User talk:Widsith/archive8

I do not want to come across as contumelious but please consider casting your vote for the tile logo as—besides using English—the book logo has a clear directionality of horizontal left-to-right, starkly contrasting with Arabic and Chinese, two of the six official UN languages. As such, the tile logo is the only translingual choice left and it was also elected in m:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4. Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 03:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I'm afraid I couldn't care less what the logo is. Ƿidsiþ 05:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any thoughts on the historical grammar of "the" in expressions like "why the dickens"? The parallel use of prepositional phrases like "in Hell" and "on earth" made me wonder whether "the" was some kind of relic of an oblique case of Old English ancestral "the" that might be interpreted as a preposition or something. Alternatively, are these expressions elliptical forms of some oaths? DCDuring TALK 00:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• That's a really good question. The earliest type of phrase like this seems to be used with (deprecated template usage) devil (for which (deprecated template usage) dickens is a euphemism). And in the earliest examples there is sometimes no article (eg Chaucer: ‘What devel have I with the knyfe to doo?’). But it appears equally often with an article, and what's more the whole construction seems to be taken from French, where ‘comment diables!’ was a common Old French expression. On balance I think (deprecated template usage) the is behaving normally here – we usually talk about "the Devil" rather than just "devil" – and possibly the definite article got transplanted to phrases like "what the dickens" in imitation. But more digging around in early quotations would be needed to really clear it up. Ƿidsiþ 10:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

As there seemed to a clear majority for a change in the header, it has been changed to "Samples". The vote has been extended 7 days to allow time to (re-)consider one's position. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 03:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

In the etymology section there you reference "Mohegan-Mantauk-Nrragansett" (code:mof). SIL just split that into "Mohegan-Pequot" (code:xpq) and "Narragansett" (code: xnt). Would you be able to update the ety to specify a new subdivision? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ƿidsiþ. Do you know the Old English etymon (or perhaps etyma) of the nominal and adjectival senses of awrath? I’ve often found with homographs that, whereas a noun and an adjective will share an Old English root, the verb will have a different root. The etymon of the verb (deprecated template usage) awrath is ᵹewrāðian (which, if you would care to add it, would be good to have); the fact that the verb (deprecated template usage) wrath comes from wreþþen, wraþþen, wrēðen, whereas the noun wrath comes from wrǣððu, wrǣððo, wrǣþþu, leads me to imagine that the etymon (or etyma) of the nominal and adjectival senses of awrath will also be different from that of the verbal sense. Whatever the case, please enlighten me.

On a distantly related topic, the OED gives etymologically distinct entries for “secret, a. and n.” and “†ˈsecret, v.”; however, for the etymology of the verb, it gives “f. secret n.”. Tyrrany Sue, understandably, regarded this as sufficient reason to merge the etymologies for the word(s) in our entry; however, I don’t wish to edit at variance with the OED without first trying to divine a method in their madness. So, can you perchance shed light upon why they should choose to present the verb as etymologically distinct from the noun and adjective, even when they seem to be indistinct?

Any help you can give would be much appreciated. Regards, † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

In re your revision: The OED’s entry had ᵹewráðian. You’ve told me before that the acute accent has been superseded by the macron for marking long vowels, so I made that change. Should I also write all insular ‘g’s (Lua error in Module:parameters at line 646: Parameter "sc" must be a valid script code; the value "Latinx" is not valid. See WT:LOS.) as Lua error in Module:parameters at line 646: Parameter "sc" must be a valid script code; the value "Latinx" is not valid. See WT:LOS. and all edhs (Lua error in Module:parameters at line 646: Parameter "sc" must be a valid script code; the value "Latinx" is not valid. See WT:LOS.) as thorns (Lua error in Module:parameters at line 646: Parameter "sc" must be a valid script code; the value "Latinx" is not valid. See WT:LOS.)? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes. See Wiktionary:About Old English. I'll have a closer look at the etymology in due course. Ƿidsiþ 14:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough for lemmatisation purposes. I’ve read the page and shall write etymologies in line therewith in future. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete the entry for Dasey? SoccerMan2009 07:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

• It doesn't meet our Criteria for Inclusion. Ƿidsiþ 07:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
• I respectfully disagree. The following excerpt is from WT:CFI, Section 1.2, "Attestation":

"'Attested' means verified through

1. Clearly widespread use,
2. Usage in a well-known work,
3. Appearance in a refereed academic journal, or
4. Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year." (emphasis added)

Based on the use of the word "or," only one of the criteria for Attestation must be met by the word for it to be considered "attested."

If you search only English pages for >Dasey< on Google, about 61,900 results come up at the time that I am posting this comment and if you search English pages only for >Dasey "Life with Derek"< on Google, about 365,000 results come up at the time that I am posting this comment (don't ask me why more come up, but they do. If you don't believe me, try it for yourself). I think it is safe to say that 61,900 or 365,000 results on Google constitutes "clearly widespread use," thus meeting the criteria for Attestation as defined in WT:CFI Section 1.2, "Attestation" (see verification method 1).

Also, just because you may not have heard a word or aren't necessarily familiar with the subject to which it is related doesn't mean it should be deleted from Wiktionary.

In conclusion, I respectfully ask that you undelete the entry for the word, "Dasey." SoccerMan2009 07:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I've found another Middle English word on WT:RFC. Can you help? --Volants 14:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ƿidsiþ. When you add quotations, please include vital information such as page numbers (and ideally, if available, a link to a page image); quotations without such information can be nigh-on impossible for our readers to verify. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're right, obviously, although I think with very well-known works like these it's much less of a problem – and in this case I was in a hurry to get something down.. Ƿidsiþ 19:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I can understand your hurry, but not your reasoning that their being well-known works makes page-referencing unnecessary. BTW, whence did you get those quotations? Google Book Search? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thence indeed. Ƿidsiþ 19:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Linkified. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nice, thanks. Ƿidsiþ 19:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ƿidsiþ. Is this a good edit? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

• No. It's an adverb, and can't be used as a conjunction (at least I've never seen it used that way – you can't connect clauses with it for example). Ƿidsiþ 07:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Mglovesfun (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Widsith,

Since verb senses 1–3 are clearly related to etymology 1 rather than etymology 2, I was going to move them, but then I figured I'd click on our references just to be sure … and I find that it's much more complicated than I had guessed, with all three of our references giving different stories, none of which matches what we have. When you have a chance, could you take a look?

Thanks in advance!
—Ruakh_TALK 19:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

• It is complicated, but you are basically right. I moved them. (There should really be a third etymology for the nautical sense, but since originally it was a special form of ‘stem’ = "tree-trunk" I left it. But it is confusing, because this led to a verb meaning "set the stem of a ship against (a tide etc.)" and hence "meet head-on", so that when you talk about "stemming a tide" it could mean facing it head-on, OR (from etymology 2) stopping it altogether, and in later use it seems like there has been a kind of merger between the two ideas. But I'm leaving that for a later edit...). Ƿidsiþ 06:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

is there one so that I can correct taquet? --Diligent 14:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

• No, there isn't one (yet). The best thing to do is put: "From a northern form of Old French X (compare Anglo-Norman Y)." Ƿidsiþ 14:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Could {{roa-nor}} be used in this situation? -- Prince Kassad 14:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • I suppose so, but it's not very clear: we're really talking about Old Norman, not the dialect spoken in Normandy today. Ƿidsiþ 15:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

AFAICT we don't double categorize these as ] in a subcategory of French verb forms anyway. {{fr-pp}} is a better template (in fact, I quite like it). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Interesting, thanks. Didn't know about that one. Ƿidsiþ 10:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Online sources are giving different imperfect forms, with (deprecated template usage) estois et al. being early Modern French forms of était. Thoughts? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

These French entries do a wonderful job of contradicting each other. One's masculine, one's feminine and one has no gender; one is listed as a country, and another as a city. Which is right, if any? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• It's not a country. It's a city. And pretty much all "villes" are grammatically feminine in French, I think. My colleagues here just had a brief argument about this, but they reckon it is feminine. I'm not sure about the spelling, but French Wikipedia uses two words just like English. Ƿidsiþ 13:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Would you be interested in using your skills on analyzing the so-callled not very predictable English large numbers to write down an understandable list of rules to compound these long terms, which would improve Appendix:English numerals? --Daniel. 14:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• To be honest, it's not an area that particularly interests me. Ƿidsiþ 15:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I had a go at cleaning this up, but it's not easy. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

One straight forward, one not so

1. Home come the IPA for mue is /my/ but for mué it's /mɥe/. It doesn't feel like that sound changes.
2. A book I was reading says that the final 'e' in words like porte in Old French is an e with a small circle under it (I don't know where to find it, sorry). What does that sound like? I'd always imagined it as a very short -e, like the pronunciation of mouche in the South of France (/muʃə/?)

Mglovesfun (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

1. That's totally normal. When /y/ becomes a semi-consonant (or "liquid") it's written as /ɥ/ -- exactly the same as the way /u/ becoming /w/ (eg (deprecated template usage) boue / (deprecated template usage) bouée).
2. In the French tradition, "e with a small circle under it" is an old-fashioned way of transcribing schwa /ə/. Ƿidsiþ 13:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dan Polansky is making a few minor changes; feel free to change your vote if necessary after that. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Meh, it all seems fairly uncontroversial. Ƿidsiþ 12:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

On Wikisource, texts seem to never use the j and use the long s (ſ). Should we be accepting words that don't use them if not specifically attested? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Oh, gawd. Well, I don't think the long s matters -- that was purely a typographical flourish. But the j thing is really tricky, we seem to have different rules for different languages. If the actual texts really use Is then I suppose we should as well. This is why I hate treating historical forms of the language as separate languages, it would be so much easier (and arguably just as helpful) to lump all of Middle French in as {{obsolete form of}} entries. The short answer is, I don't know when France starting distinguishing I and J and that is the key I think. Not helpful I know. Ƿidsiþ 13:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Umm... so why aren't you using {{RQ:Spenser Faerie Queene}} to format the publication information? Aside from the formatting benefits, doing so has the added benefit of allowing users to do a "What links here" to find words cited from that work. I don't normally favor use of the citation templates, but for heavily cited works, they do make sense. --EncycloPetey 19:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Didn't realise it existed. I guess I can, although not all the books were written in 1590. Ƿidsiþ 05:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

While Leeds University does have some books on Old French phonology, it uses the horrible old fashioned IPA symbols. Are there any good websites (or books I s'pose) you can recommend? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Sure, remind me again in a week or so (I'm not in France right now -- but will be heading home next week, volcano permitting). Ƿidsiþ 13:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Neither of the quotes supports the spelling to which you added them. The italicized Xiphias spelling, in particular, looks like a genus name, which would be Translingual by our standards. --EncycloPetey 03:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I don't think so – Sword Fish is also capitalised and italicised – but I will look for some more. Usage of that era makes little distinction. Ƿidsiþ 05:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

berdache is an outdated and derogatory term; additionally "Indian" for native American and "transvestite" for crossdresser are considered pejorative terms; and neither the terms transgender nor crossdresser accurately describes two-spirited people Nicoleta 18:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'd recommend not merging the senses: http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Talk:transgender#Multiple_Senses — This unsigned comment was added by Nicoletapedia (talk • contribs).

• The multiple senses smack of different people trying to define how they would like the word to be used. It is not helpful to users and it's very hard to source (which is why the page was on RFV for so long). Ƿidsiþ 06:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Widsith, I thank you very much for the IPA pronunciation you added into acidity. Best regards. Have a great weekend! --82.238.78.177 20:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• No problem. You can use {{rfp}} for any other pronunciation requests you have. Ƿidsiþ 20:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, can you please provide a couple of examples of entries that didn't work, for your revision with the reason containing {{temp|compound}}? I would like to see what the problems are between the template versions. thanks, Facts707 14:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you have started to replace "<" with "from" in etymologies. I for one dislike this change. The format proposed by Wiktionary:Etymology is "From ITEM < ITEM < ITEM. A discussion on the subject: BP, "Etymology sections are very concise", November 2008. --Dan Polansky 06:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I remember the discussion, but there doesn't seem to be any consensus on the issue. But if you want to change it I certainly won't revert, I just think not everyone necessarily understands "<" that easily. Ƿidsiþ 06:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • There has been no consensus either way, right. That is why my strategy has been to add etymologies in the format "From ITEM < ITEM < ITEM", one that I prefer, while leaving longer etymologies that are already entered with the format "From ITEM, from ITEM, from ITEM" mostly untouched. I don't like to see etymologies that I have added as "From ITEM < ITEM < ITEM" switched to "From ITEM, from ITEM, from ITEM", given the lack of consensus. --Dan Polansky 08:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
• All right, that seems fair. Ƿidsiþ 09:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. It looks like you were the champion in my competition, congratulations. As you probably know, that entitles you to be a slavedriver for a couple of hours. What can I do for you as your slave? please don't whip me so hard. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 17:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've replied at my talk page. Thryduulf 15:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

is this really a proper noun? --Rising Sun talk? contributions 08:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• No. Ƿidsiþ 09:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am currently attempting to learn Old English, and I am doing an alright job. Thank you for ensuring that the entry on feng was correct.

72.227.97.226 06:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

However, the syntax you are using - {{form of|Preterite|fon|fōn|lang=ang}} leads (by clicking on fōn) the reader to fon#ang in lieu of fon#Old_English. Could you fix this? Does the problem originate in Template:form of? I have tried with {{form of|Preterite|fon|fōn|lang=Old English}} and it worked (in preview mode), but is it sensible to resort to this kind of cumbersome syntax with no abbreviations soever? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Good point, I'll change it -- although someone should really change {{form of}} so it works with language codes. Ƿidsiþ 08:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I wonder whether you'd have a moment to sort out sam-#Old English, and add the missing part of speech header to sceon. Thanks in advance. Conrad.Irwin 23:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Sorted. Ƿidsiþ 07:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Thank you very much. Conrad.Irwin 20:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the entry isopolity, you stated on my talk page that "the definition here seems to have been copied verbatim from the OED. That is copyright violation..." Since I have no access to the OED, I was hoping you could tell me if the OED attributed the phrase "Equality of rights of citizenship between different communities" to the Century Dictionary. Does the OED entry include my words "or states"? It would probably be difficult to determine what year the OED fascicle including "isopolity" was published. Oxford English Dictionary implies that it was after 1894 (when fascicles for A-B, C, and E were issued) but before mid 1928. I would guess the OED entry was published after that of the Century Dictionary (1900 edition), in which case I would hope that attribution was provided in the OED. Was it? Not being familiar with the laws at that time, I don't know if an attribution failure would have been a copyright violation. Are you able to determine which dictionary entry was published first? I'd like to know how the exact phrase came to be included in the OED, and would like to hear your thoughts as well as any information you might have. Thank you. Xophist 15:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the phrasing in the Century Dictionary Online is different: “Equal rights of citizenship in different communities;” (p 3198). The wording currently in the Wiktionary entry is word-for-word identical to a passage from the OED (1989). The story of how our entry was written doesn't matter; it will be better to change the wording. —Michael Z. 2010-05-27 19:22 z

I entered the text from the Century Dictionary, and cited it. Case closed, I hope. —Michael Z. 2010-05-27 20:03 z

I checked my Century Dictionary and realized that I must have paraphrased the definition inadvertently, which is a good thing. I consciously added "and states" both to make the entry different and because it reflected how I've seen it used. I don't have access to OED, but thanks for changing the definition to avoid further questions. Widsith might not like conversations between strangers on his talk page, so I shall drop this now.

DITA Exchange exists, I don't know if it should be in Wiktionary or not, we don't want blatant unpaid advertising but I thought I'd point that out. Proxima Centauri 13:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• It may exist, but the entry as given was hopeless. Ƿidsiþ 13:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can we do our best to get every word from the Anglo-Saxon chronicles added to Wiktionary? It would be useful for those who are trying to learn the language. Google results can be funny with OE results. 72.227.97.226 09:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Well -- yeah, that would be great, obviously. I started a similar project once with Beowulf. It's a hell of a lot of work though... Ƿidsiþ 09:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ƿidsiþ. In re your revision to Künstlerroman:

1. I don't see *(deprecated template usage) Künstlerromans used as an English plural. The first 100 b.g.c. hits for "Künstlerromans" are all German (genitive singular form, I think).
2. What's the point of breaking down the German etymon, when it is given below in the German etymology section?
3. Do you have a source for the UK pronunciation you added?

Also, do you think it's worth adding {{literature|lang=de}} before the German definition?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

1. 1. I do see it. Try an advanced search specifying works in English.
   2. No real point I suppose, you can take it out if it bothers you.
   3. Yes, the source is my ears. I listened to people gabbing about Kunstlerromans for three years at uni, and although the more pretentious sometimes tried for a pseudo-German accent, usually they didn't.

And yes, it probably is. Ƿidsiþ 11:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

:

1. Again, nada. I looked over all 257 hits yielded by that search (the 355 is incorrect). I couldn't find a single English hit.
2. If you don't mind, I shall; it reduces redundancy somewhat. (Though, obviously, it's no big deal either way.)
3. Come now, you know appeals to personal experience aren't admissible. The OED gives (ˈkʏnstləroːˌmaːn); how would you feel about substituting that?

I'll do that, then.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The pronunciation given in the OED is their attempt at rendering the German, which I think we have done better in the German section. It used to be the OED's policy to give ‘native’ pronunciations of foreign words used in English; however, presumaby realising that almost no-one actually pronounces them like that, they have now adopted the practice of giving naturalised pronunciations of foreign words. Compare some of the examples from the revised section of the OED, like mise-en-scène, mittelschmerz, Ostpolitik, palais de danse, etc etc. As for (deprecated template usage) Künstlerromans, I will cite it at the entry. Ƿidsiþ 05:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Point taken in re pronunciations. This issue should be revisited once the OED revises its entry for (deprecated template usage) Künstlerroman. Until then, how do you feel about this compromise transcription? BTW, I've replied to your message on my talk page.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I feel that it's wrong. The point is that even if you make an effort to say , most English-speakers will hear this as either /ʊ/ or /u:/. That's how phonemes work. If we're going to give a naturalised pronunciation, we have to use phonemes that are natural. You could make a case for alternating between /ʊ/ or /u:/ (and possibly between /ɑ:/ and /a/ in the final vowel), but those are the only options. In practice I always hear /ʊ/, but you know -- what else have I got to go on? Ƿidsiþ 16:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is a phoneme, sort of.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please, just take it out. Let people who want to speak in a German accent use the convenient German =Pronunciation= section. This compromise is the worst of both worlds. Ƿidsiþ 16:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, fine. Still sounds irksome to me. It's only temporary till the OED revises its entry.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Diego, could you please look over my recent creation bringuebaler. It's one of your types of fancy French words, and I'm not sure I've got it quite right. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 10:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Looks OK to me! Ƿidsiþ 09:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've just tried formatting the etymology of the entry أنا, which includes Berber as an etymon. It seems though that Template:ber does not exist, and when I went to create it I found that it had previously been deleted. User talk:Widsith/archive4#Tamazight seems to indicate that you have knowledge of why this is, and so I'd be grateful if you could fix the entry and/or explain to me how I should fix it. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• It's really complicated and has put me off doing any work here in Berber languages, even though I used to speak a little when I lived in Morocco. Basically Template:ber refers to a language family rather than a specific language, but the languages within the family are very closely related. The North African ‘standard’ form is called Tamazight (this is what they teach in schools, it's kind of cobbled together out of the common features of several related Moroccan dialects) but this is confused by the fact that there is also a specific language/dialect called Central Morocco Tamazight. The best solution in my opinion is to give all Berber words under a =Tamazight= or =Berber= heading and treat the whole language family as a single entity, but the community has never really agreed this. We discussed it not long ago in the Beer Parlour but I don't think many people were involved in the debate. I think Template:ber can be recreated, as long as it clear it's a whole language family and not an individual language. Ƿidsiþ 04:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks for that, I've recreated it. It can of course be moved/renamed when there is any agreement about how they should be handled. Thryduulf (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • For etymologies, you want {{etyl:ber}}, as in {{etyl|ber|ga}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I take it you're pretty sure these aren't attestable. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Took me a moment to work out what you were talking about there.....well the only one I really searched for was "kimchi eater", I saw no evidence of it meaning anything other than "eater of kimchi", that plus the grammatical wrongness of the definition inclined me to nix them. Ƿidsiþ 13:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I did spot two book citations for kimchi eater as a racist slur, and one newsgroup citation for salsa eater referring to Mexicans. For sushi eater nothing stood out. Equinox ◑ 13:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• OK, well reinstate it if you've found something. Ƿidsiþ 13:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the additions. This entry will be WOTD in about 30 hours. The entry (deprecated template usage) peremptory goes up in under 5 hours, and I have to be away for a bit. Could you have a look? I'm concerned about the distinctiveness of the third sense, and see that the definitions probably need to have their synonyms separated to a new section. I've already recorded and linked an audio file. Thanks for anything you are able to do. --EncycloPetey 19:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I added the etymology -- but looking at the entry, I actually think the senses need quite a bit of work -- it's one of the old Webster jobs by the look of it. And, it being half-nine at night, and me being still at work, I will probably leave that for tomorrow. Sorry -- I should have looked at it a day or two ago. Ƿidsiþ 19:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

  You wouldn't have been able to do that a few days ago. This time of year is so busy for me that I am selecting WOTD only a couple of days ahead. I hope by the end of this weekend to be further ahead than that. I wanted a richer selection of vocabulary this month, which requires a lot more investment of time per word, although with my personal schedule, this might not have been the wisest month to choose for that... --EncycloPetey 17:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Widsith, I thank you a lot for all the beautiful Corsican entries you wrote. I don't know If you know there are two main variants in Corsican language: the "supranacciu" (Northern Corsican) and the "suttanacciu" (Southern Corsican), and the two pronunciations can be very different so adding the two pronunciations is a good thing. I inform you that I modified your entries zancaru and glutinu:

• IPA^(key): /ˈtsãkaru/ -> (I put the Corsican nasal sound "/ã/")
• IPA^(key): /ɡluˈdinu/ (Northern Corsican), /ɡluˈtinu/ (Southern Corsican) -> (I added the Northern Corsican one)

I also modified other words:

• anca IPA^(key): /ˈãka/ -> (I put the Corsican nasal sound "/ã/")
• capu IPA^(key): /ˈkabu/ (Northern Corsican), /ˈkapu/ (Southern Corsican) -> (I added the Northern Corsican one)
• coscia IPA^(key): /ˈkoʃʃa/ -> (I put the sound "/o/" instead of "/ɔ/", Corsican is not Italian: The aperture of vowels is often inversed.)
• verde IPA^(key): /ˈβɛr.dɛ/ -> (I put the sound "/ɛ/" instead of "/e/", Corsican is not Italian: The aperture of vowels is often inversed.)

If you need some help for Corsican pronunciations you can ask me if you want.

Thank you again for the Corsican words that you write here.

Best regards

--Sarvaturi 02:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, thanks. I know there are two main dialects, but I thought the pronunciation differences were mostly on the sub-phonemic level. I was getting my pronunciations mainly from here. If you want to specify two different pronunciations, you can use the {{a}} template: {{IPA|/ˈkoʃʃa/|lang=co|a=Southern Corsican}}, {{a|Northern Corsican}}.... However, I don't think /β/ is a phoneme, surely just appears in certain positions of /b/? Ƿidsiþ 17:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Widsith, thank you for your answer, I don't know why they have written the symbol /β/ in the article "verde" for me there are only /v/, /b/ and /w/.

Here under I made for you a little table that explains how the V is pronounced in each variant (Northern: Supranacciu, and Southern: Suttanacciu):

If you want you can read this site: Sound changes of Corsican But warning!!! in this site the writer has written some errors like these wrong Suttanacciu examples:

• vene (to come) -> in reality in Suttanacciu it is said: vena
• cane (dog) -> in reality in Suttanacciu it is said: cani
• chere (to ask) -> in reality in Suttanacciu it is said: chera
• u cane (the dog) -> in reality in Suttanacciu it is said: u cani
• a chersa (the asking) -> in reality in Suttanacciu it is said: a chersa

And now I want to show you something about the consonantism and the vocalism of Corsican (contemplazione/cuntemplazione/cuntimplazione/cuntimplazioni: contemplating, contemplation):

• Northern Supranacciu: contemplazione IPA^(key): /kɔ̃tɛ̃pla'dzjɔnɛ/ (Something interesting: after a nasal sound, the "t" doesn't become "d")
• Common Supranacciu: cuntemplazione IPA^(key): /kũtɛ̃pla'dzjɔnɛ/

• Southern Supranacciu: cuntimplazione IPA^(key): /kũtimpla'dzjɔnɛ/
• Northern Suttanacciu: cuntimplazioni IPA^(key): /kũtimpla'dzjɔni/

• Common Suttanacciu: cuntimplazioni IPA^(key): /kũtimpla'tsjɔni/
• Southern Suttanacciu: cuntimplazioni IPA^(key): /kuntimpla'tsjɔni/

• Italian: contemplazione IPA^(key): /kontempla'tsjone/
• Sicilian: cuntimplazzioni IPA^(key): /kunt̪ɪmplat'tsjɔnɪ/, /kund̪ɪmplat'tsjɔnɪ/

I can see two things:

• Northern Corsican (Supranacciu) in the whole has a Spanish consonantism and a very own vocalism.

But it is written in an Italian way (see "cuntemplazione" and "contemplazione").

• Southern Corsican (Suttanacciu) in the whole has an Italian consonantism and a Sicilian vocalism.

But it is written in a Sardinian-Sicilian way (see "cuntimplazioni").

What do you think about this?

And about coscia I know that in the North and the Center of Corsica they say IPA^(key): /ˈkoʃʃa/ and not IPA^(key): /ˈkɔʃʃa/. I don't know for the Southern area. But I can say that the aperture of stressed vowels (like "o" or "e") in Northern variant and Southern variant are the same, except for some exceptional cases like the words that ends by "-tore" / "-tori" (like in "direttore"/"dirittori": director, chief, manager):

Northern Corsican: direttore/dirittore IPA^(key): /dirɛt'tɔrɛ//IPA^(key): /dirit'tɔrɛ/

Southern Corsican: dirittori IPA^(key): /dirit'tori/

Italian: direttore IPA^(key): /diret'tore/

Sicilian: diritturi IPA^(key): /d̪ɪɾɪt̪t̪uɾɪ/

Best regards

--Sarvaturi 23:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply