which case anyone wanting to use Lao will effectively have to download a new font. Which is not that surprising really. (PS, go get Phetsarath, it's great!) Ƿidsiþ 07:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Certainly I have Arial Unicode MS; I don't know what fonts I have for Lao. I will check. But the display should be fixed for all users (most of whom have Arial Unicode MS if they wish to display most of the most commonly used Asian scripts), so they don't have to write in to ask. If the entry titles in Lao display correctly and well, it shouldn't be too difficult to tweak the template that appears under the POS subheader to get that one to display properly with Arial Unicode MS. It will definitely be well worth the effort, as many users that are not as persistent as I, who have Arial Unicode MS, may just say, "This Wiktionary site has errors because Lao doesn't display correctly," and just go to some other website. It really would be best if the template were fixed so that it displays very well for those with Arial Unicode MS, so that we serve all our "walk-in" users equally. It doesn't make sense to say that Arial Unicode MS "doesn't work" for Lao, because, as I'd mentioned before, the entry titles display perfectly in Lao. 24.29.228.33 21:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- It would be great if the template could be fixed so the diacritics display properly (as do the titles of all the Lao entries), so it displays properly for every user, not just a few. All that would need to be done is to match the code of the template to that of the entry title, to ensure the words display without the diacritics displaying over blank spaces in the word. It really is important that these words display properly for all our users, and the fact that the Lao entry titles display properly shows that it is not impossible to do so, but quite possible. 24.29.228.33 16:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you; normal text without all capital letters, and a very clear explanation of what it is you wish me to do, would have been fine. At the page you sent me to, every line displays fine except for "Arial Unicode MS," which displays with the diacritics displaying over blank spaces between the letters. At your sandbox, all the lines display properly except for the first (subtitled with the template "Laoo"), which similarly displays with the strangely gapped appearance. The key, however, is that all entry titles of all Lao entries display properly, so the key is the difference between the template is configured from the way the Lao displays in the Lao entry titles (which has not been responded to in detail, although I have brought it up several times). 131.123.1.227 06:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
- No, that is not the key. For most people, the template displays better than plain text. Your system is different and I am trying to find out why. Clearly you have fonts on your system which DO work, and you also have fonts which don't (Arial Unicode MS). I have removed Arial Unicode MS from the Template, which may help. Better would be if you can find out which of your fonts are the ones which display properly. I keep saying the same thing over and over. Look at the syntax used on either of the pages I pointed you to before. You need to do a page like that yourself for the fonts specific to your system to really know. Ƿidsiþ 08:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you; I wish I knew how to do that. I just can't understand what you mean by examining the "syntax" or to "do a page like that" myself. If you could explain what you mean, I'll do it immediately. 24.29.228.33 01:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I just checked some Lao entries and they're all displaying properly for me, in both entry title and template (except that the font isn't very beautiful, though it's serviceable). Thank you for having done whatever it is you did. 24.29.228.33 01:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I've created ], and used it at ], if you're interested.
Thanks in advance!
—RuakhTALK 23:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'd be surprised if this term were only used as jargon by Lao botanists. --EncycloPetey 19:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- No, fair enough. I understand what you're saying and agree. It's just hard, because there is also a desire to create a category which has all such terms in it. I suppose lo:Plants or something is more appropriate. Ƿidsiþ 19:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I noticed that you changed "Inuit language" to "Inuktitut". However, iglu is one of the rare words, Inuk is another, that is common across several Inuit languages rather than being confined to Inuktitut as inukshuk would be. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, unfortunately that simply means you have to create several near-identical entries. However, bear in mind that some information may be different (eg pronunciation). Ƿidsiþ 22:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- In this case though they are pronounced the same both here, in the Eastern Arctic and in Alaska. Although Inuk/Inuit has different meanings depending on what part of the Canadian Arctic it's being used in. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Would you be willing to double check this etymology. It looks a bit out of date to me, but I'm not sure. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Looks OK to me! Ƿidsiþ 08:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Done, see also http://www.drustvo-celiakija.si/ --Andrejj 15:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Would you buy off on grafan being the source for some of the senses of graft relating to work, criminal work, corruption, possibly via graf a UK dialect term for dig and Middle English grave (“dig”)? There seems to be some support for this in slang dictionaries and OEtyD, but the online dictionaries just say unknown. DCDuring TALK 01:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Would you be willing to take a look at this thread and comment. I'm somewhat out of my league on this one. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hiyas,
You write that “the pen is mightier than the sword” was first recorded in the sixteenth century.
Do you have a citation for this?
I ask, as the Wikipedia page attributes it, in this exact form, to Bulwer-Lytton (1839).
It also mentions
various predecessors, dating back to Hebrews 4:12 (“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword,”), but no earlier versions of this form. The 16th century examples it cites are a Spanish work (translated to English), and a similar English work reading: "The dashe of a Pen, is more greeuous than the counterbuse of a Launce." – is this what you were referring to?
For the etymology, should we cite Bulwer-Lytton for this form, and mention some predecessors, referring to WP for a longer discussion?
Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Blimey, that was more than 2 years ago - Christ knows what I'd been reading back then! Looking at some of my sources now though, I think the situation is that the same IDEA goes back to the 16th century - the one I had in mind was the Whetstone quote you mention above. The exact form of words is from Bulwer-Lytton, no argument there. I have to say I think that to say he "coined" the phrase (as Wikipedia currently does) seems a bit much, given that people had been saying something similar for a long time, and the phrase was almost certainly already proverbial when he put it in Richelieu. By the way, I don't think the Bible quote you mention is quite the same thing. Ƿidsiþ 07:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Ok – I see that you’ve edited the entry. I’ve rearranged and expanded it some (people dig Shakespeare quotes, I’m sure), and linked the Cicero De Officiis quote, which appears to be from verse 77, not 22.
- Hope it looks good now!
- Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
A plan is in the works to found a new UK chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation, and we are currently gathering support from the community. If you are interesting in being part of this new UK chapter as a member, a board member or as someone with a general interest in the chapter, please head over to m:Wikimedia UK v2.0 and let us know. We welcome help in making finishing touches to the plans. An election will be held shortly for the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board, which will take the chapter forward, starting to raise funds and generally supporting the Wikimedia community in the UK. Thanks for your time. AndrewRT 22:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi Widsith,
In cyst?diff=4668815 you added an Old English section to ], with the inflection line reading "kyst". Given the declension table, I'm assuming this was just a typo in the inflection line, but if you could confirm that and fix the entry, I'd appreciate it. :-)
Thanks!
—RuakhTALK 00:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Cool, thanks! —RuakhTALK 12:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Would you double-check the ety on this when you get a sec? It was a bit of a mess when I found it (take a look for yourself, make sure to see the code, and not just the rendered page. I deleted a putative etymon, which seemed to be bunk, but perhaps I was mistaken. Also, I just realized that W1913 uses Old English for Middle English, and Anglo-Saxon for Old English, doesn't it? Since people have also been entering these by hand.......is there anyway to sort this out? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Please see WT:BP#CheckUser votes., you may be able to help. --EncycloPetey 20:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hello again. Would you respond to mine inquisitiveness - why have you added the Old Norse cognate with the spelling "fǽða" (this edit), when two of my sources (ODS here and one dictionary here) and User:Krun, one of the editors of föda (independently from each other), seem to profess their predilection for fœða (œ)? Best regards Bogorm 20:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi Widsith,
Judging from your edit to the translation of the first quotation at ], you're analyzing "lo que es corporomental y culturalmente posible" as "lo que es {corporomental} y {culturalmente posible}", i.e. "lo que es corporomental y es culturalmente posible", but I've thought about it for a while, and I think it's actually "lo que es {corporomental y cultural}mente posible", i.e. "lo que es corporomentalmente y culturalmente posible". This is something that happens sometimes in Spanish — for example, see google:"lenta y rapidamente" — and in this case I think that (1) from a rhetorical standpoint, "dicha posibilidad" should refer back to the entire previous clause and (2) from a lexical standpoint, "dicha posibilidad" doesn't seem to cover "corporomentaldad + posibilidad" very well.
However, your Spanish is probably better than mine, so if you disagree, I'll defer to you.
—RuakhTALK 22:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I am not aware of your knowledge of the Danish language, but the spelling "sye" was abolished in Denmark in 1948 in favour of "sy". When I add Danish cognates which differed from the spelling before 1948, I add either only the contemporary word, or both with a link to the writing reform article in Wikipedia (exempli gratia in shag). I do not consider adding just the obsolete spelling to be either laudable or justified. If you have questions regarding the Danish language, feel free to apprise me thereof or to look it in the ODS up. The spelling has been redressed. Bogorm 15:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
EncycloPetey suggested that I ask for your opinion regarding whether this was appropriate. IMHO, the etymology, although very distantly related, is different and requires the header. Circeus 15:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Well, it's not the way I'd do it. Apart from anything else, it's not certain that sack "bag" and sack "pillage" are even the same word; I'd be tempted to split the etymologies. As for your explanatory comments, I personally prefer to put these kinds of things on the definition lines where appropriate, since they are not about word-etymology per se but rather are sense-specific. Ƿidsiþ 16:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi Widsith. I'm not sure of the best way to categorise this... Category:Middle English letters maybe? --Jackofclubs 17:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Although modern English pronunciation probably does use rather than the typical of RP, our (and Wikipedia's) pronunciation charts for English all use (and most do not give any indication of what sound represents) and so we should use in our entries. As such I have effectively reverted your changes to the pronunciation at back.
If you think we should be using instead, then please start a discussion (probably at the Beer Parlour), so that we can see if there is consensus for doing so. If there is, we can adjust the pronunciation charts at Wiktionary and possibly Wikipedia as well (although that is likely to require a separate discussion there, and I see no point in having them in parallel). Thryduulf 12:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I have started a discussion; in fact there's been a lengthy conversation at Wiktionary talk:Pronunciation#UK pronunciations going on since January. You certainly have tradition on your side, but apart from that I am hardly alone in thinking we ought to present more accurate info. Most importantly (in my view), the distinction between and is one of the prime differences between UK and US English. Also note that the OED now uses /a/ in its UK transcriptions. Ƿidsiþ 16:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
The basic language templates do not have the "lang:" prefix. The "lang:" templates should exist if and only if the language template itself wikilinks the language name. They are a bad hack to work around the linking; at some point we get rid of all the lang: templates. So please create the language template as the 3-letter code, and then create the lang: template only if you linked the language name. (In particular, having lang:xxx without the xxx template itself causes obscure problems.) Robert Ullmann 08:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for pointing out this irregular inverted form on my user page. I've added it. You suggest that there might be others, but I'm not aware of any. Do you know of any more? — Paul G 13:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
- None spring to mind. Though there is still the problem of how to deal with that euphonic -t- which appears in phrases like travaille-t-il..?. Ƿidsiþ 14:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
- That's simple enough - we just have an entry for either t or -t- (or maybe both, with one redirecting to the other) explaining what this particle is used for. Again, this is a regular construction; it falls into much the same bag as English possessives ending in 's, which we voted against having a little while ago. — Paul G 15:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi there. I always thought that was a fouled anchor. SemperBlotto 07:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
The orchid name definitely comes from Classical mythology. I have restored that information and split the article into two etymologies accordingly. --EncycloPetey 23:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi Dijan! When I was in Montenegro last year, I picked up this little placard with a quote on it. Since it seems to be from someone called "Vladika Nikolai", I am assuming it's in Montenegrin/Serbian (whatever you choose to call it..). I can pick out odd words like God and house, but I'd love it if you could let me know what it says in full.
- Боже благослови онога који улази у овај дом, заштити и сачувај онога који излази из њега и дај мир ономе ко у њему остаје. —Владика Николај.
Thanks for any help you can provide! Ƿidsiþ 10:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Hey there! Vladika Nikolaj was a bishop of the Serbian Orthodox Church. It roughly translates as:
- God, bless the one that enters this home, protect and save the one that leaves it and give eternal peace to the one that remains in it.
- Anytime! --Dijan 17:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hello. Could you please have a look at what I've done at Category:Translations to be checked (Scots Gaelic) to check out whether it's OK like that? As far as I know it only contained one item for months, and I think that having two pages for de facto the same category is superfluous anyway. I suppose it would be even better if each time anybody wrote in the Translations section on any page {{ttbc|Scots Gaelic}} the following would be redirected to Category:Translations to be checked (Scottish Gaelic) automatically, but I don't know if this can be done at all. Duncan MacCall 01:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Would you double-check the ety on this? All of my sources disagree with ours, but I'm seeing words like Teutonic and characters like ᵹ.....and I don't know if I'm really up to it. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Can you help with the Middle Persian source of this one? I don't really know the Pahlavi scripts very well. Ƿidsiþ 08:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks! Although.. Why do you think it came into English from Urdu/Hindi? The OED says Persian, and the earliest citations are from Persian travellers which seems to support the idea. The OED etymology has a long-a (mārķwār), which is why I used alif, but since I don't know any Persian myself I guess that could be wrong. Ƿidsiþ 09:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Hi! I'm sorry...I was up very late last night researching this word and came up quite disappointed. I'm basing the fact that it comes via Hindustani (Urdu and Hindi) due to the pronunciation of the word in English, which follows Hindustani pronunciation and resembles it very closely (especially on the "khor" part) and on the quotation given, which definitely gives it away. Ultimately, yes, it comes from Persian. As far as I know the word for to eat is خوردن (khordan) (without the alif) and even if it did have the alif, in such cases, where a present participle is the second part of a word, it would be dropped. --Dijan 04:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Could you block User:Staniam? I cannot revert all his edits alone. Lmaltier 07:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
I can't think of anyone else to ask - so could you look at আ and অ please. The user probably has lots more to add. SemperBlotto 16:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hiya. We have a special template for plurals – have a look at how I've edited گزارشها. Ƿidsiþ 16:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I know, thanks, but I was waiting for it to be modified so that it would work with 'lang=fa' like other templates (I mentioned this on the template talk page a while ago before I changed my username). I can't be bothered to edit them all to use the template one way, and then again when the template works with 'lang=fa'. Kaixinguo 16:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Um, the template does use lang= (for the category); and even if it didn't, it is harmless to specify it prior to it getting implemented. (unreferenced parameters are ignored, they don't cause errors) So you can put that in (and sc=) w/o waiting for the template. (There is some issue with improving it, but I don't remember what it was ;-). Robert Ullmann 16:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
If you get the time and motivation, would you be willing to add to mare the sense relevant to nightmare? My incompetence with Middle/Old English is hindering me from understanding quite what's going on with this. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm trying to contribute to closing out some old RfDs and RfVs. I don't know whether that is a good entry in English, but possibly in Middle English. More to the point there is an ancestor word I came across in OE. See WT:RFD#akennedness. If you could help with that, one way or another,.... DCDuring TALK 18:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi Widsith,
Could you take a look at these edits? (Not sure if you're the right person to ask.)
Thanks,
—RuakhTALK 22:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks! But I'm a bit confused; is it intentional that the English, Dutch, Polish, and Spanish etymologies all give different information? (Sorry if that's a silly question.) —RuakhTALK 22:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't know which more accurately represents the sound, but we should use whatever does - with one caveat we must use the same transcription as the pronunciation key we link to uses, to do otherwise would be unfair (imho) to users who are not familiar with IPA. What other dictionaries use is an argument that could be used in support of changing the pronunciation key, but are not relevant to what appears in our entries. It is the same with /a/ vs /æ/, changing the pronunciation key must come before changing entries. Thryduulf 20:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- The problem is that w:IPA_chart_for_English (which our IPAs link to) and Wiktionary:International Phonetic Alphabet (our own version) say different things. Maybe we should bring this to the attention of the Beer Parlour. Ƿidsiþ 20:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I was just wondering why you deleted my user page? It isn't fatuous like you stated that it was.--Mr. I. P. O'de la Qwerty-Address 17:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I am not a vandal.--Mr. I. P. O'de la Qwerty-Address 18:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Vision problems for successions of i's and l's are severe for many of us. The word was misspelled on the web version (at least) of the cite, I think. There are many cites for hypermilling, mostly for some autocad software. I had looked at this a few times myself and thought it peculiar, without realising that it was probably a misspelling. It took today's World-Wide Words to make me realise. This is an example of why we should all be fallibilists. DCDuring TALK 11:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Widsith. Modern Turkish does not have the letter "q", if your source is fairly old, it may be a transliteration of the Arabic script. But we do not have the letter "q", even if we have the sound. You can modify if you would like to, but it will be a bit weird. Anyway, not a big problem, I am ok for both, we can write it. Best regards. --Chapultepec 22:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- It could be a transcription from Ottoman Turkish, which was usually written with Arabic-style script. Many dictionaries do not distinguish between Modern and Ottoman Turkish in giving etymologies. --EncycloPetey 22:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Yeah, possibly. Probably just leave it for now. Ƿidsiþ 22:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- That is my opinion too. Meanwhile, I have a Merriam-Webster source for that. I can reference it to have a fresh source in the article. Thanks. --Chapultepec 22:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Just to inform you, the word "qonaq" which was modified leads to the Crimean Tatar word, of course a cognate of the Turkish language, but it is slightly different. Best wishes. --Chapultepec 22:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but your addition to Game 5 is not valid, as there are "extra" letters in the interposing word. If you use N Centauri as the interposing word, then your following word must begin with "ntauri". --EncycloPetey 23:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi, may I ask you something? Might this be Old English? It's not important, the character calls it "magic nonsense words to me" anyway, but I'm curious whether Steinbeck just made it up or whether it really means something.
- It's OE all right. It means something like, ‘The coloured snake deceived me with a fair word. If the lion tastes blood, it bites the leader first.’ Although blades is an unusual spelling if it is supposed to mean ‘blood’ – normally you would expect blodes. Ƿidsiþ 09:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks a lot - in that case, it even alludes to the story! --Duncan MacCall 10:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- No worries. Something very like this appears in the OE version of Genesis – se eg here, lines 897-899. Ƿidsiþ 10:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I see. The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. --Duncan MacCall 10:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I've selected December's WsOTD, and would appreciate any help you may provide in cleaning up (or adding) etymologies to the words. --EncycloPetey 06:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I tried to provide some help too. Bogorm 16:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
thank you for deleting these. --71.254.110.248 19:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Here you claim that the Swedish cognate is lefver. Both the translations below (I never add Swedish translations, I do not know the language) and Ordbog over det danske sprog seem to endorse lever. Accordingly, if you do not mind, I removed the f. Bogorm 19:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Your input may be helpful at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#.C3.A1tor. Thanks.—msh210℠ 22:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I've noticed this and I'm not certain I understand - does it mean that although Scots WT doesn't exist at the moment (and the second link created by the edit just leads to a Wikimedia page informing of the fact), this is the preferable format anyway, as it would help if Scots WT is created in the future? And doesn't it confuse Tbot? (I admit I know b****r all about programming). --Duncan 02:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Yes! To your first idea. The plan is only to standardise how we enter translations, because if/when a sco:WT is created, all the links will start turning blue by magic. As it is, you can either change it to say "t-" rather than "t", or if you wait a while that wil be done automatically by bot. I know nothing about the programming side either, but I have found that this works through practice...! Ƿidsiþ 19:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
So, I've been working on grc interrogatives, and I noticed that our English ones (and their ang counterparts, which appear to be untainted Drago creations as of current) are a little weak etymologically, and just thought I'd throw the idea of expanding them a bit past you. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Also, the etymology of se might benefit from looking at ὁ (ho). I whined at Ivan for OCS and Sanskrit counterparts, but I think he's already got a lot on his plate, so who knows if that'll happen. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi there. The methods used to detect WF - from the subjects and style of his edits - are never dscussed openly (so as not to give him too many clues). If you had email enabled I could explain a little further. SemperBlotto 16:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Good Lord. It's like being initiated into the Golden Dawn. I didn't realise I couldn't be emailed though – let me try and fix that. Ƿidsiþ 17:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply