Wiktionary:Information desk/2024/September

Hi. I just want to make sure I've used the IPA symbol ↓ correctly in the pronunciation guide of Swedish sjup (/ɕʉːp↓/). The whole word is pronounced during a single inhalation (in contrast to how most other words are pronounced during one single exhalation). I couldn't find any other usages of ↓, so I wanted to verify its correctness. – Christoffre (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's correct, but in the interest of clarity, my personal opinion is that it'd be useful to also add a "plain text" explanation like {{q|pronounced while inhaling}} or something. - -sche (discuss) 21:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've added the clarification. — Christoffre (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's lots of helpful guidance online, but

1. it can be hard for a novice to find the info they need;
2. finding info depends on knowing what questions to ask.

I worry a little about obliviously transgressing policies or guidelines. The Wikipedia philosophy of 'make your edit, and the community will clean it up if necessary' doesn't seem to work quite as well here: I've found incorrect definitions that have persisted unchanged for years. Rural Spaceman (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

There isn't any explicit mentorship program or even a place like the teahouse here, but individual users could be motivated to help you. E.g. me. What incorrect definitions have you seen? The fact is, this site has millions of entries with tens of millions of definitions (as well as etymologies, pronunciations, -nyms, etc.), so it's more-or-less bound to be true that something is inaccurate at some point. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this and for the helpful content you've posted to my talk page.

I understand the constraints the site is working under. I think each individual page gets less attention than pages on Wikipedia do, which means that it's more important to edit with care, as the clean-up crew may be a long time coming.

Recently, where I've seen errors and could see a way to correct them, I've edited. Writing good, concise definitions isn't easy, though. Rural Spaceman (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ain't that the truth. Let me know how I can help you help us. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is it valid to say that a creole language has an ancestor (the ancestor is the language that contribute most of its vocabulary to the creole)? For example, we say that North Moluccan Malay creole has Malay as its ancestor. HumblingFumbling (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure. How this works in practice for an entry could be something like uman, where the etymology is derived from English or mwen is derived from French. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

If an item (word, phrase etc.) in Wiktionary has definitions in many languages, all these languages are shown (in desktop version) and unfolded (in mobile version). E.g. search for "experimentar" shows definitions in Catalan, Portuguese, Spanish etc. Is it possible to have all languages collapsed (both in desktop and mobile) by default, to show only the titles of the languages (Catalan, Portuguese, Spanish etc.)? This would be particularly uselful in mobile Wiktionary, where you have to scroll down the list or collapse each language one by one. If your language of interest is low down the list, that is a little problematic. Any comments would be appreciated. Kiwi Hanys Kiwi Hanys (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Maybe this can be achieved through the following setting: Preferences > Gadgets > Enable Tabbed Languages. Kiwi Hanys (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Arabic Verbs Appendix defines Sound verbs in Arabic this way: "Verbs are considered sound if none of the radicals is و or ي or ء, nor are the second and third radicals identical."

I have found at least 2 verbs with one such radical which are nevertheless labeled "Sound" in the top bar of the conjugation table: اِستيقظ and حاول. I'm still pretty new to Arabic and don't feel confident correcting the pages myself. I'm wondering if there's some nuance I've missed that would explain why these are labeled as Sound verbs despite having و or ي in the root. For example, neither is Form I (they are Form X and Form III, respectively). Could this have something to do with it? Or is it just an error? Screeve (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC) Screeve (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Screeve: Surely because programming-wise nothing is contracted. اِسْتَجْوَبَ (istajwaba) sound, اِسْتَجَابَ (istajāba) hollow. Indeed I also used to see verbs from a weak root as a class, not the verbal stems derived from the root. As in analogy to “hamzated” “assimilated” just means the first radical is yāʔ or wāw and “hollow” means second is yāʔ or wāw and “defective” means third is yāʔ or wāw, which label we have dropped for “final-weak” to avoid conflict with the general linguistic meaning of defective; in Latin these are primae infirmae, secundae infirmae or rather mediae infirmae, tertiae infirmae or ultimae infirmae, clearly relating the root consonants and then describing the forms derived from there in a dedicated section of a grammar book, which by themselves cannot be weak or sound: we could remove the label in the generated table altogether, and then either way اِسْتَجْوَبَ (istajwaba) cannot be categorized as both Category:Arabic sound form-X verbs and Category:Arabic form-X verbs with و as second radical with this root-based understanding. But maybe the categories are not for root-based understanding and the tables neither but for quick overview, so we bend usage. Nothing to correct for you anyhow since it is all auto-generated. Fay Freak (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the quick reply. I'm not sure I'm following, so let me re-state what I think I understand and you can correct me if I've got it wrong.

It sounds like you're saying, with the examples you provided, that the decision of how to categorize the verb depends on how it's inflected in the given form, not on the root, as I was assuming: thus, as you say, اِسْتَجْوَبَ (istajwaba) sound, اِسْتَجَابَ (istajāba) hollow.

I can see the logic here, I think, but it does seem to directly contradict the definition given in the Appendix, which refers only to roots. So if I'm understanding you correctly, it would seem there's a conflict between the Appendix and the practice of how verbs are actually categorized?

To put this another way, if "the categories are not for root-based understanding," shouldn't that be explained in the Appendix?

A couple of other parts of your reply were unclear to me, so perhaps I've misunderstood. The main one is where you write that "the forms derived from" the root "by themselves cannot be weak or sound." This seems to argue for a root-based definition, as given in the Appendix.

I was also a bit confused by the statement that اِسْتَجْوَبَ (istajwaba) cannot be categorized as both Category:Arabic sound form-X verbs and Category:Arabic form-X verbs with و as second radical with this root-based understanding." I'm not clear on why it would need to be categorized in the first way. Why not just as hollow?

Finally, I didn't understand the use of "programming" in the first sentence. Does this refer to the auto-generated nature of the table? Does this mean that the code looks at the given form of the verb to determine the category, rather than at the root? Is that the reason why a root-based definition is not feasible and the usage must be bent? Again, I can see the logic here but I think it would be helpful if there were consistency between this usage and the explanations given in the Appendix.

Thanks again for the explanation.

Screeve (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed a number of Arabic verbs which are identified as "irregular" in the top bar of the conjugation table, such as سأل and أكل. When I click on the category link (Arabic irregular verbs) the definition provided is minimal ("Arabic verbs that follow non-standard patterns of inflection.") I'm trying to understand how the "irregular" category relates to those defined in the Appendix:Arabic verbs, which does not include the term "irregular" but which defines verb types using categories shared widely among Arabic reference works (sound, assimilated, hollow, etc.). Both the examples I've cited are identified as both sound and irregular, which I find confusing. I think it would be helpful if there was a fuller explanation somewhere--probably the Appendix?--of how Wiktionary uses the "irregular" category and how it relates to the others. Screeve (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

As above, this describes the implementation of the conjugation modules more than it is reflective of the ideal grammar a human uses for his own understanding of the language. We could describe both perspectives, the etymological one by which man assigns meanings to forms, and the mechanical one separating a lexeme’s inflection from the root contained, according to which a verb is hollow for the former if it contains a semiconsonant radical in the middle and hollow for the machine if the verbal form compresses the middle radical, in the appendix. Appendix:Arabic verbs#Root types even admits it has TO DO. Fay Freak (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see. This clears up some of what I was asking about in my reply to your post in the previous thread. Thanks. Screeve (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I've created the page මිනිත්තුව and noticed that the descendants and translations sections of minute links to මිනිත්‍තුව. These two words appear identical on my device but the latter seems to have some unicode character in between, called "zero width joiner". I have no clue why it is there. Could it be a mistake? Ben MacTavish (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ben MacTavish: Yes. Happens all the time if entries in foreign scripts are copied around on the internet. Before the entry was created the person who added the translation did not see it did not link to a correct entry title, given that the sign is invisible. So you just remove it since in the language you work on or the specific word it is not needed. We also have had tracking lists and categories for entries and translations containing suspicious non-standard characters that should be reviewed, but apparently few cared about Sinhalese yet. Fay Freak (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, @Ben MacTavish, @Fay Freak. I've corrected the translation. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I fixed one of these erroneous links. Now the entry only links to the proper term without the zero-width joiner. Thanks for asking about this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is this a KASTA77 (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Although I have had a Wikipedia account for several years, I have just started editing on Wiktionary.

Apologies if this topic has been discussed before. However, I have noticed that, at least in the English-language media I consume, there is a tendency to refer to specific members of the House of Windsor by only their first name (e.g. William Furious that Harry and Meghan Still 'Deliberately' Call Catherine 'Kate' (Bolded emphasis mine)).

Given this context, would it be acceptable to include specific references to British princes (or any other individual) as "definitions" for the pertinent names? To clarify, here are some sentences that I had in mind:

1. Alexandra: The queen consort of the United Kingdom from 1901 to 1910.
2. Diana: The Princess of Wales from 1981 to 1996.
3. Elizabeth: The queen regnant of the United Kingdom from 1952 to 2022.
4. William: The current heir apparent to the throne of the United Kingdom.

Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thank you,

AndrewPeterT (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know, there's no clear criteria for when/whether to include specific people as senses in entries for single names. However, I lean towards not including cases like these. I would say it's just a particular instance of using the name, not a separate sense.--Urszag (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

We've tended not to include these: see Talk:George, Talk:Victoria (and Talk:George VI). One reason (IMO) is that there are so many; it's far from just people from the Windsor that get referred to this way, a book on medieval history writing about some similarly-mononymous prince Heinrich will likewise say "John fought Heinrich again the next year", etc, and for that matter people today refer mononymously to the celebrities Soojin, Levina, Sunil, Alicja, Dilone, Shequida, etc. Formally, there's no clear rule, as Urszag says. Informally, it seems to me like people accept famous ancient figures like Cicero and Jesus and Solomon and Confucius (though in cases where multiple people had the name, the famous people are often just mentioned on the generic 'name' line, like Octavian, Cleopatra), but don't consider the much larger number of modern figures to have the same lexicographic merit. - -sche (discuss) 02:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply