Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Information desk/2024/December. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Information desk/2024/December, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Information desk/2024/December in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Information desk/2024/December you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Information desk/2024/December will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Information desk/2024/December, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
New to Wiktionary - I've been learning some Woiwurring (language of my mob). I made an update to the Woiwurrung etymology, but I'm not confident I've referenced correctly/followed the correct formatting etc. I was hoping someone could take a look and let me know how to fix it up/make any required edits so I can learn from there before I make any further edits. TIA all. JakeEwings (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
There is no relevant paragraph (top). so you can edit it but you can make that paragraph. i recommend don't make new paragraph Whatback11 (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The term for a word used to refer to itself
Have been searching in vain for the grammatical term for "a word used as a name for itself", such as "cheese" in "Cheese is derived from the Old English ċēse". Should be simple to track down, but I'm flummoxed.
So, to Google, of course. It immediately suggested autology, which is an interesting phenomenon but definitely not what I'm looking for (it refers to a word or phrase that describes itself, not one that names itself).
A second search recommended autonymous, one of whose senses is "(of a symbol, word, term, etc) Exhibiting autonymy; used as a name for itself", which sounds exactly like the correct definition. Unfortunately, however, I could not easily find attestation of that particular sense elsewhere on Wiktionary or on another site, and the meanings that I could find on Wiktionary for that family of words are still not what I'm after.
One of those entries links to a Wikipedia article on use–mention distinction, which definitely does address my question, and employs the term signifier (3rd paragraph of the article). Signifier, though, appears to be too broad: Lots of different entities can serve as signifiers, and they don't have to signify themselves.
From the Wiki article on italics, we get an excellent description ("entioning a word as an example of a word rather than for its semantic content"). Conspicuously absent, however, is an actual single term for this.
Same with the article on quotation marks: An "instance of a word refers to the word itself rather than its associated concept". Another good description, but still no official name for such a thing.
So it seems not even Wikipedia provides the answer. Normally, if some arcane word has ever been used for a particular concept, it can readily be found there, even if not on any other quickly accessible source. Thus I wonder whether the term I want exists at all. — HelpMyUnbelief (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Of course such an occurrence is a mention as opposed to a use. But again, I'm looking for the generally recognized, unambiguous grammatical term for a mentioned word, on the same par of specificity with, say, "phrase", "noun", "postpositive", or "copula". Surely "mention" is not the name that linguists would use; it looks like a far worse candidate than "signifier". — HelpMyUnbelief (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
IP tried to request a "buzzword" label but that discussion went silent with no action nor consensus. So, i'm going to re-request that label here, and here's what the code would look like:
There was a "jargon" label many years ago, but we voted to remove it. Too vague: didn't say what field the jargon was in (computing, cookery, etc.). Your idea sounds similar to that. So probably no. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:93E:A84E:6BB:94C16:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Kamikaze
I am curious to find out more about the word "Kamikaze". I came here from Wikidata where I saw this word used for leading authority of Judaism in Israel and not the Japanese WWII suicide pilot that I have always assumed it meant. How would I find more information here about the topic. For example how long have both the above been in use.
I have just corrected the etymology of dinkus with information that I found when researching the word for en.wiki. I have used their template:cite dictionary, which is not recognised here. What should I have used? (or may I just be lazy and leave it for someone else to fix?) JMF (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
The entry for imperial system defines it as "A system of measurement in use in the United States".
I'm sure the system is used in the United States, but the definition feels misleading. For example, the Wiktionary entries for pint and gallon make a point of distinguishing between Imperial pints/gallons and US liquid pints/gallons.
Not to be an imperialist but, shouldn't the definition of imperial system make some reference to Britain?
I'm looking for a website that provided an interactive map of German dialects through words/sentences by region with audio and IPA transcription I had seen browsing this wiki. Saumache (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Want to add to Ukrainian entries
I'm learning Ukrainian and have seen places where I can help with definitions of certain words on Wiktionary and some words that are completely missing. I would like to help, but I guess I have two questions before I start making changes.
1. I have no background in etymology so I wouldn't be able to add those for words. I can cite dictionary definitions and inflections easily as I've seen others have done, but I don't really have any resources that I'm aware of for etymology. Does this mean I shouldn't add any new words?
2. There's one particular word that I was thinking of editing (друкувати/надрукувати) where the linked dictionary definition specifically calls out typing on a typewriter, but the definition does extend also to typing on a keyboard of a computer according to my Ukrainian friends. If the dictionary definition linked only specifies typing on a typewriter, should I just include that definition for the time being? БабаЯзя (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
If you don’t speak the language, then be exceedingly careful not to propagate mistakes. It is advisable NOT to make entries if you just started learning Ukrainian, of course this depends on your level. 46.161.82.6715:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Usually when I think of adding entries, it's only things I've run by my teacher so as not to propagate mistakes. I usually check with a Ukrainian dictionary too which I'm able to read. My level is not fluent but it's good enough to carry a conversation about a wide range of topics as I've been studying it for multiple years. БабаЯзя (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, be careful, but if you are certain a dictionary definition is incomplete or does not fully reflect current usage, you should actually improve on that definition. We also aim to record former senses that are now obsolete. Note that we should never slavishly copy dictionaries anyway. When I create or edit an entry in a language in which I do not feel fully competent, I try to make sure that I can find actual uses in online sources that confirm what I think is correct. Some native speakers are good informants, but I’ve also run into cases where their information was seriously off – both for grammar and for the meanings of less common terms. --Lambiam23:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
There have been some attempts to mark out the pronunciations of Chinese entries in Latin or mixed script (called ‘alphabetic words’ hereinafter) with current templates, with a larger portion left blank. Afaik both Mandarin and Cantonese pronunciations rely heavily on automatic conversion, making it difficult to handle exceptional syllables, and
Cantonese pronunciations of alphabetic words are seemingly consistent (except for tones?). Not native in Cantonese, I am not sure, but there is a website encouraging readers to write foreign terms in a constructed script. They exemplified trial as twaai ou, and wrote themselves yes as jes, crypto as kwip tou, blood as blat.
Some alphabetic words in Mandarin are pronounced uniformly. I always hear web開發 rendered wềb kāifā (while in the page as wāibù kāifā), play as plèi, ping as pìng or pīng. But Mandarin pronunciations are generally less stable, and depend on individual differences, phonemes of specific words, and formality. The more casual the conversation, the less likely the pronunciations resemble the source language ー chuànsi is a ragged mimic of trans.
In Xiandai Hanyu Cidian, alphabetic parts of words are left unmarked (web開發 would be web kāifā if there were). We may leave all alphabetic words unmarked and remove the templates saying ‘incomplete’. Otherwise, we may mark out only the words with consistent pronunciation. 物灵 (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
A hasty conclusion might be that Cantonese alphabetic words are generally Cantonese-ized while Mandarin counterparts are largely not Mandarinized, as the editorial choice of Xiandai Hanyu Cidian seems to imply. In both languages even adapted forms are not restricted in the phonology, so there would be some modifications on the templates. (e.g. accepting initial clusters like skw, bl, pl mentioned above)
For Chinese languages other than Mandarin or Cantonese, I am curious how long it has taken/will take to stabilize their readings of words like AI ー since its rising the Mandarin reading seems to be ēi’āi or less frequently ēi’ài. 物灵 (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)