Wiktionary:Information desk/2020/March

Something happened and the gadget is not working anymore. Initially I thought it was a problem with my browser, but then I realized it's from the website. Can someone investigate what's happening? - Munmula (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Munmula: The gadget hasn't changed recently, so maybe uninstall, clear your cache, and then reinstall at Special:Preferences? If that doesn't work, I'd recommend pinging authors from the edit history. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Nominative singular of noun with possessive suffixes:

• 1st person singular: rūkton
• 2nd person singular: rūktot
• 3rd person singular: ruoktus
• 1st person dual: rūktome
• 2nd person dual: rūktode
• 3rd person dual: ruoktuska
• 1st person plural: rūktomet
• 2nd person plural: rūktodet
• 3rd person plural: ruoktuset

Accusative singular of noun with possessive suffixes:

• 1st person singular: rūkton
• 2nd person singular: rūvttot
• 3rd person singular: ruovttus
• 1st person dual: rūktome
• 2nd person dual: rūvttode
• 3rd person dual: ruovttuska
• 1st person plural: rūktomet
• 2nd person plural: rūvttodet
• 3rd person plural: ruovttuset

Genitive singular of noun with possessive suffixes:

• 1st person singular: rūkton
• 2nd person singular: rūvttot
• 3rd person singular: ruovttus
• 1st person dual: rūktome
• 2nd person dual: rūvttode
• 3rd person dual: ruovttuska
• 1st person plural: rūktomet
• 2nd person plural: rūvttodet
• 3rd person plural: ruovttuset

Illative singular of noun with possessive suffixes:

• 1st person singular: rūktosan
• 2nd person singular: rūktosat
• 3rd person singular: rūktosis
• 1st person dual: rūktoseame
• 2nd person dual: rūktoseatte
• 3rd person dual: rūktoseaskka
• 1st person plural: rūktoseamet
• 2nd person plural: rūktoseattet
• 3rd person plural: rūktoseaset

Locative singular of noun with possessive suffixes:

• 1st person singular: ruovttustan
• 2nd person singular: ruovttustat
• 3rd person singular: ruovttustis
• 1st person dual: ruovttusteame
• 2nd person dual: ruovttusteatte
• 3rd person dual: ruovttusteaskka
• 1st person plural: ruovttusteamet
• 2nd person plural: ruovttusteattet
• 3rd person plural: ruovttusteaset

Comitative singular of noun with possessive suffixes:

• 1st person singular: ruovttūinan
• 2nd person singular: ruovttūinat
• 3rd person singular: ruovttūinis
• 1st person dual: ruovttūineame
• 2nd person dual: ruovttūineatte
• 3rd person dual: ruovttūineaskka
• 1st person plural: ruovttūineamet
• 2nd person plural: ruovttūineattet
• 3rd person plural: ruovttūineaset

Essive singular of noun with possessive suffixes:

• 1st person singular: ruoktunan
• 2nd person singular: ruoktunat
• 3rd person singular: ruoktunis
• 1st person dual: ruoktuneame
• 2nd person dual: ruoktuneatte
• 3rd person dual: ruoktuneaskka
• 1st person plural: ruoktuneamet
• 2nd person plural: ruoktuneattet
• 3rd person plural: ruoktuneaset

Nominative plural of noun with possessive suffixes:

• 1st person singular: rūkton
• 2nd person singular: rūktot
• 3rd person singular: ruoktus
• 1st person dual: rūktome
• 2nd person dual: rūktode
• 3rd person dual: ruoktuska
• 1st person plural: rūktomet
• 2nd person plural: rūktodet
• 3rd person plural: ruoktuset

Accusative plural of noun with possessive suffixes:

• 1st person singular: ruovttūidan
• 2nd person singular: ruovttūidat
• 3rd person singular: ruovttūidis
• 1st person dual: ruovttūideame
• 2nd person dual: ruovttūideatte
• 3rd person dual: ruovttūideaskka
• 1st person plural: ruovttūideamet
• 2nd person plural: ruovttūideattet
• 3rd person plural: ruovttūideaset

Genitive plural of noun with possessive suffixes:

• 1st person singular: ruovttūidan
• 2nd person singular: ruovttūidat
• 3rd person singular: ruovttūidis
• 1st person dual: ruovttūideame
• 2nd person dual: ruovttūideatte
• 3rd person dual: ruovttūideaskka
• 1st person plural: ruovttūideamet
• 2nd person plural: ruovttūideattet
• 3rd person plural: ruovttūideaset

Illative plural of noun with possessive suffixes:

• 1st person singular: ruovttūidasan
• 2nd person singular: ruovttūidasat
• 3rd person singular: ruovttūidasas
• 1st person dual: ruovttūidasame
• 2nd person dual: ruovttūidasade
• 3rd person dual: ruovttūidasaska
• 1st person plural: ruovttūidasamet
• 2nd person plural: ruovttūidasadet
• 3rd person plural: ruovttūidasaset

Locative plural of noun with possessive suffixes:

• 1st person singular: ruovttūinan
• 2nd person singular: ruovttūinat
• 3rd person singular: ruovttūinis
• 1st person dual: ruovttūineame
• 2nd person dual: ruovttūineatte
• 3rd person dual: ruovttūineaskka
• 1st person plural: ruovttūineamet
• 2nd person plural: ruovttūineattet
• 3rd person plural: ruovttūineaset

Comitative plural of noun with possessive suffixes:

• 1st person singular: ruovttūidanguin
• 2nd person singular: ruovttūidatguin
• 3rd person singular: ruovttūidisguin
• 1st person dual: ruovttūideameguin
• 2nd person dual: ruovttūideatteguin
• 3rd person dual: ruovttūideaskkaguin
• 1st person plural: ruovttūideametguin
• 2nd person plural: ruovttūideattetguin
• 3rd person plural: ruovttūideasetguin

Essive plural of noun with possessive suffixes:

• 1st person singular: ruoktunan
• 2nd person singular: ruoktunat
• 3rd person singular: ruoktunis
• 1st person dual: ruoktuneame
• 2nd person dual: ruoktuneatte
• 3rd person dual: ruoktuneaskka
• 1st person plural: ruoktuneamet
• 2nd person plural: ruoktuneattet
• 3rd person plural: ruoktuneaset

If one can say “of my homes”, “in my homes” etc, presumably one can say “my homes”. Therefore, equally presumably, it is possible to find out the nominative plural forms of ruoktu with the possessive suffixes. It may be that they are the same forms as for the nominative singular and have been given above as such, but perhaps someone could ascertain whether they are the correct forms. The inflection table template in Wiktionary gives the nominative singular forms with the first and second persons singular, dual and plural possessive suffixes as rūkton, rūktot etc, but in the Wikipedia article about Northern Sami these forms are given without the macron. Should there always be a macron over the vowel in the first syllable of these forms and in other forms where the diphthong is reduced to a single vowel, namely in the accusative and genitive singular forms with the first and second persons singular, dual and plural possessive suffixes, and in the illative singular forms rūktosan, rūktosat etc? From the above pattern it should be possible to work out all the forms of all other Northern Sami nouns with the possessive suffixes for each of the seven cases, singular and plural, using information available in the Wikipedia article about Northern Sami. Johnling60 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Johnling60: Why are you making these posts? Also, please fix them so that they are actual lists and not just impenetrable blocks of text. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the Veps language gives the following rules for retaining the final vowel of the genitive singular stem in forming the illative singular in Veps (see under Grammar/Nouns/Principal parts):-

   1. The genitive singular must end in a diphthong.
   2. The nominative singular must have two syllables each consisting of one consonant followed by one vowel.
   3. The genitive singular must consist of a single syllable or of three syllables.
   4. The genitive singular must be a contracted form of the nominative singular.
   5. The final vowel of the genitive singular stem must be preceded by either ll or ľľ.

The illative singular is formed by adding to the genitive singular stem h followed by a vowel which is determined by the final vowel of the stem. If the final vowel of the stem is a or ä the vowel of the illative ending is a. If the final vowel of the stem is e or i the vowel of the illative ending is e. If the final vowel of the stem is o or ö the vowel of the illative ending is o. If the final vowel of the stem is u or ü the vowel of the illative ending is u. If the final vowel of the genitive singular stem is preceded by h is always retained and the illative ending is either ze or že, the latter occurring if the stem-final vowel is i. This is actually a sixth rule for the retention of the final vowel of the singular stem and should be listed with the other five above in the Wikipedia article. Therefore, presumably the illative singular, first terminative singular and first additive singular forms are as follows:- eraz (certain, some) Illative singular: erasehe 1st terminative singular: erasehesai 1st additive singular: erasehepäi pala (piece, bit, part) Illative singular: palaha 1st terminative singular: palahasai 1st additive singular: palahapäi faza (phase, stage) Illative singular: fazaha 1st terminative singular: fazahasai 1st additive singular: fazahapäi hambaz (tooth) Illative singular: hambhaze 1st terminative singular: hambhazesai 1st additive singular: hambhazepäi lambaz (sheep) Illative singular: lambhaze 1st terminative singular: lambhazesai 1st additive singular: lambhazepäi taivaz (sky, heaven) Illative singular: taivhaze 1st terminative singular: taivhazesai 1st additive singular: taivhazepäi tähtaz (star) Illative singular: tähthaze 1st terminative singular: tähthazesai 1st additive singular: tähthazepäi mec (forest) Illative singular: mecha 1st terminative singular: mechasai 1st additive singular: mechapäi vezi (water) Illative singular: vedehe 1st terminative singular: vedehesai 1st additive singular: vedehepäi jogi (river) Illative singular: jogehe 1st terminative singular: jogehesai 1st additive singular: jogehepäi järv (lake) Illative singular: järvhe 1st terminative singular: järvhesai 1st additive singular: järvhepäi veneh (boat) Illative singular: veneheze 1st terminative singular: venehezesai 1st additive singular: venehezepäi laineh (wave) Illative singular: lainheze 1st terminative singular: lainhezesai 1st additive singular: lainhezepäi laps’ (child) Illative singular: lapshe 1st terminative singular: lapshesai 1st additive singular: lapshepäi voz’ (year) Illative singular: vodhe 1st terminative singular: vodhesai 1st additive singular: vodhepäi nor’ (young) Illative singular: norhe 1st terminative singular: norhesai 1st additive singular: norhepäi korv (ear) Illative singular: korvha 1st terminative singular: korvhasai 1st additive singular: korvhapäi must (black) Illative singular: mustha 1st terminative singular: musthasai 1st additive singular: musthapäi živat (animal, beast) Illative singular: živataha 1st terminative singular: živatahasai 1st additive singular: živatahapäi paremb (better) Illative singular: parembaha 1st terminative singular: parembahasai 1st additive singular: parembahapäi parahim (best) Illative singular: parahimha 1st terminative singular: parahimhasai 1st additive singular: parahimhapäi suremb (bigger, greater, larger) Illative singular: surembaha 1st terminative singular: surembahasai 1st additive singular: surembahapäi penemb (smaller) Illative singular: penembaha 1st terminative singular: penembahasai 1st additive: singular: penembahapäi pidemb (longer) Illative singular: pidembaha 1st terminative singular: pidembahasai 1st additive: singular: pidembahapäi üks’ (one) Illative singular: ühthe 1st terminative singular: ühthesai 1st additive singular: ühthepäi kaks’ (two) Illative singular: kahthe 1st terminative singular: kahthesai 1st additive singular: kahthepäi koume (three) Illative singular: koumhe 1st terminative singular: koumhesai 1st additive singular: koumhepäi neľľ (four) Illative singular: nelläha 1st terminative singular: nellähasai 1st additive singular: nellähapäi viž (five) Illative singular: vidhe 1st terminative singular: vidhesai 1st additive singular: vidhepäi kuz’ (six) Illative singular: kudhe 1st terminative singular: kudhesai 1st additive singular: kudhepäi kahesa (eight) Illative singular: kahesaha 1st terminative singular: kahesahasai 1st additive singular: kahesahapäi ühesa (nine) Illative singular: ühesaha 1st terminative singular: ühesahasai 1st additive singular: ühesahapäi sada (hundred) Illative singular: sadaha 1st terminative singular: sadahasai 1st additive singular: sadahapäi tuha (thousand) Illative singular: tuhaze 1st terminative singular: tuhazesai 1st additive singular: tuhazepäi päiv (day) Illative singular: päivha 1st terminative singular: päivhasai 1st additive singular: päivhapäi ku (moon, month) Illative singular: kuhu 1st terminative singular: kuhusai 1st additive singular: kuhupäi lu (bone) Illative singular: luhu 1st terminative singular: luhusai 1st additive singular: luhupäi ma (land, country, ground) Illative singular: maha 1st terminative singular: mahasai 1st additive singular: mahapäi kodima (homeland, motherland) Illative singular: kodimaha 1st terminative singular: kodimahasai 1st additive singular: kodimahapäi pu (tree) Illative singular: puhu 1st terminative singular: puhusai 1st additive singular: puhupäi so (swamp, marsh, bog) Illative singular: soho 1st terminative singular: sohosai 1st additive singular: sohopäi su (mouth) Illative singular: suhu 1st terminative singular: suhusai 1st additive singular: suhupäi jä (ice) Illative singular: jäha 1st terminative singular: jähasai 1st additive singular: jähapäi pä (head) Illative singular: päha 1st terminative singular: pähasai 1st additive singular: pähapäi sä (weather) Illative singular: säha 1st terminative singular: sähasai 1st additive singular: sähapäi pühä (holy, sacred) Illative singular: pühäze 1st terminative singular: pühäzesai 1st additive singular: pühäzepäi sü (cause, reason, motive) Illative singular: sühu 1st terminative singular: sühusai 1st additive singular: sühupäi te (road, way) Illative singular: tehe 1st terminative singular: tehesai 1st additive singular: tehepäi tö (work, labour) Illative singular: töho 1st terminative singular: töhosai 1st additive singular: töhopäi ö (night) Illative singular: öho 1st terminative singular: öhosai 1st additive singular: öhopäi liha (meat) Illative singular: lihaze 1st terminative singular: lihazesai 1st additive singular: lihazepäi raha (money) Illative singular: rahaze 1st terminative singular: rahazesai 1st additive singular: rahazepäi hüvä (good) Illative singular: hüväha 1st terminative singular: hüvähasai 1st additive singular: hüvähapäi paha (bad) Illative singular: pahaze 1st terminative singular: pahazesai 1st additive singular: pahazepäi vanh (old) Illative singular: vanhaze 1st terminative singular: vanhazesai 1st additive singular: vanhazepäi However, it appears that there are some exceptions, which have been found on Wikipedia articles and which are as follows:- jumal (god) Illative singular: jumalha 1st terminative singular: jumalhasai 1st additive singular: jumalhapäi koir (dog) Illative singular: koiraha 1st terminative singular: koirahasai 1st additive singular: koirahapäi soda (war) Illative singular: sodha 1st terminative singular: sodhasai 1st additive singular: sodhapäi külä (village) Illative singular: külähä 1st terminative singular: külähäsai 1st additive singular: külähäpäi meri (sea) Illative singular: merhe 1st terminative singular: merhesai 1st additive singular: merhepäi In the above four examples it is the illative singular forms which have been found in Wikipedia articles; the first terminatives and first additives have been formed regularly from them. It may be that veri (blood) follows the same pattern as meri as far as the formation of the illative singular is concerned. Perhaps someone could check that the illative singular forms given above are correct, make any necessary corrections and add them, along with the first terminative singular and first additive singular to the relevant inflection table templates. Likewise, the correct illative singular, first terminative singular and first additive singular forms of the following words could be added to the relevant inflection table template. veri (blood) Illative singular: verehe or verhe (which is correct?) 1st terminative singular: verehesai or verhesai (which is correct?) 1st additive singular: verehepäi or verhepäi (which is correct?) seičeme (seven) Illative singular: seičemehe or seičemhe (which is correct?) 1st terminative singular: seičemehesai or seičemhesai (which is correct?) 1st additive singular: seičemehepäi or seičemhepäi (which is correct?) kümne (ten) Illative singular: kümnehe or kümnhe (which is correct?) 1st terminative singular: kümnehesai or kümnhesai (which is correct?) 1st additive singular: kümnehepäi or kümnhepäi (which is correct?) The occurrence of such irregularities highlights the importance of complete and correct inflection table templates for every noun, pronoun, adjective, verb etc, not only in Veps but also in every other inflected language. Perhaps someone could work out, from the above rules, the correct illative singular, first terminative singular and first additive singular for every Veps noun, adjective, numeral etc and insert them in the inflection table templates instead of the question marks. From now on, inflection table templates created for all other Veps nouns, adjectives, numerals etc should be complete. Johnling60 (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The third person singular and plural imperative of the verb olda (to be, to exist, to be present, to have, to possess) is given in Wiktionary: olgha. Therefore the third person singular and plural imperative of the verbs panda and tulda would presumably be pangha and tulgha respectively. In the Veps version of the Lord’s Prayer, found on Wikipedia, the third person singular and plural imperative of the verb tehta (to do, to act, to behave, to carry out, to perform, to arrange, to set up, to make, to create, to produce, to invent) occurs as tehkaha. Presumably, therefore, the third person singular and plural imperative of the verb nähta occurs as nähkaha. In the Wikipedia article in Veps about the number of the beast (Zverin lugu) the third person singular and plural imperative of the verb lugeda (to read, to recite, to count, to calculate, to inventory) occurs as lugekaha. Unfortunately the Wikipedia article about the Veps language gives no rules regarding which of the four possible endings (gaha, gha, kaha, kha) for the third person singular and plural imperative are to be applied to each verb. This lamentable omission seriously needs to be rectified. Perhaps someone could work out the correct third person singular and plural imperative for every Veps verb and insert them in the inflection table templates instead of the question marks. From now on, inflection table templates created for all other Veps verbs should be complete. Johnling60 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I took a great deal of trouble to gather the information to complete the Northern Sami and Veps inflection table templates and you ask me why I did it. If that is the thanks I get for trying to find the forms in Wikipedia and other sources and to prepare the information for sending to you, my next question is: do you want me to send you any more of these lists of inflections or do you not? If you do not want any more of these lists, why are there requests such as "please provide" and "This noun(or adjective or verb etc) needs an inflection table template" for so many words in Estonian, Northern Sami etc? If I do not provide the requested information, who is going to provide it? Nobody seems to be doing any work on Wiktionary at all. If I do provide the requested information you ask me why I do it. This is my answer. If you ask for information such as the inflected forms of words in inflected languages and someone provides it, surely you could show some gratitude? The best way of showing your gratitude is to add the word forms to the relevant inflection table templates instead of asking the contributor why he or she provided them. I ask you again: do you want any more of these word forms or do you not? If your answer is no, I am not going to waste any more of my time compiling them, and therefore you will not get any more inflection lists from me. I do not know whether anybody else will provide them. Will you please decide now whether you want them or not? From now on I will not answer any more of your questions or comments and will not send any more inflection lists unless you decide that you want them. Johnling60 (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Johnling60: Are you talking to me? It seems like there is a lot of confusion and miscommunication here. Let's take a step back for a second and just try to figure out who the intended audience is of all your posts. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Johnling60, Tropylium, Pjr: The effort is appreciated, but unless active Sami or Veps editors show up, there is little we can do with it. I for one do not feel competent to make edits involving these languages. Also, the information desk is not a good place for leaving this information. A better page for the info on the possessives of ruoktu is Talk:ruoktu.  --Lambiam 20:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Random question: Why is it common for people to use the countable noun "coronavirus" without a grammatical article? I've heard constructions like "he tested positive for coronavirus", "all you need to know about coronavirus", "if you thought coronavirus was no big deal", etc. Isn't this ungrammatical? ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not always countable. When you're talking about coronaviruses in as viruses, they certainly are countable, but when you're talking about them as diseases, they don't seem to be. There's something odd going on with countability even with diseases that take the article, such as "the flu" or "the measles". It reminds me of "swimming in the water" vs. "there was water in the hole". Chuck Entz (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I think a lot of people might parse it as a proper noun, partly due to unfamiliarity with the existence of other coronaviruses. A similar thing happens with Ebola, Zika, H1N1, etc. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. I think you are on to something there. Cheers. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I added this link. Ideally I would have liked to link specifically to the adjective, rather than to the "English" section as a whole, which also includes a verb. How can this be done please? --Dani di Neudo (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You can use template {{senseid}} to achieve the desired effect.  --Lambiam 19:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Used especially by African-Americans and in hiphop/rap and gang contexts. Means someone's partial or full legal name. See google books:"his government name" for examples; things referred to as government names include "Benny" (instead of some nickname), "Mr. Prince" (instead of "Pistol G"), and full names like "Tim Armstrong" (instead of "Lint"). Is this idiomatic or SOP? - -sche (discuss) 03:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I definitely don't think it's SOP. If it were SOP, I would expect it to mean something like "the name of a government" or "the name one uses in connection with one's government roles". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. I added it. The reason I was unsure is that it can be seen as basically meaning a name for use in dealing with the government, or a name approved or recognized or used by the government, which puts it on a continuum with e.g. "that's my school notebook/outfit/etc, I need my writing notebook/outfit/etc". - -sche (discuss) 07:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the fact that it seems to be used in a wider variety of situations than just dealing with the government places it squarely in the NSOP category. It seems akin to kids using "church clothes" to mean "nice/formal clothes", which I hear from time to time. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

A user inserted several odd and unsourced English pronunciations and IPA transcriptions around the end of 2018, sometimes claiming them to be nonstandard alternatives. They seemed to me like pranks or vandalism at first, or at least not really appropriate for this project. The oddest was insisting on /bɛ˞ˈs(j)uz/ and for berceuse. But I could be wrong. Can someone verify, source, and/or fix them, and locate any more examples of the same?

• berceuse
• theater
• twenty
• Belarus
• blimp

Thanks. Hftf (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Belarus, where the added pronunciation was /ˌbəˈlɑɹʌs/: I don't see /ˌbeɪləˈɹus/ in other sources I checked, either, as a separate issue; also, Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster both list pronunciations beginning with /bj/ which we lack. Anyway, at least some of these seem like pranks (in the absence of sources); WF added at least a few prank pronunciation files once before. - -sche (discuss) 07:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

For the General American pronunciation of berceuse I expect /bɝˈsuz/. The earlier /bɛːˈsɜːz/ seems implausible there; cf. the US pronunciations of Betelgeuse, masseuse and chartreuse. The Michigander audio does not sound to my ears like the advertized ; the final vowel is unrounded. The editor is a member of WikiProject Michigan on Wikipedia, so I’m inclined to think these changes are not meant to be pranks.  --Lambiam 11:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This editor was not pranking, but fond of "lame non-jokes": see Talk:eaublast for a bit of context. These may not all be wrong (there are definitely some weird regional US pronunciations of theater out there), but I'm removing all the ones you listed because at least some are definitely wrong, and none can be trusted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

OF the funny pronunciations added, the only one I can confirm is /ˈtwʌnti/ for twenty; I pronounce it that way myself (and I'm not from Michigan or Canada). —Mahāgaja · talk 21:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Lambiam How you can say /bɛːˈsɜːz/ is implausible? First, I would not consider Betelgeuse, masseuse, or chartreuse to be strictly analogous, as they seem far too anglicized; I conjecture that those are the three -euse words most likely to be learned as a child. Furthermore, you compare chartreuse, but that entry already has -ɜːz! (Coincidentally, the first time I heard this word pronounced was a few days ago by my mom, surprisingly with -us.) I checked my pronunciation dictionaries:

• Apple’s built-in English dictionary has bɛrˈsʊz, which is how I pronounce it.
• Pronouncing Dictionary of Proper Names (Bollard) has berˈsœːz (no language indicated, possibly defaulting to French).
• Oxford/Routledge Dictionary of Pronunciation for Current English has British -əːz and US -əz, but frequently uses US -ʊz for chanteuse, coiffeuse, danseuse, diseuse, mitrailleuse, etc.
• Longman Pronunciation Dictionary (a weak source for US English in my opinion), which uses ‖ to separate British and US English, has beə ˈsɜːz ‖ ber ˈsʊz, -ˈsɝz — Fr , and a sidebar under "eu" says: "ɜː ‖ uː, in French words, as in masseuse mæ ˈsɜːz ‖ mə ˈsuːs.... In words borrowed from French, it may also be ɜː ‖ ɝː, as in masseur mæ ˈsɜː ‖ mə ˈsɝː."

Just because the user is in WikiProject Michigan does not mean it's not a prank: see also their insistence on moosak . More recently, Юштыс also seems like a hoax to me. Hftf (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

At chartreuse I see “(US) IPA^(key): , ”. None of the sources you mention supports as the US rime of a word ending on -euse.  --Lambiam 07:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I cannot see an option to move a page to correct its spelling. I am using a mobile phone so I selected the option to request a desktop view, but I still saw no tab or option to move a page (yes, I was signed in). I have had moving rights in Wikipedia for over a decade. May I also express my great surprise at not finding a help page covering this topic. O'Dea (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@O'Dea: Which page were you looking to move and to which target? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The Move function is in the drop-down menu under the “More ∨” tab near the top of the page.  --Lambiam 22:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Lambiam, but there is no More tab, or any tab, displayed at the top of the page when viewing it on a mobile phone, even when I select the "Request desktop site" in my browser. This link displays a screenshot of what I see.

Out of curiosity, I went to a Wikipedia page to see if I could see the tab at that site, but it wasn't being displayed there either.

I have performed moves often enough using a laptop or desktop computer but my computer needs to be repaired at the moment. I'll perform the move once I have access to a proper computer. It's a pity that the feature is unavailable on a phone, and also a pity that there is no help page explaining the move feature. Thanks for your help. O'Dea (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

If this is a more general Wikimedia issue, a more appropriate place to bring it up is on the Wikipedia:Help desk, or else our Grease pit.  --Lambiam 19:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this kind of question better-suited for the Information desk (here) or the Tea room? Because it's half-formatting and half-technical, I'm not so sure.

So I want to edit this page 老司機, because it feels like an important aspect of this sense is missing:

# (Mainland China, slang, neologism) old hand; veteran; insider;

And to my best ability, I come up with this:

But I have a few questions/concern:

• Is it better to indent the new definition under the existing one, or list them as separate items?
• I remember seeing some kind of template for particularly or something similar, but I can't find it. Could you please tell me which one is it?
• And the definition seems too long, and used one who a lot, is there a better way to express the same idea?
• Any other suggestions?

- ZypA13510 (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Those are good question, ZypA13510, here are my responses in order:

1. Generally, if you consider the definition you are planning on adding to be a subsense of the already existing definition, I would would add it under the existing one. If you consider it to be a separate meaning/definition/sense, then I would list it as a separate item. There are three example situations that you could base your entry on. The first perfectly matches the phrasing you're suggesting. The pages refined and slash use a specific system with the word "particularly". I would note that not all nested definitions use the word "particularly", the page water is an example of this. The second similar situation is that of bare-bottomed and assassino. On those pages broader definitions are listed on their own lines and are marked by the label "by extension". The last example is that of sprightly, which has a definition that is on its own line and marked with the label "especially".
2. I am unfamiliar with and can't find a template that matches your description. In the aforementioned examples the template utilized is Template:label (shortcut: lb).
3. Each part of your definition might be worthy of its own line, instead of grouping them all together. It may also make sense to only list a single broad definition, e.g. "One who is frequently involved in activities related to lewd subjects", though that may be to broad or wholly inaccurate.
4. The last that I would say is that the definition that you add, whether it is separate or indented, should have its own set of labels, even if the existing definition already has the same ones

—The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It is all in the title, are nouns the only term type that can have meronyms and holonyms? Iff nouns are not the only type, what are the term types that can have meronyms and holonyms? What would a non-noun example look like? Thanks. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

No. For example, ultramarine is a meronym of blue. But that may not be the most useful way to present the information to the reader... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

In this case, would it not make more sense to say that "ultramarine" is a hyponym of "blue" (since ultramarine is a specific blue) rather than a meronym (which I understand to be based on the idea that ultramarine is part of the set of all blues)? Would you say that "ultramarine" is both a hyponym and a meronym of "blue"? Iff so, doesn't that degrade the specificity that both are supposed to hold to a certain extent? —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps e.g. swallow is a meronym of drink, because it's a necessary part of the process of drinking? Equinox ◑ 17:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh! That is sneaky, I like it! It stretches the meaning of "part" a little bit in the definition of "meronym", but it makes sense and seems to work in my mind. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

However, one can also swallow a bite of solid food, or metaphorically a bitter pill and one’s pride as well as the dictionary to boot. These are not acts of drinking. I don't know a term for terms that have a meaning in common (cenonym anyone?).  --Lambiam 14:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

What you've described, Lambiam, is true, but swallowing is nonetheless a necessary part of the process that the term "drink" refers to. That makes "swallow" a meronym of "drink", though it may not make "drink" a holonym of "swallow". A word that may fit what your looking for (although idyosynchronosly) is "plesionym". —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Then I think you have painted yourself into a logical corner. To say that one can be a meronym of another but the other cannot be a holonym of the one is illogical and defies the defined relationships of meronym-holonym. One or the other of the statements must be wrong. -Mike (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough and thanks for making that point. I was mostly trying to accommodate what Lambian wrote into my response, but also leave the metaphorical door open to what you've pointed out. That is my reasoning for using the phrase "may not". At this point, though, I think the conversation has veered off topic. Cheers. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be worth checking out the latest edit of @Metaknowledge. I didn't find any links to this data in the Proto-Slavic page. -- Gnosandes (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The word 'capitalist' goes back to the 1550s in the 16th century, see Google Ngram Viewer. The same way, running Ngram Viewer for 'Capitalism,' the word does not appear before Karl Marx' "Das Kapital," 1867. Also see Wikipedia article for 17th century appearance of 'capitalist.' Skeptiker (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Skeptiker (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The years of publication as given by Google Books (as well as other book data) are too often wrong to rely on without an extra check. Moreover, a term as seen by Google Ngram Viewer could be a scanno, or be embedded in a fragment of text that is not English, or have a different part-of-speech function or even an entirely different meaning in the context. Therefore one should always use actual quotations. Does anyone know in which language the term is used in the 1633 and 1654 uses in the Hollantse Mercurius or holländische Mercurius (not clear which one either)? Actual quotations would be helpful. The French noun capitaliste is likely borrowed from or inspired by the older German Kapitalist, but here, as so often, each of the dual pathways Kapital +‎ -ist = Kapitalist → capitaliste and capital +‎ -iste = capitaliste may have contributed. The modern sense of “supporter of capitalism” or “someone who owns means of production and uses that to appropriate surplus value”, is not older than the term capitalism as introduced by Marx.  --Lambiam 13:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=tab&oldid=prev&diff=58988164

No need for the explanation when you do this? — This unsigned comment was added by Moyprofile (talk • contribs).

• It was essentially the same as the first definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • 1. It's used as a lever, what's essentially the same here? 2. You can't figure out without this definition that this thing on a can is called 'tab'. Moyprofile (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

    In the course of development, there have been several types of tabs for opening cans. Of those, only the so-called stay-tab (see Drink can on Wikipedia) acts as a lever. This, as well as other specifics of these types of tab, is encyclopedic rather than lexical information. It would IMO have been more elegant (and also efficient) to explain the rationale in the edit summary.  --Lambiam 15:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

I am new to Wiktionary project. عورت • ('aurat) f (Hindi spelling औरत) Arabic عورت are popularly spelled same as aurat. Can some one help making mention of the same in article aurat and make necessary linking as rules and practices of Wiktionary project would permit.

Thanks & warm regards

Bookku (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

In which language is the term spelled “aurat”? English as used in Paksistan and India? Could you give links to uses of this spelling (preferably in books or news sources such as online newspapers)? For Arabic the link only gives verb forms, all of which have a different pronunciation.  --Lambiam 15:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello all- I am a somewhat arrogant and self-important person, and I have noticed troubling trends in my editing that remind me of my ban from July 2019. I would like to get some advice on historical cases of editors like me on Wiktionary and Wikipedia that you all know of, especially editors that made a lot of edits but were later blocked for not following community policy or that were abrasive and rude in some way. On Wikipedia, I have recently passed the 20,031 edit mark of the former user User:Lieutenant of Melkor who was a powerful China minor geography editor and was apparently removed for rudeness (although I never looked into that user's ban fully- should I?). I feel like I can make some great contributions if I can just remember the bad examples of people who might have been good editors on one level but fell on their own sword or something like that and avoid the trap I make for myself. All help appreciated. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Huh, never seen anything quite like this in 17 years... Well, if you don't want to get in trouble due to your attitude, then maybe you should make a personal rule that you won't write anything directed to anyone without thinking twice. Maybe go to Special:Preferences and turn on "Show preview on first edit" so that you'll have to press Enter twice. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I am basically half-internet troll, half reasonable person. This strategy sounds smart to me. This is my first edit with that option turned on. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

second attempt — This unsigned comment was added by Geographyinitiative (talk • contribs).

Yeah, User:SPUI was a hardcore troll who joined en.wp and added a lot of valuable content on American highways for awhile. Humans are complicated. If you can be a good person, we're happy to have you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

It is incredible that I have gotten this far. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

We have lost valuable editors because they got more stressed out by the environment than they could cope with. Not everyone has the same robust disposition; additionally, they may at the same time have to cope with other stressful issues – out of a job, a child with special needs, a chronic illness, ...  It helps to keep in mind that the other person may be more vulnerable than they appear. This project is built on consensus, and consensus is only possible if we all sacrifice a little bit of ego (or for some a large chunk) for the goal we share.  --Lambiam 14:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

(I started reading this and thought "oh God did I post this one?". Whew.) Equinox ◑ 22:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all I would suggest keeping the pointy end of your sword away from you. In fact you may just want to keep it in its scabbard while you are here. But really you should probably just leave it behind as there shouldn't be any need for such things. -Mike (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)