Is there some standard way to organize the inflection line for phrasal verbs? The template Template:en-verb doesn't have a way to auto-categorize a word into Category:Phrasal verbs, and the template Template:infl doesn't have a way to show the tenses of the verbs. I looked at some other phrasal verbs, and there seems to be many different ways to organize the inflection line. —Arctic.gnome 01:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no one standard way, no. Personally, I use {{en-verb}}; Category:English phrasal verbs can always be added manually. —Ruakh_TALK 07:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

How do I mark this as a Commonwealth spelling using the "alternative spelling of" template? ---> Tooironic 07:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

See http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/die_in_the_arse?diff=11294240. —Ruakh_TALK 07:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I thought "Commonwealth spelling" was the standard phrase? ---> Tooironic 10:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No, see diff: it links and categorizes.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. —Ruakh_TALK 16:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Astrobionomy= biological basis of astrology I would like to define astrobionomy as a new stream of science where astrology could be measured in terms of biological principles! It could be that different astronomical positions of different starts, planets, and other celestial bodies with all their relative positions in the space with all their electro-magnetic radiation and gravitation force etc, or what ever celestial power, physical or chemical force/interaction.... determine the relative interplay of bio-molecules in the cells of a particular person at the time of birth or even at the time of fertilization and pre-dispose certain genes/signal molecules and hence allow certain traits to manifest in them and which will go a long way in determining the nature of that particular person and his behavioral , his ability to react in a certain way to a particular situation and hence ultimately determine his 'fate and destiny'.

Or how else would you define the attribution of particular psychological trait to a particular sun sign to a of the subjects?

Is this used by anyone, anywhere? See WT:CFI#Attestation. Mglovesfun (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

no it hasn't been used, this is the creation of my own thinking! I wish to see in near future people using this word extensitively.

Words like that are called protologisms. I’m afraid we don’t permit protologisms to be entered here. Each word must actually be in use, like biology. —Stephen ^(Talk) 18:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I posted the following on the Wiktionary site and it was almost immediately deleted by editor "TheDaveRoss" as being fatuous. It is obvious to me that he did not take the time to read the referenced blog or check out the term as a valid poker term. According to the pillars of the site which I read over this site is open to posting which would be deemed valuable to users. In my opinion Dave Ross had no right to delete from wiktionary a valid and in use poker term. I have submited this term to several other online dictionaries as well have a book well underway that will be using this term. What do I need to do to get this term as well as the other two added to an open form dictionary?

Sincerly, Sue Fischer

<div style='transform:rotate(180deg);-moz-transform:rotate(180deg);-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-o-transform:rotate(180deg);'>
{{Play to Live}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style='display:block;transform:rotate(180deg);-moz-transform:rotate(180deg);-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-o-transform:rotate(180deg);'>Wiktionary:Play To Live</span>}}
==English==
{{wikipedia|Wikipedia:Play to Live, P2P}}

===Etymology===
The term Play to Live poker player was used by Julius Pinson (BUDA505) in his blog posts called WALK WITH BUDA505]Play To Live - Live To Play - Play To Play where he describes in detail how a player’s reasons for playing and his style of play go hand in hand.

===Adjective, Verb===

=='''Play to Live'''==

A Play to Live ] poker player is a professional or semi-pro who approaches his play as if it were his job, because it is. He balances out his lives inside and outside of the poker rooms, constantly working on improving both.

===Usage===
:He is a very good Play to Live poker player with his family well provided for and his bankroll steadily increasing.  Watch for him at the upcoming World Series of Poker in Las Vegas.

:I was asked if I Play to Live and had to answer yes because that is my job. I'm a professional player.

====Related terms====
* ] : ]

====External Links====
#
#
#

====See also====

* ] Wikipedia entry 
* ] 
* ]

]
]

Once your book has been published, and the term has been adopted outside the scope of that book, come back and we can talk. For now please see the criteria for inclusion. - DaveRoss 02:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this used by anyone, anywhere? See WT:CFI#Attestation. TheDaveRoss is right to delete this for a hatful of reasons. Bad formatting, badly worded, posted upside down (no really) plus not a real word. Mglovesfun (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And this is why you don't learn formatting standards from the sandbox. Especially if there's an admin who happens to have recently dumped some funny CSS3 stuff into it, and you use IE, the only browser that actually can't see that it's upside down. :D --Yair rand (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

When is it preferred to use the Citations page, and when is it preferred to form a quotations tab, or even level four Quotations header? —Jakeybean^TALK 19:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Citations page is reached via the quotations tab. The Citations tab is in its best use, IMO, when it contains citations of failed senses or senses that have not yet been added. DCDuring TALK 20:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I quite like the timeline template, though.. would it be inappropriate to use that on a quotations tab? —Jakeybean^TALK 20:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The citations page is reached via the "Citations" tab, actually, not a "Quotations" tab. If you see a "Quotations" tab, you may(??) be using "tabbed browsing", which I know nothing about. The Citations tab/page is in its best use, IMO, when it contains citations of failed senses or senses that have not yet been added, or citations of existing senses more numerous than appropriate for the entry itself.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Since there is no derivation, I assume this a mangling of the word "prerequisite". --TheLastWordSword 23:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope, see http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=perquisite. —Ruakh_TALK 00:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The OED agrees with the post-classical Latin derivation (or rather etymonline probably consulted the OED), with the first legal cite being from 1443, and the first with the current meaning being from 1557. I've added a first attempt at the etymology (please improve it). The Mediaeval Latin word perquisitum doesn't have an entry. Should it? Dbfirs 12:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

perquisitum is the supine form of perquiro. —Stephen ^(Talk) 18:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It is also where (deprecated template usage) perk (an ancillary job benefit) comes from. - DaveRoss 18:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, via the above. Dbfirs 09:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, Afrikaans Wiktionary is providing an Arabic spelling for all Afrikaans words. See, for example, af:akupunktuur or af:water. Why is that done? I have no idea why one would write Afrikaans in any other script, especially Arabic. -- Prince Kassad 17:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

In both of those cases, the Arabic transcription was added by Gebruiker:Manie. I suppose that he has a fascination with the Arabic script and fancies that someone somewhere might want to write Afrikaans in Arabic letters for some reason. —Stephen ^(Talk) 18:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Afrikaans was actually written in Arabic by some people. See w:Arabic Afrikaans. :) —CodeCat 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, does anyone know the Origin of the word Counterpane?

It is attested from about 1600. It evolved by alteration of the earlier counterpoynte, which came from Old French cuilte contrepointe (quilt stitched through and through), altered from coute pointe, from Medieval Latin culcita puncta (“quilted mattress”), on the model of Middle French pan, Latin pannus (“cloth”). —Stephen ^(Talk) 01:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I need a simile for ----as a church and --- as dust — This comment was unsigned.

• Dry as dust.
• Poor as a church mouse (is the best I can do). SemperBlotto 08:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "So, when we say that it is God's will we should be sanctified or hallowed, this is the same as saying that our hearts ought to be like a church." — 1839, Augustus William Hare, Sermons to a country congregation —Pingku 09:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Johnny Doyle: Oh, did I stutter? Everybody gone all quiet and shit? About a minute ago it was like an evening at the Apollo up in this motherfucker, now all of a sudden it's quiet as a church. - Poolhall Junkies - DaveRoss 11:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

When trying to define chumpy, I wanted to be able to say "short and fat, particularly in contrast to X and thin". There are probably better ways of phrasing that definition, but the main question I have is what word fills the space denoted by X above. Humans, building and mountains are "tall", whereas sticks and necks are "long" (though this is clearly the same thing, just rotated by 90°). Any ideas for a word that fits? Conrad.Irwin 08:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No such word comes to mind; candidates include "tall", "high", "long", "longish", "elongated". You are trying to specify the aspect ratio of the absolute length and absolute thickness, aren't you? If "chumpy" only applies to people (as is implied by your use of "fat"), you could go with "tall". I would first figure out to what classes of objects "chumpy" applies; I do not know that. --Dan Polansky 09:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The words spindly, gangly, lanky and bean-pole all generally mean tall and thin. - DaveRoss 11:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't have used "fat" either, as the word applies to joints of meat, and other things that aren't people. (I included one quote about the necks of dogs, I think). Words meaning both tall and thin are easy to come by compared to words meaning both long and tall. Conrad.Irwin 08:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not pay enough attention to your quotations. It follows from them that "chumpy" applies at least to "person", "neck" and "thigh". Here is a list of quotations found in Google books that show the variety of classes of objects, from which it follows that "chumpy" applies also to roots, a volume of a book, a tree, a shoe, a horse, a face, and even "Headquarters" (building?):

• "If the root-diggers bestow the needful care in removing the roots from the soil, the long variety of the drug will be obtained ; while in the short, stumpy, or chumpy form, it is plainly indicated that the shrubs have been torn from the ..."
• "The small paper will be thicker than the big; it will in consequence be a chumpy little book: ..."
• "I well remember that book, a chumpy volume, in faded cloth, with fossil mosquitos smashed between its yellow pages. ..."
• "The neck is rather short and chumpy, ..." - as if shortness were not entailed in chumpines
• "Here and there a dwarf bush clung to the cliffs, and a stunted cedar sprang from a crevice, a little chumpy war-club cedar, ..."
• "Did her shoes — chumpy shoes they were — give her away, or her voice betray her? ..."
• "With us, for a horse suitable for our use, weighing about eleven hundred pounds, a good, chumpy, well built horse ..."
• "Much of that lately offered had been almost exclusively large chumpy roots, ..."
• "... a funny little man, very short, with a square, chumpy face that might have belonged to a farm labourer ..."
• "You see a spoon and all you think of is cooking up stuff on it, my arms and hands filled with tracks and I just gotta sit in chumpy Headquarters here, no one here for once in a blue moon ..."
• "I believe we are somewhat chumpy in deciding an issue not properly before us, ..." - what does this mean? Seems to refer to behavior rather than shape.

My possibly sloppy takes on a definition: "Relatively short given its thickness", "Relatively thick given its length", "Thick in relation to its length", "Having the ratio of length and thickness of a barrel" or "Having the ratio of length and thickness approaching that of a barrel", or the like. But I do not know the word "chumpy".

--Dan Polansky 09:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of that may be (deprecated template usage) chump + (deprecated template usage) -y like "in the manner of a chump, chumplike". The non-shape ones maybe. - DaveRoss 03:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Does roa#Maori capture the requirement of meaning both long and tall? I use it means long in any dimension, including time. Stuartyeates 23:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that every respectable site should have a page where people can say the site sucks. Well, Wiktionary does not have such page/section, I guess it sucks already.

But this not where it sucks the worst. It is in the word section organization where it does. Wiktionary chooses to organize information by etymology. Which makes the information retrieval so much difficult. Most people, most of the time look for the meaning of the word, that is what should be the most visible. There are many other online dictionaries around and if it would not be for the too much advertising/spam they would be better than Wiktionary. But maybe the problem with Wiktionary is somewhere else all together, it is in the choice of its name. Maybe it should have been called Wiktymology.

Ciprian Niculescu— This unsigned comment was added by 188.27.181.129 (talk) at 18:53, 20 January 2011.

A page to comment on the site is "Wiktionary:Feedback", but this page is okay, too. Thanks for the feedback. There are current proposals for a new layout, as the current one is, admittedly, hard to use. Please make any suggestions you can, and as specific as possible. Ideas are always welcome.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there has been much discussion over this, but Wiktionary follows the practice of most (all?) major dictionaries. Perhaps the option to have the technical information hidden, as in the OED online, would help beginners. Dbfirs 10:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I have a 10 000 word database of English words, French translations and sound files which I could contribute ... but wouldn't know how to upload all this into Wiktionary. Could any help with this? — This unsigned comment was added by Skymark51 (talk • contribs) at 19:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC).

Automated importing of databases is a somewhat technical process. To start with, what is the source of the database, and what format is it in? What format are the audio files in? I would also suggest signing your posts with a "~~~~", it will make it easier for people to get in touch with you on this topic. - DaveRoss 20:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If this is already covered in a WT reference or policy doc, please point me that way.  :)

I'm curious what the guidelines are for 送り仮名. I've seen numerous kanji entries (like 慰 as one example) where the 訓読み simply gives the full-on dictionary-form reading, with no indication of what the 送り仮名 are. Eg, for 慰, the 送り仮名 would be 「める」, but this isn't indicated anywhere on that page. Anyone have any formatting advice for this? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 09:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This probably should be dealt with at Wiktionary:About Japanese or on its talk page. —Stephen ^(Talk) 09:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you! -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 20:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked up the word "quam". I thought that "quam" meant "problem". Doesn't it?

Missing an 'l', the word you are looking for is (deprecated template usage) qualm. - DaveRoss 20:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In Wiktionary, initialism DTR have only one meaning (1. Draft Technical Report). There is another one: Data Terminal Ready. It is related to serial data communications. For instance, it may be a name for one of the pins present at computer's COM-port connector.

Yes, that was the only meaning that I knew, though it is now becoming obsolete. I've added the line to the entry. Dbfirs 14:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

173.178.93.250 03:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Blossoms. —Stephen ^(Talk) 01:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I found out already 173.178.93.250 21:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Most English words inflected in the past participle are used in everyday conversation as modifiers, i.e. adjectives. Should this be documented somewhere? Because it is a pain in the neck to have to add an "adjective" POS to every single entry in Category:English past participles. There are inconsistencies when entries such as eaten and watchlisted (which is currently undergoing RFV) have their own adjective form as definitions, while others such as condescended and carried don't. TeleComNasSprVen 02:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought participle means a verb form that functions like an adjective... --Yair rand (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Some past participles double as adjectives that mean roughly "having been " (or more precisely: "in the state of having been "), and others do not. It's inconsistent, yes, but the inconsistency is in English, not in Wiktionary. —Ruakh_TALK 03:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? I'm trying to say that some of our entries for past participles lack an adjectival sense, despite their having been used as an adjective in everyday real-life conversations, and yet others have them. As I pointed out above, "condescended" can be interpreted as the "state of condescension" in an adjective form, in a similar way to "eaten", but we don't have such definitions for condescended. What is the English inconsistency? TeleComNasSprVen 05:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

A large share of such past participle forms cannot be shown to be used as true adjectives. See Wiktionary:English adjectives for some sufficient conditions to show that a given form is used as an adjective. There are other cases where a sense exists for an "-ed" form that does not exist for the underlying verb, which also warrants a separate entry. DCDuring TALK 11:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: "'condescended' can be interpreted as the 'state of condescension' in an adjective form": I welcome your evidence for this claim. —Ruakh_TALK 12:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely Wiktionary should not spend countless time and resources creating entries for each and every ordinal, cardinal, or spelled-out representation of every number that comes into existence? What is the policy on creating numbers, and when do they warrant inclusion in an online dictionary such as this one? Although you can't say a particular symbol is non-idiomatic, because of its nature as a symbol, most English (cardinal) numbers are easily derived from its parts as combinations of ten simple initial symbols. Is that akin to a compound phrase, like the non-idiomatic "lock the door", or a compound word, like the idiomatic "shut up"? TeleComNasSprVen 05:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, with various RFD'd entries like three hundred or neuntausendneunhundertneunundneunzig, you would think we have rules by now. But we don't. Technically you could add anything as long as it is idiomatic, which for some languages is all numbers in existence. -- Prince Kassad 05:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the value of the time of a contributor who works on such entries? Clearly their judgment is suspect. The real issue is the maintenance effort.

If someone produced language-specific number-word generators that created well-formed number words given numerical representations we could remove many of the individual entries and also have total coverage of such words. Category:Numerical appendices provides a start toward documenting how such number-word generation works in a few languages. Parsing number words entered as search terms would be more of a challenge, but directing such searches to any applicable numerical appendix or to the category would be an improvement over the current state of affairs, IMO. DCDuring TALK 12:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

For English, it would make sens to "stop" at nineteen (but naturally there should be entries for twenty, thirty,.., hundred etc.) because the rest is just following algorithms. If the correct spelling of larger numbers is ala twenty-one, then the individual parts are easily identifiable for any non-native speaker. Njardarlogar 21:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, twentyone is citeably attested (though not nearly so common as twenty-one). —Ruakh_TALK 22:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd almost suggest to go up to hundred. This is useful especially for languages with vigesimal number systems or other esoteric ones. -- Prince Kassad 22:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

...to RevDel something. Please respond on my talk page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

•  page deleted Help no longer needed, Thank you,
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  

I wanted to add a quotation to those under the "prostitute" meaning on the "punk" page.

• The page for "punk" is locked.
• I have read

"punk"'s page,

"punk"'s Talk page,

many entries of "punk"'s history page, going back years, and

many, many help pages.

This has taken long time. I still have some residual interest, though (before my assumption of good faith quite falls off its hinges), in finding out:

• who locks pages such as "punk", and
• why the page for "punk" is locked.

I would like to know:

• how to get the page for "punk" unlocked,
• how to add to the quotation in question (I made a proposal to add it on "punk"'s Talk page, but this has been moribund for years, so I'm far from convinced that this might be helpful)
• how to answer such questions as these by reference to the Help pages, which seem to be very extensive but not, in this case, helpful.
• whether going through such rigmaroles as this is within the original Wikipedia vision.

Nat 21:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

To answer your six questions, in order: Any administrator can lock a page, and it was locked (apparently) due to numerous bad edits by new or not-logged-in users. You got it unlocked by posting the above, so can add the quotation to the page. (Otherwise, you could've added it to ].) This is an excellent page to ask the above questions. This is not Wikipedia, and although rigmaroles are not within Wiktionary's vision, either, sometimes locking a page is necessary, and you've found the correct page to ask about it on, so I suppose all's well that ends well. HTH.​—msh210℠ (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Following up on the thread above about the inclusion of certain numbers of Wiktionary, I have to ask: what is our current policy on words created from constructed languages? I know that the attestation rule in CFI, especially part three of its requirements, is generally meant to filter out certain made-up words that anyone can think of in certain circumstances, but what about entire languages spawned from the ideas of someone's mind living in the present day? For example, I know that the fictional Quenya language from Tolkien's works have to meet WT:FICTION but certain languages such as "Tokipona" or "Klingon" words (these so-called "languages" were even previously hosted as Wikimedia wikis!) exist as usable conlangs to this day, invented as recently as 2001. There are also many other real-life languages to consider that have formed from different subcultures within the English language itself, such as terms for html tags ("a href" and "nofollow"), Microsoft Word fonts ("Times New Roman" and "Arial") and the widely popular leetspeak ("1337" and "600613"), which has even entered the standard English lexicon. How far should we go and what words should we include/exclude? TeleComNasSprVen 23:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Loanwords into English aren't covered by it, but we recently had a vote that decided to exclude all conlangs except those explicitly approved.​—msh210℠ (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As spanish speaker, "in the buff" on "She was in the buff on the beach" sounds more as a adverv than an adjective (and was is the verb). Please, I need somebody give me an "english" sight of that

It means desnuda, desarropada, and those are adjectives. It means that she was nude on the beach (nude = adjective). But when she runs in the buff, then it is an adverb because it describes the manner in which she was running. —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I created an entry for a new word; however, when I search the database I'm not finding it.

What is the purpose of "talk" forum for a word? — This comment was unsigned.

It takes a while for the server to update (or something), so you won't find it straight away with Special:Search.

The talk page is less frequently used here than on other Wikimedia sites where they use it to discuss the specific word/article; here, you'll have better luck if you have those same discussions on a high-volume discussion page like this one. It's also used for archiving old discussions that took place about that word like you can see at Talk:recombobulate. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 04:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Although in the case of your contributions a slow database is not the answer, your contributions were deleted. Please see the criteria for inclusion with regards to what terms should or should not be added. - DaveRoss 04:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to restore "New Messages" marked as "Read"? There is good information in those I would like to review. I did not have warning that "marking" also meant "making invisible"!Geofferybard 07:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Marking a message as read does not make it disappear, it just removes it from the new messages page. It still exists on the page it was posted on. There is no way that I know of to mark a message as unread. --Yair rand (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

plese tell me the meaning of ayaan and which language has this word

There seems to be much disagreement about the meaning and origin of the word so I don't know which to believe. I think it occurs in several languages with different meanings across Africa, Arabia and India. Dbfirs 10:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi.

I notice that the word, 'sen' has no entry for Norwegian, in which language it means 'late'. I can see how to 'add a definition', but how do I add a language and then add a translation? I'm not Norwegian so I would only want to add a provisional translation, but better than nothing, eh?

If you're sure that "late" is the correct translation of Norwegian sen, you would go to the page sen, click Edit, and add, below the Mandarin section but above the Polish section (languages are listed alphabetically), that that looks like all the other sections on the page:

----
==Norwegian==
===Adjective=== (or whatever the part of speech is)
{{infl|no|adjective}}

# ]

That's the most basic entry possible. Better is if you add other things, like an inflection template. See WT:ELE for more.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way I can make a search of Wiktionary for words Serbo-croat words of Hungarian and Rumanian origin?— This comment was unsigned.

They should be categorized at Category:hr:Hungarian derivations, Category:sh:Hungarian derivations, Category:sr:Hungarian derivations, Category:hr:Romanian derivations, Category:sh:Romanian derivations, and Category:sr:Romanian derivations.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Bodhipathapradīpa is the name of an influential book which a lot of Americans read in translation. It even has English commentaries. The basis given was that theoretically it is not kosher to write in "English" letters words that were previously written in some other script. Obviously that would throw out all derivatives of Greek, Teutonic languages, etcetera. Also we would have to toss out words like karma. I thought I would ask...Geof Bard 06:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem was that the language header said "Tibetan" rather than English even though the title was written in Latin script... --Yair rand (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Right O. Geof Bard 19:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked up the etymology of jejune and found ieiunus, Lat. But there is no further reference. Is this related to any known I-E root? Are there related words in Greek, Sanskrit, Celtic, --Shimke2 23:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Germanic, etc.?

According to Lubotsky ieiunus is of PIE origin and cognate to Sanskrit (deprecated template usage) यजति (yájati), Avestan yazata and Ancient Greek ἅγιος (hágios). --Vahag 01:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way I can search for all the Serbo-croat words of foreign origin listed in Wiktionary?— This comment was unsigned.

Moved from Tea room.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You can do it by language from which the word was derived, at Category:sh:Etymology, Category:sr:Etymology, and Category:hr:Etymology. I know of no way to do it irrespective of source language.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble reconciling whether "Google" in this sense could be considered an adjective modifying "search" or part of an entire noun phrase called "Google search"; there's not a whole lot of other things "Google" could modify, like "Google books" or "Google pizza"... TeleComNasSprVen 07:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

In Google search, Google is an attributive noun (or noun adjunct), not an adjective. —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The definition for 'pretextual' uses the word 'sanist.' When I search for sanist in the wiktionary, it doesn't give a definition.

"Of a false, contrived or assumed purpose; characterized by pretense." So no, it doesn't. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the true semantic meaning of this expression? — This comment was unsigned.

Lots of ... SemperBlotto 08:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#sunyata

In case, I complied with the requested six verifications, but the entry already existed under a different spelling. Probably, somebody will get mad at me for "closing" the RFV, but my argument is that it isn't a valid RFV, and even if it is, the Requester, even if not an admin, has the right to ...brevity.Geof Bard 20:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

All RfVs are valid, even if mistaken. Just as with all contributions, even on your "own" user page, you don't own them. Accordingly, you might acknowledge your "error" and even strike the header, using <s> and </s>. But it is wise to leave the tag and the RfV material for a "closer". If there was some comment that seems to agree with your initial negative assessment, perhaps the discussion should just be allowed to continue. Finally, if you change your mind very quickly before anyone has commented one way or the other, perhaps you could revert yourself.

OTOH, perhaps the closers think differently. DCDuring TALK 20:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well yeah I appreciate your thoughts, but it was really just a request for comments. See

http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Appropriate_closures

"Pure housekeeping, such as closing a debate opened in the wrong place" Geof Bard 21:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You can certainly withdraw your own RFV if you've become satisfied that the word exists. If anyone is not satisfied, they can reopen the discussion (or start a new one), re-tag the entry, and so on. —Ruakh_TALK 23:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting work on te reo Māori starting with a couple of words I'm trying to build into examplars, tangata and tāngata. I'm keen for any kind of feedback or revisions.

I'm planning on using http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/facets/search to add bi-lingual quotes to every word. Is there a template for bilingual quotations with a reference to the source? Or do I have to do everyone by hand?

There is a quotation-rich bilingual dictionary at http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/ Am I right in thinking I can't lift quotes out of it, but can and should link to the entries in it? Stuartyeates 23:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You can use {{quote-book}} for adding quotes. It does the formatting for you, but it's not very intuitive to use (at least for me). All of its many parameters are in its documentation, so just consult that when you need. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 23:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a template I can use to say this bit is in English this bit is in Māori this bit is in French ? Stuartyeates 23:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is. {{quote-book}} has a passage= parameter for your foreign language quote and a translation= parameter for an English translation. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 16:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that it's permissible to use quotes verbatim from that dictionary if you can properly use the quotee= parameter of {{quote-book}}. (IANAL) —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 23:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm thinking of using the dictionary as a wordlist, which may be going to far... Stuartyeates 23:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I think that should be in line with fair use principles if you cite it properly and make it into partly your own work but IANAL. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 16:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking that a plural for greggio does not seem to make much sense, how to indicate that? How do I quickly find the documentation for the respective templates for various languages? Richiez 23:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• The very great majority of Italian nouns are countable. This one is not marked as invariant in my dictionary. It is difficult to prove in this instance because (deprecated template usage) greggi is also the plural of (deprecated template usage) gregge (flocks). SemperBlotto 08:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

In it:w:Greggio (petrolio), in the first paragraph it reads:

Il colore risulta essere più scuro nei greggi che presentano idrocarburi con peso molecolare medio più elevato. —Stephen ^(Talk) 09:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This word was discussed on Car Talk as the most words made by removing one letter at a time using up the whole word. By first removing the "L" you have "starting", then removing the second "T" you have "staring." After that remove the "A" to get "string", then remove the "R" to get "sting" then the "T" for "sing". Next, remove the "G" for "sin", after that, the "S" for "in" then the "N" for the eighth word, "I". Thanks to Click and Clack on NPR we have this info.— This unsigned comment was added by Williecrash (talk • contribs).

http://www.snopes.com/language/puzzlers/9letters.asp has more examples of such words, including the longer word splittings (splitting, spitting, sitting, siting, sting, sing, sin, in, I).​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the "derived terms" section for the word OUTGO also list OUTGOING?

--Khyranleander 04:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Is fenêtré a translation of windowed's first definition, or its second one?

The first one at least, judging by fr:fenêtrer. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 04:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there isn't an entry yet (in either the English or the French Wiktionary) for "plein écran", and I can find only "en mode fenêtre" for the second sense. Perhaps a French-speaking computer expert could check? Dbfirs 21:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

fenêtré is OK for the second sense. plein écran means fullscreen. Lmaltier 21:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure whether the Académie française would approve. Dbfirs 22:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they would disapprove... But very technical words are probably not included in their dictionary. ~~

Can someone explain the etymology of "darby float" (a plasterer tool)? <email address removed>

• See our entries for darby and float. SemperBlotto 10:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

what is correction — This comment was unsigned.

• Did you consider looking at correction? SemperBlotto 08:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

¶ I am not sure what to do about this: the spelling “præſent” should re‐direct to the word “præsent”, since I made a ‘red link’ in an entry I started. What would be the proper way to re‐direct that, if there is a “proper” way of such on Wiktionary (assuming there are other ways)? 75.142.190.21 07:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the redlink. No redirect is necessary. If a link had been needed there, we could have typed ], which displays "præſent" but links to "præsent": præſent. —Ruakh_TALK 14:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

¶ Thank you for informing me. However, would linking to considerably uncommon words in quotations still be inappropriate? Example: apnœa. 75.142.190.21 14:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Links are allowed in quotations, but should be used with moderation. I think the link in ] is O.K. —Ruakh_TALK 17:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's claimed that oneself is "A contracted form of one's self", but while that may be true of yourself or ourselves (which articles claim no etymology), it certainly isn't true of himself or themselves. Admittedly, I did check http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=oneself which also claims "one's self", but clearly I disagree with this. Any other thoughts on this? D. F. Schmidt 16:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that "a contraction of one’s self" is correct. I think that himself is probably a contraction of a colloquial form like "him hisselfum", and themselves from "them theirself". —Stephen ^(Talk) 16:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added the computer security sense of escape and the computing sense of inject. Although I have written two Wikipedia articles, these are my first major contributions to Wiktionary, so I would appreciate some feedback on whether the definitions are concise, easy to understand, and in conformance with style conventions. Also, would it be an improvement to include example sentences and/or move the quotations to new "Citations" pages? Thanks in advance. PleaseStand ^(talk) 20:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi! You may find this discussion interessting Commons:Village_pump#Wikipedia_screenshots_and_licensing_issues. There is a discussion about the logo somewhere in the discussion. Please help find the right place for this notice. --MGA73 09:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I find these types of adjectives interesting. What are they called? We could categorise them. ---> Tooironic 04:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

w:compound adjectives. —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, I managed to wreck the whole Beer parlour page. Took a while to find the Undo function although Brett had already fixed it and kindly added my question as the last item as I intended.

My only defence is my Firefox was closed by an OpenOffice install by our admins.

Should have practiced here before... I hope I won't break anything this time.

Ps. this is not the first time I use a Wiki..

Korhoj 06:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for apologizing. I still accidentally delete stuff (mostly mine, but sometimes others') because of my touchpad, so I sympathize. DCDuring TALK 01:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It was actually Daniel. (talk • contribs) who fixed it and re-added your question. If you go to the "history" view for a given page — in this case, //en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Beer_parlour&action=history — you can see a listing of who did what. —Ruakh_TALK 12:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The definitions meanings and explanations of the two words "Latex" & "Silicone"

See latex and silicone. —Stephen ^(Talk) 06:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I searched for a printable form of book of Enoch and found you sight have created an account at [email protected]. I am not as highly qualified as most on this site. I have looked all over and can see the book but can not for the life of me figure how to down load a printable copy of the book. Please help. Benny

You have us confused with some other site. We do not have the book Enoch. We do not have any form of any book. We only have an article named Enoch which explains the meaning of the word. —Stephen ^(Talk) 18:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the word for (a question that answers itself) — This comment was unsigned.

• Give us an example. SemperBlotto 17:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I was reviewing a a paper written about the supermarket/grocery industry. The position of the main character in the paper had a job title of category manager - GM HBC. I'm trying to understand what GM HBC stands for. I can't seem to find it anywhere. I'm not certain if they are certifications or if they stand for 'general manager home baked cookies'. Can anyone help with this?

Confused??

Looks like General Merchandise/Health & Beauty Care. —Stephen ^(Talk) 22:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Think the entry "Oughties" is misspelled. Sounds like a reference to the practice of a century earlier in how they named the years of that decade: 1901 was "aught-one", 1902 was "aught-two", etc. See entry on Aught.

Khyranleander 04:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

ought in the sense of zero is an alternative spelling. I’m sure it began as a misspelling, and I still don’t like it, but it is now considered a valid alternate spelling. Therefore, oughties is an alternative spelling of aughties. While it is true that the practice of a century ago was to call the years of that decade "aught-one", etc., a lot of people (certainly those in the senior generations) still use that term. —Stephen ^(Talk) 04:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia entry for the grammatical number known as the quadral there are no known languages that specifically have a quadral, though there have been vague instances of confusion as to whether or not a few languages do, because the definition of quadral is usually restricted to a group of four objects. The Template:quadral was swiftly undeleted upon the reasoning that Category:Sursurunga pronouns might just possibly have these types of words, despite the deletion request initiated and archived at Template talk:quadral. I'd like some clarification as to whether or not the definition of "four or more" items actually applies to our quadral, or whether or not it can be attested that this is the true use of the term. TeleComNasSprVen 05:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

In Analyzing Grammar by Paul Kroeger, he states that "the quadral forms have the meaning ‘four or more’, rather than ‘exactly four’". —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it different than "plural" in that case? —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 01:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Plural is usually two or more. —Stephen ^(Talk) 02:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Reading the article w:Sursurunga language, it has been described as quadral but it's not the only term used for it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason I ask is because on w:Tok Pisin#Grammar the pronouns are described as singular, dual, trial and plural. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 15:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I disagree with Stephen's second comment, or least, I don't think it's relevant. As you say, language with a "quadral" number, in the very strictest sense, would use "quadral" to mean "exactly four". However, Sursuranga has a five-way contrast between singular, dual, , , and pronouns, where the dual, , and pronouns actually contain the words for "two", "three", and "four" inside them (respectively), and where the pronouns are the most generic plural pronouns, used for arbitrarily large numbers; so it makes sense to label , , and as "trial", "quadral", and "plural" (respectively), especially since there aren't known to be any languages with "quadral" numbers in the very strictest sense, anyway. (Several languages do have "trial" number, but even among these, it's often used loosely. The difference between languages with a "trial" number and languages with a "paucal" number is not as clear-cut as all that.) —Ruakh_TALK 16:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

American Sign Language has, and probably many other SLs have, a feature of number incorporation, in which some signs can incorporate the handshape for a number from 1 to 9 to indicate that many of (whatever it is). For example, the signs for 'week', 'next week', and 'last week' (both based on 'week') are made with a pointing-index-finger handshape, which is also the handshape of the numeral 1. 'Two weeks' (and 'week after next', 'week before last') has the handshape for 2, 'three weeks' for 3, and so on.

Numerals are also often incorporated into pronoun signs. 2 is the commonest -- 'you and I', 'that other person and I', 'you two', 'those two' -- but it's readily taken to higher numbers when needed. 'We four' etc. aren't that common, but they're readily used if needed, and understood with no problem. Voilà: quadral pronouns.

I'm not arguing for adding "quintal", "sextal", and so on to the set for Wiktionary. But as long as the question is whether any languages have such number, sign languages must be taken into consideration as well as spoken languages. --Thnidu (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a newbie question about what part of speech to give this: 腹が立つ. That page listed it as a verb, but the corresponding hiragana page はらがたつ listed it as Phrase. Technically I think it comes to a choice between ja-verb or ja-phrase. The phrase is not a sum of its parts (literally, stomach stands up.) Thanks! Haplology 14:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It’s both, but basically it’s a verb. ja-phrase only adds the category Category:Japanese phrasebook, but I don’t think this phrase is appropriate for the phrasebook. —Stephen ^(Talk) 00:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking for certain Kanji, but can't find it. It has 益 as part of it, but also has three little diagonal line-things on the left - the two top running top-left-to-bottom-right, the larger bottom one running top-right-to-bottom-left. Does anyone know what I mean? And if this is the wrong forum to ask this, could someone point me in the right direction? - DKN117, April 5 2011 20:29 (PST)

溢れる? I recommend you use http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1R . Hope that's the one. Haplology 04:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am new to Wikitionary and unfortunately I have made an entry in the wrong category. How Would I be able to delete it? The entry is -mentum and is supposed to be in Latin index category instead of English. Also I cannot edit the plural from "-mentums" to "-menta".

Thanks

• I have made it into a simple Latin suffix entry. See other entries in the category Category:Latin suffixes for how it might be improved. SemperBlotto 08:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • However, I see that you have thrown away all that - so, basically, you are on your own now. SemperBlotto 08:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've frequently heard the word alike used as/like a noun, always with the definite article (ie "the alike"), but the page makes no mention of this usage. Even if it's technically incorrect, I figure it should be listed in the article, but I'm certain neither of how prevalent the usage is, nor how to formulate the definition. (edit: forgot to sign) Astrocom 05:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think what you have heard is the like. —Stephen ^(Talk) 07:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What is up with this collapsing translations box? It used to always show. Now I have to look for the miniscule button. At first I thought I had to click the button. Then, I discovered you can set your account to always show....except it resets when you log out. Why was this change implemented? It should be removed.--Metallurgist 17:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think most of us just stay logged in. Why do you log out? I haven’t logged out in eight years, from either Wiktionary or Wikipedia. —Stephen ^(Talk) 18:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I created File:en-AU-calumny.ogg a little while ago (maybe a year?) and it is no longer there. I'm wondering if it's possible to find out what happened to it. Gregcaletta 23:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say look at commons:File:en-AU-calumny.ogg, we take out file from commons with almost no exceptions. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it was moved to File:en-au-calumny.ogg. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) Gregcaletta 01:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ann and Bob are married. Ann's sister (Bob's sister-in-law) has a son called Chris. Chris gets married to Daphne. My question: What relation is Daphne to Bob? "Niece in law"? 86.10.142.176 19:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"Niece-in-law" is right I think. "Niece-in-law-in-law" sounds too bizarre. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 23:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Could someone fix the english "smiley" page? There is a big pic of a vagina coming up when accessing the page - thx.

Tom/User:87.167.220.184

smiley

¶ I cannot see any genitalia there. --Pilcrow 21:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes see /ɵ/ in pronunciations where I expect to see /ə/, like Constantinopolitan. Does this represent an actual pronunciation or is it a mistake? —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 00:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

A mistake, but you might ask User talk:Xyzzyva, who is responsible for it. It isn’t IPA. —Stephen ^(Talk) 04:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I came looking for a definition of the word "redevelopment" and thought what I read could be improved, so I edited the page and saved. Page refreshed with 2 porn images superimposed over the text of the wiki... The images were linked to urls that I assume are male ware or something else I don't want or need... — This comment was unsigned.

That's bizarre. See two posts above, an IP complained of a vagina on a page. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If anyone could reproduce this, we would be most interested (get your mind out of the gutter =P). —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven’t checked the delete logs, but this usually means that a vandal replaced an existing image with a photo of himself or his mother in flagrante delicto. It all disappears like magic when someone reverts him. —Stephen ^(Talk) 04:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It was actually Template:langnamex. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 04:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is correct: Mary is the____ member of the panel.

Both are correct. —Stephen ^(Talk) 07:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Abbreviation: 1. Smile To Myself — This unsigned comment was added by 71.184.246.206 (talk).

¶ Do you think you could provide any examples of this in literature? --Pilcrow 01:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

is there an entry on the above sentence? 77.125.128.188 15:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Did you consider looking? SemperBlotto 15:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

yes, there is none. but maybe i am not looking correctly. because i should search something like "to be so far behind.. etc. 77.125.128.188 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no entry for that sentence. I understand what it means but I have not heard it before. —Stephen ^(Talk) 17:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so if i want to write an entry on this sentence, what should it be: "You're so far behind, you think you're first" or "to be so far behind, that one's thinks he is first" 46.210.217.59 07:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

btw, google has many results of this idiom http://www.google.co.il/search?hl=iw&client=firefox-a&hs=74z&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22so+far+behind%22++think+first&btnG=%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A9&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= 132.67.168.193 09:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I got it: one is so far behind, one thinks he is first132.67.168.193 09:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not that. If suitable attestation via books.google can be provided, then probably so far behind, with redirects from the common forms such as "I'm so far behind, I think I'm first" and "he's so far behind, he thinks he's first". —Stephen ^(Talk) 10:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If we actually had phrasebook criteria, we could determine whether this phrase met them. As an ordinary dictionary entry, I can't imagine such an entry being useful. Indeed it seems misleading to me to imply that either the anon's full sentence (except perhaps in a phrasebook) or the suggested alternative (not useful for a phrasebook) is an idiom rather than a somewhat interesting (?) collocation. It is not common. COCA shows nothing with a form of "think" within six words of "so far behind". Also none of the 35 entries with "so far behind" within 6 words of a following "that" have the notion of someone being self-deluded as a result of being very far behind. DCDuring TALK 15:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What would the proper use of the proper noun Elias in plural form?

I know two Eliases. —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I keep getting emails sent in to the OTRS queue for reports of pornography on the pages and I see no changes to the pages themselves or to included templates. When I visit the pages, though, I never see any problems. These have been for мужчина 2011042810017698, erudite 2011042810013745 2011042510005125, logophilia 2011042710018877, and emmer 2011042710015585. Adrignola 16:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It was vandalism by Tyllin a couple of days ago to {{langnamex}} and one or two other templates. The vandalism was removed but some people are still seeing it. I think it is due to memory caching, and they should clear their cache. —Stephen ^(Talk) 16:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I see that template was mentioned earlier and since it was protected when I looked at the pages I didn't bother to check it for changes. I'll provide your advice should any further complaints come in. Adrignola 16:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I just posted a definition for a word I coined in 2010, and someone labeled as "a user" has tagged my entry for deletion, citing "self-promotion, posted by coiner." Your terms of use state nothing whatsoever about this issue, so what gives? I'm happy to share the word and have it used freely, that's why I posted it here. If you do have a problem with a coiner of a word posting said word, you really should make that abundantly clear under your terms. Also, if my friend were to post it for me, would that suddenly make it OK?

Flummoxed wiki supporter,

M. A. Tait-Condie

It would not be acceptable no matter who posted it. It is what is called a protologism and we do not accept protologisms. We only accept words that are in use by the English-speaking public or found in English literary works. If your word becomes accepted by the public at large and finds its way into print in at least three unrelated books spread out over at least a year, then we will consider it. Read WT:CFI. —Stephen ^(Talk) 20:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please Visit Talk:Jockey. Thank you. 173.178.93.250 21:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The degree symbol signifies hours (of time), degrees (of temperature), and degrees (of arc or angle measure). The prime symbol signifies minutes (of time), minutes (of arc or angle measure), and feet (of length). The double-prime symbol signifies seconds (of time), seconds (of arc or angle measure), and inches (of length). Does the degree symbol also signify any unit of length? Do the prime and double-prime symbols also indicate any unit of temperature? (Our entries and the WP articles don't indicate as much, but that's, of course, no proof.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The degree sign indicates rods (sense 6). I haven't seen any use of the prime for temperature so far. -- 84.177.179.121 18:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I want to help out with Wiktionary project. Where do I get started? — This comment was unsigned.

• It depends what languages you know, and what skills you possess. Are you capable of adding new words (in any language)? Are you capable of adding translations to existing English words? See Wiktionary:Requested entries for a very long list of wanted words etc. SemperBlotto 07:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Even in English there is a lot of work to be done. If you know a lot of terminology for a particular field of study, a lot of that is still missing. We're missing many etymologies and pronunciations as well. There are a thousand areas that no regular contributor seems to have experience in; for example, many words have shorthand grammalogues that are not detailed in entries. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Being of Greek origin, the only plural to hippopotamus is hippopotamuses, and never hippopotami which would be appropriate if the word were of Latin origin. Please don't show it as an alternate plural. Thank you, John Laury

Please see the "Etymology" section for hippopotamus. It comes from the Latin. Then go down the page to the "Latin" section, where you will see that the plural in Latin is, in fact, hippopotami. So it is appropriate to have that as the plural in English. That said, it doesn't much matter whether it's appropriate: we aim to include words that are used, not those that should be, and hippopotami is definitely used in English.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is "to wait for a doctor" or "to wait to see a doctor" correct but NOT "to wait for seeing a doctor"?

Furthermore, why is "it is rare for teachers to listen to students" correct but NOT "it is rare for teachers listening to students"?

Thank you. ---> Tooironic 14:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: first question: I think that's simply how the verb wait is construed: it can take a nominal with for, or it can take a to-infinitive of purpose. (Incidentally, I think the only real grammatical problem with "to wait for seeing a doctor" is that "seeing a doctor" isn't nouny enough. "To wait for the seeing of a doctor", where it's been nouned up a bit more, is awkward, and has the wrong meaning — the subject of wait is no longer implicitly the subject of see, because it implies that "the seeing of the doctor" is some external event being waited for — but is grammatical IMHO.)

Re: second question: Two problems. Firstly, the role of for in the first sentence is merely to introduce the subject of the infinitive. The second sentence doesn't have an infinitive, so the for doesn't work. (If you flip the sentences around, you can see this better: "For teachers to listen to students is rare"; "Teachers listening to students is rare".) The other is that you can only use the impersonal it to postpone certain kinds of subjects, such as to-infinitives and that-clauses; for some reason, fused participles, like "teachers listening to students", can't be postponed that way.

—Ruakh_TALK 14:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Hi. This is to do with verb structures. There are rules about whether the second verb in a clause is "to infinitive" or "-ing gerund/progressive". One part of these rules can be seen in the Appendix:English catenative verbs. A good grammar book can fill you in with further details. -- ALGRIF talk 15:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC) p.s. However I see Ruakh has given a much better answer. -- ALGRIF talk 15:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Re Teachers listening to students is rare: isn't that Teachers' listening to students is rare (or Teachers listening to students are rare)?​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It can be, but it doesn't have to be; see google:"fused participle" for some discussions of the subject. "Men listening to their wives is rare" is clearly grammatical (and IMHO more natural than "men's listening to their wives is rare"). —Ruakh_TALK 15:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip: I didn't know what such things are called. I see I'm in good company, though.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you so much everyone, that catenative verb appendix is fantastic! As part of my business I tutor ESL and whilst I get most grammatical aspects in English, I had never actually studied this phenomenon before. Using this resource, it makes a whole lot more sense now. Thanks again! ---> Tooironic 22:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Recently I've been noticing problems when I visit the recent changes page: it keeps changing appearance (bold headings become regular, links disappear, and cursive words appear as regular). This happens like every 10-15 minutes, and then it returns back to normal. I haven't made any changes to my settings.

I noticed this problem back in the Romanian Wiktionary project, but suspected it being temporary. It's been two days now and things haven't become better; on the contrary, they've worsened! I noticed recently that when the appearance changes, I lose the ability to make edits: the tool box disappears. Even the disclaimer text on the bottom of the page moves to the left-hand side of the page, here and in the Romanian version.

What's going on? Has it something to do with a Wikimedia update or do I have a bug?

Best Regards,

--Robbie SWE 11:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I have never experienced anything like that. I don’t see anything like that on English Wiktionary or any of the other Wiktionaries, or any of the Wikipedias. It must be a local problem with your computer. I wonder if it could be a virus or some other malware. You might go to http://housecall.trendmicro.com/ and let them scan your drive. I’ve been using Trendmicro for years whenever I get a bug. Otherwise, I have no idea what could cause that. —Stephen ^(Talk) 00:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I suspected that an update of my Internet browser – from Internet Explorer 8 to Internet Explorer 9 – caused the problem. I revoked the update, but the problem persists. The following message appears when I go to the website:

Webpage error details User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; OfficeLiveConnector.1.5; OfficeLivePatch.1.3; .NET4.0C; AskTbFWV5/5.9.1.14019)

Timestamp: Sat, 7 May 2011 11:40:17 UTC

Message: Object expected

Line: 1

Char: 730

Code: 0

URI: http://bits.wikimedia.org/ro.wiktionary.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=ro&modules=site&only=scripts&skin=monobook

I have absolutely no idea how to solve this problem. My knowledge about computers isn't that refined. I'm at my wits' end! When I try visiting other Wiktionaries like the Occitan version or the Galician version, the sites change appearance from Monobook to "Simple". Could it be the Monobook setting? When I change to Vector the problem disappears. But why have Monobook as an option if it doesn't work everywhere? --Robbie SWE 11:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you suspect the problem began with the upgrade to IE9, a thought would be to use another browser (firefox, opera, chrome). --flyax 12:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Monobook was the default skin for years. Recently the default was changed to Vector. There should have been a link somewhere on your page that would have allowed you to undo the skin switch and return to Monobook, and then Monobook would have been your default in each wiki. But if you change the skin in one wiki manually, you lose the opportunity to switch back automatically and you have to change the skin in ever wiki manually. Personally, I dislike Vector enormously and I only use Monobook. Monobook works perfectly for me. —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I've experienced similar problems with IE 9, which I recently experimented with. It seems as though the Javascript isn't be interpreted properly, but that's a mere uneducated guess. Try using Firefox. I also have kept Monobook.

Thanks for all your help, guys!

Unfortunately I've been unsuccessful with all my attempts to fix the problem. I researched this hitch and received some help from the Microsoft Help forum. I tried with their guidance to change the script myself, but even though I did everything I could do it didn't help. I also reinstalled Java with no noticeable improvement. I even did a system restore but with no luck (I was getting a bit desperate at this point!).

In the Internet forums, people with similar situations were advised that the problem was with the people managing the sites (they apparently included a wrong script). Their advice was therefore to wait it out and hope that the website developers would discover the problem and amend it. Until that happens I'm obliged to use Vector (yuck!), because it is the only skin that permits me to use a tool bar when editing. Wish me luck! Best Regards, --Robbie SWE 18:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

To what extent does Wiktionary document legal parlance? Should all common legal phrases be included here? TeleComNasSprVen 21:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

They all should, provided of course that they're idiomatic. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 01:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Under "Etymology", should the word "men" read "people", or did the demons only devour males? "Persian غول — an imaginary sylvan demon, supposed to devour men and animals." Dylan Hickey 71.108.185.189 15:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don’t think Persian women were in the habit of wandering around the forest alone. In some cultures, something corresponding to the ghoul preyed primarily on children, in others it was men. In cultures where men, women, and children were apt to find themselves wandering alone in the wild, then the victims were the people. —Stephen ^(Talk) 22:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is this category for, and isn't it redundant to Category:English phrases? TeleComNasSprVen 00:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This category is for phrasebook entries. See WT:PB. --Yair rand 01:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Moreover some of the things in Category:English phrasebook aren't phrases, like "hello". --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

¶ Is it possible here to actually report people’s IP addresses to the local law‐enforcement, for certain threats they make? --Pilcrow 00:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Normally, no. If somebody makes a concrete threat to assassinate a politician such as Obama, then maybe. What threats do you mean? —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

¶ Some spoiled little child made a rape (injury) threat here. I am not very intimidated, but if he was arrested, then it would mean one less vandal to worry about. --Pilcrow 19:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There's WT:VIP if you're looking for the virtual law-enforcement, but as far as I am aware (and IANAL) an online entity like Wiktionary shouldn't be responsible for reporting people in real life.— lexicógrafa | háblame — 20:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)(edited 20:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC))

There have been cases where threats on enWP were reported to (real-life) law-enforcement officials. I can't seem to find a page on enWP/Meta that discusses this, but I have seen it in the past.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Then I concede. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 20:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth I did check that user when it happened. If the threats were more detailed or persistent Wikimedia's legal people could pursue it, but this instance is almost certainly not enough to get any authorities interested. - DaveRoss 21:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That type of stuff is common vandalism and can be reverted promptly, not even eligible for Oversight, let alone filing a request to the local authorities to have the problem dealt with. This is mainly a volunteer-run site anyway.In the extremely rare case, however, that something actually awful or serious happen, like what Stephen G. Brown mentions, there are varioius places for asking the Wikimedia Foundation itself, including Wikipedia:Abuse response and emergency-at-wikimedia-dot-org, but it's highly improbably that anyone will get in touch with them anytime soon. TeleComNasSprVen 23:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The entry for Romanus says it is a proper noun. Why proper? Does Latin consider nouns denoting citizens of a certain place as belonging to the same category as people's names? Or are we extending the English grammar rules to also cover Latin nouns? And if it is a proper noun, what effect did that have in a language written only with capital letters? --AdiJapan 10:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not a proper noun. English speakers tend to extend English grammar and orthographic rules to cover all other languages. —Stephen ^(Talk) 11:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought. I changed the article. -AdiJapan 03:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

But you didn't move it to the lowercase article. SemperBlotto 06:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. AdiJapan 09:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The entry for chartered, may I suggest should read Chartered as this denotes the status granted by Royal Charter? MikeBeckett 13:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In some cases it may be used capitalized, but not generally. It's a bit like general versus General in Attorney General, or king versus King in King Albert (whatever really). Plus charter isn't capitalized and you can have a past tense of it. We certainly can't move the page, but I suppose someone might see fit to created Chartered separately - but I'd rather they didn't. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

¶ What, may I ask, does Special:Nuke do and why does it exist? --Pilcrow 17:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Equinox ◑ 17:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is our entry Carborundum capitalized? I don’t think the word was ever capitalized except when it was part of a company name or in a title or headline. As far as I know, there is no more reason to capitalize it than there is to capitalize steel. —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The word was first a trademark according to other dictionaries. It seems more like Kleenex than steel. DCDuring TALK 07:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking back as far as to 1900, I can’t find any reference that uses it as a proper noun. If it ever was, it must have been short-lived. It has been written in minuscule for over 110 years already. The word was certainly coined, just as telephone and automobile were, but I don’t find any evidence that it has recently been a proper noun. To me, it seems more like telephone than Kleenex. —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I am relying on authorities. I know it is used in lower case. Perhaps there are still some lawyers defending the brand against dictionary publishers. DCDuring TALK 08:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the authorities I relied on and often find helpful are to be found conveniently via OneLook.com, which has RHU, AHD, MWOnline, Webster 1913, Webster 1828, WNW, various basic Collins, Macmillan, Oxford, and Cambridge dictionaries, Wordnet, and numerous specialized dictionaries and glossaries.

This is almost always used uncapitalized. The OED says it is used as "A proprietary name for abrasive substances and preparations." We should move it to uncapitalized, retaining an "alternative capitalization" entry. SemperBlotto 08:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know the correct translation of there but for the grace of god, i go in arabic? Thanks

• probably something like :- هناك ولكن لنعمة الله، وأنا أذهب SemperBlotto 19:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Pneumococco

pls advise if is necessary to give this vaccine to kid??

We are a dictionary, not a doctor. ---> Tooironic 23:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hark,hark, the dogs do bark The beggars are coming to town Some in rags, some in TAGS And one in a velvet gown.

What are tags please?

I believe tags refers to slits in a person’s coat or shirt that expose material of a different color. This was all the rage in the Tudor period. —Stephen ^(Talk) 11:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

¶ I know that a form is different from a term, but I do not know if there are any significant distinctions between archaic forms and obsolete forms. My assumption is this:

Obsolete terms are no longer used and not likely to be understood.
Archaic terms are no longer used but still likely to be correctly understood.

Unless I am mistaken, that is the general rule for such terms, but am I incorrect to think it applies to forms as well? ¶ I am asking this since ‘authourship’ was marked as an obsolete spelling after I marked it as an archaic spelling, but I do not see how a typical English reader would not recognize it as an older form of ‘authorship’. This leads me to believe that obsolete forms and obsolete terms are marked based on different rules. ¶ May I please know if I am incorrect about this? Thank you. --Pilcrow 01:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. Usually we talk about "obsolete" vs. "archaic" in terms of whether someone would likely understand it, but really the question is whether someone would likely be familiar with it. If "beautifulth" was a common word four hundred years ago, but its last use was almost three hundred years ago, then today it is "obsolete", not "archaic", never mind that anyone could easily tell what it must mean. Contrast, say, "thou", which is completely opaque unless you're familiar with it, but which is still widely understood because people are familiar with it (even though most couldn't use it correctly themselves). I can't comment on "authourship", because I just don't know about its usage. You say that a typical English reader would recognize it as an older form of "authorship", and I don't know if that's true. As an American reader, I "recognize" it (mistakenly, it seems) as a British spelling; and I suspect that a British reader would "recognize" it as a misspelling, rather than specifically as an older form. —Ruakh_TALK 02:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

¶ It sounds like a crude last resort to mark it simply based on the time‐period of its common usage. Such terms can be kept in recognition—but not in standards—by influential writers of long‐lasting reputation, such as King James or William Shakespeare. ¶ I think I should re‐phrase myself in sayïng that it would be recognized as an older form; alone, yes, it can be considered an incorrect spelling, but in the whole of an archaic context (exemplum: a novel written in the 18th century ): it could be considered an old form, much like ‘booke’. Feel free to challenge this if you disagree. --Pilcrow 03:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: "It sounds like a crude last resort to mark it simply based on the time‐period of its common usage": On the contrary, that is the whole point. The reason that people are familiar with archaisms is that they still get used, just in very restricted contexts. There are plenty of terms in Shakespeare and the KJV that are no longer familiar; try using "head" to mean "source" and see how many people understand you. Re: "in the whole of an archaic context (exemplum: a novel written in the 18th century ): it could be considered an old form": Sorry, but that's not right. A novel written in the eighteenth century isn't "an archaic context"; and none of our readers is about to go out and write a novel written in the eighteenth century. An (archaic) tag implies that something is still used as an archaism — it's something that people still use to sound archaic (at least in quotations and whatnot). —Ruakh_TALK 12:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

¶ Perhaps I explained poorly; what I intended is that it could be assumed as normal and congruent with the now archaic style that was consistently utilised, and it would be seen as old‐fashioned rather than incorrect. I cannot tell if that sounds significantly different to you, but I certainly never intended to imply anything about time‐travel. --Pilcrow 21:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you explained fine. I just mean that the purpose of "archaic" vs. "obsolete" is to distinguish between (on the one hand) terms/senses/forms that are currently used as archaisms, that people are familiar with and recognize and understand, and (on the other) terms/senses/forms that are not currently used at all, that people are not familiar with and won't recognize and will only understand insofar as they're decipherable from form and/or context. One group who needs this distinction is writers trying to sound archaic (for whatever reason): they will not succeed by peppering their writing with obsolete terms/senses/forms, because obsolete things aren't recognized as obsolete. If I'm reading a book written a few hundred years ago, I'll assume that unfamiliar spellings are merely obsolete (e.g., I seem to recall Pride and Prejudice spelling show with an <e>), but if I'm reading a book written today, these spellings will seem "wrong" rather than "old", and won't give an archaic flavor. —Ruakh_TALK 21:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't a salient fact in the authorship/authourship distinction that there is no pronunciation difference and that the "-or"/"-our" alternatives are both fairly widely understood in virtually all written contexts? That some US or UK teachers and usage authorities would discourage the -our or -or spelling, respectively, seems like a broadly applicable point, probably not worth mentioning in each entry with an applicable "-our" or "-or". Should some Appendix and/or Category be created to be linked to from the Usage notes or See also (or pronunciation ?) section of all such entries? DCDuring TALK 16:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: "That some UK teachers and usage authorities would discourage the -or spelling": I thought the point here was that they don't: that even U.K. writers apparently write "author" and "authorship" nowadays. (Not to be confused with "humor" and "color" and "honor", which they still interpolate u's into.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As much as we might try and be prescriptive to our own editors, I think editors use {{archaic}} and {{obsolete}} more or less interchangeably. While individual editors might use them in slightly different ways, overall, they're used synonymously (more or less). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The rule I use is whether I am familiar with the meaning of the word and know that it is not in common use anymore. If so, then I call it archaic. If I don't know the word at all or believe that not many people would know it, it's obsolete. When it comes to different spellings I am not really sure, people tend to avoid older spellings much more than they avoid older words, because people tend to be more pedantic about spelling than about vocabulary. —CodeCat 17:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I do the same as a first cut.

@MG: Contributors may do many things poorly, but we probably should maintain the distinction as it is maintained by many unabridged dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Ruakh is absolutely right. An obsolete word is no longer in use; an archaic word is, but it sounds very old-fashioned. Most words are never archaic: they become "rare" and then "obsolete". Ƿidsiþ 19:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

They would also be "dated" at some point... —CodeCat 19:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This is actually the first I've ever heard of this distinction. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, is this anything to do with Wikipedia? How does it work here, how can I help?

Thanks :)

We're the sister project of Wikipedia; we don't have the same rules and norms as Wikipedia, among other reasons, as we have different aims. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm from hiwikt and I'm an admin there. I don't know whether it is right platform to ask my question because I was confused after looking at so many options. So I'm posting here. Can someone tell me how to change the main page image on the top left side of hiwikt? Is there any link where this can be done? Please help me. Thanks a lot in advance. रोहित रावत 05:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be something seriously wrong with your Main Page. I can see your talk page at hi:सदस्य_वार्ता:रोहित_रावत without any problem, but the main page at hi:मुख्य_पृष्ठ gives me a blank screen, not even the wiki tabs. If I try to edit your main page at मुख्य_पृष्ठ, it appears to be uncreated. Maybe someone else knows more about this. —Stephen ^(Talk) 19:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I found the main page (hi:) but couldn't work out how to edit the image, presumably something in the MediaWiki namespace. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the logo? If so, you can change that by uploading a new image at hi:File:Wiki.png and requesting that it be changed at bugzilla:. --Yair rand 17:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Could it be that these two words have a common linguistic ancestor? Just wondering if maybe "trespass" entered English via Norman French and gave birth to "traipse." Any thoughts?

It seems at least possible, our entry for traipse says "origin unknown". Mglovesfun (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

See Douglas Harper (2001–2024) “trespass”, in Online Etymology Dictionary. and Douglas Harper (2001–2024) “traipse”, in Online Etymology Dictionary.. DCDuring TALK 14:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sysops - please, unprotect my page page User:Aulis Eskola. I am not sysop now and I can not edit my own page. --Aulis Eskola 19:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. —Stephen ^(Talk) 19:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I grew up in west Texas in the late '60's. I was taught that the spelling of family was fambly. I can find next to nothing as to why this would have happened. Any ideas? Timbo205.145.17.20 12:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The pronunciations (and often spellings) such as "fambly" and "chimbly" were brought to Texas and other places by immigrants from 17th-century and 18th-century Virginia, and before that from a family of regional dialects spoken throughout the south and west of England during the 17th century in counties such as Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire, Dorset, Devon, Wiltshire, Oxford and Gloucester. —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

dear sir. What are the quantifiers in noun phrase?

dear sir. In a noun phrase we have to find out which are quantifiers.could you tell me how to trace out 'quantifiers 'in a N P?

In the noun phrase "many people", many is the quantifier. In the phrase "all the voters", all is the quantifier. In "some food", some is the quantifier. —Stephen ^(Talk) 07:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. At turn the tables there is no information about the transitives. I've seen used "turn the tables ON someone" but also "turn the tables AGAINST someone", "turn the tables UPON someone", and sometimes "turn the tables OVER someone" -- but I'm not sure which ones are considered proper, and what difference there may be between them. The notes and examples seem only concerned with an antiquated passive use: could they be updated with modern use? (Also, there's no etymology? I've read once it was about Jesus turning the tables of the Temple's merchants in the Bible, but that seemed bogus.) 62.147.25.51 15:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The correct form is "he turned the tables ON me". I can’t think of any scenario where "turn the tables AGAINST someone" would be usable, and "turn the tables UPON someone" is simply wrong. "Turn the tables OVER someone" is missing a part..."he turned the tables on his boss OVER me" (OVER someone means "because of someone"). —Stephen ^(Talk) 07:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

On Google Books, all of them seem to be attestable except "over" which is not used idiomatically. "On" is by far the most common however. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 18:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I recently came across handsaw and hand saw and noticed that the latter is listed (somewhat arbitrarily) as an alternative form of the former. It seems to me like someone reading about handsaw may wish to know that hand saw is an alternative form, but currently they have no way of knowing other than combing through Special:Whatlinkshere/handsaw. Is there some conventional way of listing and cross-linking variations of words in entries? Thanks. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone answered my question by adding an "Alternative forms" section. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Being a new boy, please excuse my naivety. I wish to create a new page with new heading. Help/ advice please. Thanking you brianwstroud

We have several help pages aimed at people who would like to start out. Maybe Help:Starting a new page and Wiktionary:Tutorial would be useful to you. You will need to create an account, because only registered users can create new pages on Wiktionary. Personally, I would advise to look at existing entries to see how they are done. Maybe, as a first try, you could copy an entry and change what you need to change, but you have to be careful that you don't miss anything from the original entry. If you have any questions, feel free to ask here, and you can send me a message on my user talk page as well. Good luck, and thank you for wanting to help! —CodeCat 13:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

But you can't create entries we already have (cf. food for thought). --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

¶ Is it necessary for a pronunciation to be attestable? I think the pronunciation for ‘phantasy’ would logically be /ˈpʰæntəˌsi/, but even though it makes sense (it’s aspirated), I am afraid it will be removed since it is unusual. --Pilcrow 00:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Not just unusual, but impossible: English doesn't have /pʰ/, and can't have it word-initially, because /p/ is pronounced word-initially, so there would be no way to make the distinction. But to answer your more general question — pronunciations should reflect how the word is actually pronounced, not how it would make sense if it were pronounced. In this case, that is with an /f/, not with a /p/. —Ruakh_TALK 00:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

¶ “impossible”: Is that an exaggeration? Although to be honest: I am not overly familiar with International Phonetics, so I do not tamper with pronunciations. Regardless, thank you for assisting myself. --Pilcrow 04:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:regex where the best I could think of was linking to a couple of YouTube videos(!!) --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a word that refers to the act of removing bullets from a gun? RJFJR 20:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

¶ Not necessarily from a ‘gun’, but unloading could be the correct term. --Pilcrow 20:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

What part of speech are you looking for? And what kind of removal? "To empty (a gun)" is nearly always to fire it repeatedly until it has no more bullets; sometimes, rarely, it is to remove all of the bullets from it by reversing the loading process. "To empty (bullets)" is much less common, and can refer to either of these, or can even (oddly) be to fire bullets, without necessarily firing all of the bullets in the gun. "To unload (a gun)" is usually to remove all of the bullets from it by reversing the loading process, but often it's to fire it repeatedly until it has no more bullets, or maybe sometimes (I'm not sure) just to fire it one or more times. "To unload (bullets)" is much less common, but has similar semantics to "to unload (a gun)", except that I'm certain it can just be firing it one or more times. I assume you're familiar with the semantic ranges of "to fire (a gun)", "to fire (bullet)", "to shoot (a gun)", and "to shoot (bullets)". —Ruakh_TALK 21:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

¶ Has there ever been a term—in English or otherwise—where the w that begins the word has a vowel phoneme? It seems like w can only be a vowel if it is not a prime letter. --Pilcrow 21:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

In Welsh, w is usually a vowel, like /ʊ/. For instance, the word wyneb is pronounced /ʊinɛb/ (not /winɛb/). The wy- is similar in sound to the ooey of English gooey. The word cacwn is pronounced /kakʊn/, and wthio (push) is /ʊθio/. —Stephen ^(Talk) 13:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that the entries for center and centre include at least 8 or so of the exact same definitions. This overlap seems like it will inevitably lead to maintainence issues, as small problems are fixed in one place but not the other. Is there a better way to deal with cases like this? Dcoetzee (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

We tried a different way with center/centre using the template Template:center-centre-noun (for the translation sections). It was arranged so that editing the entries actually edited the template, which was embedded in each spelling. The same thing could be done with definitions, but I don’t think it was very popular. It has since been deleted. —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

For the translations we can use {{trans-see}} for the shared senses. We could do something analogous for sense-dependent items (eg, synonyms). The "Derived terms" would be different. But significantly, different senses may emerge in different regions corresponding to the regions of each spelling. It is also convenient to reflect any corresponding difference in pronunciation. It seems to me that any effort to simultaneously reflect the commonality and the differences will make the entry very unwikilike. For simple, stub-like entries we use {{alternative form of}}. Once there is legitimate distinct content it seems to me that we have to accept the maintenance problem that may develop.

Perhaps we should have a bot periodically do regex comparisons for such entries of the inflection lines, definitions (not labeled as regional), headings, and certain other content. The bot could create lists for manual cleanup until we can determine items that can be automagically cleaned up. Easy for me to say. DCDuring TALK 16:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

See what I did with mold and mould. It may not be the best way, but it works. -- Prince Kassad 16:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

For cases like this, where the vast majority of the definitions will be the same, there should be one entry covering both spellings. That is what all other dictionaries I have ever seen do. In the odd instance where there is a different regional sense, an individual definition can be labelled "US", "UK" or whatever. Duplicating reams of definitions and maintaining them separately just because of a regional spelling difference is, frankly, daft (no offence intended). 86.176.212.231 13:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason that "all other dictionaries" you have seen do it is that those are print dictionaries used in a particular country. The OED probably lists American spellings and refers the reader to the British word for the defintions. The American Heritage also lists British spellings, but with redirects to the American word. Wiktionary cannot be localized like that. Americans want to look up words in American spellings, British want to look them up in British spellings, and nobody wants to have to use what he may well consider to be a misspelling to see the particulars of a word. —Stephen ^(Talk) 18:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not true. When a word has multiple spellings within a single region, other dictionaries still have a single entry for both spellings. —Ruakh_TALK 19:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you think I said? Unless I misunderstand what you’ve just written, you are agreeing with what I said. I have never seen the OED, so I can only guess about that, but the American Heritage and the Random House (American dictionaries) put all of the information about center at center, and centre is explained as a British spelling and the reader is referred to center for its definition and etymology. —Stephen ^(Talk) 19:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the anon: we should have a single entry for both spellings. These are a single word. Even when a sense is specific to a country that supposedly uses only one spelling, the sense is almost certainly attested in both spellings. —Ruakh_TALK 19:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• I agree, and as far as I'm concerned it's standard practice here to use the entry which was created first as the main lemma. So I've merged (deprecated template usage) centre into (deprecated template usage) center. As a Brit, it looks a bit weird to me, but that is the spelling used by Shakespeare and Milton so it hardly seems worth complaining. Ƿidsiþ 07:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

... ... but not by Chaucer! Dbfirs 09:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to make both entries redirects to a single common entry that mentions both spellings? This would avoid arguments about which spelling "is better" or "came first" etc. Dbfirs 15:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

We tried it once (see Stephen's answer, above) but it proved unworkable. Ƿidsiþ 16:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean a template, just a simple redirect, but I'll accept your expert opinion that it was unworkable. It seems a pity that we can't find an inclusive solution, like the OED, where the entry has both spellings. Dbfirs 20:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

They can't be redirects, because in each case there are identically-spelled words in other languages. —Ruakh_TALK 20:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, thanks, I see the problem. I suppose we could have a link back to the foreign language entries for each spelling, but it would be slightly messy. Dbfirs 17:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I need someone to do me a solid and fix some IPA pronunciations for me: please go through all of the entries in Category:Classical Syriac language and find and replace:

• →
• →

You're looking at ~370 entries that need to be edited (hopefully, that doesn't take too long). --334a 22:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

But ä isn't a valid IPA character..? —CodeCat 22:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure it is, it's a combination of plus the diacritic used for centralization. The IPA has no specific character set aside to represent that vowel (w:Open central unrounded vowel), but it can be represented using diacritics on a few characters designated for other vowels. --334a 23:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind. I guess if there's no "official" unique sign for the Open central unrounded vowel (yet), it's not worth changing now only to change it again later. --334a 16:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to introduce the word 'hopecatcher' to the world.

I was instructed in a dream/vision to spread the word, by my spiritual ancestors-the Lakota people.

Most people know dream catchers, but not the hopecatcher.

The reason they do not know of the hope catcher, is because until now, it has never been heard of.

I am the first to mention a hopecatcher and I am humbled but honoured to be the messenger.

We all know what a dream catcher is.

A hope catcher works in the same way but it deals with hope's as well as dreams.

I couldn't find 'hopecatcher' or hope catcher on Google search (except for my own website)

I searched Wikipedia too, but could not find any reference there.

WT:CFI#Attestation. Basically, feel free to create your own words, just don't add them here. Use a blog or facebook instead. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you would like to make your message known to the world, but Wiktionary is not a place for publishing new material. It deals only with what already exists and is known to other people. However, we do have something called a protologism, which is a word that has not yet become used, but has been 'invented' in the hope that it will be. Your word seems to fit that description. So the best I can offer you is to look at Wiktionary:Protologisms and Appendix:List of protologisms. —CodeCat 14:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I am new to Wiktionary...I wanted to add a new entry which I did but when I observe it, it shows as a template. How do I create a new entry that does not appear as a template? unsigned comment by Jd300 20:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You used "{{" in front of everything, which indicates a template name. I redid candiseta for you without the "{{" except where appropriate. You should look at it right away, because it is not a Spanish word that I have heard before and the entry will be deleted unless you can show that it is really a Spanish word. I searched millions of Spanish books and did not find that word anywhere. —Stephen ^(Talk) 21:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is the Wiktionary pronunciation missing the third syllable as in dictionary as shown below ? Is Wiktionary British based where that syllable is sometimes omitted ?

(UK) IPA: /ˈdɪkʃən(ə)ɹi/, SAMPA: /"dIkS@n(@)ri/ (North America) enPR: dĭk'shə-nĕr-ē, IPA: /ˈdɪkʃənɛɹi/, SAMPA: /"dIkS@nEri/

See WT:FAQ. The logo's creator used this pronunciation and no one has changed the logo since. I personally think that it's high time for a new logo but we've been over this before and nothing was found to be suitable.... —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 00:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, how can I get a clean plain-text version of the words from the pages at Index:English? Simply copying from the web pages results in a bit of a mess because there are no line breaks and all the part-of-speech labels and other annotations are included. 86.176.212.231 11:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No idea, but ask User:Conrad.Irwin. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)