User talk:Word dewd543

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
• Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
• Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
• The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
• We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! —Internoob (Disc.•Cont.) 00:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

If the Romanian word ajunge, which you added to iungō, derives directly from the Latin word adiungō, it should only be listed on adiungō's descendants and not iungō per WT:ALA. Thanks for your contributions. Caladon 09:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please note this change to standard format. We use "From" when the word has moved from one language to another, and use the {{term}} template to link to other entries from the Etymology section. --EncycloPetey 04:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

REMINDER to please begin etymologies with "From"..., as I said.

Also, please trace etymologies to main entries, not to forms of words. Etymologies of verbs from Latin should link to the main verb entry, not to the present active infinitive form. See WT:ALA#Romance language verbs for help. --EncycloPetey 22:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey man, can I ask where you got 'levis' from? DEX (the freakin' bible) lists this word as coming from a Latin word "osteolum". It also lists a couple of alternative forms (uscior and uşcior) but iuşor is nowhere to be found... — opiaterein — 01:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Especially if you're going to use {{term}}, you need to have the Greek spelling. So far the only thing close that I can find to the transliteration you've given is "λείψω", but I'm having a hard time even backing that up, so it might just be better to leave it out entirely until you can find the Greek spellings. — opiaterein — 12:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Alternatively, you can simply add {{rfscript|Greek}} or {{attention|grc}} (or both, to get faster results). I'll try and find the words, but it may take some time. The romanization scheme your source is using appears to differ from ours. Do you have any idea what the meanings of the words are? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I've added what I think are the correct Ancient Greek words. "i" is a common romanization of "ει" (it's what the Romans used, actually), and the definitions match pretty nicely. Please check them to make sure they're right. A couple of notes: The borrowing is most likely from Ancient Greek, not (modern) Greek, though I don't know this for sure. If you know for a fact that it actually was from modern Greek (i.e. after 1453), then please feel free to adjust the entries accordingly. As I previously stated, it's ok to leave transliterations if you don't know the Greek script, but please don't link them, and leave a script request ("lipso" {{rfscript|Greek}} instead of ]). If you have any further questions, especially regarding Ancient Greek, etymologies, or both, just drop a note on my talk page (or here, I've got you watchlisted). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

λείψω is what I had before I removed the Greek entirely... that uncertainty is a nasty thing :) Thanks for your help, Aty. — opiaterein — 14:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks for clearing that up for me Word dewd543 17:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The word is borrowed from Modern Greek. DEX specifically says ngr (= limba neogreacă). --Vahagn Petrosyan 00:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is a Medieval Latin word, and not Classical Latin. Please see how I have modified your edits to credentia, credence, and credinţă. --EncycloPetey 00:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Also, please notice . This is how we mark synonyms. Because the number of the definition might change, we use the words in the definition with {{sense}}. --EncycloPetey 03:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

You renamed the French and the Romanian. For the Romanian, just cut and paste it to the new title (which is hard for me to type). Mglovesfun (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:ALA#Prefer spellings with I; do not use J. --EncycloPetey 04:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please add Descendants within a language section. Spanish cuadrado (adj) comes from quadratus, but the noun cuadrado comes from quadratum. --EncycloPetey 22:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The etymology is wrong. There is no word *disfilare in Latin, and there cannot be. The prefix dis- becomes dif- before f. Please do not invent words in etymologies. --EncycloPetey 00:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that, but I didn't actually invent the word. I just got it from dexonline.ro, which is the main source of etymologies for Romanian words, and also from myetymology.com. I don't know if it's necessarily right; it's just what they have. I also see an alternative one as desfilare, but I that seems even less right.

The site dexonline.ro, is under copyright. You need to be careful to cite them and not to copy their content. If they are giving etymologies like this, then they may not be very reliable. --EncycloPetey 01:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I see. I guess since it's also a rare word, the correct etymology might have been harder to find. Oh, and I was only using that site for some etymologies that I couldn't find, but not the actual definitions. Anyway I'll remember to cite them if I use it again. Thanks.Word dewd543 01:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

A fost corecta afirmatia, "desfirare" este o forma (romaneasca) provenita din "disfilare"; oricum in latina "filum"= "fir", "struna".WernescU 19:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Does this word mean pronunciation? If you could, could you make this entry? Thanks, Razorflame 16:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, no problem. Just put it up Word dewd543 16:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Razorflame 16:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Would you add the {{Babel}} template to your user page? It would be nice to know what languages you speak. --Dan Polansky 16:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please note: section headers such as "Alternative forms" and "Derived terms" have only the first letter of the entire header capitalized. That is, they should never appear as "Alternative Forms" or "Derived Terms". We do have a bot that corrects this, so you need not clean up old edits, but I wanted to let you know. --EncycloPetey 03:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

This doesn't come from mentire, but from mens ("mind"). --EncycloPetey 05:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wow, did I actually do that? My bad. It makes sense. Accidentally typed the wrong word for some reason.

In etymologies, when a source word is hypothetical (preceded by an asterisk) then it shouldn't be linked. The asterisk indicates that the word is not attestable in any source, and so would fail our criteria for inclusion on Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey 14:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Which source did you find that says this comes from (deprecated template usage) luctor? My sources do not support this, and say instead that they come from a common root. --EncycloPetey 21:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I also am not finding evidence this is Vulgar Latin; it seems to be of Late Latin origin, not VL. --EncycloPetey 21:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've been working on this Latin entry, and haven't been able to find descendants in any languages. The Italian and Iberian languages seem to use descendants of vetus or vetulus instead of senex. Are you able to find any descendants of senex? --EncycloPetey 19:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, from what I found, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese sene are all descended from the Late Latin senex.

Thanks. --EncycloPetey 20:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why, in recent edits, have you been changing Descendants to be listed in reverse alphabetical order, instead of alphabetical order? In general, lists of items in sections should be listed alphabetically. --EncycloPetey 00:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

oh, whoops, my bad. i thought it was that the main word directly descended from the one in the entry and corresponding to it came first, and then other more derived forms or terms, or recent borrowings as opposed to inherited ones, came after. i understand now

Salut!

I’ve recently merged an old Wikipedia page on -eşti to the page that you recently wrote. Since, unlike me, you actually know Romanian, perhaps you’d like to fix up any errors or confusions I may have introduced in merging them? Mulţumesc!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand what you have done here. Surely lucrative is from lucrātīvus and should therefore only be listed there and I'm confused by lucra, lucrare, and lucrar; apparently, they are supposed to come from some Late Latin verb lucrō, and if this exists, these shouldn't be here either (that all depends on if it's attested or not and if it's actually an alternative form (non-deponent form) of lucror). What was your thinking here? Caladon 09:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I made a mistake in regards to lucrative. Should have been only on the lucrativus page. But from what I gathered, lucrō was just a Late Latin version of the same verb, lucror, in Classical Latin, which wouldn't need an extra entry.

Yes, the others are fine then, thanks. Caladon 12:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you confirm my suspicion that this is just diminuare a valorii. I'm seeing lots and lots of hits for diminuare, but I'm not that confident of translation one of the citations into English. A lot of this contributor's entries seem to be sum of parts and/or plain wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

yeah, you're right. i think you can delete that

RobbieSW from the Romanian wiktionary has recently warned me to watch User:WernescU's edits as he suspects him to be a user who used to add erroneous words and words without necessary diacritics on Romanian wiktionary who was blocked for doing so...

My Romanian isn't as strong as it was a year ago, so I'll need some help spotting made-up words. I'd appreciate if you could watch the user's contributions once in a while and let me know if I need to lay down the law :D — opiaterein — 16:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I'll check him out from time to time then.

Is there any reason why you blanked the page? If you want it deleted, please use {{delete}}. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 01:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes sorry I just wanted to delete it since the main page was supposed to be medietas, where I moved the definition to. But someone can still edit it to make it the genitive form of the word. --Word dewd543 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

In the etymology, when the Vulgar Latin and Latin are identical, it is not necessary to repeat the word form. When you state a term is "from Vulgar Latin", it makes it look as though the word was borrowed secondarily, rather than inheritted from the parent language. --EncycloPetey 02:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

This almost certainly comes from aggestus, which is a Latin fifth-declension noun meaning "an accumulation". The supine form is parctically never the form from which new words originate. It's more typically the participle or one of its derivatives. --EncycloPetey 05:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that makes more sense. I thought so too. Maybe the reason aggestum was used in the dictionary I used is because they were referring to the accusative form of aggestus. --Word dewd543 12:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please list descendants at the lemma, not on the inflected forms. --EncycloPetey 03:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

You don't really need "from" with suffix/prefix stuff, just for language-to-language borrowings/evolution, whatever. Also with terms in other languages, it's better to use {{term}}. Check out my changes to păros. Enjoy — opiaterein — 23:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

FYI, the vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Romanian orthographic norms is running. I am notifying you in case you would be interested in giving input. --Dan Polansky 15:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Word dewd543,

I'm just wondering if it is appropriate to add the Romanian verb "a învălui" to the descendants list for vēlō? To be honest, it's actually an indigenous creation based on văl which is from Latin velum.

Just wanted to check with you first, because you seem to be more experienced than I am.

Keep up the good work! --Robbie SWE 19:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I think based on the guidelines in Wiktionary, it's best not to add it under the Latin verb velo since it isn't an actual direct descendant, being a construction that occurred later in the Romanian language. But you can add it under derived terms of văl I believe.

Word dewd543 20:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Word dewd543! I added it as a related term to văl. --Robbie SWE 20:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I moved the Romanian entry from boş to boș according to the result of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Romanian orthographic norms. Now I see that you erased the content of the newly created page and added it again to boş. Is there a special reason for your action? Could you please explain? --flyax 21:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh, sorry I didn't know they decided on that in the vote, since many other Romanian entries still use the ş. My fault. Thanks for letting me know. Word dewd543 22:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'd prefer (though this isn't policy, and perhaps it's only me) not to have Old French and Modern French together in a descendants section. The reason is that they're really the same language divided chronologically. Also it would allow all the Old and Middle languages like Old English, Middle English, Middle French, Old Spanish, Old Portuguese (etc etc.) I (personally) would see the entry for landica is correct as the word disappeared before Modern French. And since we count Anglo-Norman as a separate language, that would be ok too. Can't stress enough this is just my personal feeling on the matter. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Two points:

1. The Reference L3 header goes before Statistics and, especially, Anagrams.
2. The on-line link you provided is to an expired session. Especially unlabelled as it is, it is of very little value.

-- DCDuring TALK 23:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Spanish aquí (et al.) come from the phrase eccum hic, nd not from hic. Those items would be better placed under (deprecated template usage) eccum. --EncycloPetey 18:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just a reminder: The etymology section should come before the pronunciation section in almost all situations. --EncycloPetey 04:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, Word dewd543. I took a look at anţărţ. Isn't it supposed to be anțărț? Thanks. --Lo Ximiendo 18:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

How I do wish people wouldn't ask questions to which they know the answers.... The page is moved. — — 18:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, sorry I accidentally used the old accent mark. I meant to move it afterward but didn't have Internet access for a while. My bad. Thanks for moving. Word dewd543 16:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Does the pronunciation apply to both etymologies? DCDuring TALK 20:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes Word dewd543 15:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

L-am rearanjat. E in regula. — — 16:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the entry for شش šeš "six" already exists (شش). --Z 17:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I guess the link I saw to it originally was spelled slightly differently and wasn't created yet or linked to the right page. Word dewd543 (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

In your recent edit to zwijn I noticed something rather peculiar that you did there, but you've also been doing it to other entries. You correctly provide links to terms in languages with {{term}}, but you skip English. Why do you do that? —CodeCat 21:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well because 99% of the time, English is by default the first language entry on a page (if the word exists and is made of course), so I thought it would just be quicker and easier to not write the {{term}} since its essentially the same thing. The very few exceptions I've seen are if there's a translingual entry above it, but I check for those cases. I guess it's just a bit of laziness, but if it's that bad I'll start using term then Word dewd543 (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

They aren't actually the same thing, though. Users that use the Tabbed Languages extension (including me) will be linked to the "previous" section if no section is given in a link. That means that if I follow a link to zwijn#Dutch, and then click the link to swine, I will end up at swine#Dutch, not swine#English. So please use {{term}} for all languages, including English. —CodeCat 21:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh, okay. Thanks for clearing that up then. I had a feeling there was something more to it... Didn't know about the Tabbed Languages extension. Word dewd543 (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply