Wiktionary:Information desk/2016/June

Are these actually nouns or roots? Bonus question: if a reconstructed archetype has a hyphen in the end, does it automatically mean it's a root? btw, in case you've just thought "wow this guy is dumb", I'll have you know that it took me exactly a year to notice this potential error. --Simboyd (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Having worked a little with polysynthetic/agglutinative languages, I would never question the intelligence of anyone who has trouble understanding one of them. For those of us here who don't speak such languages, very basic features of them can be mind-meltingly strange. Not knowing the specifics, I would point out that being a root and being a noun aren't necessarily mutually exclusive- it depends on the language. For instance, in Sanskrit the noun lemma forms at Wiktionary don't include the inflectional endings, because the forms of the endings vary substantially according to what word follows, and because all the major dictionaries don't include them either. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, I was being sarcastic. I've made my peace with the fact that I'm a bit slow. Anyway, none of the dictionaries of Proto-Kartvelian mention whether the reconstructions are to be classified under roots or nouns, but somehow common sense tells me they are roots. For example, *baba is most definitely a fully respectable noun while *mam- is probably just a root whence Kartvelian words for "father" are derived. It's the same in PIE entries too — the ones that end in hyphens are roots and the ones without are fully reconstructed words. I think I'll just convert all of the Kartvelian nouns/verbs to roots, after all, I'm the one who fucked them up. --Simboyd (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Proto-Kartvelian isn't Proto-Indo-European. For one thing, PIE roots (at least as I understand it) don't really have a part of speech, since they can be made into either verbs or nouns. The answer to your question depends on the analysis of those who work with Proto-Kartvelian, which I know nothing about. Perhaps @Dixtosa or @Vahagn Petrosyan might have some insights. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

A reconstruction or word with a hyphen can have a part of speech. I don't know much about Proto-Kartvelian either, but it looks like that unlike Proto-Indo-European Proto-Kartvelian roots do have part of speech. For example, the meaning and the descendants of *ɣwino- are all nominal. --Vahag (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

We don’t have a label for this dialect. I would add it myself if I knew where it’s supposed to go. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 15:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

What's it a dialect of? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Ladino, according to w:Haketia. - -sche (discuss) 20:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Do we want to treat it as a dialect of Ladino or as a separate language? If we want to treat it as a dialect, do we want the category to be called "Category:Haketia" or "Category:Haketia Ladino"? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a tricky question. I would go with making it a dialect just for convenience, even if it's not the ideologically correct thing to do. The category should be Category:Haketia. --WikiTiki89 14:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done here. The labels {{lb|lad|Haketia}}, {{lb|lad|Hakitia}}, and {{lb|lad|Haquitía}} should now all categorize into Category:Haketia, unless I did something wrong. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The correct category is Haketia Ladino. I am changing the module to this. DTLHS (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Why is that "correct"? "Haketia" is the name of the dialect, most other dialects don't actually have names and so are called " ", but that's not necessary here, and frankly is not very grammatical. And please let the discussion play out before making changes. --WikiTiki89 19:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Show me any other dialect category that leaves out the language name. DTLHS (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not an argument. But there is Category:Helsinki slang. --WikiTiki89 19:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• I support "Haketia" alone, as it is. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I've seen two references to python within the last month. Is/was Python somehow supported by this site?~If so, in what area? Korn (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It was probably in reference to bots. Python has some pretty good libraries supporting the MediaWiki API and even some that do wikitext parsing and more, and so most bots are written in Python. --WikiTiki89 15:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

When to use which?--Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Updating Appendix:Glossary with the subtleties explained would be best. --Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I've been trying to go by the definitions found on the ] page which may be of some help to you, but especially derogatory and pejorative seem to me to be used as synonyms a lot of the time. Would also like some clarification on this. — Kleio (t · c) 18:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Turns out putting it on watchlist only informs you about source code changes. But I'd like to know about new entries being created for a language/category. Korn (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

When you watch a category, you can uncheck the box that says page categorization on your watchlist page (under watchlist options just above the list of changes) and it will show new additions to that category. — Kleio (t · c) 14:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

So you uncheck the box to view page categorization? Isn't this backwards? DTLHS (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

No as long as the list of checkboxes is preceded by "hide", and they are. Dixtosa (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Though whether it should be checked by default is debatable. — Kleio (t · c) 23:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Cōnsors can sometimes appear in the ablative as cōnsorte, although here it is only declined in the ablative as cōnsortī. There is an example of this use in Ovid's Metamorphoses book 1 line 319 "cum consorte tori parva rate vectus adhaesit,"

I have no idea where to suggest this fix nor how to do it myself. 67.183.23.118 00:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

We have {{gloss-stub}}, but that's for unclear or imprecise definitions, while {{rfv-sense}} is for when the definition is disputed. Is there a mechanism to ask for other users to check if a given sense is accurate, and amend it if necessary? —CodeCat 20:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I've seen {{rfdef}} used for this (i.e. with a definition already given). --WikiTiki89 20:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Random question for those Japanese speakers out there: if a Japanese term that derives from Chinese already exists, when is that term preferred over its equivalent transliterated from a Western language? E.g. there are two words for "music" in Japanese - 音楽 and ミュージック. When is the former preferred over the latter? Or are they interchangeable? ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I can tell you that, generally speaking, words written in kanji have a formal, cold, technical feel, while the same word written is hiragana is softened, warm, and made comfortable. Then borrowings from Chinese are more technical and formal (equivalent to English using Latin and Greek borrowings), while borrowings from English are popular, stylish, and fun (equivalent to English using Norse and Anglo-Saxon forms). The native Japanese equivalents are often considered old-fashioned, lower-class. The native Japanese words usually have a broader meaning than the loanwords: English inn, Japanese 宿屋 (yadoya), Sino-Japanese 旅館 (ryokan), English ホテル (hoteru). The Sino-Japanese words are likely to be found in contracts and other formal transactions. The English loans would be preferred, for example, in less formal transactions such as cancellation of appointments, ticket reservations, etc.

When choosing between on'yomi (Chinese loans) and kun'yomi (native Japanese), the on'yomi are used in compounds, and the kun'yomi are used in isolation. —Stephen ^(Talk) 14:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Very helpful, thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

A decadent randomness; not always about alcohol, maybe flippant and haphazard, bored and unconcerned, but with an element of supremacy

What is ﬩ called in Hebrew? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 18:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems ﬩ and + are both called סִימָן הַפְּלוּס (simán hap'lús, literally “plus sign”). --WikiTiki89 19:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I know the concepts of original research and reliable sourcing are handled differently here on Wiktionary than it is on Wikipedia, but what does one do with entries that make dubious claims about the term in question and might in fact be wrong about what it means? How do you confirm that it's not just the poster's opinion? What's the proper way to make corrections? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Allowing original research doesn't mean allowing unsupported opinions. Definitions need to be confirmed by direct quotations of the word used with that definition. --WikiTiki89 20:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so let's say this term has some quotations, but most of them are from things like blogs and message boards. Does that matter or are they considered RS for Wiktionary's purposes? This particular term, I've noticed, has an RS/non-RS split, where the RS say it means one thing and the blogs etc. say it means something else. Or would both meanings be listed?

What about independent value judgments, like "this term is clearer than that one"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Citations need to meet WT:CFI, so Internet message boards don't count. Independent judgements are also avoided as being prescriptive rather than descriptive, though sometimes you can e.g. use a "proscribed" gloss (meaning that a form is widely considered wrong) or put something in a Usage notes section, preferably backed up by authorities. Equinox ◑ 11:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)