Wiktionary:Information desk/2017/February

Hello, is there a gathering place for people editing and adding words belonging to the same language to discuss things like what is being done, what needs to be done, etc.? A bit like portals or projects on Wikipedia. Second question, is there a plan to make the different Wiktionaries more homogenous, template or layout wise? Orgyn (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The talk page of the relevant "About language X" page (e.g. Wiktionary talk:About French) is often a good place to coordinate work on a specific language, or else the Beer Parlor, but of course that isn't language-specific. I don't think there's any attempt to homogenize the different language versions of Wiktionary (en-wikt, de-wikt, fr-wikt, etc.). It would be an enormous undertaking and require consensus at all projects, which is probably unattainable. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Orgyn: Regarding harmonization of the various editions of Wiktionary, you can see d:Wikidata:Wiktionary (which is Wikidata's discussion about integrating structured data into this project) and m:OmegaWiki (which is a proposal to adopt OmegaWiki). The road toward anything like that is several years away, though. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! The "About xxx" page is exactly what I was looking for. The Wikidata project is very interesting! Orgyn (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I entered a second definition in "Dunder" and tried to include a reference, but I must have not done it correctly because it does not show on the save page. Skelta Skelta (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Skelta: We don't have w:en:Template:Reflist here, so you can just use the MediaWiki tag <references /> to generate them. There are several templates in Category:Citation templates if you'd like to convert it from the way I edited the entry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure that this definition is distinct from the one already present? DTLHS (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes different sources give different vowel lengths.

• L&S omits the length of the last syllable or the ending of the nominative singular. — This is simply a deficiency of L&S.
• Georges has -o instead of -ō for (a) the verb ending for 1.ps.sg. ind.pres. act. (e.g. laudo) and (b) 3rd declension nouns with genitive -onis (e.g. regio). — Maybe Georges omits the ending in this case similar to L&S or maybe there were other views about the length of the o.
• In case of foreign words and some New Latin words the vowel length might be unknown or disputed.
  • Finnish Nuntii Latini once had gāsum but changed it to gasum in 2016. — Maybe they had a long vowel because Finnish and German have a long vowel in their word for gas and maybe they changed it because Romance languages have a short vowel. In this case a short vowel might be more likely, but there might be other cases.
• Some words were different sources give different lengths: iuxta/juxta, some forms of lugeo, punctum and punctus, stella.
  It seems like older or Romance sources (French Gaffiot, English L&S) prefer short vowels, while younger and Germanic sources (German Georges, German Pons, Dutch LaNe) prefer long vowels. Lewis' Elementary Latin Dictionary which is younger than Lewis' and Short's Latin-English Lexicon and Frieze-Dennison's lexicon to Vergil's Aeneid are in between both.
  Maybe it's similar to iuxta#Usage notes, that the origin implies a long vowel while Romance descendents imply a short vowel.

Questions:

• Should there be a category or/and an appendix for words with disputed vowel lengths?
• Are there patterns?
  iuxta/juxta, forms of lugeo, punctum and punctus contain u followed by multiple consonants. unctus and unctor for example also have an u followed by multiple consonants and again give different dictionaries different vowel lengths.
• Could there be a template to add information like in iuxta#Usage notes?

-80.133.125.177 05:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@80.133.125.177: There should definitely be a category for Latin words with disputed vowel lengths. In Latin, when a vowel is followed by multiple consonants at a syllabic boundary, the first of those consonants is applied to the first syllable (with some exceptions, vide infra), rendering it heavy, meaning that that vowel's quantity is hidden from inference by scansion; that is the pattern you're noticing. We could indeed have a template for such information; cf. {{U:la:stop+liquid poetic stress alteration}}. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Many dictionaries prefer manoeuvring for both the gerund and the substantive. Thus your entry offers, for the moment, a minority view as if it was standard.

Although the entry manoeuvering doesn't say anything about standardness, the entry manoeuver does say it's a nonstandard alternative spelling (which in my opinion is a euphemism for "misspelling", but other people may feel differently). Certainly the most common spellings are manoeuvre in GB-based spelling and maneuver in US-based spelling. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Consider this sentence:

"I see three things in this room: a teacup, a man and a dog."

Is it wrong and/or offensive to call people "things" in English like this? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Carrero: No. A "thing" can be an object like a cup or a bicycle--calling a person a "thing" in that example would be offensive. A "thing" can also be basically the same thing as a noun—a person, place, object, state of affairs, or idea. "My favorite things in the world are roller coasters and my grandma" is not at all offensive. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It depends on how you emphasise thing too. Unless one were to stress the word thing, implying that the person in the room is not to be considered more than a "thing", I think it would be fine. I wouldn't call a person a "thing" though, but I think referring to persons in groups of nouns that consist of things as "things" is okay. Leasnam (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

thing can be an affectionate term: you silly thing!, you sweet thing!, you handsome thing!, you old thing!, you clever thing!, she's a pretty little thing! —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

As suggested above, it's often okay in a general sense, but it would be strange and impolite to use it for individuals, e.g. "I need to talk to that thing over there". Equinox ◑ 20:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Why was the entry shut the fuck up deleted (eight years ago)? It is a legitimate phrase, but the page can’t be recreated. Why does STFU exist but not shut the fuck up?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 04:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

To me, this looks like a SOP of shut up and the fuck. Note that the latter has a sense "Used after verbs forming a part of a phrasal verb " with examples like "Get the fuck out " and "Drive the fuck off ". STFU is an abbreviation. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

STFU having an entry does not automatically legitimise one for its expansion; e.g. people might want to know what YHBT stands for, but the expansion you have been trolled is a normal sentence, not requiring an entry. Equinox ◑ 13:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I haven't edited anything before, but I'd like to add Kansai dialect accent information for the Japanese word entries. I've seen that someone has added the accent information for the Tokyo dialect and that they used the NHK accent dictionary as a source. I have a different book I can use for Kansai-ben accents (全国アクセント辞典), so this endeavor won't be an issue. However, I saw that the Tokyo dialect had IPA transcriptions but no source for these. Are IPA transcriptions created from the editor's phonological knowledge of the dialect?

--于雪森 (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yu Xuesen Welcome to Wiktionary!

The 標準語 IPA is generated by code at Module:ja-pron.

As for Kansaiben, if it is of interest, we do have a handful of pre-existing entries which include Osaka pitch accent (but only a handful—most added very recently by User:MihailJP).

(While we're on the topic, and I don't mean to derail your original question, but is terminology such as "heiban" really applicable to Kansai-ben? such as at 木#Pronunciation_2, where formatting intended for Tokyo-style heiban accent is applied over "きい".)

—suzukaze (t・c) 06:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the 標準語 IPA! That makes a lot of sense (It'd probably be better to not add IPA for Kansai-ben since I can't ensure its accuracy).

You're totally not derailing this; I actually was just looking at the entry for 木 too and was quite perplexed how it could be called heiban. At least for 標準語・東京弁、that definition is workable, but since Kansai-ben can have a low flat pitch or a high flat pitch, it seems quite erroneous to call it heiban. The accent dictionary I have uses a system of numbering, but it's sort of arcane, and I don't think it would be very useful or intuitive for the reader. It might be better to just use the typical "line over the kana" format, especially since Kansai-ben can have really unusual accent patterns that are impossible in 標準語 (こんばんは、for example).

— This unsigned comment was added by Yu Xuesen (talk • contribs) at 18:50, 14 February 2017.

Maybe code for IPA could be developed for Kansai-ben as well. The current Module:ja-pron code works by processing merely kana.

Maybe we could add both the lines and the numbers, if the numbers have a method to their madness. wikipedia:ja:京阪式アクセント#類別 also seems to have some sort of numbered category. (@Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, kc kennylau, MihailJP, Wyang, any opinions? ) —suzukaze (t・c) 23:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

IPA code for Kansai-ben would be fantastic, but I have entirely no idea how I would go about creating that. :/

Both lines and numbers would be awesome. It might take me a second to figure out how to work that. There seems to already be a template, but it might have to be edited, yeah?

于雪森 (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't imagine it would be too difficult to find references about the phonology of Kansai-ben.

For the lines and stuff, currently the search results above use Template:ja-accent-common but the template is designed for Tokyo accent (hence the "heiban" stuff, I guess). Probably needs reworking. Alternatively, Module:ja-pron actually does both lines and IPA for the standard dialect, and similar code would also do both for Kansai-ben. —suzukaze (t・c) 08:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wikionary, can the font be changed so that it displays San Francisco instead of Helvetica (Neue)? I find it easier to read when on mobile. Keep the font Georgia as it is. This should also apply globally across Wikimedia projects. Thank you! – AWESOME meeos ！ * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 05:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: This is only a partial solution but you can edit User:Awesomemeeos/common.css to get this outcome for yourself when you are logged in. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf It does not work for mobile view. Only works for desktop view. The link is actually here – AWESOME meeos ！ * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 06:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: Wow. You learn something new every day. I'd recommend you post to phabricator: if we can't change our own settings on mobile or if there is a font that is clearly much more readable on mobile. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Currently, Category:Gothic given names is (with one reconstructed exception) full of names that are, well, not Gothic given names, like 𐌰𐌹𐌻𐌴𐌹𐍃𐌰𐌱𐌰𐌹𐌸 (Aileisabaiþ, “Elizabeth”). They're transcriptions of Biblical names which are not attested outside the Bible as being used as names for actual Gothic persons. I'm intending to remove the entries in that category from that specific category, but I think it'd still be neat to have a category listing which transliterated names are attested in Gothic texts (transliteration is a very valuable source of information on pronunciation and spelling conventions).

So I was wondering if there is a precedent or system in place for this: a category which lists given names from other languages that are not in use as actual given names in the "target language", but have been adapted to the writing system of that language -- e.g. Nebuchadnezzar in English. (There are also attested actual Gothic names in their original Gothic spellings, in the two Ostrogothic Deeds and in the Gothic Calendar, which do have a place in the Gothic given name category and which I will add sometime in the near future.) — Kleio (t · c) 17:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Nebuchadnezzar itself is in CAT:en:Biblical characters and CAT:en:Individuals, but not CAT:English given names. Probably 𐌰𐌹𐌻𐌴𐌹𐍃𐌰𐌱𐌰𐌹𐌸 could be treated the same way. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That should do for now. — Kleio (t · c) 18:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

How to force spelling. I search of can create the word "Spolí", but system redirects me to "spoli", which is something else.--Juandev (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

If you are redirected it means there is no article for it. If you want to create an entry for a word like this type the word and select "Containig..." there you will see an appropriate red link.--Dixtosa (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added an (deprecated template usage) also template to the spoli entry. You can use the red link there to add Spoli. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

uShaka is obviously a very famous Zulu name, and definitely warrants inclusion, but I'm not sure how to define it. It's known as the name of this particular person, but are there other people with this name as well? That is, should I define it as w:Shaka or {{given name|zu}} or both? —CodeCat 21:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

IMO, do both. But the given name should come first — AWESOME meeos ！ * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 10:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi anyone, is it possible for this to happen? — AWESOME meeos ！ * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 10:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

My virus blocker just started detecting all sorts of malware on discussion pages. The specific threats it identifies seem to be in anything from timeclocks in signatures to links to specific section headings. Any idea what might be causing this? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It's also blocking me on some pages from viewing my edits. It looks like the edit was saved, but it stays on the edit page and my virus blcoker tells me a threat has been detected when I click "Save changes." It's very strange. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

What virus blocker do you have? What's the specific message? DTLHS (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I have Avast, and it tells me a threat has been detected, listing the infection as "VBS:Malware-gen" and the process as "C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this has anything to do with Wiktionary- you probably actually have a virus. DTLHS (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I thought I might, though I've never had one like this before. The virus scan hasn't turned anything up yet, but we shall see. It just seemed odd that it was only affecting Wiktionary (so far, anyway). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Could also check if it replicates on another browser. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I just checked on Google Chrome and even just opening the main page set it off. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks like this is all me and probably has nothing to do with Wiktionary. :P Somehow I ended up with dozens of infected files since I last ran a virus scan two weeks ago. I've had many viruses, but none quite like this one... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I requested a definition of this word to confirm my own understanding of the word ' ensorcelled' @ 19:43 (7:30 p.m.) Pacific Standard time (U.S.). I was surprised to see it had last been modified at 14:43. Does this mean someone had just modified it at 2:43 p.m. Estonian or 2:43 p.m. U.S. Pacific Time? Either one of these would have been just hours before I looked it up; that's an amazing coincidence! Good anticipating!~ ~ ~ ~ — This unsigned comment was added by Elainek. (talk • contribs) at 7:13, February 22, 2017 (UTC).

Wiktionary's time is UTC, just so you know. —CodeCat 14:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You can change the time zone in your preferences. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 14:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I am editing a word to add a new definition, and the other definitions have tags like {{lb|en|uncountable}}. I know what uncountable and en refer to, but I have no idea what lb means. I don't want to just copy it, because I don't want to introduce something incorrect. So, does anybody know what this means, and where can I find a full list of things like this? Not sure if it is related to formatting or meaning. Proxyma (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a short form of another template, and it means label. It is generally used for various sorts of non-gloss information pertaining to a certain sense of a term. Putting uncountable in this template (you can view its documentation on the template page, {{label}}) makes sure it is formatted automatically (italicized, placed between parentheses) and that it links to the right appendix page explaining what that particular label means. Significantly, it also makes sure that the term is included in the relevant category, in this case, Category:English uncountable nouns. Besides uncountable, other labels can be anything from transitive (of verbs) or slang for any language, to language-specific markers like Medieval Latin (for Latin) or US (for English, specifying that it is restricted in usage mostly to the US) just to list a few examples. It's a bit of a catch-all, really. — Kleio (t · c) 15:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

To get a link to a template without triggering it, use the 'template' template: {{template|lb}} or {{temp|lb}}. If I now take that out of 'nowiki' it will display as a link to {{lb}}, the documentation for lb. --46.226.49.236 15:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Or just put Template:lb (or whatever) into the search box. Equinox ◑ 19:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everybody, this has been very helpful! Proxyma (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

So, this show is about the American Revolution days. This sailor got off a ship, and later was surrounded by these Patriots who mugged him and covered him in a tar and feather coat.

This is the scene where that happened. I'm trying to transcribe this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAbMPt1vXpU

Go to 7:00 .

This is what I got:

MAN: I offered to buy you a drink.

MR. PARKER: I don’t drink.

MAN: That it? Or is you wouldn’t join the toast? Me, Parliament, rot the wretched lotes!

What the heck? I must be getting something completely wrong. I understood the words "Parliament" and "wretched" at least, but I can't understand the word that sounds like "/lots/". The only thing I could possibly think of to fit the context was lotes, a European tree, but that doesn't make any sense. Please help me with this. I need it. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

louts (I have no idea what the sentence means, but it's definitely "louts"). DTLHS (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

"May Parliament rot- the wretched louts!" Chuck Entz (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I think he also says "is't you wouldn't join the toast". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Middle English had -en as the infinitive ending, and this was also the ending of the past participle of strong verbs. But in modern English, infinitives have no ending while past participles still do. Why did -en disappear in one instance but not another? —CodeCat 22:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The past participle ending did disappear, but was preserved in a few very common, basic verbs, probably because those forms were encountered early enough in childhood to be learned directly rather than guessed. Perhaps the infinitive wasn't as widely used in those verbs, so analogy from the verbs where it was lost could run its course. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the loss of -en in the infinitive was not a phonological change; not only did many past participles keep their -en, so did adjectives like open, nouns like heaven, and noun forms like oxen. I think it was really a morphological change, where the infinitive in -en was replaced by the bare stem. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi all,

Do we have a means to install Wiktionary for offline use in, say, Goldendict? That could be easier to use. I see Android app, but I primarily write texts on the desktop. --Gryllida 23:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gryllida Files containing all of Wiktionary’s data are available for download here (you’ll want the one with pages-meta-current or pages-articles). You can try to find out if your software allows you to import this file.

Something I’ve done before in order to access Wiktionary offline was installing MediaWiki on my computer, but it’s a huge pain in the ass to get it to work properly. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gryllida: Similarly, you can download an offline copy to read with Kiwix but that won't necessarily integrate into Goldendict. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

No idea where this fits priority-wise, but it would be nice to have (perhaps in sync with the regular data dumps) some kind of easy, user-friendly "installable" Wiktionary. Most of us happen to be techy people but many people who could benefit from Wiktionary are not. Equinox ◑ 10:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Equinox: Can you explain what you mean by this? What would be the difference between what you are proposing and the offline versions from Kiwix? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Equinox: great idea indeed--Backinstadiums (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)