Wiktionary:Information desk/2019/November

There's a picture on deckle which the caption indicates depicts a brisket. It could use some arrows or labels or something to convey which part is the deckle.__Gamren (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Webster's New World College Dictionary defines deckle as “the outermost layer of meat and fat on a roast or steak”. Collins copies that sense, labelling it as American English. A respondent on a website forum calls it “a mixture of hard fat & cartilage”, something that you want to be removed when you buy your brisket, or else you should remove it yourself prior to cooking it. An image further down shows the brisket. This suggests that there is also another, rather different sense of deckle. A web page here on an unofficial product fan site states explicitly: “Contrary to popular belief, the deckle is not the same thing as the brisket point. Rather, it’s the fat and muscle that attach the brisket flat to the rib cage.” But since we are descriptive, not prescriptive, we also record the meanings according to “popular belief”.

Based on the description, I suppose that the point or deckle in the picture is the end in the lower right corner. Perhaps some brisket aficionado can confirm this. It is simpler to add this to the caption than to modify the picture.  --Lambiam 22:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm relatively new to editing (and perhaps even reading!) Wiktionary, and I am a bit confused by its structure. I'm mainly interested in reading, supplementing, correcting and adding to the dictionary between Hungarian and English, but I am not sure where to make those changes. Let us say as an example I want to add to the dictionary that the English word "purple" can be translated as "lila" in Hungarian. Of course this common word-pairing is certainly already part of Wiktionary, but please bear with me as this is meant only to be a simple example. Would this mean that I would have to make 4 edits to fully consistently introduce this linkage? Specifically at these pages:

• https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/purple (having to add "= hu:lila")
• https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/lila (having to add "= en:purple")
• https://hu.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/purple (having to add "= hu:lila")
• https://hu.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/lila (having to add "= en:purple")

en + hu wiktionaries, for both purple and lila

If this is so, this is a bit strange for me, and I wonder if this is by design or I might be missing something here. For example, could it not be much simpler and more robust if it were possible to just make a single edit along the lines of `en:purple = hu:lila` at a special page which would immediately be reflected at all those four specific pages? Is this something that is already possible, or is it only possible to make those four manual edits at this time? And if the latter is the case, is it planned to support that kind of single-point editing later? I imagine it could not only be simpler for editors, but would also create a robust and consistent, perhaps even machine-readable database of dictionaries across all languages which sounds like a big advantage for me.

Alternatively, if my assessment is correct above, is it perhaps advised for the time being to only or mainly edit en.wiktionary.org entries as those can be considered a central hub for all other languages too, and is the most likely to be containing complete, correct, and up to date information for all other languages' words as well? Otherwise the information could become fractured and people wanting to look them up always have to visit multiple xx.wiktionary.org pages for the reason they cannot be sure if one page contains the information that they are looking for or not. I already find myself doing this across en.wiktionary.org and hu.wiktionary.org and I would also prefer if I could be more efficient in my searches -- as perhaps others do too.

-- a confused (striving-to-be-)editor, Wizek (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The target audience would be different for these two dictionaries. The English wiki (en.wiktionary.org) is for English-speaking readers who wish to know the definition of Hungarian words explained in English. The Hungarian wiki (hu.wiktionary.org) is for Hungarian-speaking readers who wish to look up words defined in Hungarian or translated from Hungarian to other languages. You can contribute to both. I did in the past but now I only work in this wiki. If you decide to edit here, you need to add the Hungarian translation to the English word, then create the Hungarian entry and add the definition in English, plus declension, pronunciation, etc. Only English words contain translation tables. Panda10 (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, there is often no one-to-one correspondence between the lexica of two languages. Sometimes Hungarian gebe can be translated by English nag and vice versa, but often this does not work. So for now it is better if a human eye is kept on translations, by an editor who knows both languages involved.  --Lambiam 20:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This isn't exactly by design, but I consider it to be a great strength. The different language dictionaries are free to develop on their own terms and develop their own criteria for what to include. I am in favor of more dictionaries, not a single meta-dictionary that tries to subsume all others. DTLHS (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The different language versions are in practice separate projects, and I wouldn't advise against editing any particular language version, if you feel it's worthwhile. Centralization is much harder than it sounds, and could probably only be done to a limited degree.__Gamren (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I found fonkin in a published book and could not find its meaning. I tried adding it to Wiktionary with what information I could give, hoping that someone could improve on my suggested meaning I had deduced from the context.

I was dismayed to find my entry has been deleted, although I tried to use the template suggested. I don't know how I can proceed.

How can I request that someone provides a meaning for it?

Summary info: fonkin, noun, probably term of endearment, found in Elizabeth Chadwick's novel The Running Vixen published 1990 and 2009.

The OED has an entry, defined as "a little fool" (so basically fon + -kin). Equinox ◑ 15:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Anon: many thanks. I hadn't guessed!

Isn't it the norm to have translations of usage examples and the text of citations? How does one request such things? I didn't find it in the list of request templates. DCDuring (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

If the correct template is used, it automatically generates a request if there is no translation. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

These requests are found in Category:Requests for translations of language name usage examples, unless the translation parameter of {{ux}} is explicitly given as “-”, in which case the entry is put in Category:Omitted translation in the main namespace.  --Lambiam 08:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I want to write about Aghwan digraphs of 𐕒𐕡 and 𐕞𐕡 which transliterate as OW and ÜW. It is inherited from Greek, like writing OU to say U as in Λουκάς. How should I describe it with Template:head? --Cavidaga (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Are these digraphs considered letters? I don’t think we have entries for any digraphs unless they are considered letters, like Albanian rr.  --Lambiam 19:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I saw that on Wikipedia the article Caucasian Albanian language does not mention vowels at all and also has nothing about orthography. This may be a better place to add information about these digraphs. BTW, I did not find a font for the Mac that supports the Caucasian Albanian Unicode block.  --Lambiam 11:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

i created a german entry but it came out weird looking. any help on how to format? Baozon90 (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Baozon90, if you are referring to problems on Yamanashi-Präfektur I have gone ahead and fixed them. You can review my changes if you want details on as to what I changed. From what I can see in the way the page came out, the problem was caused by the fact that you entered gr as the language code for the entry since it is similar to the word "German". Unfortunately, the language codes used on English Wiktionary are not based on English, but are designed based on the language name in the particular language. Using German as an example, the German word for the German language is "Deutsch". From that, the language code is the first two letters, de. A full breakdown of the language codes for all recognized languages can be found at Wiktionary:List of languages.

On a separate note, your entry may be considered an example of a sum-of-parts term and therefore not meeting English Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. More information can be found at Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Idiomaticity. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I have noticed that entries such as -ken and Kind the phrase "German Low German" is used to refer to what I understand simply to be Low German. Is there a particular reason for the construction of the phrase such that it includes the word "German" twice? Thanks. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Nederlaands Leegsaksisch or Dutch Low Saxon is also a Low German dialect, or, rather, a collection of dialects in the Plattdüütsch dialect continuum. For some reason Dutch Low Saxon has an official EU status of “regional language”. The Dutch balk when this language is referred to as “(Low) German”. Plattdüütsch-speaking Germans outside the State of Lower Saxony (Niedersachsen) object when their language is referred to as Low Saxon (Niedersächsisch). But just calling it Low German is also problematic, because to linguists that includes Dutch Low Saxon. Kind of a stalemate situation, leading to this awkward compromise.  --Lambiam 19:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Alright then. If such is the case, I guess there isn't much that can be done with out making things more complicated. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

We could try calling it “German Low Dutch”. :)  --Lambiam 09:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you have a new pages patrol, so I thought I'd post ghost corridor here. If someone can please proof the page, to make sure that my first contribution is correctly formatted. I'm a long term Wikipedian, but it's my first time creating an entry on Wiktionary. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

It looks good. I would question the inclusion of the "haunted corridor" sense though, as this seems like a sum of parts, simply a corridor of a ghost. (Didn't we discuss and delete one of these a while ago, ghost hotel or something?) Equinox ◑ 13:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes - second sense is simply the sum of its parts and should be removed. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I am a native English speaker, and I am 100% sure this translation is correct and common in Mexico. Here is the English Wiktionary page:

time limit (English phrase, English Wiktionary)

First I added el plazo, which "feels more formal" in Mexico, apparently. It also definitely means deadline or due date, apparently.

Next, I added tiempo límite, which is very common, and is possibly more literal and less idiomatic in Spanish than in English. El tiempo is time (noun, singular), and límite is maximum or minimum (adjective, singular, to agree with tiempo). The English single-word translation of límite (adjective) is extreme (adjective). It is not limited, which is limitado. So tiempo limitado (es) is limited time (en), such as a sale at a store.

There is no single page in English or in Spanish for tiempo límite, but el tiempo (noun) and límite (adjective in this context, also a noun) have pages in both English and Spanish.

Currently, there is a redlinke for "tiempo límite", but I really want to see this:

"tiempo ^(es) límite ^(es)"

It should be all bluelinks, and four different links.

Ideally, clicking on límite or the (es) above it should bring you directly to the "#Adjective" or "#Adjetivo" anchor within the English and Spanish pages (instead of the Noun and Sustantivo, or just the top of the page). Tiempo goes to the right place automatically, but as a non-native speaker I didn't realize that límite was the adjective of the pair, because límite is more common as a noun in my experience, and I could be totally wrong about word frequency in Spanish.

You can just fix it and I will look at the Wiki Markup language that you wrote. That would be most awesome.

I know how to break everything forever and make it four links, including two "external links" so that I can include "#Adjective" in the URL, but using the Wiki syntax will allow bots to realize "this is a two-word translation", and I know exactly how badly my approach would break the MediaWiki API. But my approach would look correct to a human.

Thank you. Fluoborate (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

If you enclose something in the translation in ], the template will link to the enclosed term instead of to the whole phrase: {{t+|] ]}} will give you . However, that doesn't look like good Spanish, since Spanish doesn't usually interpret the placing of one noun before another as one modifying the other, the way English does. I believe the correct term would be límite de tiempo. It's true that both are amply attested, but "límite de tiempo" has five times more hits on Google Books- perhaps "tiempo límite" is a calque from English. If we were to create entries for both, "tiempo límite" would be an "alternative form of" entry for the other one.

I noticed that you gave a gender for the phrase "tiempo límite", but you wouldn't want to give a gender for "límite de tiempo" because the genders are independent of each other.

As for the "^(es)" part: once the template sees ], it interprets everything inside as individual pieces and doesn't bother with giving interwiki information. You could put each one in its own template: {{t+|es|límite}} de {{t+|es|tiempo}} / límite (es) de tiempo (es), but that seems to me to be overdoing it. After all, this isn't a translation for the parts, but for the whole (even though the whole is entirely derived from the sum of its parts). By the way: if you know a term has an entry on the Wiktionary for the language, you can use {{t+}} instead of {{t}}, though there's a bot that makes the substitution every once in a while, so you don't have to. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Probably irrelevant trivia, but Tiempo Límite was the title under which the film Nick of Time was screened in Argentina and Venezuela. In Spain it was A la Hora Señalada, and in Mexico Contra el Reloj or, alternatively, Justo a Tiempo.  --Lambiam 22:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)