User talk:-sche

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search




Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here! By the way, you can sign your comments on talk (discussion) pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name (or IP number if you're not signed in) and the current date and time. If you have any questions, then see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my talk page.​—msh210 (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


There's nothing wrong with including quotations from blogs and other informal sources though they wouldn't count for verification. Web pages and forums are fickle, and usually a paraphrased example sentence is better. The latter are the only quotations I would consider deleting.

In this case the durability of the quotation may be in question, but that does not mean deletion is acceptable. It was included with the hope of confirming the original source, one that other works we'd consider durable might choose to cite. It may be the case that confirmation will never be possible, but supposing it were, and that the quotation was still not considered durably archived, and then an author came along and put the quotation to print, does it make more sense to you to cite the original speaker indirectly just because the other source is durable?

I mean, any alleged significance of Rush aside, I'm sure there are many important speeches, by presidents, royalty and the like, that are only known from transcription. Do we not attribute these to that person directly, or do we always have to say it's according to such-and-such durable source? DAVilla 05:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't thought of that, but you're right, we can and should have illustrative quotations even if they do not count towards verification (whether because they're mentions and not uses of words, or because they're questionably archived). I don't understand how the quotation of Limbaugh helps confirm the original source (of the word?) — is he supposed to have coined it? As for comments by presidents and kings, I believe we do cite sources (recorded broadcasts, transcriptions, or published copies of speeches, for instance) even when quoting those. But you're right, we can keep the Limbaugh quotation as illustrative. - -sche (discuss) 20:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Translations of attributive use of nouns[edit]

What do you think of encouraging translations of nouns to, in principle, include also the adjectives that translate attributive use of the English noun? I expect that the need for and value of this differs by language, ranging from completely unnecessary through predictable to essential.

How much of this already occurs in translations?

If it makes sense to you in principle, how would it be implemented? Or is there an emerging standard where it already is occurring?

If it can be implemented, how should it be encouraged? DCDuring TALK 22:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: "what do you think", "how would it be implemented?": You commented in the RFV discussion of belt and suspenders that we could allow adjectives as translations of English nouns to address the fact that English uses nouns attributively where other languages use adjectives. I thought and think that a good idea. (I don't want to preach to the choir, but for anyone else reading this, my argument for it is: it seems already required by our policy of including all accurate translations; if brass can be used in two ways, "that metal is brass" and "the brass knob", but we only provide the translation that works in uses like "that metal is brass", we're missing an accurate translation. Also, it represents a smaller change to our current practices than allowing unjustified adjective sections for English words or allowing foreign language entries to have translations.) I used the RFV-failures of the adjective sections of cork and brass to try it: I moved the adjective translations into the noun section. I standardised my language in both entries (corresponding to English attributive use, meaning ‘...’:), but I wouldn't call that an emerging standard; I'd like to shorten the language as much as possible. Do you have any preferred format / language?
Re: "How much of this already occurs in translations?": So far, I have only preserved existing information; I haven't added new information of this kind to any entry, nor have I seen it in other entries. However, I have seen the counterpart quite often — foreign language nouns in the translation sections of English adjectives (like Dutch: model- in model).
Re: "how should it be encouraged?": I don't know. How have we encouraged things like Dutch: model- (nouns in adjective sections)?
Do you think we should bring this up in the Beer Parlour? - -sche (discuss) 04:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
What is at [[cork]] and [[brass]] is very explicit but a bit long. Perhaps we should start with a template with that long explanation. Then we could shorten the explanation if folks object to the length and do so at once for all similar entries. The long text has value in publicizing the approach initially no matter what shortened text we might subsequently settle on.
As for encouragement: One approach might be to locate entries that have English noun and adjective sections with "noncomparable" adjectives and translation sections for the adjective. Those adjective sections could be RfVed where appropriate and the translations merged into the noun section with {{ttbc}}. Another possibility would be to insert {{trreq}} or a specialized version thereof ({{trreq-attr}} to explicitly request adjective translations. Or we could start discussions on Talk pages for one language at a time either at the "About XXX" pages or of leading contributors in language XXX.
Clearly this would need some discussion, certainly at BP. Do you have a sense for how many languages would require this kind of additional translation? This effort would presumably focus on common nouns first, but is the same thing required for proper nouns? What languages are you comfortable with? (Where's your Babel box?) To the extent we don't have comfort with a range of languages (I don't have much to contribute outside of English) we might want to test the idea with a range of languages: Germanic, Romance, Ugaritic, Slavic, CJKV, Arabic, Hebrew, Hindi, etc., wherever someone might be receptive to the issue. Or we could go straight to the Beer Parlor. DCDuring TALK 11:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I like the idea of a template to introduce adjective translations; in addition to being modifiable, it would be subst:able if we ever decided we preferred raw text to the template. I also like the idea of a {{trreq-attr}} — and I think we would need such a separate template, at least at first, because users are used to {{trreq}} in a noun's translation section meaning only ‘please add noun translations of this noun’. (Postscript: it occurs to me we could just modify the text of {{trreq}}.) As for how else to encourage translations: I'd rather approach contributors of foreign languages than seek out adjective sections to delete/‘move’. We should probably raise the subject in the BP before creating too many test entries, though, if only to get others' feedback on format. Matthias Buchmeier just had an interesting idea here, of putting attributive-use translations in a separate trans-box. I'm not sure which style is better, but we should probably pick one or the other.
I can contribute German and to varying extents other Baltic-Sea-bordering languages, but the hard part is thinking of applicable words, words that are nouns in English and not also adjectives but that are nouns and adjectives in the other languages. Perhaps simply going through English nouns that are not also adjectives is a way to go, as it seems most English nouns can be used attributively. - -sche (discuss) 20:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
We could certainly have someone prepare a list of English entries that have noun sections and no adjective sections. Even better would be a similar list of English etymology sections with the same characteristics. Matthias's idea is more appealing the greater the share of languages that require an adjective translation. I suppose most inflected languages must need one.
I suppose we are as ready as it pays to be before bringing it to BP. My only question is whether to wait we have a large number of senior editors active: August is a slow month. DCDuring TALK 21:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there a way to a way to prepare a list of common words that meet those criteria? I expect a complete list would be very long, tens of thousands of words. (We could always just flip through such a comprehensive list manually and pick out common words, of course.) Metals may be a good place to start, as many languages have adjectives for those, where English (to my surprise) often only has nouns. We can certainly wait until September to bring this up; perhaps I can create a few more trial/example entries in the interim. - -sche (discuss) 00:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Spruce is now another test/trial/example entry, as a result of a failed RFV. - -sche (discuss) 22:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Add replacements to edit summary[edit]

In AWB Options > Normal setting uncheck 'Add replacements to edit summary' and it'll make the edit summaries only what you put in the 'Default Summary' box. Makes edit summaries shorter and more 'human'. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks for the tip. :) - -sche (discuss) 18:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


I'd like to take over WOTD — at least for now. I've already set up new words for October 28-31 to get the ball rolling again. Looking over diffs to see what others had done allowed me to figure out the basics, but there's still many other things I need to know about the process, especially what I need to do to create an archive, set up a new month, and polish the entry pages for words before they appear. Thanks! Astral (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you're interested!
The front-end part is simple—pick words and plug them into the templates. You're already doing a good job of that; I like your Halloween pick. As you seem to have gathered, the last definition doesn't end with a full stop/period (though if a word has multiple definitions, the preceding definitions do), because the template already adds one: double-dotted vs fixed. Featured words should have pronunciation info (either IPA or audio); the template will automatically notice and include an audio pronunciation if one is present.
The more additional info an entry has, like etymology, illustration or examples of usage, the more interesting it is likely to be to users who click through to it; on the other hand, trying to cite and find a picture for every word you feature on WOTD is a recipe for burning out. Strategise.
Once you've set a word, add the was-wotd template to the entry, so that it won't be featured again (mostly).
To create an archive, do what Ruakh did here, changing {{wotd archive|PREVIOUS|NEXT|YEAR|DAYS}} to the previous month, the next month, the year (four digits) and the number of days in the month (28, 29, 30, 31), and updating the pagename to the relevant month and year. An easy way of creating an archive is to copy-and-paste the relevant month's Recycled Page, e.g. Wiktionary:Word of the day/Recycled pages/October, simply changing {{wotd recycled}} to {{wotd archive}} and adding the YEAR and DAYS parameters.
At the end of the month, subst: all of the templates by changing each day's {{Wiktionary:Word of the day to {{subst:Wiktionary:Word of the day. The reason for not subst:ing a day before it's done is that someone might tweak the definition or fix a typo, etc.
- -sche (discuss) 04:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. This is very helpful. I've got a couple of questions. First, I'm not good with IPA, so is there a way I could arrange for someone who is to add pronunciation data to entries before they appear? Second, is it okay to occasionally select words I've nominated myself? I already did this with trainiac, because I wanted something "fun" between mulct and peri-urban, but I don't want to do it again if it's something that should be avoided. Astral (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, exactly how far back does the prohibition against using words featured as WOTDs on other sites go? It makes sense not to copy words other sites have featured recently, but three, four, five years back seems like a another matter. I need a verb, and wanted to use photobomb, but it was featured on Urban Dictionary in 2009, and more recently as a noun on September 28 of this year. Astral (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
So, I chose ambuscade instead, only to discover it was a Merriam Webster WOTD in 2010. Can't win. :( Astral (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I'm not Sche (@Sche: feel free to correct me on anything I say). Anyway, I think that choosing words that you nominate is fine, and that if you find a concise way to list all the entries you want IPA for pronto (on a subpage, maybe?) I would be happy to help out, as would Sche, Angr, et al. (probably) given their past contributions in that regard (and they're probably more trustworthy than I am). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you can just comment that you'd like to feature a word but it lacks pronunciation info. Many users watch that page, and someone should take care of it. And yes, you can feature words you've nominated—at least, I did. It's probably best to let a couple days pass between when you nominate a word and when you use it, in case anyone comments with objections, but I doubt anything you nominate will be objectionable (you know not to nominate redlinks or offensive words). As for other sites' words of the day: personally, I never paid much attention to that rule; I checked if a word had been featured on another site in the past few months, and if not, looked no further. Sometimes, people would strike words that had been featured by other sites years ago, and in those cases, I respected the strikings and didn't use those words, but I didn't strike words that had been featured by other sites years ago myself. - -sche (discuss) 05:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


The language is called Asu but the code for it is asa. That could be confusing... I wonder why they didn't make a bit of effort at ISO to make sure that all languages with 3 letter names would have codes identical to their names. —CodeCat 19:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I've wondered that myself. They did give a few languages homographic codes, like Aja and Adi, and sometimes codes are based on different names, like {{ado}}, which we and they call "Abu" but which is distinguished from several other "Abu"s as "Adjora". But other times, it looks the task of assigning unique codes to several thousand different things got the better of them... "Ali" is {{aiy}} because {{ali}} is "Amaimon", which doesn't even have an "l" in its name! - -sche (discuss) 21:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
PS I may request to rename "Asu" soon, as it may be more commonly, unambiguously and autonymically called "Chasu". - -sche (discuss) 21:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


Hi there. Could you check the comparative and superlative in the headword and the declension table please. I'm getting a bit confused between different online sites. Thanks. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's a tricky one. The positive form (mittel) used to inflect (in mittler Nacht/in mitteler Nacht), but fell out of (most) use before the modern era. The comparative and superlative forms remain in use, but the comparative is now often used as if it were the positive form (hence the book title Der mittlere Weg: Glaube und Vernunft in Harmonie). And the positive form is now in use again, but indeclinable(!). The headword line of "mittel" is correct (the comparative is "mittlerer", the lemma form of the superlative is "am mittelsten"), but the declension tables are wrong. I'll have to check how the templates work to fix them. - -sche (discuss) 22:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


Hi. Please don't remove this info entirely. It can go into the Etymology section, to be dated later. Equinox 18:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hm, what do you propose the etymology should say? "Was [and may still be] a trademark"? It would be unjustified (unverified) in some cases, and obviously incorrect in others, to say "originated as a trademark": "Doom" didn't, "Apple" didn't, "Peugeot" didn't—"Peugeot" was applied to people from a certain family long before it was applied to companies or cars. "Häagen-Dazs" is among the relatively few that I can tell at first glance did originate as a trademark. The mere fact that a string of letters may have been trademarked at some point is info the lawyers among us advised us to exclude, because we practically speaking cannot, and should not attempt to, render and publish a judgement on the validity of trademark claims about every word we have. ("Tide" is trademarked? "Water" might be trademarked in Nepal for all we know.) Hence my simple removal of the template in most cases... - -sche (discuss) 19:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Is a trade mark the same as a brand name? I think "brand name" is free of any legal implications so we can use that instead. —CodeCat 19:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
But what do you propose the etymology should say? "Was [and may still be] a brand name"? (That's hardly "information" at all... that's non-information, except to the extent that it's unverified, often-missing and other times perhaps erroneously/wrongly-included information.) It would be unjustified (unverified) in some cases, and obviously incorrect in others, to say "originated as a brand name": "Doom" didn't, "Apple" didn't, "Peugeot" didn't... - -sche (discuss) 19:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
If its definition is as a brand name, then I don't think that should really be in the etymology. If a word originated as a brand but isn't a brand anymore (like sellotape) then that should be in the etymology. Not all names of products are brand names though... is "iMac" a brand name? So maybe "brand name" isn't fitting. I'd still prefer to avoid "trade mark" at all though. —CodeCat 19:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
(after e/c, as an afterthought:) If anyone is proposing simply replacing {{trademark}} with {{brand name}}: no, all the reasons it was decided not to indicate the current or past trademark status of words are reasons we cannot and should not try to indicate the current or past status of words as brand names. - -sche (discuss) 19:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

WOTD again[edit]

We only have a couple more days of WOTD and no replacement for Astral, unless I missed something. Are you interested in taking it up again? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have much time to give it, though I'll see if I can set a few more days. Fortunately, WOTD is fail-safe and keeps running even if no-one sets new words; we'll get complaints from a few astute observers that we're showing the same words as last year, but no breakdown. - -sche (discuss) 01:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


I was thinking of creating "sexual apartheid" wit the noun "gender segregation". Its mentioned here. Would that be SOP? Pass a Method (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Good question! The term is on the border between idiomaticity and SOPness, but I think it is SOP in the end.
Our entry on [[apartheid]] does currently limit the term to race, but that's offensichtlich an error—there's e.g. google books:"sectarian apartheid", google books:"religious apartheid" and google books:"income apartheid" in addition to "gender apartheid" and "sexual apartheid".
Wikipedia and other references do define "gender apartheid" and "sex apartheid" as constituting discrimination against women (whereas our entry on apartheid defines it only as separation), but that's just another deficiency of our entry—all apartheids constitute discrimination against one of the separated groups (the original one constituted discrimination against blacks).
The large number of ways of referring to Islamic segregation of the genders (including google books:"female apartheid", google books:"male and female apartheid", google books:"sex apartheid", google books:"sexual apartheid" and google books:"gender apartheid") confirm, IMO, that it's SOP. - -sche (discuss) 19:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Great info. I like you :) Pass a Method (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


The fourth entry in God does not make sense. "An omnipotent being, creator of the universe (as in deism)." Deists don't believe in an omnipotent deity. They simply see god as the initiator of the big bang. Pass a Method (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi! sorry for not getting back to you about this sooner. I'm glad you've moved discussion to the Tea Room, because I don't know that much about the finer points of Deism. - -sche (discuss) 19:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Inscriptions and whatnot[edit]

Discussion moved to WT:T:ALA.

please return definition of attachment[edit]

I agree with your premise.... and the definition you modified it to which could be added as well... however it is a "proper noun" aka terminology specific to lightning and a specific process in an overall lightning event. This would be the same rational for including definition #6... "attachment" (computing) "file attached".

I can provide plenty more if need be.

Thank you! Borealdreams (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for providing that reference (wow, what a title! "attachment of lightning to trees"). - -sche (discuss) 05:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Appreciated. Borealdreams (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello -sche. I have provided the requested backing information regarding Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#flash. I hope this meets your requirements to remove the "verify" request. Also you can see it hear Distribution_of_lightning, but I do need to do a few minor edits. In "Lightning: Physics & Effects" by Uman/Rakov [2003]... it is used in the first paragraph of Chapter 1.2 - Types of Lightning Discharge & Lightning Terminology, '"Lightning, or the lightning discharge, in its entirety, whether it strikes ground or not, is usually termed, a "lightning flash" or just a "flash"" Cheers Borealdreams (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


Can the word scissoring be a noun or adjective with the sexual definition? Pass a Method (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be used as a noun, although I don't know if it's attested (in ways that make it clear its a noun rather than a gerund) in enough durable places to meet CFI. As for adjectival use: the closest thing to adjectival use I can find offhand is that several books use google books:"scissoring motion", one uses "scissoring action", and another uses "in a scissoring fashion"... but that's not very convincing. - -sche (discuss) 03:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Low German and User:Joachim Mos[edit]

This user has been adding Low German words and translations. Since you've been working on it as well, I thought you might be able to help them out. I've tried to explain the difference between nds-de and nds-nl but I'm not sure if I'm getting the point across. —CodeCat 17:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I'll talk to them when I get a chance.
I have (like you, I think) been going through all the transclusions of {{nds}} and replacing them with {{nds-de}} and/or {{nds-nl}} (and/or even sometimes {{pdt}}!), whichever turn(s) out to be applicable... creation of new {{nds}} transclusions is very unhelpful.
I have been tempted to bot-move all transclusions of {{nds}} to e.g. {{nds-xx}} or such just so {{nds}} can be deleted sooner (immediately, with nds-xx left to keep words that haven't specified a dialect yet working until we can review and update them) rather than later (after we finish the long process of reviewing and updating each entry by hand).
Once {{nds}} is unavailable to newcomers, I expect it will be easier to maintain the GLG / DLS distinction. That expectation, the separate existences of nds.WP and nds-nl.WP, and my conviction that it is linguistically better for Wiktionary to distinguish the lects than to conflate them, keep me from being discouraged by the amount of work that has to be done.
I know Wiktionary struggles to keep en and sco separate, and en and enm, but in those cases, the code people want to use to stand for both lects (en) still exists.
I know those who are used to nds.Wiktionary, which prominently merges GLG and DLS, may be unwilling to split them here... but Wikipedia's split of the two proves it is tenable, while nds.Wiktionary's policy of rolling even Plautdietsch into nds is simply untenable. - -sche (discuss) 03:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


Ich weiß nicht, was ihr hier treibt, aber inzwischen wird das hochgestellt (nds) nicht mehr angezeigt, so dass Nutzer keinen Link zum nds.witionary haben. Vielleicht sorgst du einmal dafür, dass die Links wieder funktionieren bei deinem absolut unnötigen Umbau. Im übrigen darf ich dich darauf hinweisen, das nds die Sprache ist und nds-nl einer der Dialekte im Plattdeutschen und keine eigenständige Sprache. Im Plattdüütsch gibt es nämlich auch jede Menge Dialekte und so etwas ähnliches wie eine Hochsprache, zwar keine echte, aber eine, die zumindest in großen Teilen des plattdeutschen Sprachraums gesprochen wird. Und davon weichen einige kleinere Beriche ab. Wenn schon, dann muss du nicht nds-de kreiieren, sondern nds-sleswig, nds-meklenborg, nds-oostfreesland etc. Bei manchen Leuten kann ich nur den Kopf schütteln. Sorg also dringend dafür, dass die Links wieder funktionieren oder ich werde einmal den englischen Admins ein paar nette Zeilen schreiben. --Joachim Mos (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)--Joachim Mos (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Moin Joachim! Öck frei mi, een Mönsch der ok platt snackst to drepen.
Mir ist klar, dass die plattdeutsche Sprache (wie die hochdeutsche) nur als eine Vereinigung von Dialekten greifbar ist. Mir ist doch auch klar dass es zwei ‚Hochsprachen‘ gibt: die in Deutschland auf dem Hochdeutschen basierte nds-de und die in den Niederlanden auf dem Niederländischen basierte nds-nl.
ISO 639 enthält Codes für die meisten niederländische Varietäten (sdz, twd, usw.), und für 1–2 deutsche Varietäten (wep und vll. frs).
Es gab und gibt auch ein Code for die in den Niederlanden gesprochene und geschriebene Hochsprache, nds-nl... und dazu auch die mehrdeutige Code nds. (Das ist alles ganz abgesehen davon, dass es auch pdt gibt.)
Das englische Wiktionary traf die Entscheidung, sdz, twd usw. zu löschen, die niederländische Varietäten mit nds-nl zu kennzeichnen (nicht duplierend mit sdz usw. und nds-nl), und — um Verwirrung zu vermeiden — die deutsche Varietäten mit nds-de zu kennzeichnen. nds ist verwirrend, mehrdeutig: das nds.WP steht als ‚deutsch‘-plattdeutsches WP im Gegensatz zum nds-nl.WP; nds.Wiktionary bündelt hingegen nicht nur die ‚deutsche‘ und ‚niederändische‘ sondern auch die plautdietsche Varietäten zusammen.
If you think the various Low German varieties should be handled another way, you are free to contact my fellow administrators or to start another discussion in the Beer Parlour (we've only had four already).
I will advise you that nds.Wikt's way of doing things — conflating even pdt into nds-de and nds-nl — is unlikely to get any traction here.
As for the links: if {{t|nds-de|foo}} and {{t|nds-nl|foo}} have stopped linking to nds.Wiktionary, that is a bug, and will be fixed.
- -sche (discuss) 18:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

A guide to changes in lect treatment[edit]

I'd like to finish and archive a bunch of RFMs and RFDOs that pertain to language treatment, but I seriously still don't know everything I have to do. I know to deal with the langrev, the template, the category, entries, and translations, and Module:languages, but should I be adding notes to WT:LANGTREAT? And is there anything else I've forgotten? And with Lua, how do we find all the uses of the code - script errors alone?

So that you don't have to do all the future langcode work, perhaps you could write a guide on how to add a new language or delete an old one (covering both hyphenated and ISO codes, in each case). I suggest WT:Guide to lect treatment or WT:LANGTREAT/Guide or something similar. Thank you! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a great idea; I'll see what I can do; other knowledgeable people, like Liliana, can feel free to help out if they're reading this. :b
A few quick observations:
There is AFAIK no longer any easy way to find uses of language codes prior to deleting them, but one can search a database dump for them. I used (\|foo\||\=foo\|) to look for the Pashto codes, and then more elaborate regex for pst when I noticed that a lot of entries contained it not as an invocation of Pashto but as a parameter in Latvian inflection templates.
LANGTREAT should be updated whenever mergers or splits occur, yes. It's currently woefully incomplete. Updating it to cover the various dialect-continuum mergers and other changes that have already taken place over the last year or two is on my to-do list, but feel free to beat me to it. - -sche (discuss) 09:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, that's definitely annoying re eliminating code use. As for the rest, I await your instructions. :) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I've put together Wiktionary:Guide to adding and removing languages. Let me know if anything seems to be missing from it. - -sche (discuss) 09:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
PS, I'm not really satisfied with the name I ended up using, but "Guide to lect treatment" sounded too similar to "Language treatment"... and the page seems to cover territory too different from WT:LANGTREAT's to just merge it into that page, which possibility I also entertained... - -sche (discuss) 09:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not bad, but it could use clarifying, so that people other than me can use it. "Change the langrev" isn't a helpful phrase on its own; it should give an example of what to change it to. Similarly, if we create {{alv-foo}} and then decide to delete it we don't have to edit LANGTREAT, but if we do the same thing with {{foo}}, we do (because we're rejecting an ISO code). That kind of nuance should be detailed on the page. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Looks better, maybe something about adding and deleting langfamily codes as well... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Native American translations of native American species[edit]

I was thinking of including some translation requests in entries for native American species. French and Spanish are of general value because there are populations of speakers. Native American languages would also seem reasonable to add. I would not want to have a vast number and I would want to try to limit the requests only to languages with some interest among contributors and where the pre-Columbian territory of the speakers OR their current location coincided with the range of the species.

Which languages do you think are worthwhile? I know that Stephen Brown does Navaho. Someone has been doing Cherokee. But I am interested in species and languages that are for the northeastern US and adjoining Canada. Virginia and Carolina would be as far south as I would wish to go and not west of Minnesota.

Please don't hesitate to say if you think the whole idea is wrong-headed. DCDuring TALK 00:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. I have access to materials on most of the Algonquian languages and on many Siouan-Catawban languages, in particular Abenaki, Cree, Ojibwe (which Stephen is also knowledgeable of—much more than I am), Lenape, Malecite-Passamaquoddy, Mi'kmaq, Catawba, and Sioux/Lakota/Dakota (which I think Stephen is also knowledgeable of). The area you're interested in the species of is basically the same area I'm interested in the languages of, so I should be able to fulfil most requests for translations. :) - -sche (discuss) 02:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, I will get some idea of their geography and go from there. I am going to do it for English vernacular names for species, but that might lead to genus other level names if they use compounds to name more specific things. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Looking at Roger William's Key to Narragensett, it seems likely that we could get some words for plants, animals and seafood, but I'm not sure about the level of specificity. We can make some conjectures. I'm not sure that translation requests would be the right tool for the job. DCDuring TALK 01:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you think it'd be better to just make a userspace list of words you'd like translated? It'd be easier for me to find all the requests that way...but harder to keep track of which terms had already been translated into which languages. So requests may be better after all. - -sche (discuss) 01:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I think I just have to adjust my expectations to the likely low level of precision and low coverage in our knowledge of the names of plants and animals in these languages. If the languages of the native peoples of the northeastern US have 10,000 or even 50,000 known words, then the chance that the word for American winterberry or any of its synonyms will be knowable will be low. Though one might think that there might have been a great deal of detailed knowledge about flora and fauna, it couldn't possibly be Linnean in quantity and probably not in the degree of differentiation among species. DCDuring TALK 08:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I imagine Native American languages distinguish species about as often as English (which calls several things "oak" and several things "pine") or French (which calls several things "cytise"), but you're probably right that the number of words in the references we have access to will be small. I checked dictionaries of Abenaki, Ojibwe, Cree, Lenape and Catawba for the plant you named and a sample of states' official plants; here are the results:
Only Abenaki has a word for the common/American winterberry aka the black alder: chegwalimenakwam.
Maine's white pine is goa in Abenaki, zhingwaak in Ojibwe; Cree, Lenape and Catawba have words for 'pine' but I can't work out if they distinguish species.
NH's purple lilac is ᓃᐱᓰᓴ ᑲ ᐋᐧᐱᑲᐧᓀᑭᕀ (nîpisîsa ka wâpikwanekiy) according to Alberta Elders' Cree Dictionary; other languages lack words for it, likely because it isn't native.
MA's mayflower, CT's+PA's mountain laurel, MD's black-eyed susan and WV's rhododendron aren't in any of the dictionaries I checked.
RI's "violet" is an example of an English word that doesn't differentiate species; Lenape, too, has a generic word kishkikwentis (violet); Abenaki calls the dogtooth violet minôbowigek ((that which) is purple).
New York's "rose" is another example of indistinct English; nonetheless, I can't find a word for any of the species in any of the dictionaries I checked.
DE's peach is not native; Abenaki calls a peach (fruit) by the English loanword biches and calls a peach tree bichesakwam; Ojibwe miishijiimin is sometimes said to refer to a peach, other times to refer to other small, reddish berries/fruits; I suspect ᒥᐢᑕᐦᐃᒥᓂᐢ (mistahiminis) is similarly vague; Lenape uses pilkësh; Catawba uses ye (peach tree), tri ye, turi ye (peach (fruit)).
VA's and NC's plant is the Cornus florida dogwood; Abenaki has a word makwakwsek (little red stick/tree) for the Cornus sericea dogwood; Ojibwe likewise has a word for the sericea, miskwaabiimizh/miskwaabiimag, but not the florida; Lenape has tuwchalakw (dogwood).
SC has both the goldenrod and the yellow jessamine/jasmine; Lenape has wisaòtaèk (Solidago canadensis).
So, yeah, there are a lot of lacunae. - -sche (discuss) 23:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
That's a bit better than I thought. BTW, the most common English vernacular name for Cornus sericea is the red osier dogwood, soon to be planted on my property. See osier. Domestic American roses would not have been more striking than a number of other flowers and have few practical uses. persimmon, pawpaw, squash, walnut, hickory, acorn, maize, perhaps blackberry, raspberry, huckleberry, and blueberry; clam, oyster, shad, several kinds or furry animals, many kinds of birds, and many kinds of trees would have possibly been more significant. I think I will do a little research on the uses native Americans made of the plants and limit my requests to those. I'll try to get distribution maps, a good picture, and some information about use, if appropriate, onto the page. The WP articles, already linked, usually have some mention of such use. It might give someone familiar with contemporaneous reports a clue about possible modern names for the plants that were being used.
BTW, there is a recent history book of the Munsees which I will be borrowing and a brand-new book by the same author about toponyms in the NY metropolitan area, which I discovered as I began to populate Category:Native American toponyms (New York). WP has w:Toponymy of New Netherland. I am not sure about how anyone can reconcile these etymologies, of varying quality, with the best current linguistic work. DCDuring TALK 01:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I've started fleshing some of those entries out. Abenaki has different words for "red/black oak acorns" vs "white oak acorns". Acorns were quite significant; acorn flour was a staple food/ingredient. I made some, once... it took a lot of work to crack all the acorns open, grind them up and leach out the tannins, and the end result was altogether bland. - -sche (discuss) 04:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Squirrels prefer white-oak acorns, resorting to the others as necessary. I assume there is a reason applicable to humans as well. That is the kind of distinction I would expect would be made, whether or not we have a record. Is it possible to infer different words for the trees from the acorn words? For the languages with living speakers they might at least have kept a broad brush version of their traditional way of living off the land and the vocabulary required. They must have eaten some leaves too. I wonder from what plants. DCDuring TALK 04:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
BTW, white oak and red oak are also families, so there will necessarily be some ambiguity as to whether the species Quercus alba or the subgenus or section was intended, as is often the case with the English white oak. DCDuring TALK 04:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This book looks like exactly what I am looking for, at least for plants. DCDuring TALK 21:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    It does look like a great reference! PS, if you're interested in placenames, this site has a pamphlet on Mohegan placenames in CT. - -sche (discuss) 22:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • on Ojibway plant taxonomy at Lac Seul First Nation is available as a pdf. DCDuring TALK 20:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    Oh, that's useful, thanks! - -sche (discuss) 01:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • You will have noticed that I have substituted {{taxlink}} and {{vern}} for plain redlinks and linkified unlinked English vernacular names and taxa at Appendix:English terms of Native North American origin. I will attempt to resolve the taxonomic names to the current ones, insert some redirects in WP and some lines in our dab pages for English vernacular names and in WP dab pages, and eventually add some taxonomic name entries with pictures and links to commons. Let me know if there is anything specific I can help on. DCDuring TALK 21:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
    To clarify, is the eventual aim that Wiktionary will have entries for all these vernacular names, at which point the links can point to the Wiktionary entries rather than Wikipedia? If so, neat.
    I was working on some Algic plant and animal names recently and found a mention of "Leptitimia californica", which not even Google has heard of — I assume it's a typo of something. It's a plant found in northern California. Any idea what it might be? If not, no worries. If not, no worries — the reference I was looking at unusually glossed it only as that species name (she usually used common names for glosses), suggesting even she didn't know what it was. - -sche (discuss) 22:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, of course. I realized that it would take quite some time to do all of these, so replacing WP links with redlinks seemed a bit of a reversion. Hence the new, improved {{vern}}, which links to WP and categorizes the entry as needed. I have been processing each dump to extract a list of the entries using {{taxlink}} and add the taxonomic names most "wanted". I will be doing the same with vernacular names.
There are also many un{{taxlink}}ed taxonomic names, so I look at lists of taxonomic names of interest to me or that I suspect have some unlinked use and add taxlink to those entries, also adding other templates and correcting the entries as I go. I have also started mining derived terms sections of entries for words like moss, leaf, and gold for names of living things.
I'll snoop around for Leptitimia californica. DCDuring TALK 23:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm about to throw in the towel on L. californica. I tried my plant sources, Century, my print Webster's 2nd Intl. One tantalizing, but probably misleading, lead is λεπτίτιδες (leptítides), a kind of fine barley. I couldn't find evidence of it being used as a taxonomic name in plausible variations. I also tried to find timia or itimia as taxa. Maybe lightning will strike and I'll have a new idea. DCDuring TALK 00:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for trying. (λεπτίτιδες is tantalizing indeed!) I looked through's list of all plants native to California that have "californica" in their name, and found nothing plausible there. The original name (if it was ever valid) may have been mangled enough by Reichard or her informant as to be unrecoverable. Perhaps if I find more resources on Wiyot, I'll find the Wiyot word (tso'm) glossed differently in a different resource and find the answer that way. - -sche (discuss) 01:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
It's Leptotaenia californica, which is an old synonym for w:Lomatium californicum, an important food and medicinal plant. If you ever have questions about the ethnobotany of California native plants, I may be able to help: it's one of my main interests, and I've spent quite a bit of time reading through the literature and tracking down botanical identities/synonymy. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course. I'd forgotten that you were from California. Cool. DCDuring TALK 02:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
And Leptot* at The Plant List should have narrowed the search to find it. DCDuring TALK 02:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, thank you! I will be glad to have your insight when I start adding more Wiyot and Yurok plant names. - -sche (discuss) 05:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I think I overstated things when I said Lomatium californica was an important plant: the root was used medicinally by several cultures, especially the Chumash, and the greens were eaten, but it wasn't generally among the most important for either purpose. It was actually pretty important as a magical/ritual plant: for the Kawaiisu and the Kashaya, among others, the smoke from burning the root was supposed to protect against evil spirits/ghosts and the root was kept with one for good luck. The Chumash used it to protect specifically against rattlesnakes. Two of its common names, chuchupate and angelica, may have caused it to be confused with other plants in the literature.
As for Wiyot and Yurok: I find C. Hart Merriam's work very useful for plant and animal names. He was totally inept at phonetic transcription, but he was an expert naturalist who went through a list of native plant and animal species for which he had either accurate pictures or specimens that he showed to the people who were giving him the words. I like to use comparison with Merriam for clearing up problematic or vague names in more linguistically-accurate sources. Harrington would be the gold standard, since he was such a good linguist and took voucher specimens, but there's so much material and so little of it is accessible. Merriam's papers on California Indians are available at the Internet Archive here, and here are his schedules for Wiyot and Yurok.
Earlier there was discussion regarding Moerman's work on American Indian Ethnobotany. It's available in database format here. It can be very useful, but it doesn't pay much attention to the reliability of its sources: my favorite example is The Botanical Lore of the California Indians, a self-published book by a Cahuilla named John Bruno Romero. The database follows his lead in using "Mahuna" instead of "Cahuilla" as the name of his people, and gives his book the same treatment as sources published in journals, even though it's an amateurish compendium of real information, incredibly inept misuse of general references and quite a bit that seems just made up. If you search "Rosa gallica" you'll find uses listed for what has to be w:Lavatera assurgentifolia from the details in the book, and which seem to be made up. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

abe-noun, unm-noun, etc[edit]

Do you want me to create these? If nothing else, they can greenlink plurals for you, and also we can do things like categorising entries which do not give their animacy, etc. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That'd be great! I'll get back to you on how they should function. - -sche (discuss) 19:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
An Abenaki template should handle a noun's animacy and its plural. (It might be worth adding support for diminutives later, but at the moment I expect it'd be too much bother.)
Animacy could be the first unnamed parameter, with five possible states: a (animate), i (inanimate), a-i (animate and inanimate), - (for words that have no in/animacy), and ? (for cases where animacy isn't clear). IMO, nothing should be displayed if one of the last two settings is used.
Pluralisation is more complex. Animate nouns form their plurals by adding one of four suffixes; inanimate nouns add one of four different suffixes, as explained in [[-ak]]. Words that end in w sometimes have this w suppressed by some of the suffixes. Perhaps the most sensible thing to do is have the template accept the word's stem (which will be either the singular form or the singular form minus w) as the second unnamed parameter, and the suffix as the third unnamed parameter, so that words can be categorised by which suffix they use. If the second unnamed parameter is set to - or ?, my preference would be that all mention of pluralisation be suppressed. If you're feeling industrious, you could make it so that if the second parameter is blank and the third is filled in with a suffix, the template understands that the stem is (as it will be in most cases) the singular form, i.e. the pagename. If something other than - or ? is set as the second parameter and nothing it set as the third parameter, the template should ideally add the entry to a cleanup category.
If it helps you to know this: it's never possible to know a word's plural but not its animacy (though it is possible to know its animacy but be uncertain of which plural suffix it takes), so any time the plural is set to ?, the animacy will likewise have been set to ?.
Putting animacy and pluralisation together,
on [[sips]], {{abe-noun|a|sips|ak}} and {{abe-noun|a||ak}} should display something like sips (animate, plural sipsak) or sips a (plural sipsak) or something similar, depending on whether or not animacy should be inside or outside the parentheses, and whether it should be abbreviated or spelt out
on [[sôglamalsowôgan]], {{abe-noun|-|-}} should display sôglamalsowôgan
on [[chôls]], {{abe-noun|a|?}} should display chôls animate or chôls (a) or however un/parenthetically and/or un/abbreviatedly we decide to display animacy (the same as sips, in any case)
on [[foobar]], {{abe-noun|?|?}} should display foobar
If all of this sounds too complex (especially the {{en-noun|?}}-like suppression of everything but the bold headword), don't feel like you have to do it. I can probably adapt {{de-noun}} (which seems structurally quite similar) sometime when I have time. - -sche (discuss) 20:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
PS If you think the template should function/display differently, let me know... - -sche (discuss) 20:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like fun! Two things I disagree with: Why are we supplying both animacy and plural if one can be predicted from the other? That seems stupid. Secondly: Why supply it with the stem? The stem is always predictable, right? So I don't see a reason to type it in. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The stem is usually the singular form, i.e. the pagename, but if the singular ends in w, the -o(k|l) suffixes unpredictably (sometimes, but not always) suppress the w. Also, if a word ends in d/t, -ik changes it to j. There may be a few other cases where the stem also changes. Perhaps the stem should be a named parameter, with the template assuming that the stem is the pagename unless it's been explicitly set to something else. The stem will be identical to the singular ~6/8ths of the time.
If a plural is specified, animacy can be determined from it. But it's possible to know the animacy of something (e.g. because it refers to an animal) and yet be unsure which plural suffix it takes. If you want to make it possible to leave the animacy field blank when a plural suffix has been supplied, OK. - -sche (discuss) 21:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
OK. But it really doesn't matter how often stem = singular, but how often the stem can be predicted based on its morphology and the plural suffix being used. Remember, with Lua, predictable stuff like blah(d|t) + ik = blahjik is something that we can do automagically. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Another way of doing things would be: have the module handle regular plurals as described above (pagename + the supplied suffix, with the changes like d+ik = jik), and then instead of allowing a stem different from the pageame to be set and combined with a suffix, allow for the entire irregular plural to be specified. This would be similar to {{en-noun}} (which can handle either {{en-noun|es}} or {{en-noun|irregular-plural-specified-in-full}}) or {{en-verb}}, which processed e.g. {{en-verb|mak|ing}}, but also allows {{en-verb|irregulars|irregularing|irregulared}}. - -sche (discuss) 05:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Ach, I forgot about this. I was looking it over again, and to be honest it looks like a horribly complex operation in a language that I know nothing about. I feel like you would be better off getting somebody else to do it. (Although, if nobody does it in a little while, I'll try to attack it, since it is indeed within my abilities AFAIK, just barely though.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll see if I can just adapt code from the English and German noun templates. - -sche (discuss) 21:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Multi-line quotations[edit]

re diff

Do you really format verse quotes with a separate #*s per line? If so, we've been silently editwarring, because I've always been doing it with <br /> and have been changing it if I find it - <br /> seems a lot more streamlined to me. WT:QUOTE is moot on the subject, though. Hyarmendacil (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been under the impression that wiki markup was preferred to HTML markup, though they do seem to produce the same results. We could see if anyone else has an opinion in the BP? Note that there's at least one other format:
  • Breaking the / poem's lines / with slashes,
  • while still sometimes / breaking / multiple verses / onto multiple lines...
- -sche (discuss) 01:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I dislike that one the most, and it doesn't work for Egyptian anyhow. We might as well ask at the BP, though we might not get a consensus out of it. Hyarmendacil (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


If it helps, I pronounce /ˈælə/, I can probably find something on YouTube with the same pronunciation if you really want me to. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Huh, wow. lists that pronunciation, too. I've re-reworded the qualifiers accordingly... though it still sounds weird to me... "Ally, don't worship Allah in the alley!" - -sche (discuss) 00:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


Since all biblical characters are individuals, isn't it simpler to make Category:Biblical characters a subcategory of Category:Individuals? That will save you from editing 1400 entries.--Makaokalani (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

We could do that. It's worth noting that some of the entries in Category:Biblical characters refer to gods, which should IMO go in Category:Gods instead, though. (I did put them into Category:Gods when I edited them, but left them in Category:Biblical characters...) - -sche (discuss) 02:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

God of this world[edit]

Hi, where is the RFD discussion for the idiom "God of this world"? Please post it on my talk page. Thank you WritersCramp (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)




Care to explain? --Æ&Œ (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

When deciding how æ-terms should be classified, I try to check Google Books for evidence of modern usage. I may have made a mistake here, or Google may have digitized more books in the time since I checked (this has happened before). In this case, I probably noticed that many of the 'modern' hits were actually unupdated reprints, or quotations, of older works. But there is enough modern usage that you were right to switch the entry back to {{alternative spelling of}}. - -sche (discuss) 18:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Unusual entries[edit]

Hi, I know you 'collect' unusual entries. Here's one thing I've not seen before, putting 'etc.' inside a derived terms and a related terms section. Super weird, like putting 'you already know what this means' as a definition. Here's the diff. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

̶s̶̶c̶̶h̶̶r̶̶i̶̶e̶̶f̶̶s̶̶t̶̶a̶̶n̶, ̶s̶̶k̶̶r̶̶i̶̶if̶̶s̶̶t̶̶a̶,̶s̶̶c̶̶h̶̶r̶̶i̶̶e̶̶w̶̶s̶...Spelling standards for Low German.[edit]

Ahoy. Please refer to this, leave a comment and maybe distribute it to people you know might have an interest in this. We can do it! Korn (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

on (nds-nl)[edit]

Hi -sche, I have started working a bit on the nds wiktionary, and while browsing on this en wikt I encountered this: on#Dutch_Low_Saxon. I am a (near) native speaker of nds-nl (esp. Achterhooks), but I have never heard this word being used in the sense of and. Could it be it is assigned incorrectly to nds-nl after splitup of nds, or is it really a known word in nds-nl? Droadnaegel (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It's one of a large number of variants I've seen, though its shortness makes it hard for me to find using Google Books Search. If you'd like to make another spelling the lemma, and make on soft-redirect to it the way un currently soft-redirects to on, be my guest. :) - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it is a matter of spelling. I have my doubts that on exists as and at all in the Dutch variants of Low German. It may be present in the German variants. So I would prefer deletion of the entry instead of a redirect. I did some research and have not found it in the databases I know of. I also have a list of all words on the nds-nl wikipedia (generated by myself), and for act (Achterhooks) and twe (Twaents) there are 6000-7000 occurrences of en, and none for on. I think it better to have less info than incorrect info, so unless the word can be attested, it may be better to have it deleted (for Dutch Low German). On- as a prefix (meaning not) definately does exist though, like in onnatuurlik, comparable to un- in unnatural. Droadnaegel (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I've submitted the term to WT:RFV. If no-one bothers to find evidence of its existence, it'll be deleted. Cheers! - -sche (discuss) 01:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, User Draodnaegel has asked me to pitch in. I'm a moderator of the Dutch Low Saxon wikipedia, and I have to agree with user Draodnaegel here. I have never encountered any ocurrence of "on" for "and" in Dutch Low Saxon texts whatsoever. In German Low Saxon texts, however, they write "un" for "and", which, when written phonetically, sounds like "oon", which in turn in Dutch spelling might be written as "on". This is however pretty far-fetched and very unlikely. As far as I know, "and" is "en" in all Dutch Low Saxon varieties, with a very clear -e- sound. --Woolters, 10:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Poor behavior[edit]

Your flippant edit summary in diff made after you have proceeded without consensus is no more appreciated than you elementary lack of understanding of copyright law (diff) or your creation of himand to prove a point for the purpose of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/Overturning_COALMINE; indeed, "himand", deleted later, was fallaciously used by another user to create a false alarm in that vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I for one find your hounding of -sche over his/her generally excellent editing history far more troubling than -sche's dry sense of humour. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, both of you. Sorry for not seeing this sooner. I've been busy in real life and over on Wikipedia. PS (this is, I suppose, mostly a note-to-self) our LOP-list of made-up pronouns is missing "v" and "he/r". - -sche (discuss) 04:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


How did you determine the date for this milestone announcement? Because according to on-wiki stats, it was on the 11th or 12th. - dcljr (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I dyslexified the date. :b I was using the date SemperBlotto listed here, but as you can see, he actually calculated that it was the 11th day of the 9th month, rather than the 9th day. I'm going to switch that page to use month names! When I ran my own calculations I found a very different entry as the 3,500,000th, though: obaemulabimini, created on the 16th of September. I calculated it by noting the NUMBEROFARTICLES some time after we passed the milestone (when the count was 3,513,686), then going to Special:NewPages and counting 13,686 pages backwards (using &limit= to speed things up). In general, if some pages were deleted between when one person counted and when another counted, that could explain a discrepancy, but I'm not sure that's a sufficient explanation for the large discrepancy in calculations seen here. Hm... - -sche (discuss) 04:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the NewPages technique only works well very soon after a milestone is reached. Not only page deletions but also adding a wikilink (internal, of course) on a page that doesn't have one or removing the only wikilink on a page also changes the article count. (For that matter, not all "new pages" in the main namespace automatically increase the article count, since they have to have at least one wikilink to do so.) Unfortunately, it's so hard to "synthesize" all that info into a correct date that I never really try that hard. When in doubt, I just opt for the later end of the possible date range, since it's better to be a bit late than too early. I would have reported the 12th if I had changed the page myself. But since SB reported the milestone 3 minutes after his bot created the entry in question, I'll assume he knew what he was doing. [g] Thanks for making the change at Wikimedia News. - dcljr (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


This is showing in Category:Russian headword-line templates. Are you still planning to use it? Or can it go? —CodeCat 21:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It can go, I think. Its purpose was explained here. - -sche (discuss) 01:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


Re: "it's not eye dialect if it's pronounced differently, now is it?" Even if the original word (ici) is also sometimes pronounced like that? --WikiTiki89 16:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the pronunciation [isit] used in standard French, or only (as fr.Wikt seems to think) in the same dialects that also use the written form icitte? If the latter, it seems like we'd be going around in a circle to say the spelling is based on the pronunciation that follows from the spelling (that follows from the pronunciation that follows from...). Maybe it's better to describe it simply as a variant of ici? - -sche (discuss) 17:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not used in "standard French" (French French), and probably not used in standard Quebec French, but it is common colloquially. I think it's similar to English contractions in the sense that very often when we read aloud a sentence containing "do not", we read it as "don't". Also, I think it's very rare for the spelling to come before the pronunciation, so I don't see any circular logic anywhere. --WikiTiki89 17:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
How's this?
By the way, many of our entries that describe something as "eye dialect" (including, apparently, this entry) use a sense of that term that failed RFV, which strikes me as another reason to avoid the term. - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I guess you're right. I basically learned the term "eye dialect" by reading our etymologies.
Re: Quebec pronunciation of icitte. The /ɪ/ in closed syllables is one of the most distinctive features of Quebec French phonology. If you'd been there, you would have heard it. --WikiTiki89 22:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Coriandrum sativum[edit]

At [[Coriandrum sativum]] I have put (temporarily) both the translation table from coriander and a copy of the "vernacular names" table from Wikispecies. Our translation table includes more languages, theirs has more terms per language, even having Chinese parsley, the redlink for which I just blued.

The language with by far the greatest number of vernacular names is German. Could you give me your assessment of these? Are they valid? common? specialized?

I am considering bringing over many of their vernacular-name tables to enrich our coverage of taxa. They have nearly 61,000 of them. I also expect that the entries with these tables that we don't have are probably the most desirable of the taxon entries that we could add from their million entries. DCDuring TALK 19:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The general term is Koriander. Echter Koriander is an unambiguous designation, used in reference works. Gartenkoriander is another disambiguator; to me, it seems less formal (and therefore more common) than Echter Koriander. Those three are the only translations I would include in a trans-table.
Gewürzkoriander is another disambiguator. Arabische, Asiatische and Chinesische Petersilie are about as uncommon relative to Koriander as the circumlocution Chinese parsley is to coriander in English. Indische Petersilie is a variant I hadn't heard before.
I hadn't heard Gebauter Koriander before; it seems to be an obsolete technical term. Wanzendill could be rendered into English as "bug-dill" (a reference to the foul smell of unripe coriander; cf. the suggestion that coriander itself derives from a Greek word for bedbug), for which reason I expect it was a general term (and may still exist in some dialects), even though the only place I can find it used is in reference works from two- and three-hundred years ago.
Kaliander is a southwestern Upper German dialectal variant of Koriander; Koliander is another Upper German dialectal variant. Kalanner and Klanner are northeastern (Low) German dialectal variants.
Wanzenkraut, Wanzenkümmel, Schwindelkorn and Schwindelkraut often (and in some cases primarily) refer(red) to other plants, when used at all. - -sche (discuss) 22:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I conclude that the yield of valid terms is relatively high, but not suitable for fully automated population of a translation table.
This raises the question of whether we have a suitable home for the large-scale import of these tables or their data. The table template could be Luacized to conform to our language-name display and the terms should be wrapped in {{t}} or {{l}}. The talk page for the Translingual entry is a possibility. Another approach would be for me to process the table into language-specific lists of vernacular names with the associated taxonomic name and English name(s) (if any) for each non-English language. Each such list would make a subpage (possibly with subpages) of the corresponding requested entries page.
It is a shame that we do not allow translation tables on Translingual entries as they would be a resource to both Wikispecies and Wikipedia. Both of them are a greater linguistic resource (ie, etymologies from WP; translations from both, but esp Wikispecies) to us than we are to them. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Translations tables exist in translingual entries (de facto), whether they're supposed to be there or not (de jure).
I wouldn't (automatedly) populate translations tables with vernacular names from Wikispecies; too many of the vernacular names Wikispecies provides are too obsolete or rare to merit mention in a trans table, IMO; others are polysemous and more often reference another plant; others are limited to "dialects" (which we sometimes treat as separate languages, as in the case of Alemannic German and Low German); others don't meet CFI.
Automatedly importing the data into the Transwiki namespace or onto talk pages seems like a reasonable idea. - -sche (discuss) 00:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this entry is at all typical, especially the German section, which contained more terms in one language than I'd ever seen in a Wikispecies entry. But I thought it might illustrate in a compact form some of the range of problems that we might face in trying to use this.
That a term doesn't make a good translation doesn't mean we shouldn't have it (Remember our slogan!).
I don't think the transwiki process is right because we are only interested in a portion of the entries. The transwikied pages would languish, each page typically needing attention from multiple translators. I was thinking of using Perl or Python to extract from the wikispecies XML dump (smaller than enwikt's) just the page name and the table of vernacular names. That in turn could be processed into lists by language or language code. {{VN}} has fewer than 400 of them, some of which may not be used in entries. Then I could eliminate the names that already have definitions in the appropriate L2 that contain the taxonomic name. That would leave two lists: redlinked vernacular names and blue-linked ones that didn't include the taxonomic name.
I suppose that I could just put the language lists in my own user space. That won't risk upsetting anyone. And I could have links to the language-specific redlink pages from the entry request pages. The blue-linked ones raise definition style questions.
Thanks especially for the specific analysis of the German terms. Any further thoughts would be appreciated. I will move this to my own talk page unless you object.
Also, I have not forgotten about the US native species-native languages notion, but I don't have any good lists. I was a little disappointed in the ethnobotany works that I found. I was also unaware of how many of the languages are extinct and have insufficient records to support species/genus-specific translations. And there are the migrations that have moved tribes into environments with a completely different set of species. DCDuring TALK 01:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
re "Remember our slogan": Of course; to be clear, I agree that we should have entries for any of the terms which are attested. In this case, that's many of them, though the dialectal terms and the various parsley circumlocutions are iffy, and one would have to do a careful search to see which senses of the polysemous terms meet CFI.
I should work some more on Native American plant names myself. I started adding some terms for Novemberish plants about a week ago, but quickly got distracted.
You could ask in the BP (or GP?) whether others would mind the vernacular name data being imported onto terms' talk pages. Wherever the info ends up, I do think it'll be useful. - -sche (discuss) 02:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I can follow the example of others who have pages and pages of such lists in user pages. If it subsequently seems there should be another location, that'll be fine. For now, I will keep the one example in principal namespace and see if it gets any comments while I work on the technical side. At least there can be a home for whatever I'm able to extract. Some of Pengo's somewhat similar subpages (specific epithets) have been around for years already.
Thanks again. DCDuring TALK 03:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


Hi -sche, at Wiktionary:Feedback#Special:AbuseLog I'm dissing one of your filters. I would appreciate it, if you would defend it. Testing it in tag-mode for a while, would have shown you how it failed. Your filter had tens of false hits a day on a new "archiver" (User:Rotlink, but your filter would block any new global archiver). It blocked me and other non-pseudonyms, it broke {{unblock}}. -- 22:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


I reverted your edition Romansh > Romansch, because Romansh is the form used in ISO 693-3. It is also more popular in Google search and is the one used in English Wikipedia as the preferred one. Perhaps en.Wikt should reconsider its practice of preferring the term "Romansch"? I also added a usage note explaining why retoromaani should not be translated as "Rhaeto-Romance" into English. ---Hekaheka (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I like to see Wiktionary use languages' most common names... in this case, though, I'm not sure which one is more common. Raw Google counts are notoriously unreliable (WP has a decent explanation of how/why). The story on Google Books is more complex; the raw (unsmoothed) data suggests that the two spellings are about as common, except that Romansch enjoyed an ~80 year period of higher popularity, whereas Romansh spiked a couple of times (once in 1860, once in 1980). (Smoothing the data makes more apparent their waveform-like tendency to alternate which one is on top.) Given that, I wouldn't go to the bother of changing the names.
At [[retoromaani]] the question is then, what is best?: To link to an alternative-form-entry, so a reader clicks on it, and then clicks again to get to the English entry where the content is? To link directly to the entry with the content? To link to several entries, one of which has the content and the rest of which are soft-redirects? Option 2 gets the reader to the English entry the quickest... - -sche (discuss) 07:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree on the principle of using the most common term. I also admit that there's uncertainty about Google's reliability, but the ratio "Romansh language" to "Romansch language" is pretty convincing 15 to 1. Also, I would not belittle the fact that ISO uses the form Romansh. The fact that en.Wikt currently uses Romansch may be based on only one person's preference. It should also be noticed that the Swiss use Romansh, at least on this official site [3]. Probably the best place to solve the preference between Romansh/Romansch would be the Tea room. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've started Wiktionary:Tea room#Romansch.2C_Romansh. - -sche (discuss) 15:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

When you removed the commas . . .[edit]

When I'm editing a module, I see a little checkbox that says "Allow saving code with errors", and unless I check that, it won't let me save the module with script errors. (I still have the "Save page" button, but when I click it, it won't save.) Do you not have that checkbox, or did you click it by mistake, or did it not detect the issue, or . . . ? —RuakhTALK 07:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I clicked "save", and it said the code was not saved because it had an error, which it identified as there not being as many closing brackets on line 13019 as were expected to correspond to the opening brackets on line 13017. I may be misremembering the exact numbers, but at the time I checked the lines it mentioned, and found that there were in fact sufficient brackets present: as many }s as {s in that particular m["foo"] = section. So, I told it to save the code even with the 'error'. (I shouldn't have done that.)
I then checked the diff, at which point I saw the commas go missing, and re-added them. (How they went missing in the first place is a mystery.) I hadn't previewed the diff before saving that because that operation is prohibitively slow on my computer, since it combines the already slow operations of loading the page in the edit window and checking the difference between two revisions (see Wikitiki's GP post).
I didn't notice any outbreak of script errors, because I continued adding family info to various languages, and so didn't open any page besides Module:languages until much later (whereas I fixed the problem within five minutes). I'm actually slightly put off by that; if I broke as many pages as the GP implies, I'd like to have noticed. - -sche (discuss) 15:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Slight objection to "can do without"[edit]

I responded to the discussion, with a slight objection. Please respond. Tharthan (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of 'Vampire'[edit]

I saw you reverted my edit on the possibility that the origin of the word 'vampire' might actually be Albanian 'dhampir'. I think this is a very real possibility, considering: 1) the Albanian-Romanian historical proximity, 2)Abanian-Romanian common words and phonetic rules in loanwords, 3)the very detailed and thorough etymology 'dhampir'. Robert Elsie is not a linguist and what he thinks about the etymology of dhampir is frankly irrelevant. In fact, it is phonetically impossible for dhampir to be derived from Slavic *ypir (what does this word mean in Slavic anyway?), while the term was spreaded in the world through Romanian vampir, which reflects perfectly Albanian dhampir (Alb. th/dh>Rom.f/v-z, cf. Alb. thërrime 'crumb>Rom.farima 'id' etc)Etimo (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


I saw this edit and I think that it is a bad idea to use names of political entities in language names. Could we not have called them "Mono (America)" and "Mono (Congo)"? --WikiTiki89 22:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a thought-provoking question.
I don't agree that using country names is a bad idea, or more accurately, I don't think using "Congo" would be better. And FWIW, using country names has been an en.Wikt practice (copied, it seems, from Ethnologue) for a long time — since before I started editing language names. We have other lects disambiguated as "(Ghana)", "(Central African Republic)", etc, and I documented the practice in WT:LANG.
It's not the first choice, of course: that's "use an alternative name, if one is attested".
But it's also not the last line of defence against having two languages with the same name: if, as sometimes happens in Indonesia and in Africa, two lects share both a name and a home country, they can be disambiguated by their respective families.
You've prompted me to wonder if we shouldn't make "disambiguate by family membership" our second go-to (and use "disambiguate by home country" third, i.e. swap the order of the two). In fact, we could even consider whether or not using family disambiguation would be preferable to using alternate names as a first go-to. (Maybe not, since it would mean a lot of languages would have trailing parentheticals.)
Even if we don't decide to make family membership our second go-to, we should decide how we want to present it. We currently have an "Austronesian Mor" (contrasted with a "Sepik Mor"), but also a "Mari (Austronesian)" contrasted with a "Mari (Sepik)". Both are my doing (whoops!), because I had forgot about the Mors when I named the Maris, and was following the model of the parenthetical country names. - -sche (discuss) 23:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I do like the idea of using names like "Austronesian Mor" instead of "Mari (Austronesian)", so maybe we should do that more often. But I still think that if family names are not enough, we should not use country names for diambiguation at all, but rather the name of the region. Countries change all the time, while regions stay where they are. I certainly hope that "United States of America" won't change any time soon, but if it does, the name "Mono (America)" would still be valid. As for the Congolese one, maybe it could be "Mono (Africa)". Do you think this would be a WT:BP discussion? If so, I will probably wait until after Thanksgiving before bringing it up there. --WikiTiki89 23:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've started Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2013/November#Distinguishing_languages_which_have_identical_names:_first_by_country.3F_by_region.3F_or_by_family.3F. I apologise if you had been planning to and I pre-empted you. - -sche (discuss) 23:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
No, it makes no difference who starts it. --WikiTiki89 01:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


What is this? I have never heard of that family before. -- Liliana 10:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

And I don't know why my recent edit removed them. I must have accidentally edited an old revision. -- Liliana 10:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Bahnaric is a family of Afroasiatic Austroasiatic languages; overviews of it can be found in the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (volume 1, starting on page 487) and Wikipedia. Information on North Bahnaric and on the classification of Hre (hre being the language that brought the family to my attention) can be found Edmondson, Gregerson and Sidwell 2011 and Smith 1972. I hadn't heard of the family, either, till yesterday. :b
As for Ubangian, I didn't affiliate it with Niger-Congo because the scholarship cited by WP (even, notably, the scholarship that classifies it as Niger-Congo) suggests that no evidence to support Greenberg's initial placement of it in Niger-Congo has actually "ever be[en] produced" and it (per Dimmendaal) "probably constitutes an independent language family that cannot or can no longer be shown to be related to Niger–Congo (or any other family)." If it is to be reclassified as nic-, we'll need to move it into alphabetical order in Module:families and update the various languages in Module:languages that call on it under its old (qfa-) code. - -sche (discuss) 18:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you're confusing Afro-Asiatic and Austro-Asiatic. -- Liliana 15:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Oops, dyslexia strikes again! Thanks for pointing that out. - -sche (discuss) 15:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Protocol-relative URLs.[edit]

Re: "the software knows which prefix to provide based on whether the user is browsing securely (https) or not (http), right?": Right, though to be clear, the "the software" in question is the Web browser or other user agent. If you view the HTML source, you'll see that the MediaWiki software just passes through the //... unscathed. (Sorry if you already understood that. To me "the software" sounds like MediaWiki software, but maybe that's just me.) —RuakhTALK 05:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. :) - -sche (discuss) 05:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Use of /e/ where /ɛ/ would be more appropriate[edit]

I've always considered these to be quite different phonemes. /e/ is like a monophthong version of /ɛi/, whilst /ɛ/ is... erm... /ɛ/.

Yet I've seen quite a few times where /e/ has been used where /ɛ/ would have been more appropriate. I can't recall any off the top of my head, but I am certain I've seen instances.

These weren't at the end of a word either, so I don't think it's a dialectual (yeah, I know it's "dialectal"; it's a habit) thing.

Any ideas? Tharthan (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, could you give me some context? What language are you talking about — English? In standard US and UK English, the closest thing to /e/ is /eɪ/ (which some sub-varieties realise as [e]), the vowel of "play" and "made". I'm not familiar with /ɛi̯/ in English, but it does exist in Dutch. Some varieties of English use /e/ where other varieties use /ɛ/, even in the middle of words; for example, the Australians pronounce "bed" /bed/ while the Brits and Americans say /bɛd/. Lastly, the 'e'-like vowel that occurs before the 'r' of words like "air" (and some or all of "Mary", "marry" and "merry", depending on the speaker) is difficult if not impossible to transcribe precisely using the IPA, for which reason you'll find all of /e/, /eɪ/, /ɛ/, /ɛə/ or /ɛː/ (and perhaps other things) in broad transcriptions of it (e.g. in [[air]], [[dairy]] and [[dare]]). - -sche (discuss) 02:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's merry, Mary, marry merger related, (though I did indeed notice the odd transcription style of those words and was going to eventually ask about that.)
In actuality, I think it's the instances of words like /bed/ where I would have expected /ɛ/. Actually, I had thought only dialects of Northern England and Scotland would use /e/ in such a situation. Tharthan (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Categories for rhymes[edit]

I think Wiktionary:Grease pit/2013/December#Rhymes categories again could benefit from your input. —CodeCat 18:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


WT:LANGTREAT doesn't mention Slovincian. I was wondering whether we made the decision not to treat it as a dialect of Kashubian, or whether it just happened that way. I have no preference one way or the other, since I don't know much about it anyway. --WikiTiki89 16:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it just happened that way. I mean, both Slovincian and Pomeranian have exceptional codes, so someone made the conscious decision to treat them, Kashubian, and Polish as distinct from each other. But both codes were created by the same user who also created separate exceptional codes for the Pitcairn and the Norfolk varieties of Pitcairn-Norfolk, which subsequent discussions all agreed to re-merge, so it's possible (and indeed, apparently the case) that it was just that one use who got the idea that they should be split. There does not seem to have been any community discussion of Slovencian, Kashubian or Pomeranian, but Wiktionary:About Slovincian has been created. I have updated LANGTREAT to note that "in practice,..." they are currently distinct. - -sche (discuss) 18:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Data consistency checking module[edit]

Kephir wrote Module:data consistency check which performs a check on all the data modules, and makes sure there aren't any discrepancies. There are some, so I thought you might like to know. —CodeCat 23:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Among other things, aus, sai, and cai ought to go, stupid geographic categories that they are. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
@CodeCat: thank you for the link. (And @Kephir, if you're reading this, thanks for designing that module!) @Metaknowledge: Indeed, and nai (which several things currently list as their family!). qfa-ame should also go, IMO, or at least be voted upon like Altaic and Zuni needs to be updated not to list qfa-ame as its family even if it is kept. (If qfa-ame is kept, we should reconsider having deleted Penutian.) I've been meaning to start Requests for Deletion, but I've been busy. Feel free to beat me to it. - -sche (discuss) 09:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others#Certain_geographic_language_families. - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


Can you rewrite it as: Users in this category indicate they have knowledge of the language $1. {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|MediaWiki|| [[Category:$1 language]] [[Category:User languages|$2]] }}

This is probably what was troubling the constant recreation of Category:$1 language because it appears nonempty in Special:Categories. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done; thanks for pointing that out! - -sche (discuss) 22:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Removing scripts[edit]

Some entries may specify a script with sc= even if no language has that script specified. When you remove the scripts, those entries will eventually trigger script errors. —CodeCat 14:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I checked for such entries. When they existed, I added the script code to the relevant language code rather than removing it. - -sche (discuss) 20:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png Barnstar
For your continuous work to improve coverage and consistency of languages, families and such. —CodeCat 03:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! :) - -sche (discuss) 06:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Dard etymology[edit]

I thought it was a bit odd to offload this to the talk page. As with any part of an entry, we sometimes have incomplete data that needs further massaging. In this case I imagine I had copied the root word(s) from Wikipedia. I'm doing it again right now with kachori; surely it's better to have something than nothing, and to put it in the right place where it will be seen? Equinox 23:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

On kachori, the etymology gives several words in specific languages, which it implies are etyma. (I say "implies" because it doesn't say "from Hindi..." so they might be cognates.) That's not problematic. On Dard, the "etymology" consisted of dard spelled in two different scripts, each of which is used by numerous (sometimes unrelated) languages... that's not helpful, IMO, because it's not even verifiable/falsifiable. Is the implication that Dard derives from Sanskrit, which is written in Devanagari? Modern Hindi/Urdu, which is written in both scripts? Persian? Konkani? Talysh? Or that it's cognate or related to a word in those languages? - -sche (discuss) 02:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I've re-added it, but with languages specified. (Can't be sure it's from either the Hind or the Persian word, but it's clearly related to them, so I've said that.) How's it look? - -sche (discuss) 02:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Periods at the end of sentences and consensus[edit]

There is no consensus to have periods at the end of definitions and thus you should not be using automated means of adding the periods. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary "misc" suggest a nefarious action, and indeed, there it is. A bit like when you started demoting various spellings without previous discussion and consensus. I think you should desysop yourself. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Despite its name, AWB is not automated. I am using it to manually clean up various -meter and -metre entries, mostly by adding etymologies to the -metre forms and clarifying on the -meter forms that the -metre forms are nonstandard, but also to perform other minor cleanup operations as long as I'm there. AWB gathers all the -meter and -metre entries in one place, which is the only reason I am using it rather than Firefox or another browser. - -sche (discuss) 21:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The fact that I am performing several manual cleanup operations at once is the reason I supplied a general edit summary. (Had I been using Firefox, it's possible I would have followed the common practice of simply not supplying an edit summary at all for self-evident cleanup, but AWB requires one.) - -sche (discuss) 21:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
WT:AGF. —CodeCat 21:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
@-sche: You are mass adding periods to the end of definitions without there being a consensus for that; what specific means you have chosen for mass adding is of less importance. Was it your intention to be adding the periods, or was it not? What prevented you from using a meaningful edit summary, anyway? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
And what that action is questioned by me, you continue. No, I am not assuming a good faith; this is blatant bad faith. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Responding to a misplaced response above: What makes you think that adding a period is "self-evident cleanup"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Because so many of us do it, probably. DCDuring TALK 21:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you know, DCDuring, that countless editors prefer definitions without periods, and that editors removing periods had to be stopped, and pointed out that there is no consensus for removing periods? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About German Low German[edit]

A while back, you moved Wiktionary:About Low German to Wiktionary:About German Low German and changed a bunch of entries' headers accordingly; but Wiktionary:About German Low German still says to use ==Low German==, and in general it uses "Low German" in various places where it should use "German Low German". Could you update it? (I started to do it, but then discovered that for many cases I wasn't sure whether they were supposed to be updated. For example, in the section on subdialectal differences, I wasn't sure if "the dialect continuum which is Low German" was supposed to include Dutch Low Saxon or not.) —RuakhTALK 06:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, I think. Thanks for pointing that out. - -sche (discuss) 06:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! —RuakhTALK 07:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Language code templates causing script errors[edit]

Can all of them be deleted? —CodeCat 16:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes; thanks for pointing that out. - -sche (discuss) 19:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
There are a few more now. —CodeCat 23:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


By reinstating the original sitation in Module:links, you also made it trigger errors again, but they're still hidden so you see a void. The actual hiding of errors was done in MediaWiki:Common.css, so if you want it to show "script error" again you need to undo that. —CodeCat 21:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Conundrum (Please help!)[edit]

Sche, this issue has been bothering me ever since I first became a linguist and became cognisant of its [the issue's] presence. Might you be able to help explain it to me?

My pronunciations (and the pronunciations held by everyone else I know in my area) of /u:/-type words seem to be quite different from the pronunciations listed on Wiktionary (and anywhere else I've checked, for that matter). Now, I'm not attempting to have the IPA transcriptions be changed or anything of that sort, I'm merely hoping that you might be able to explain these inconsistencies to me.

My pronunciations of the words "dew", "new", "newt", "knew", "sue", "lieu", "flute" and "lewd" (seem to) have the diphthong /ɪuː/. My pronunciation of the words "few", "pew", "mew", "feud" and "cue" (seem to) have /jɪu:/. My pronunciations of the words "rebuke" and "puke" have /ju:/. My pronunciation of the words "who", "mood", "food", "boot", "poot", "coup", "aloof", "rule", "tool" and "loot" have /uː/.

Yet my pronunciation of the word "you" seems to be /jɪu:/ when stressed, /ju:/ when slightly unstressed and mid-sentence, /jɪ/ when mostly unstressed and /jə/ when completely unstressed. Similarly, "to", "too" and "two" are /ɪu:/ when stressed, /u:/ when immediately following a another word (that may be stressed or partially stressed) [i.e. twenty-two is /twɛnˈtʰi.tʰ(ɪ)u:/ when stressed, /twɛnˈtiˈtʰu:/ when partially stressed, and /twɛnɾi'tu:/ when completely unstressed], /ɪ/ when mostly unstressed, and /ə/ when completely unstressed. My pronunciation of the word "mute" fluctuates between /juː/ and /jɪu:/, tending towards /juː/. My pronunciation of the words "rude" and "prelude" fluctuate between /u:/ and /ɪu:/, tending towards /u:/. My pronunciation of the words "dude" and "nude" fluctuate between /ɪu:/ and /u:/, tending towards /ɪu:/. My pronunciation of "shoot" and "chute" seem to fluctuate between /ʃɪu:/ and /ʃu:/ at unclear intervals.

So, might you be able to explain this huge pronunciation conundrum? If you can't explain the stuff I said in the fourth paragraph, can you at least explain the four way distinction I talked about in the third paragraph?

[NOTE: Before you ask, I'm not confusing /u:/ with /ʊ/ or anything like that. "Roof" for me has the same vowel as "who", and "who" for me doesn't have the same vowel as "wood" or "hood".] Tharthan (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I may not be the best person to ask about the peculiarities of English dialects' pronunciations; I'm sorry; you might instead solicit the input of native speakers in the Tea Room. But the phenomena of yod-dropping vs yod-retention are at work. Elision of /j/ before /u/ after /tʃ/, /dʒ/, /j/, /ɹ/, /l/, /s/, /z/, /θ/, /t/, /d/ and /n/ is common in many varieties of American English, per WP, which is probably why yods are missing in those circumstances from the pronunciations Wiktionary marks as US/GenAm. (Some entries note that words can either have yods or drop them in the US, e.g. eschew, but it seems the default practice is to simply omit the yods.) In contrast, yod-dropping after /l/, /s/, /z/ and /θ/, and especially after /t/, /d/ and /n/, was formerly nonstandard in England. The speech of New England is similar to that of England, which may explain why you don't drop the yod* from "dew", "new", "sue" and "lewd".
*Or the yod-like vowel. The distinction between /Cjuː/ and /Ciu/~/Cɪu/ is not always easy to make.
WP also notes that there are some accents, such as Welsh, where pairs like chews/choose, yew/you and threw/through are distinct, with the first member having [ɪu] while the second has [uː]. Out of curiousity, are those pairs distinct for you, or homophonous?
Regarding the pronunciation of "you" as /jɪ/ vs /jə/: the distinction between unstressed /ɪ/ and unstressed /ə/ is also grey, and that unstressed /ɪ/ would reduce to /ə/ is unsurprising. Some dictionaries, e.g. the OED, recognise that some speakers pronounce words with a vowel that fluctuates or is intermediate between the two, which they transcribe /ᵻ/; (some of) our entries use /ɨ/ for much the same purpose.
Regarding the pronunciation of "you" as /jɪu:/ vs /ju:/: perhaps when speakers give a word particular emphasis, they introduce elements to the pronunciation that would not otherwise be there, such as the intrusive /ɪ/, or perhaps yod-dropping vs yod-retention is at work (recall that yods are sometimes dropped between /j/ and /u/).
The variation between "/ɪu:/" and "/u:/" in "rude", "dude", "nude" and "prelude" sounds like more yod-dropping vs yod-retention (you sometimes drop the yods and sometimes don't). - -sche (discuss) 21:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
"Chews" and "choose" are distinct for me in the way that you described, as are "threw" and "through". "Yew" and "you" are not distinct, however. Tharthan (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually I think [ɪu:] is a common realization of the /uː/ phoneme usually after alveolars or dentals, even with no yod-dropping (for example, in words such as soon). After labials or velars (in words such as pool), this is less common. --WikiTiki89 22:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. It's good to hear that I'm not the only one. Though I pronounce soon as /suːn/, not /sɪu:n. Tharthan (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


Currently the koq language code incorrectly contains the same information as the kfe language code (both called Kota). It seems that koq should refer to a language in the Bantu family spoken in Gabon. See Module talk:languages/data3/k. --WikiTiki89 23:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Disregard that, there was no issue. --WikiTiki89 00:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are there two packages and what to do?[edit]

Do I have to combine the core package and the compat package together? --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

What is this in reference to? - -sche (discuss) 08:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please purge[edit]

Please purge Special:UncategorizedPages. --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the authority / ability to do that, but it will happen at some point. (I'm not sure if the devs do it or if it's set up to happen automatically.) - -sche (discuss) 19:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Mioko language[edit]

Challenge: figure out what the hell Mosel (1980) is talking about when he mentions the (unattestably named) Mioko language. It's something very closely related to the many-named languages {{ksd}}, {{rai}}, and {{lbb}}, but I think he's a reliable enough source to assume that this language, whatever it may be, actually exists. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, it appears to refer to an island mentioned in the Wikipedia article for the Duke of York Islands, but I still can't identify it with an ISO code or Ethnologue entry, or even prove its existence/identity. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the use of placenames as language names is a bane of students of Oceanic (region) languages (regardless of whether or not that's what happened here—I can't offhand tell). If it's an Oceanic (family) language, it's probably not the Miyako language. Hmm... Ethnologue lists Mioko — and Molot, which she (Mosel) also mentions in proximity to Mioko — as dialects of Ramoaaina. - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
That makes sense, given the alternate name 'Duke of York'. So now the policy question: whose lead shall we follow? Oh, and thank you not only for Mosel's book but for correcting my rather sexist assumption about Mosel (should've looked at the first name). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I am rather conservative about splitting languages, it seems. My inclination is to keep Mioko and Molot under {{rai}} for now, particularly because I don't see that anyone has actually taken the position that they are separate languages (has someone?). In listing rai’s dialects, Ethnologue says Makada is "very different, possibly not intelligible to speakers of other dialects", but it doesn't say that about Mioko or Molot. And Mioko and Molot words make their way into Mosel's comparative wordlists, but it's not unusual for dialects to make their way into wordlists where they have distinct terms. I could compare Danish foobar to Hamurgisch fubar and contrast it with Low Prussian kazoo (and compare that to Polish kazu) without implying that Hamburgisch and Low Prussian were separate languages. Entries can use {{context}} and etymology sections can use "from Mioko {{etyl|rai|foo}}" so that no information is lost.
You're welcome / no problem. Actually, that reminds me that I need to upload all the Cimbrian material I acquired (for my use and for others')... ugh, that's gonna take forever. - -sche (discuss) 05:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"bear" Usage notes[edit]

Thanks; see User_talk:Wikitiki89#"bear", specifically the last entry (Thnidu (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)). --Thnidu (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


Do you think we should rename this code to roa-opt to match the others? —CodeCat 21:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings on the matter, if other people think it's better to let sleeping dogs / assigned codes lie, but yes, my weak preference would be for it to be renamed; as it is, "ptg" doesn't indicate that it applies to Old rather than modern Portuguese. Let's ping our Portuguese editor and see what he thinks. - -sche (discuss) 22:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
No strong opinion. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you made a mistake here...[edit]

diffCodeCat 14:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed; thanks for catching it. That was a manual error rather than the result of [what would thus have been faulty] search-and-replace regex, and it can't have happened on many pages, in part because there were not many pages that used {{cx|obsolete}}+{{alternative spelling of}} to begin with. When the next dump comes out I'll check for any other instances of \{\{(context|cx)\|obsolete (spelling|form) of. - -sche (discuss) 18:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I found it because it caused a hidden script error, so I think this is the only one. —CodeCat 18:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

roa-ptg to roa-opt[edit]

Do you think you could do this move? You seem very experienced with working with language codes, and I don't really know how to track down all uses of a code. —CodeCat 03:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I can track down all the uses — it's simpler in this case than it would be with a code like "de"; the string "roa-ptg" isn't used anywhere except as a language code, so I can just search a dump for all pages which contain it. There are 2444 uses, most of which are in the main, Appendix and Category namespaces: User:-sche/roa-ptg. I don't foresee any problems if you have Mewbot update those to replace roa-ptg with roa-opt. (2400+ is a bit too many for me to do with AWB.) Then there are a lot of categories like Category:roa-ptg:Sound that incorporate the code into their names and will need to be deleted and "moved". There are only 26 pages that use the code outside those three namespaces; I updated all of those by hand just now. - -sche (discuss) 04:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
You think that if I just do a text search for "roa-ptg" then that should be ok? There would not be any false positives? —CodeCat 21:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I can't think of circumstances under which "roa-ptg" would be used other than as a language code... maybe as part of a link to a Google Book? To be careful, you could search for |roa-ptg (as in {{l|roa-ptg|foo}}, {{head|roa-ptg|noun}}) and =roa-ptg (as in {{term|foo|lang=roa-ptg}}), and then see if there were any pages left that used roa-ptg not preceded by | or =. (To be even more careful, you could also add that the instances had to be followed by either | or }.) - -sche (discuss) 21:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I have a library that can parse wiki source code into templates and such, so it lets me go through all the templates, and change parameters. So I could just say "if template name is l, and parameter 1 is roa-ptg, replace parameter 1 with roa-opt". Of course, that means that you need to consider in advance which templates it should fix, which is hard in this case. Normally, when I fix template parameters, I use tracking categories, so that the category is automatically updated as the bot goes through the entries. But with a manual list like the one you generated, that's not possible. So I'm not sure how to check when I actually caught and fixed all instances of roa-ptg. —CodeCat 22:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, I have updated User:-sche/roa-ptg so that it now lists all pages which contain (\||\=)roa\-ptg(\||\}). I updated by hand the few entries that were on the first list but not the second; they were uses of {{roa-ptg-noun}} or the nonexistent {{l/roa-ptg}}. On the remaining pages, you can just perform a simple replacement of all instances of roa-ptgroa-opt, or if you want to be careful, you can make four replacements: |roa-ptg||roa-opt|, |roa-ptg}|roa-opt}, =roa-ptg|=roa-opt| and =roa-ptg}=roa-opt}. At that point, the only remaining instances of roa-ptg will be in the pagenames of the staggering number of Old Portuguese topical categories, which will have to be "moved". - -sche (discuss) 22:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and replace {roa-ptg{roa-opt. (I'm not sure why so many uses of {{roa-ptg-noun}} didn't show up in my previous searches...) - -sche (discuss) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I made the four replacements you gave originally. I haven't changed the template names yet, nor the topical categories. I suspect many of the old topical categories will be empty now, though, because the changes I made already probably included a lot of categorising label templates too. —CodeCat 01:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I've moved all the templates I could find — the templates themselves, not the uses of them (which still work, thanks to redirects). I started to fix the uses of them with AWB, since there were only ~160, and in doing so I noticed another replacement that can be made: :roa-ptg:roa-opt, to update the topical categories in the entries. Since I can review each edit before I make it in AWB, I'm using regex that replaces all instances of roa-ptg (regardless of preceding or following characters), and I've yet to find a false positive, FWIW. - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

As of now, the only pages that the site search finds containing "roa-ptg" are 15 main-namespace pages, which I just updated, 6 other pages, which I also updated, and various topical categories. :) - -sche (discuss) 07:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Bot mistake?[edit]

In diff your bot used an invalid language code. It also added "m-f" as the gender which doesn't make any sense. "Masculine Feminine" isn't a gender that I know of, in the same way that "Masculine Plural" is. —CodeCat 01:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I (manually) incompletely changed {{roa-ptg-noun}} to {{head|roa-opt|noun}}. Good thing that causes a script error; it makes it easy to find! I copied the "m-f" bit from another entry, which had "{{roa-ptg-noun}} {{g|m-f}}". Should "m-f" be a shortcut for "g1=m|g2=f" (or, put another way, should it display "m, f")? - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
It should be g=m|g2=f yes. Shortcuts would complicate the logic of the module, I don't think it's worth it. —CodeCat 02:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


Have you ever tried this for your bot? It's very useful because it more or less eliminates any danger of mis-parsing code. —CodeCat 21:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've never tried it, but I'll bookmark it; thanks! I don't do many fully automated things with User:-sche-bot, though (for which reason, I've lately wondered if I should rename it User:-sche-AWB... but that's probably not worth the bother). - -sche (discuss) 02:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Fraktur script[edit]

I don't think this makes much sense. It's a typographical variant of the regular Latin script, not a separate script altogether. If we really wanted to be consistent about this, we'd need a separate script for Old English, Uncial script for Irish, Carolingian minuscule for Old High German, Old French and such, Roman cursive for Latin, and so on. —CodeCat 01:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

But compare Cyrl/Cyrs, Grek/polytonic, Hani/Hans/Hant, etc. --WikiTiki89 02:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
In each of those cases, they're mutually exclusive. Languages don't have more than one in each group. -sche on the other hand recently added Latf alongside Latn as one of the scripts for German. I think that's completely pointless. Script detection doesn't do anything because they're encoded the same way, so the only useful addition that Latf would give is on Category:German language. And that page currently lists Latin twice thanks to this change. —CodeCat 02:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
In the case of Cyrl/Cyrs, that seems to be due to our decision to (rightly or wrongly) exclude modern and Cyrl-script Church Slavonic from the code cu. In the case of Hans/Hant, it is only because there exists the third code Hani that includes within it the first two. Re Category:German language, that is because whoever added Latf to the module failed to give it a distinct name; I have fixed that. The point that Latf is encoded the same as Latn is valid... but then, as Wikitiki points out, the same is true of Cyrs and Cyrl, leading to situations like the OCS headword line and the Russian headword line looking different on [[а]]. (If someone proposed deleting Latf and Cyrs, I'm not sure I'd oppose it...) - -sche (discuss) 05:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
It's also due to inadequate font support for many of the characters in Cyrs. We need to use special fonts for older Cyrillic languages that are fine for that purpose but would look ridiculous if used for modern Cyrillic languages. --WikiTiki89 06:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Do those have ISO script codes? Fraktur does. Were those contrasted with Latin script as if they were different scripts? Fraktur was, hence Bismarck famously rejected gifts of books written in Latin script, saying „Deutſche Bücher in lateiniſchen Buchſtaben leſe ich nicht.“ And (although I don't necessarily agree with this!) several of our German entries do have usexes and citations which are explicitly in Latf. - -sche (discuss) 02:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Off topic question: How much exposure does the average modern German speaker have to Fraktur? Is the average modern German speaker able to read Fraktur easily? --WikiTiki89 02:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
People can read Fraktur. Books aren't normally printed in it anymore, but plenty still exist on library shelves from the era when they were, and even if you don't read them (most people probably don't, I'm probably an oddity in that I do — often over the course of citing things on RFV), many pubs, apothecaries, newspapers, etc write their names in Fraktur. (I get the impression this is also true in the UK and US.) And most Fraktur letters are similar enough to their Antiqua equivalents that they're hard to misunderstand. People do mis- and disuse long s, though.
Really, Sütterlin is what people have trouble with... - -sche (discuss) 05:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
It's also easy to confuse the b's, v's, and h's, and ligatures are sometimes hard to parse. I was just wondering if Germans generally have less trouble than I do reading it. (It's not that I can't read it, it's just that it's harder.) --WikiTiki89 06:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: jewing[edit]

Although the lemma notes the offensiveness of the term, I think it would be prudent to include it here also, since someone may look up the gerund without going to the lemma. bd2412 T 18:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Our current practice is not to do that, because it wrongly conveys that the inflected form is more offensive than the lemma, and/or that "jewing" is an offensive present participle of "jew", as opposed some non-offensive present participle of "jew". Compare "boughten" and "laught", which correctly describe themselves as archaic/obsolete past participles of "buy" and "laugh", because they are more archaic/obsolete than "buy" and "laugh", and there are past participles of "buy" and "laugh" that are not archaic/obsolete ("bought" and "laughed"). Compare also Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2011-08/User:Mglovesfun for desysop, where Stephen notes that the words that sparked the vote "were already appropriately marked as Croatian on the lemma page (kolovoz). It is not usual to insert dialect tags on form-of pages" if the form-of is merely as restricted as the lemma/whole paradigm. If someone looks up the gerund, they have to go to the lemma to see the word's senses, and are presented at that time with information on which of those senses are offensive (in this case: all of them). Of course, if someone adds a ===Noun=== section to jewing, any offensive senses that it has should be so marked... - -sche (discuss) 18:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I am of the opinion that marking offensive derivations as offensive is a bit more immediate than noting their other contextual characteristics. bd2412 T 19:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
(I apologise in advance for the verbosity of what follows...hopefully it spells out my thinking on the matter...)
I think the offensiveness/obsoleteness/etc of some information, such as one or more senses (even all currently attested senses) of a word, should be indicated in the place where that information is. In the case of jew (bargain), the offensive senses are stored in the lemma entry, [[jew]], so that is where the tag "{{cx|offensive}}" belongs. The information that "jewing" = "the present participle of jew" is not what is offensive — there is not another present participle of "jew" that one can use instead to avoid giving offence — it is the use of "jew" to mean "bargain" (which happens to be the only verb-al use of the word that exists) that is offensive.
Similarly, the information that "abstruding" = "the present participle of abstrude" is not obsolete — there is not another present participle of "abstrude" that is not obsolete — it is the use of "abstrude" to mean "push away" (which happens to be the only use of the word that ever existed) that is obsolete, so [[abstrude]] is where the tag "{{cx|obsolete}}" belongs.
Noting that the use of "jew" to mean "bargain" is offensive may well be more important than noting that the use of "abstrude" to mean "push away" is obsolete, but I don't think the note should be made in a different place in one entry vs the other. As I said, putting an "{{cx|offensive}}" tag in jewing would convey incorrectly that the information that "jewing" = "the present participle of jew" was something that was offensive.

Contrastively, the information that "laught" = "the past participle of laugh" is obsolete. There is another past participle that is not obsolete, and the word "laugh" is not obsolete. Following the above-mentioned principle (that the obsoleteness of some information should be indicated in the place where the information is), the information that "laught" is obsolete is correctly stored in the entry [[laught]] (and also next to the mention of laught in [[laugh]]).

It might also be useful to consider terms with multiple senses, only some of which are offensive/obsolete/etc, e.g. eggplant: is the information that "eggplants" = "the plural of eggplant" {{cx|sometimes|slang|offensive}}, because one sense of eggplant but not another is slangy and offensive? Or should we have two senses at [[eggplant]], one "# {{plural of|eggplant}}" and the other "# {{cx|slang|offensive}} {{plural of|eggplant}}"? No, the information that "eggplants" = "the plural of eggplant" is not restricted to any context (such as slang, or offensive speech); all countable senses of eggplant have eggplants as their plural. It is the "black person" sense of eggplant that is offensive. - -sche (discuss) 21:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I get what you are saying, but there is no inoffensive meaning of "jewing". I would not want to give the impression that "jew" is offensive but "jewing" is okay (the circumstances where this can occur are imaginable, as it is considered more offensive, for example, to say "that man is a Jew doctor" than to say "that man is a doctor and a Jew"). bd2412 T 22:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
If I may butt in, I totally agree with -sche here. But on a separate note, I don't like the way we represent the term jew as offensive. Firstly, it didn't used to be offensive—the OED says "These uses are now considered to be offensive." (my emphasis). Secondly, even today not everyone would necessarily consider it offensive, Jews and non-Jews alike (in fact I often get the impression, perhaps wrongly, that non-Jews are much more sensitive to these kinds of words than Jews). But this can lead us into a wider discussion of the offensive context tag. Whether a word is considered offensive depends on the time, the place, and the specific person. It may be difficult, but I think we should include more detailed information about things like that. --WikiTiki89 22:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I frankly don't see how using "jew" to mean "defraud" or the like could fail to be offensive. bd2412 T 22:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
You're just furthering my impression that non-Jews are more touchy about this stuff. But anyway, that's not the point. The point is, offensiveness varies across time and place and we should try to cover that. --WikiTiki89 22:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know to what extent this is comparable, but in German, Zigeuner is no longer used by sensitive speakers (the people who one might derogatorily call "PC"), and several Roma groups have denounced it in very strong terms, but individual Romanis still describe themselves as Zigeuner. (Our entry on Zigeuner only mentions the first half of this because I could not find a source that documented second half.) Likewise, in English, Gypsy is not used by sensitive speakers, and is denounced by some Romanis, but is still used by other Romanis (and by plenty of speakers who are simply ignorant of its potential offensiveness). Gypsy describes itself as {{cx|sometimes|offensive}}. Both terms have extensive usage notes. - -sche (discuss) 19:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Descendants of Proto-Algonquian entries[edit]

These are all using {{term}}, but they should use {{l}}. Could you work on fixing that if you have the time? —CodeCat 21:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

One links to predecessor terms in Etymology sections using {{term}}, why can't one link to descendant terms using {{term}}? I don't see what difference it makes which template is used. - -sche (discuss) 22:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
{{term}} is optimized for use in running text. {{l}} is optimized for use in lists. Currently, that only manifests itself in italicization of the term (if it is in the Latin script) or its transliteration, but it is undoubtedly possible that there could be other things added to them as well in the future. --WikiTiki89 22:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


Don't forget to use the preview button before saving your edits. I know it may be annoying on a large page like water, but I noticed you misspelling templates ({{qualifer:less commonly}}[sic]) and using templates that no longer exist ({{t-SOP|...}}). If you don't check your own edits on such a large page, there is a good chance mistakes like that will go unnoticed for quite a while. --WikiTiki89 00:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching those mistakes. I had forgotten about t-SOP's deletion. - -sche (discuss) 01:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

List of headers[edit]

I could probably clean up all the misspellings by bot, with much less effort than it would take you to do them all manually. I'd just give it a list of bad headers and their replacements and tell it to go through all the entries listed under "not recognised", and it would weed them all out. So it may be better if you focused on headers that are not misspellings? —CodeCat 02:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. :) You could probably bot-fix certain of the "wrong-level" headers, too, like L3 Antonyms (just up it to L4). - -sche (discuss) 03:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
It's more efficient, but less effective as the multiple other problems often in the entries may remain unnoticed for quite a while. DCDuring TALK 03:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I would not try to automatically fix things like antonyms. Often they're just at the end of the entry, without regard for what sense or part of speech they should go with . DTLHS (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

ISO codes[edit]

Where can I find a full list of all current ISO language codes, preferably all on one page? --WikiTiki89 04:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the list of current ISO codes I've been using to find out which ISO codes we're missing. (And here is their not-entirely-complete list of retired codes.) I don't know what you plan to do with the data, but note that it wouldn't be a good idea to automatedly import "missing" codes, since in many cases they are codes that have been intentionally excluded. Hope that helps, - -sche (discuss) 05:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I just wanted the convenience of searching through them with Ctrl+F. --WikiTiki89 05:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


Does this mean real "silver" "foil", or just silver foil made from aluminium. (I'm pretty sure that Silberpapier means the aluminium product silver paper. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It has both meanings. You can wrap a pita in Silberfolie made of aluminium, or you can "gild" (err..."silver") something in a thin layer of Silberfolie made of silver. Silberpapier likewise has both meanings. google books:"silver foil" gild suggests that "silver foil" also has both senses, and google books:"silver paper" gold OR gild suggests that "silver paper", in addition to meaning aluminium foil, can also (rarely, and possibly SOP-ily) refer to a certain Oriental product — apparently paper which has been coated in a thin foil of silver. - -sche (discuss) 19:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I have never heard of "silver foil" referring to aluminum foil and would have always assumed it meant real silver. In the US, aluminum foil is generally known as tin foil. --WikiTiki89 23:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


Your proposal to merge the Norwegians made me think: do you think that we should continue to keep Sardinian divided? I thought that these were dialects, and I don’t think we are supposed to treat dialects as independent languages. --Æ&Œ (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, our treatment of Sardinian is weird.
There is quite a difference between the case of the written standards of Norwegian, which have existed since only the late 1800s / early 1900s, and the case of the dialects of Sardinian, whose predecessors have been separate from Italian's since the first century BCE and which may have started to distinguish themselves from each another only a little later than that. There is, however, an amusing parallel between our granting of codes to Norwegian and (only) two of its 4+ written standards, and our granting of codes to Sardinian and (only) two of its 3+ dialects (not counting sdc and sdn, since there is disagreement over whether they are Sardinian, Corsican, or independent languages).
There does seem to be general agreement that src and sro are mutually intelligible. WP says they "differ mostly in phonetics, which does not hamper intelligibility among the speakers". Roberto Bolognesi, in his Phonology of Campidanian Sardinian, does assert that "is only for the Campidanian area, as already recognized in Wagner (1951), that it is possible to speak of a uniform variety of Sardinian and of a general mutual intelligibility of the different dialects". Nonetheless, the variety that is an official language of Sardinia is one that unifies the two dialects, and moreover, (you must already see this, I'm just saying it so I can copy and paste this comment into any discussion about unifying Sardinian) we ourselves already unify them: we have a Category:Sardinian language with most of our Sardinian entries in it, we just also have a Category:Campidanese Sardinian language with 36 entries and a Category:Logudorese Sardinian language with 13 entries.
Do you think the topic of merging Sardinian should be raised now, or would it be better to wait until some of the other major lect-merger discussions we're having have been resolved? - -sche (discuss) 19:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I’m not exactly sure if I am understanding you when you say that they’re already unified; I’m assuming that you are refering to the hypernymous code (sc) much like we have Norwegian no. I would feel more comfortable if we postponed the Sardinian debate since I’d rather we focus on problems individually. --Æ&Œ (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm referring to sc. I think the fact that we already have most of our entries using sc shows that we de facto accept that Sardinian is possible to unify (rather than taking Bolognesi's view and baulking at the idea of a unified Sardinian the way we baulked at e.g. the idea of there being a unified "Berber" language). We're just being "schizophrenic" by also having dialect codes. Waiting till the other discussions resolve is my preference as well, so, great. - -sche (discuss) 20:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The Norwegian vote ended recently. Is it time to start a new election? --Æ&Œ (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I'm sorry for not replying to this until now.
My inclination would be to start a discussion on WT:RFM, since the issue seems minor (we have few entries in the affected dialects) and unlikely to be controversial, but you could start discussion in the BP if you would prefer. (In any case, I don't imagine there will be enough controversy to merit moving to a formal vote on WT:V.) - -sche (discuss) 00:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

JA phonetics shifts[edit]

I noticed this edit, changing ">" to "from". As introduced to me at Wiktionary by User:Bendono's edits, this is meant to convey "this older reading became this other reading", so "[kɨ] > [ki]" is meant to convey "[kɨ] became [ki]", kind of backwards from your edit. I'm not sure what the best notation would be, and I'm tired enough that my brain's not fully firing on all cylinders; I'd appreciate it if you could rework that phrasing as you see appropriate. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ha, wow, this is exactly why words are better than greater-than-signs: some of the places on en.Wikt that I've seen people write ">", they've meant "from", other places, they meant "to". (Words are also more helpful than ">" to screen readers.)
So many etymologies contain phonological information of that sort that someone (possibly me) should design a template for them, firstly to automatically apply the class that is currently applied by {{IPAchar}}, and secondly to standardise whatever wording we decide to put around and between "[kɨ]" and "[ki]". Perhaps the template could take readings as numbered parameters, and {{ja-reading-etymology|kɨ|ki}} would display The phonological evolution was from [kɨ] to [ki]. And if a third parameter were supplied, {{ja-reading-etymology|kɨ|ki|ke}}, it would display The phonological evolution was from [kɨ] to [ki] to [ke]. And so on. Would that be a good wording? - -sche (discuss) 05:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Where have you ever seen ">" meaning "from"? --WikiTiki89 07:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I have AWB set to point it out to me whenever a page I'm on uses ">" or "<". I've encountered maybe ~500 instances of those characters (not counting uses in HTML tags), of which there have been maybe a dozen that had "[newer language] [word] > [older language] [word]" in their etymologies, which have been the most unambiguous cases of ">" = "from". I've seen about as many entries with "<" for "to". Using "greater than" to mean either "from" or "to" is such a strange idea to begin with that I wouldn't even try to guess whether such uses were intentional or the result of someone's finger slipping and typing the wrong one of the two. I don't feel like tracking down specific examples at the moment, but I'll let you know next time I see one. (And BTW, that's not to speak of the variation between entries that present their etymologies in the format "[current form] [some terse symbol or word, typically either ">" or "<" but sometimes "←", meaning "from"] [older form] [terse symbol] [oldest form]" vs those that use the format "[oldest form]" [terse symbol or word meaning "to"] [older form] [terse symbol] [current form]". That variation can itself lead to confusion, particularly when — as in the case of numerous Finnish etymologies — the "[current word]" is omitted, and the string just starts or ends with ">"/"<"/"←"/"→".) - -sche (discuss) 08:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The only way I've ever seen them is "<" = "from" and ">" = "to". It may be a strange idea, but it is widespread in historical linguistics. --WikiTiki89 09:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I've been trying to mark lukewarmer for deletion because of the discussion taking place at w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lukewarmer. However the edit filter won't let me. It would be awesome if you could delete the page yourself. Thanks, Jinkinson (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. - -sche (discuss) 17:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A request[edit]

Based on this piece of comment, is it okay to make Perfective Counterpart and Imperfective Counterpart headers? --KoreanQuoter (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't. It doesn't seem necessary to add a new header just for that: if a word has only one or two perfective/imperfective counterparts, they could just be listed on the headword line; if there are more (or even if there are only a few), they could be listed in the ====Synonyms==== or ====Related terms==== section, whichever is appropriate. If you want to list them on the headword line, the current {{ru-verb}} templates could probably be expanded to accommodate that; you could ask about that in the Grease Pit. - -sche (discuss) 19:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


You can't call protestant a capitalisation, it's the exact opposite; the uncapitalised form of Protestant. In my opinion that template doesn't apply in this situation, and using it leads to confusion. I have come across this paradox elsewhere, but I can't remember where. Donnanz (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That's like saying that you can't call a nanometer a length because it's not long. --WikiTiki89 18:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
What's a nanometre got to do with it? Donnanz (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Because we use "capitalization" to mean some sort of measure of how capitalized a word is, and not capitalized at all is one possibility. The word "length" is another example of how we take a biased word and use it as a neutral term for a measurement. We don't have to switch to the word "shortness" when talking about nanometers. --WikiTiki89 18:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia's w:Capitalization (disambiguation) oddly does a better job of defining "capitalization" than our entry: one of the things it refers to is "choice of case in text", and one choice of case is "lowercase". This is the sense used by the template. As I noted in my edit summary, the template is regularly used for variations in capitalization in either direction. If you look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:alternative capitalization of, roughly half of the uses of it are on uncapitalized pages, soft-redirecting them to capitalized pages, and the other half are soft-redirects in the other direction. - -sche (discuss) 18:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you expect the man in the street (i.e. average user) to understand this inflexible philosophy? I, for one, do not. It's rather daft in situations like this. Donnanz (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The only "inflexible philosophy" I see is your philosophy that "alternative capitalization of" has to mean "alternative form written with an uppercase letter of". "Choice of case (whether ALL CAPS, CamelCase, Sentence case, or all lowercase)" is a regular meaning of "capitalization" in English. I've expanded our entry on capitalisation accordingly. - -sche (discuss) 19:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
My ""inflexible philosophy"? Huh! I know my interpretation of "capitalisation" is correct; the statement "Choice of case ...... or all "lowercase"" (sic) is WRONG (that's capitalisation for you). I see I'm not going to win this argument, but I hope you have a light-bulb moment one day. In the meantime, I have better things to do. End of argument. Donnanz (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Condensed version of your comment: "I don't have an inflexible philosophy, I'm just right and you and Wikitiki [and all the books that use 'capitalization' to mean 'choice of case'] are wrong!" lol. - -sche (discuss) 20:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Correct. Donnanz (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
This may actually be an American thing. Compare definition 4 in the Collins English Dictionary to definition 5 in the Collins American English Dictionary. --WikiTiki89 20:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I find I'd be inclined to follow Donnaz's usage. To me capitalization in "His capitalization of the letters is wrong" is equivalent to "That he capitalized all of the letter is wrong". I could accept the other meaning as a possibility, but it would not be my favored interpretation. DCDuring TALK 20:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
How about (discussing e.g. a student's paper) "her capitalization is all over the place". To me, that implies that her paper contained things like "the Russian armed Forces attacked budapest with Tanks and planes", not usually (and certainly not exclusively) that it consisted of "THE RUSSIAN ARMED FORCES ATTACKED BUDAPEST WITH TANKS AND PLANES". - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I was just about to add a comment on that. There are situations in which I could accept the meaning as "choice of orthographic case", but I would interpret "her capitalization is all over the place" as "her use of capital letters is inconsistent." Note that this interpretation would probably not lead to not getting the point intended. I think that my English has a narrow construction of words derived from the orthographic sense of capital and capitalize. I wouldn't say "Her capitalization is wrong." if she failed to use any capital letters and would not give that interpretation to someone else's utterance of that sentence. DCDuring TALK 21:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The sole definition of capitalization at MWOnline is "the use of a capital letter in writing or printing", completely in accord with my idiolect's usage and interpretation of the word. DCDuring TALK 21:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


Can this go? —CodeCat 20:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to keep it as a model of how entries would look if we gathered citations from all stages of a language's development onto one page. That's something that is not done at present except partially for English, where somewhere between 50–100+ entries include Middle English (but AFAIK never Old English) citations.
As an aside, I wonder how hard it would be to find all the files like File:Ég.ogg (with no langcode prefix), and find what langcode refix they should have, and [have Commons admins] move them...
- -sche (discuss) 21:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Not too hard if we add some code to the template we use to add the files to entries. It could check the parameter to see if it begins with the given language code, and categorise it if not. —CodeCat 21:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Great, especially if it could categorise (or a list could be made) based on which prefix was missing. I think Commons has tools for moving things in batches, e.g. "move all these 200 files to have a de- prefix". - -sche (discuss) 22:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't really know anything about how audio files are handled on Wiktionary, though. Which templates should this be added to? —CodeCat 23:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Just {{audio}} for now. There are probably some other templates used to display audio files (some are listed here), and there may even be some bare links, but those can be tracked down later; I think {{audio}} is the most commonly used template. - -sche (discuss) 03:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Shortcuts to templates[edit]

I've updated {{shortcut}} so that it can be used easily to indicate shortcuts for template names. The parameters can optionally include "Template" as part of the name, the template strips it out anyway. See {{context}} and {{label}} for examples. —CodeCat 23:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, good idea; thanks for doing that. :} - -sche (discuss) 01:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


The noun is really just the gerund of the verb. I wanted to remove the entry altogether as our verb entries generally don't include the gerund, but it has a quotation that I didn't want to remove. So I did diff instead. It looks kind of odd though, having a form-of definition pointing to the same page. What do you think? —CodeCat 02:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

To whatever extent that the gerund is considered a form of the verb and doesn't have distinctly nounal features like a plural (like English gerunds or would-otherwise-be-gerunds sometimes have), the quotation could be placed under the relevant verb sense and the noun section could be removed. The translation could be amended to "the disclosing of our DNA". If the noun section is to be retained, I think it would be helpful if the same terminology were used in it as in the verb's conjugation table, which means either the verb's conjugation table could be adapted to label the gerund as such, like "infinitive (and gerund)", or the template used to define the noun could be adapted to use the same label as the conjugation table, like "gerund (infinitive) of". - -sche (discuss) 02:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Dutch gerunds are certainly nouns. They don't have plurals, but they do have gender. It's the same in German. —CodeCat 03:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Then why do you want to remove the noun section? - -sche (discuss) 03:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Because all verbs have a gerund and it's always identical in form to the infinitive. So it would imply that we'd always have a noun section on the same page as verbs. I'm not sure if that's practical. —CodeCat 03:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
All German verbs can be substantivised, too. It happens that they get capitalised as part of the process, and Wiktionary puts different capitalisations on different pages... would it be consistent to exclude Dutch gerunds because they don't get capitalised? Substantivisations also inflect nounally in German, as in des Schwimmens — but then, Dutch gerunds also inflect nounally, or did in the past, right, as in willens en wetens? Also, it's only in theory that all verbs can be substantivised; in both Dutch and in German, there are probably cases where a verb is attested while its substantivisation isn't. (Strictly in theory, even the reverse could be true: there could be three citations of a gerund and only two of its verb.) So, Dutch gerunds could be allowed but not made a high priority. Or, if not, then as I said: to whatever extent the gerund is subsumed into the verb, quotations of it can go under verb senses. - -sche (discuss) 04:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)



Your reversal and the summary don't make sense to me. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад)

I was looking at the edit backwards, I apologise; Wikitiki clarified that in his subsequent reversal of my reversal of your reversal of the IP's removal of the links. - -sche (discuss) 21:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


Wiktionary:Sandbox/aWa is a page specially designated for testing. And you could have just asked me about adding archiving capability to Wiktionary:RFM unresolved requests subpages… Keφr 05:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that sandbox, but it's alright, I was doing a "real conditions" test of the archival of a section that didn't contain a pagename in its header to a manually-supplied 'target' talk page. When I archived the discussion which ultimately ended up here, the archiver initially put it here. I was testing whether that was because of a bug in the archiver or because I accidentally copied the whole string from the top of the page I wanted to put the discussion (having navigated to to be sure of what it was called), as opposed to just the pagetitle. It turned out to be the latter. - -sche (discuss) 07:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


{{en-noun}} doesn't support pl2= anymore and hasn't for a while now. Just letting you know. —CodeCat 18:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I actually worked on some Garifuna stuff for Wikipedia. Are there any entries for Garifunan words on here? Tharthan (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


Hello. I note your reversion on "Catholic", but don't agree. You may not be much aware of Christian Orthodoxy or its relation to Roman Catholicism, but both churches lay claim to catholicity. This is one result of the East-West schism which separated them in 1054, which may seem like a long time ago, but the ramifications are still very much alive. The Roman church came to be known as "Roman Catholic" specifically because of this claim to catholicity, and chose that name as part of establishing its claim. What you may not know is that what we know here in the west as the "Eastern Orthodox Church" also calls itself officially the "Orthodox Catholic Church", for much the same kinds of reasons. That knowledge is simply not widely known in the west. Even in the east, the title itself is not unduly emphasized. Instead, the teaching of the church as to its catholicity is made more prominent. But the counter-claim to the Roman church is just as firmly established. For "Catholic" then, with a capital C, it is indeed used as an adjective in modifying references to the Orthodox Church.

I think the official church title is enough to establish the capitalized form in relation to eastern orthodoxy. Other orthodox church references in English can probably be found, but Orthodoxy is spreading in the west only in more recent times, from areas that don't historically speak English so much, and rules of capitalization vary in other languages. Translations from original documents in other languages may or may not be done by people who are fully aware of such specific English usage.

I would argue that the entry ought to be changed back to something similar to what I had put there. What do you say? Evensteven (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know "as opposed to" means "contrasting with" and has nothing to do with their opinions. --WikiTiki89 18:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
No argument there. And "in contrast to" also has the same meaning. But it's a fact of human psychology that how something (including a wording) is interpreted can sometimes be subject to association: "opposition" in this case. The wrong association can sometimes result in misinterpretation, and non-native speakers of English (or the less fluent) are more subject to this kind of difficulty. "Contrast" or "differentiation" are more neutral, less likely to get there. It's not about being incorrect; it's about being helpful. This is a totally different issue than "Catholic" in reference to the Orthodox Church, however. Evensteven (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I imagine citations (passages from books that use the term "Catholic" in its various senses) will do more than anything to establish what senses the word has. It'd be particularly useful to see under what circumstances (C|c)atholic is used, with a particular meaning, in a way that actually contrasts with other possible meanings. (Uppercase "Catholic" in the sense "Roman Catholic" contrasts with e.g. "Protestant" when people speak of "Protestant England passing anti-Catholic laws", laws directed against the church that follows the Pope/Bishop of Rome, not specifically against e.g. Orthodox churches.) The inclusion of "Catholic" in the name of Orthodox churches that claim catholicity is easy to see as merely an instance of honorific capitalisation, in the absence of evidence that "Catholic" is used by itself to mean (or include) the Orthodox. Compare the inclusion of "Holy" in the names of churches — it doesn't mean "Holy" with a capital "H" means "sacred", it means "holy" (like "catholic") has one of its usual meanings, and was given honorific capitalisation as part of a Proper Noun/Name of an Important Thing. - -sche (discuss) 00:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I edit mostly on Wikipedia, and don't know what your standard ways of looking at things is. As I said, the official title of the eastern church is "Holy Orthodox Catholic Church", capitalized "Catholic" because it is part of the title, hence a proper name. That is seen, of course, in formal references. Outside that context, Catholic is not generally used (although nothing would prevent it). Then, it's Orthodox Church, or perhaps Eastern Orthodox Church. The one other instance of a capitalized Catholic that I see normally lies in the phrase from the Nicene Creed, "one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church", when the Orthodox church is identified as being just that. I would argue that's not an honorific or a proper name, but a reference to its catholicity. I see both these types of usage in Timothy Ware's The Orthodox Church, chapter 16, The Reunion of Christians, pp 315, 330, Penguin Books, 1991. (Note the edition is not the more recent 1993 one, with revisions, but both are current in use.) Ware also quotes an Anglican, Bishop Ken the Non-Juror, as saying "I die in the faith of the Catholic Church, before the disunion of east and west", p 325. Here the Catholic reference is again clearly to catholicity, and it was taken in a context where the Bishop was expressing his affirmation as an Anglican to catholicity, and his connection to Orthodoxy as a result of it. That usage can cut a number of ways, but it is not in this case separated from Orthodoxy either. I don't know if these quotes are retained in the 1993 edition of Ware, but if they are, the page numbers and placement in the volume might be different. The 1991 edition also has many references to "Catholic", alone and with "Roman", meaning the Roman church, in the common abbreviated uses we tend to see often in English. Frankly, it's not that many books on Orthodoxy that tend to mention other churches in multiple contexts like this one does. And "Catholic" definitely tends to be restricted in context with respect to Orthodoxy to just the title, and to affirmations of catholicity.
One more thing I can attest to: that the usage is notable among Orthodox. Both uses I mention are the guarantor of official recognition on the part of the church itself that it identifies with being "Catholic". Secondly, not all rank and file Orthodox, especially in more isolated regions, actually know this about the Orthodox church. It has been surprising to me how often the WP article on the "Eastern Orthodox Church" has been edited to reject the "Catholic" label, by strongly anti-Roman Orthodox. A number of those have even rejected official pronouncements from reliable Orthodox sources, saying that "Catholic" cannot mean anything but Roman Catholic. One was asked by another editor if he said the Nicene Creed in services. (If he doesn't, he doesn't go to Orthodox services; it's in virtually all of them). The WP article is burdened by proofs. I suspect that some of that controversy can also spring from lack of expertise with English, as references to Orthodoxy are found in English much less than references to Catholicism, and the latter may be all some of those more isolated Orthodox have ever seen in English.
In any case, the Orthodox church takes its catholicity very seriously, though an Orthodox attitude on that point does not get so emotional when confronted with rival claims. (It talks regularly with Catholics, Anglicans, and others about ecumenical issues, and this one comes up all the time.) Whatever the sensitivity of an individual, reference to these matters in English is as common as might be expected in relation to the frequency with which these matters come up in English, and are quite notable there. In addition, English Wiktionary is (I am sure) referenced quite often by speakers (principally) of other languages, in other nations, and I would imagine that Catholics and Orthodox alike in those locations would reference this particular entry more often than the general populations.
You know my opinion fairly completely now, and have one explicit source that gives all the senses I have seen in English. I'll leave it to you Wikitionarians to decide what to do next. Just don't make the decision based only on conformity with the way things are normally done on Wiktionary, because this item has its own peculiarities that should be taken fully into account. I think the significance to readers may alter the normal balance point. Oh, and if you've been wondering, no, I'm really not trying to push some anti-Catholic point of view, just trying to expose a smaller-scale but important usage. The existing material relating to the Roman church is clearly correct and suitable in its essence.
Thanks for listening. Evensteven (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
One more thing. "Catholic" within the title to both Roman and Orthodox churches are in fact references to catholicity also. Note above the Anglican's use of "Catholic", capitalized, to highlight catholicity. The capitalization in the titles might be thought to come from their being in titles, but the capitalization for reference to catholicity is retained in all contexts. Use of "Catholic" as in Roman church can be seen as taken wholesale from the title, but it can also be seen as reference to catholicity. The origin of the capitalization is not clear, as usage is mixed. Capitalization is a mixed art in English anyway. Look at most 18th century documents. Evensteven (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
A Wiktionary question for you. - Would it have been better of me to create a discussion page for the "Catholic" entry when raising this whole question? That's what I would have done on Wikipedia, but I note that most entries have no discussion page already. I hesitated, not knowing if that's as much a part of the working culture here. I expect to drop in on Wiktionary from time to time, and would like to establish my bearings a little better. Evensteven (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
See the edit notice. Keφr 14:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

RfD close[edit]

When you deleted financial service, did you also intend to delete financial institution? The latter is under the header of the former. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for catching that, and sorry I didn't notice this message until now. (I wonder why I didn't get one of those bright orange notifications until Anatoli's comment, below. Oh well, I've deleted the entry now...) - -sche (discuss) 23:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

kv language code[edit]


I must have missed something. What happened to "kv"? Is it retired? It's still in Module:languages/data2. Or are you orphaning it first. I noticed that Komi changes to Komi-Zyrian in translations. Which module does this conversion? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I am converting kv to kpv per WT:RFM#Komi_language. (Note also several older discussions, including WT:RFM#Category:Komi_language and Template talk:kpv.) Since it was (not unanimously, but sufficiently) decided to treat the two varieties of the macrolanguage Komi (kv) as separate lects, and we already have entries using the varieties' codes (kpv and koi), kv is no longer necessary or desirable: having it allows people to add words without specifying variety, which we don't want if (and insofar as) we consider the varieties to be separate languages. According to their headers, our kv entries are all Komi-Zyrian, anyway (as opposed to pan-Komi), so I am converting them to kpv. Then kv can be removed from the module. - -sche (discuss) 23:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, agreed. For "pan-Komi", if we get any, we can have duplicate entries. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy delete[edit]

Please delete eslibroj, dkampoj, ksoidoj, ptuloj, Template:compasses-eoj, Template:compasses-eon, Template:compasses-eojn, aluminia oksidoj and aluminia oksidojn. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, cheers. - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


You had added Sirup as a Middle High German word with a quote from 1563. It seemed to be an obvious mistake to me, since Middle High German is normally used for German until ca. 1350, maybe 1400~50, but certainly not 1563. So I deleted it. Only then did I see that you were the one who'd made this entry. I don't know, but it seems that sirup was one of the spellings used in (actual) Middle High German, but we don't normally use capitalized lemmas for MHG, do we? As far as I know capitalization of noun swas still very rare at that time... Anyway, you decide whether you want to put it back up, but you shouldn't use that quote, because it's Early Modern German, not Middle High German. Best regards.Kolmiel (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Low German[edit]

There's no wikipedia article called "German Low German", the term is never used, it is thus no official term and this makes 'nds-de' unvalid. And, let's be honest, 'German Low German' is also ridicule... Why not 'German-Low-German-from-Germany-and-not-the-Netherlands' just to be focus a little more on Germany??! The fact that French is spoken in Belgium gives no reason to call the French language "French French" as opposed to "Belgian French" or "Canadian French". I'm sorry for Dutch Low Saxon speakers, but they are a minority, and their existence do not give any reason to call Low German anything else than what it is, that is to say simply "Low German". Check on Wikipedia: a page for Low German exists, but none under the name "German Low German" because it simply doesn't exist, none says it as well. If no Wikipedia article exists to help anyone willing to know what YOU persist to call "German Low German" is, then it means that this name is unvalid and has no right to be on Wiktionary. Don't you know Wiktionary and Wikipedia are part of the same? If you do, be logic and call the same things the same names. Such persistence/stubbornness is an obstacle for Low German (and not German Low German...), it can only create misunderstandings and laughters to see such a ridicule term, it is an hindrance for Low German to be once considered a bit on here. Thank you for your understanding. --Stardsen (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Unblock script[edit]

Hey -sche,

I know I haven't been keeping up with Wiktionary affairs much nowadays, since I've been so busy with Commons and and all, but do you still remember Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/January#Infinite-duration blocks of IP addresses? I cooked up a script in Python which I believe should do the job, and if you want to run it on your account I can email the script if necessary. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Have the blocks not been lifted already? Keφr 15:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I lifted or shortened all of the blocks except the blocks of Tor nodes and proxies, and the blocks of IPs which were also subject to global bans, blocks, or locks. Hundreds of those blocks remain. TeleComNasSprVen and Amgine argued in the BP that it would be good to lift them, too, because "even those addresses get reassigned", and because the "WMF makes exceptions for certain users which have justified to the stewards their use of such IPs[, ... and] for such users the local blocks prevent their participation in project even though they have been cleared by community Stewards". We just have to decide if we do, in fact, want to lift those blocks. Note that prior to running the script we may want to manually shorten (rather than entirely lift) our handful of recent (post-2011) permablocks: of,,, and
If we do want to lift all the remaining local blocks (I think it would be reasonable to), you should probably send your script to someone with enough Python skillz to check it before running it (not me, lol). :p - -sche (discuss) 18:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I think we might need to poke someone from the WMF for that. And tell them to fix the database in the meantime. Keφr 19:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


Yes, the existing definition was not too good. I inserted what I think is a better definition for the sense of wash after the one you worked on. I think it fits the citation perfectly. Importantly, I think this sense of wash only applies to an outcome, actual or expected. DCDuring TALK 18:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've moved the citation and the wording about "no net change". Should the "something where no progress is made" sense be removed now, or do you think it is attested and distinct from the "losses and gains are equivalent, no net change" sense? - -sche (discuss) 21:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
In my idiolect, insofar as it is distinct from the new sense, it is not correct. But the English-speaking world has lots of variation.
A couple of OneLook dictionaries say it is US. Neither Collins nor Macmillan have it, suggesting it is not UK. It was not in Websters 1828 or 1913. A related sense of wash = wash sale appeared in Century. The wording in the dictionaries that have the sense usually includes no explicit mention of "progress", sometimes "yield" or other indication of result, so I would be happy deleting or "merging" the senses.
Relatedly, I don't get the sense development from the other senses to the "equivalence/balance" sense(s) or to the "wash sale" sense. I could see sense development from the "wash sale" sense to the "equivalence/balance" sense. DCDuring TALK 00:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
On stackexchange, one commenter suggests that "the usage derived from "wash out" back in the 20's". Nothing about their evidence suggests to me that the usage derives from "wash out", but ngram data does at least suggest that the dating is broadly right: it seems to have arise sometime between 1880 and 1950. Stackexchange also suggests that "wash sale" may derive from this sense of "wash". - -sche (discuss) 21:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
On Google Books, I spot a couple instances of "wash loan", an interest-free loan, which seems like another derivation of this sense of "wash". - -sche (discuss) 21:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
"Wash sale" is related, but it mostly leads to discussions of the specific US tax law provisions. "Wash transaction" is more informative, showing that the term covered a variety of types of transactions in which an apparent "real" transaction is offset by an exactly corresponding undisclosed transaction, to achieve some financial gain by fooling someone. I still have trouble grasping the metaphorical connection with other senses of wash. DCDuring TALK 06:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Todo/mismatched translation codes[edit]

Hi, please take a look at this, especially at any languages you have renamed. DTLHS (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Will do; thanks for regenerating the list. - -sche (discuss) 15:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Oi vey![edit]

You added the Oroko language section with a Bantu language header and language code (bdu), but cited Blust's Austronesian comparative dictionary, which has oi as the Bimanese (our Bima, code bhp) word for water to match your definition.

The obvious questions:

  1. Is oi really the Oroko word for water?
  2. Do we need to create a Bima section?
  3. What should I do with the Oroko categories I just created based on Category:Oroko nouns' presence in Wanted categories. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Hm, it looks like I got the codes for w:Bima language (Bantu) and w:Bima language (Austronesian) mixed up in adding the translation to [[water]] and in creating that entry. (Or possibly WT:EDIT's autocomplete-the-language-name function mixed them up.) I'll fix it up. Good of you to notice. I'd just leave the Oroko categories; I've never been a fan of deleting empty POS and language categories (the latter in particular should never be deleted, IMO), since they're bound to fill up eventually. - -sche (discuss) 01:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused.[edit]

There is no question that I don't merge "cot" and "caught", but I still wonder something...

I've been wondering exactly how to pronounce /ɒ/ all of this time, because I assumed that I didn't have it. The closest that I have come (or so I thought) was by rounding my lips whilst making the /ɑ/ sound. Yet all that sounded like to me was a short "/ɔ/".

So I decided to compare the audio files listed on Wikipedia for /ɔ/ and /ɒ/. These are the aforementioned audio files: ,

In comparing them, I noticed something. The sound file that supposed represented /ɒ/ sounded closer to my "/ɔ/". In fact, only when I dropped the "r" from "north" and stressed the remaining vowel did I actually produce a sound that was more-or-less identical to the sound clip attached to /ɔ/.

In addition, my "/ʌ/" resembles the sound clip attached to "/ɐ/" far more than it does the sound clip attached to /ʌ/ (the sound clip attached to that sounds more like /ɜ/ to me. Though... not identical.)

However, in all of the cases that I mention something sounded "closer" to something, I merely meant just that. More specifically, my "/ʌ/" does not sound exactly like the sound clip of /ɐ/; in particular, my "/ʌ/" is a little gentler sounding (to explain, if I try to mimic the sound clip for /ɐ/, then my teeth are exposed and my front teeth push back. Meanwhile, my "/ʌ/" has the softness of a non-rhotic /ɶ/ if that's possible (by that, I mean that the sound clip for /ɶ/ [4] sounds rhotacised to me). In addition, my "ɔ" indeed sound more like the sound clip given for /ɒ/ than the sound clip given for /ɔ/, but it has a similar issue in "softness/gentleness" as the previous.

Any ideas at what the problem here is/what sounds I'm actually producing? Tharthan (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not always easy to tell what precise phoneme someone is producing even when one hears them speak, but when one merely reads text, it's very difficult indeed. I can make two comments, though:
  1. I've never been convinced that all of WP's IPA phoneme audio files, especially the audio files of unusual sounds like /ɶ/, are as perfectly spot-on as WP's decision to provide them in the infoboxes of the IPA phonemes suggests they are.
  2. If your /ɔ/ sounds more like WP's /ɒ/ than like its /ɔ/, and your /ʌ/ sounds more like WP's /ɐ/ than like its /ʌ/, then it could be that either the person who did WP's audio files was pronouncing things slightly too high, or you are pronouncing things slightly lower than is canonical. (Apologies if this is a trivially obvious and unhelpful observation.)
- -sche (discuss) 00:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
No apologies necessary, I am very much appreciative of both your observations and your opinions on this particular matter. From what you said, I was able to figure that (if we presume that the audio files for the vowel sounds that are used on Wikipedia are spot-on) this is how my vowels work. Areas where I seem to deviate are coloured green: IPA Vowel Chart (Tharthan).png
My question is, how would I then more accurately transcribe these questionable vowels? Should I transcribe my "/ʊ/" as /ʊ̈ /, or as /ɵ/(there is no audio clip for /ʊ̈ /, so I don't know whether it would be the best representation of my "/ʊ/" or not, but I can say for certain that my "/ʊ/" is very much like the audio clip for /ɵ/; only a tad softer)? I'm already leaning towards transcribing my "/ʌ/" as /ɞ/ if it comes to that, but I am unsure about how I should transcribe the other "green vowels".
Now, the reason I ask about how I should transcribe these "green vowels" is because someone else listened to my audio clip for Boston on here, and decided it would be more accurate to transcribe my pronunciation of it as [ˈbɒːstɪn] rather than what I was already transcribing it as. The thing is, I can't refute the idea that my "/ɔ/" is more of an /ɒː/, due to what we have just been discussing, and I don't want to consciously lie to people about my pronunciations, so...
How would you recommend I transcribe my pronunciations on Wiktionary from now on? Should I just stick with how I was already transcribing them because such particular accuracy might not be necessary here, or should I only change my transcription of some of the "green vowels", OR should I change the transcription of all of the "green vowels", and (if so) how do you think I should transcribe them? Tharthan (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I had the same observation about the /ɒ/ in the sound files, it sounds more closed and I would interpret it as /ɔ/. I don't speak a language variety that contrasts these, but I do contrast Dutch /ɔ/ and /ɑ/ with English /ɒ/. And to me, the sound file is closer to my Dutch /ɔ/ than to my English /ɒ/. —CodeCat 18:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The way I see it, IPA symbols are more relative than absolute and thus have different absolute locations for each accent of each language. Since the Rhode Island accent (which is mostly what Tharthan speaks) has all three of (using Wikipedia-style phonemes) /ɑː/, /ɒ/, and /ɔː/, it makes sense to use different letters for each of them. I prefer, respectively, [a(ː)], [ɒ(ː)], and [ɔ(ː)]. The second one is rounded or at least semi-rounded, which is why I don't think it should be [ɑ(ː)]; and the third one is more closed than the second, and the next closest symbol is [ɔ(ː)]. --WikiTiki89 18:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@CodeCat I wasn't aware that Dutch didn't distinguish between /ɔ/ and /ɒ/. Is it a dialectal thing, or is it standard all around? Like, would somebody from Friesland who is speaking Dutch maybe have that phoneme, whilst a Hollander would not (or something like that)? Also, if the audio clip for /ɒ/ actually represents /ɔ/, then what does the audio clip for /ɔ/ represent?
@Wikitiki89 But wasn't IPA supposed to clear up a lot of that relativity when it comes to transcription? That's the whole reason why I've loved IPA ever since I've first seen it (which was when I was a wee lad of but four and a half years old. I saw it in my father's copy of Oxford, you see). In either case, my "/a/" is much softer (and not all my vowels are soft, by the way. My /æ/ is pretty much identical to that of the voice clip on Wikipedia) than actual /a/, hence why I've transcribed it up till now as /ɑ/ (but perhaps /ɑ̈/ would be a better way to transcribe it?) Either way, how would you recommend I transcribe the vowels marked in green? Tharthan (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
IPA was supposed be a single set of symbols that can be used for any human language. No system can clear up all the relativity. How you should transcribe the vowels in green depends on the other vowels you distinguish. Can you perhaps re-create this image with the other vowels you use bolded? --WikiTiki89 20:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Tharthan: Dutch has /ɔ/ and /ɑ/, but no /ɒ/. I suppose the latter might be an allophone of /ɑ/ for some speakers or in some places in a word, but it's not really contrastive. —CodeCat 21:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89 Sure. I'll do that tomorrow. It's wicked late at the moment, so I need to get to sleep. @CodeCat Ah. I see... Tharthan (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC) @Wikitiki89 I have now done what you requested. The vowels that I have that sound exactly the same as Wikipedia's sound clips and I don't question the transcription of are marked in red. In addition, another green vowel was added because I forgot to mark it before. So the red vowels and green vowels make up my vowel inventory that I use every day when speaking English. Tharthan (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! If I were you, I would continue to transcribe exactly as you have them there, except that you could switch to using [ɐ] for /ʌ/. You can't use [ɞ] as you mentioned above because [ɞ] is the rounded counterpart of [ɜ], and I doubt your pronunciation is close enough to [ɜ] anyway. I really don't know how to tell apart [ɐ] and [ʌ], despite how far apart they seem to be on the chart. Even Russian has a sound that is interchangeably transcribed as either [ɐ] or [ʌ]. You can't use [ɒ] for /ɔ/ because it's already taken. You could also use [ɵ] for /ʊ/ (I know [ɵ] is even used for the "feminine" RP realization of /ʊ/). And just to make sure I understood you correctly, your /e/ and /o/ are meant to represent the first part of the diphthongs /eɪ̯/ and /oʊ̯/, correct? --WikiTiki89 14:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If I can't use /ɒ(ː)/ for my "/ɔ/, then what should I use for it? It clearly sounds different than a real /ɔ/ (which I have before words like "north" [/ɔɹ/] and the like), yet it's not the same as plain /ɒ/ either.

My /o/ is usually /oʊ/. HOWEVER, when pronouncing stressed words like "ohhhhh" or something like that, I do actually pronounce it with a monophthong vowel. This vowel is actually in between /o/ and /o̞/. This could be because (when I was around nine or ten years old) I started studying Japanese, which I think has an /o̞/ sound. Or it could have something to do with my Polish ancestry (I am Irish, Polish, French and Portuguese, as well as about 1% Algonquian, along with maybe a few other things because my father didn't ever know his natural mother [except that he visited her once when he was quite little and remembers that she was blonde] and was instead adopted by his aunt [who was the sister of his father]. The first two of those five [Irish {Some dialect of Irish English was spoken by my Irish ancestors} and Polish] have been the most influential on the idolect-bund of my family.) Specifically, the fact that my Gran (my mother's mother) spoke Polish (almost as well as my Babci and Dziadziu, but they passed away when my Mom was seven; the same age I was when my Gran passed away), and taught my mother a good several words of Polish herself, along with proper pronunciation, is likely the reason behind why my /ɑ/ sounds far different than an /a/ to me, and why I've always tended to pronounce Japanese words/Japanese loan words ending in "e" with /ɛ/ instead of /e/ (because in my household we grew up saying "na zdrowie" [which we actually usually pronounced as /nɑz‿stroβvijɛ/ or {when speaking very fast} /nɑz‿stroʋyjɛ:/] when we did a toast), why I have always had both /ɾ/ and /r/ in phonemic inventory (this is mostly due to the fact that we ate pierogis [which we pronounced /pɛˈɾoːɡi/] a lot). Other things we often said were "dziękuję" (which we pronounced /dʒ‿ɛ̃kujɝ/), and "jak się masz" (which we pronounced /jakʔʃɛmɑʃ/). For reference, by the way, all of my ancestors (whether Irish, Polish, French or Portuguese) initially came to New England around the late 1800s. The first generation Irish part of my family lived until about 1990 or so.

As is the case with my /o/, my /e/ tends to be a diphthong (much more so than my /o/ tends to be a diphthong, however). Nonetheless, in rare cases I will pronounce a true /e/ in a word. Tharthan (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Well if you use [ɒ(ː)] for your /ɔː/, then how would it be differentiated from your /ɒ/? At least /ɔɹ/ is differentiable by the /ɹ/. The other option is to start using diacritics, but I think of that as a last resort or for super narrow transcriptions. --WikiTiki89 21:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose you're right. I'd rather not use diacritics for IPA if I don't have to, so I'll just stick to something similar to what you recommended. I think I'll use /ɵ/ for /ʊ/ unless I somehow find an audio clip for /ʊ̈ / (or maybe I'll just stick with /ʊ/ à la what I am doing with using /ʌ/ instead of /ɐ/) Tharthan (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Usexes at приказать долго жить[edit]

Since you have not actually created an RFC discussion, I will make my comment here: The usexes are actually just usage examples quoted from a Russian phraseological dictionary. I guess it's possible they are actually quotations of literature, but the phraseological dictionary does not say where they came from, implying in my mind that they are just usage examples. --WikiTiki89 23:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether we actually allow this, but if not, blame Anatoli. --WikiTiki89 23:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
That's my thinking too. The usage examples only look like they're from literature but they may have been made up by the creators of the dictionary. I couldn't find the same texts in Google books. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't create a thread on WT:RFC because I figured it was an easy issue to fix and one of the page's watchers would fix it quickly.
I think it would be desirable to either find actual examples of use, or make up our own usexes, or at least cite the dictionary that's being quoted (i.e. cite it in the manner other quoted works are cited in, "Year, Author, Work")... but it's certainly odd to cite another dictionary's usex... - -sche (discuss) 00:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Well that's why I added the Tolstoy quote. I was too lazy to look for more after that, but I think ideally there should be an old quote and a recent quote each for both senses. --WikiTiki89 00:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I have changed for a simpler usage example. Too much hassle! --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for adding the etymological info that I had asked about to [[Riemen]]. Could you add a References section and list the full names of the works by Chudinov, Dahl, and Vasmer? Thanks! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done; cheers! - -sche (discuss) 15:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


I tried to change "Greece" to something else ("Greeks") because the sentence looks a bit odd to me, since as you know there was concept of polis, but not concept of a unified society or state called Greece to which Greeks can be loyal back then. Could you reword that sentence without mixing state and people, or could you think of an alternative? --Z 18:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, what about "to be loyal to Persians rather than Greeks"? - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


Guess what? Three citations from sources having nothing to do with the subject, and more, from Google Books. Gotcha there! Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


What does TR mean as said here? Pass a Method (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

WT:TR. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Betanure Jewish Neo-Aramaic[edit]

User:Rakkalrast added a word in this language to *šan-, but we don't have a language code for it, since it does not have an ISO code. Should we create this language (LINGUIST List gives it the code: lsd-bet) or merge it with Leshana Deni (code: lsd)? --WikiTiki89 15:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

A variety of Neo-Aramaic spoken by ≤ 17 families?... there comes a point, for me at least, when it even considering something a dialect as opposed to an idiolect becomes iffy; certainly, I don't see any evidence that we need to handle Betanure as a full language rather than using qualifier tags and one of our existing headers. And Hezy Mutzafi's 2008 work on The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Betanure (ISBN 3447057106) affirms that Betanure is part of the Lishana Deni Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect cluster. - -sche (discuss) 16:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


I wonder why the Proto-Algonquian words have all those dots in them. Are they morpheme boundaries? —CodeCat 17:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Placing a mid-dot after a [Proto-Algonquian] vowel is the usual way of indicating that the vowel is long. One also sees colons used for this purpose (presumably approximating IPA /ː/), mostly though not exclusively in works that also lack other "advanced" characters and substitute e.g. "?" and "0" for "ʔ" and "θ". (On rare occasion, I've even seen authors just double the vowel, or use circumflexes as in Fox orthography.) Morpheme boundaries are indicated when necessary by a hyphen, which does mean that reading old messily-printed or poorly-scanned texts sometimes requires one to have enough knowledge to tell whether a long vowel or a morpheme boundary is to be expected in the particular place. This is documented on WT:AALG#Vowels (though perhaps not clearly enough—what do you think?), and will be documented on WT:AAQL once I add info on phonology to that page. - -sche (discuss) 17:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I wonder why they didn't go with the more common practice of using macrons... —CodeCat 18:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know. The practice of using mid-dots for PA seems to have originated with Leonard Bloomfield, who first reconstructed PA, and who also used mid-dots for Menominee. Neither language uses any diacritics. - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Prakrits in Module:etymology language/data[edit]

WT:FSCK spews warnings about these not having a parent; I guess they should be put under pra, pka, pmh or psu. All of these were added by User:DerekWinters in June. Since you are the one who usually maintains our languages lists, what do you think should be done with them? Keφr 22:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I've put them under "pra". If anyone wants to make a case for sorting them more narrowly (e.g. under "pka"), they're welcome to. The codes don't seem to be used anywhere, though, and I'm not sure it makes sense to have them in Module:etymology language/data rather than (a) having them in Module:languages/datax or (b) not having them at all. I guess the logic is that they're not different enough from "pka" to be worth giving separate L2s, but they might still be worth mentioning in etymologies (although so far they haven't been)? - -sche (discuss) 00:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


I have nominated this template for deletion. I don't see how it is useful for anything that we do, and it seems to create a large number of unattractive and intractable problems. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I admit it's not without its problems. However, I think more good than harm, and you may be surprised to learn that the situation prior to the creation of the template was even more unattractive and problematic. I'll comment on RFD with some links to evidence of that, among other things. - -sche (discuss) 19:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Quick question[edit]

Is the nonstandard pronunciation of trough a result of an "anti-th fronting" of sorts? Mayhap... a "hypercorrection"? Or did some dialects actually have a /x/ → /θ/ shift?

I remember seeing that there was once a time when some (Middle?) English dialects confused /ʍ/ and /θ/, but I don't recall seeing anything about a dialectal /x/ → /θ/ shift anywhere. Tharthan (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. Based on my feeling that /f/ and /θ/ alternate more often than /x/ and /θ/, I would have hazarded a guess that the shift was not an early one of /x/ → /θ/ but rather a later one of /f/ → /θ/. However, William Dwight Whitney, in his 1870 Language and the Study of Language, writes:
  • Thus, when the English gave up in pronunciation its palatal spirant—still written in so many of our words with gh—while it usually simply silenced it, prolonging or strengthening, by way of compensation, the preceding vowel, as in light, bough, Hugh, it sometimes substituted the labial spirant f, as in cough, trough; and, in the latter word, a common popular error, doubtless going back to the time of the first abandonment of the proper gh sound, substitutes the lingual spirant th, pronouncing troth.
Elsewhere I can find a note from 1917 by American linguist Edgar Howard Sturtevant that "until my thirtieth year I pronounced 'trough' as 'trouth'", and confirmation from Peter Davies' 1983 Success with words: a North American guide to the English language that even at that date "trough is [still] sometimes pronounced /trōth/". The comments on this blog post contain some more information on the subject.
Perhaps someone in the wt:Tea Room can tell you more.
Incidentally, Merriam-Webster contains the interesting note (using their non-IPA notation) that the term is pronounced "by bakers often /trō/".
- -sche (discuss) 19:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see then. That word in particular must have been very variable in its pronunciation for a good long while now. Thanks for the explanation. Tharthan (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


{{alternative form of}} doesn't even categorise anymore, so there's no problem removing the key. —CodeCat 21:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


jade#Etymology 2 mentions the language Mordvin, but we consider Mordvin to be two different languages: Erzya (myv) and Moksha (mdf). Is it worth creating a small language family for Mordvinic languages (probably not)? If not not, how can I determine which language was meant in the etymology? --WikiTiki89 19:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

As a first step, I'd declare the term's language to be "und", and say it's from "either Erzya or Moksha". This obviates the need to create a code for Mordvinic (though one could still be created if there happened to be other reasons why it would be useful). Next, knowing that Moksha and Erzya are both written in Cyrillic, I'd test various possible Cyrillic spellings of the term combined if possible with various possible Russian translations, to see if I could find any Russian linguistic texts that mentioned the term — I've been able to verify the identity of some Lak and other Caucasian terms that way.
PS #1: that reminds me of how useful it would be if we had entries for the Russian abbreviations of various languages' names. I've added some (д.-в.-н.), but I think I stupidly didn't record the Caucasian abbreviations at the time I had them in front of me, even though it took me a while to figure them all out with the help of ru.wikipedia. Maybe I'll go looking for them again; shouldn't be too hard to find them again, and you and Anatoli can help verify what they're abbreviations of.
PS #2: do you think it's redundant to say "obviates the need" or "obviates the requirment", since obviate already specifies "bypass a requirement" in its definition? I've never been sure... - -sche (discuss) 20:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
After taking a look at the languages' orthographies, the only Cyrillic spelling of al'd'a that makes sense is альдя, for which Google shows several results in some strange language that might be either Moksha or Erzya, or might be something else entirely. I don't know nearly enough about these languages to be able to identify them, and none of the results are dictionaries. RE PS #1: Russian abbreviations always confuse me too. I'm not even sure whether the language abbreviations are standardized enough between dictionaries for it to make sense to add them. RE PS #2: I think the definition is supposed to be "bypass [a requirement]" in other words the requirement (or the word requirement itself) is meant to be the direct object of "obviate". --WikiTiki89 02:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I checked such spellings as алда, ал'д'а and альдьа after I posted, and I couldn't find anything in a Uralic language, either. Some hits were Kazakh(!).
Per Thorson's 1936 Anglo-Norse studies: an inquiry into the Scandinavian elements in the modern English dialects, volume 1, derives dialectal English yad / yaad / yaud (used in "Sc Nhb Lakel Yks Lan", which I take to be Scotland, North Humberside?, Lakeland?, Yorkshire, and Lancashire) from Old Norse jalda (dialectal Swedish jäldä), from a Finnish word "elde" (citing "FT p. 319, Torp. p 156 fol."), but says "Eng. jade is not related." Likewise the Saga Book of the Viking Society for Northern Research, page 18, says "There is thus no etymological connection between ME. jāde MnE. jade and ME. jald MnE. dial. yaud etc. But the two words have influenced each other mutually, both formally and semantically." I'll see about expanding jade and yaud with this information. - -sche (discuss) 03:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
One last question, though. Should "Mordvin" be added as an alternative name for both Moksha and Erzya? --WikiTiki89 13:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, enough references (especially old ones but even some modern ones) speak of "Mordvin" as a language made up of Moksha and Erzya dialects, rather than as a family, that recording that asan alt name would be helpful. - -sche (discuss) 15:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It's эльде both in Moksha and Erzya. See Имяреков, Мокшанско-русский словарь, 1953, page 124b, and Серебренникова Б. А., Бузакова Р. Н., Мосина М. В. (ред.), Эрзянско-русский словарь, 1993, page 781b. If you can't find a spelling for any Uralic, Altaic or a Caucasian language, ask me, I have a lot of sources. --Vahag (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, that's good to know. I knew you had resources on Caucasian languages, but didn't know about Finno-Ugric. I'll add a Moksha section to [[эльде]]. :) - -sche (discuss) 17:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Haida languages[edit]

Have we thought out the treatment of these yet? We have both the macrolanguage code hai (and a category for terms derived from it, including the entry gwaai that I think I'll go and RFV) as well as the two sublects, hdn and hax, the latter of which I just unwittingly made a terms derived from category for. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I recall looking into the Haida lects, but it seems from my "Note 2" in this RFM that I held off on posting about them for some reason, and then got distracted by events in real life. WT:LANGTREAT says to treat only the macrolanguage as a language, but like the pronouncements I mentioned in that RFM, it seems there was never discussion about that. There are noticeable phonological differences between the Northern and Southern lects. Each of those lects is in turn made up of its own (sub-)dialects, but the sub-dialects within each group are mutually intelligible, so it doesn't seem to be a problem to merge those (into hax and into hdn), and it seems most references do. I looked at a number of North Haida, South Haida and plain "Haida" materials (Enrico's Northern Haida Songs, etc) and references before I posted the above-linked RFM last year and planned to comment about Haida; I'll see if I can find the notes I made then. - -sche (discuss) 22:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
A tad more research on the matter suggests to me that we should deprecate the use of the macrolanguage and reassign it, then create categories for the sublects. If you've notes on it, though, I'll wait for you to start the RFM instead of blowing ahead myself. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, here are my notes, which I'd be happy to summarize in any RFM on the subject, or which you can feel free to pull from.
- -sche (discuss) 05:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, for entries I would suggest using Enrico's orthography (or maybe Bringhurst's), so as to avoid characters like that are hard to input and liable to display incorrectly. - -sche (discuss) 06:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
All sounds good, and you can feel free to copy my Support over to the RFM for splitting and deprecating hai, but I'm not on board with the orthography. In British Columbia, I've only seen the orthography with x̱ used, so I would presume it is standard among speakers and linguists. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia says SHIP's orthography "is the usual orthography used in Skidegate", while Enrico's is what I saw in my (limited) review for Northern Haida—but perhaps the set of materials I have access to is not representative of all materials. Are the texts you see in British Columbia Southern Haida, or are some Northern Haida? Meh, it would be undesirable to use two different orthographies... I suppose we can normalize both (South and North) on the SHIP spellings and mention the other spellings as alternative forms. (Cf this subthread, if you're bored.) - -sche (discuss) 23:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, after waiting a few days for some other discussions to settle down, I started Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2014/August#Haida_lects. - -sche (discuss) 19:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The power of 'and'[edit]

We COULD have both fixing AND fixing to be intelligible on their own, something we do with many comparable situations. DCDuring TALK 21:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I've replied at WT:RFM so as to keep discussion in one place. Cheers! - -sche (discuss) 22:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Attestability of "yellowman"[edit]

The search for attestability seems to yield mostly references to a White Jamaican reggae artist. Purplebackpack89 04:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I tried searching for the plural, "yellowmen", and although that turned up some scannos, it also turned up enough valid hits that I've now created yellowman. - -sche (discuss) 21:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Two is enough? DCDuring TALK 23:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The search turned up more than the two hits I typed up. CFI doesn't require that citations be typed up and put in entries unless the entries are challenged, but I have typed up a third citation. Incidentally, it also contains "whitemen" and "blackmen". - -sche (discuss) 00:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Appendix:Place names in New York area with possible native American origins[edit]

I gathered these from the book mentioned in the Appendix at a WP edit-a-thon held today at a local library. You provided an etymology for Mamaroneck that was better than that in the book, by Richard Lederer (or his father?). A few of the toponyms in the Appendix (eg, Osceola, Mohegan) are taken from native American tribes not from the immediate area, a few from neighbors on the west side of the Hudson, Connecticut, farther north in New York, or possibly from Long Island, but at least 80% are from tribes that lived in what are now Westchester, Putnam, or Bronx counties. The spellings are the only ones Lederer had. I assume he rejected some for good reason. He seems to have taken many of them from land purchase records of the 17th century. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, neat. I will look over the list and see if I can clarify / expand any of the etymologies. Should I remove placenames from the list once we have entries for them with complete etymologies (as in the case of Ossining), or what? - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's keep them as examples of what can be achieved, at least for now.
Lederer seems to have worked fairly diligently through his sources, which include hundreds of primary documents and secondary works. I didn't see any works in the bibliography that seemed to be specifically books or articles on the native languages themselves, but I ran out of time so I didn't look all that carefully. I'll be able to take a closer look soon. I may also extract the Dutch origin names. The English ones are fairly uninteresting, even to locals.
Why are Germans so fascinated by native Americans? DCDuring TALK 04:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I have the towns there to provide a hint where in the county these places are, in case geography might have a bearing on the language of the toponym. There are a few from the Long Island Sound area, more from Bronx and Yonkers and along the Hudson to Peekskill, and others inland in northern Westchester. HTH. DCDuring TALK 04:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure there are books written on that subject. I think it's partly the earlier European Noble Savage myths, combined with the lack of territorial conflicts that might have provided motivation for negative stereotypes, but also just the lure of the exotic and safely far away. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I wonder that myself sometimes.
If you're asking why so many materials on native American tribes and languages were compiled by Germans, a large part of the answer is prosaic. Germany has long produced large numbers of ethnographers and linguists. A lot of materials on Pacific and African peoples and languages were also compiled by Germans.
If you're asking why so many non-linguists love "Indian" things ... well, that's Karl May's doing. He bought into and sold others on the romanticized notion Chuck mentions of simple and noble, exotic people living "authentic lives".
The town names should be helpful. - -sche (discuss) 07:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Neologisms and "Web Words"[edit]

Personally, I've always taken "Web words" happily so long as they met certain criteria. I've always been particularly fond of Germanic or otherwise native ones, due to my love of writing "native" poetry.

Anent neologisms... it's been somewhat iffy. I am accepting of some, but not of others. For instance, "selfie" is a term that I never use; opting for the fairer "self-snapshot" or "snapshot of oneself". On the other hand, "troll" (as in the sense of "to bait and wait so as to start trouble" or the like) is one that I have happily accepted with open arms (mayhap due to its origins in angling terminology, though I honestly can't say for sure).

Now, the reason why I bring this up is because it seems that Wiktionary's methods of determining which "web words" and which neologisms are acceptable for inclusion are somewhat murkily composed. Whilst terms like "halgi" are included, others are not. I can't really tell what the "criteria for inclusion" entails sometimes, because it seems a bit vague.

Might you be able to shed some light on this? Tharthan (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, numerous discussions have made it apparent that Wiktionary's policy on citing the internet is not as clear as it could be; in particular, it can take a while to unpack the ramifications of the words "durably archived" / "permanently recorded" in WT:CFI. But once those words are unpacked, "web words" and "print words" are subject to the same criteria for inclusion. Words in major languages have to be used, as in "he took a selfie", and not just mentioned, as in "he used the word 'selfie' to describe the picture he took of himself". (Lines like "he took what he called a 'selfie'" fall into a grey area of debatable use-vs-mention-ness.) The uses have to span a year, to weed out fad words that are only popular for a month, like the Russian translation of "pink slime" (which was only somewhat less of a fad in English). And the uses have to be in "durably archived"/"permanently recorded" media.
What is durably archived? Books, newspapers, journals and magazines are durably archived. (Google Books and Issuu are good ways of using the internet to search through those media.) Websites are not durable, because they go offline (and moreover are edited and reworded) without warning. Even articles on the websites of news organizations can be taken down — a Wikipedia article I just edited discussed a story which was removed at the request of the journalist, allegedly after he was intimidated. Even the Internet Archive, which has been discussed in the past, is not a durable archive, because it removes pages if site owners request that. The only online corpus which is durably archived is Usenet, because it is decentrally archived, and attempts to censor things from it have indeed failed (e.g. someone at one point tried to delete alt.religion.scientology, and failed). This failure of most web sources to be durably archived can make it harder to cite "web words" (cf. this). However, if a web word is attested per those criteria, it can have an entry just like any other attested word.
Does this clear things up any?
Note that because of the nature of Wiktionary (it's a work in progress, and it's a wiki anyone can edit in real-time), some unattested words may have entries (you can RFV those), and some attested words may not have entries yet (you can create those). Also note that strings that are analysable as misspellings (e.g. strings like licencise, and probably also uncommon strings from lolcat-speak or doge-speak) may be excluded as such. - -sche (discuss) 23:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes. That clears up a lot. I now have a more adequate understanding of how the process works. Thanks much.
So citations from Usenet are considered to be among those of the "durably archived" / "permanently recorded" variety? Or, are they only somewhat so, and are thusly taken with a grain of salt? Tharthan (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Usenet is as durably archived as print media, so a use of a word on Usenet is 'worth' as much as a use of a word in a book. But Usenet is more likely than print media to contain typos/misspellings, so if a string is analysable as a typo/misspelling, and it is only supported by Usenet citations, people may be more likely to analyse it as a misspelling and not an intentional use of a certain spelling/word. (For example, book citations might have done more to convince people of the word-hood of licencise than these Usenet citations did in this discussion.) But even books contain typos : I can't find an example offhand, but in RFV, if a book uses an unusual spelling sometimes and the usual spelling other times, it's usually assumed that the instances of the unusual spelling are typos. And when it's clear that something isn't a typo/misspelling, like "Rightpondian" or the video-game sense of "pull", then it doesn't matter whether the citations come from books or Usenet. There seem to be about 1100 entries that cite Usenet. - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Rollback in error at told[edit]

I believe this rollback was done in error. The alternate pronunciations that were there were intentional. I intend to restore them. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I should have undone your edit with a more informative summary, I'm sorry. The pronunciations you added are unattested and dubious, per discussion on Angr's talk page, so I've removed them until such time as evidence of them comes along. Rollback is sometimes/often used as a quick way of undoing edits around here (if the edits are merely felt to make the entry worse, without the implication 'rollback' has on Wikipedia that the edits are vandalism), since Wiktionary's relatively small number of admins tend to be a lot busier than Wikipedia's larger number of admins... but it can tend to cause confusion, like now, when the edit was intentional and in good faith, but still made the entry worse. - -sche (discuss) 14:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I've started a thread at Wiktionary:Tea_room/2014/September. It's important that this be sorted out, because bowl-bull, cull-coal, etc. have indeed become homophones, and it effects even General American for most people certainly my age (34) and younger. - Gilgamesh (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, erm...[edit]

I would have e-mailed you this or sent this message to you via a more private method if I could have, because I feel posting this here might come off as rude to the person in question (though I do not intend it as such).

User:Angr and I seem to be in disagreement over what should be allowed transcription-wise for a certain word, and we seem to be at a deadlock. As such, I thought that maybe a third party could be brought in so as to maybe give their opinion on the matter.

Now, I don't know really anything about your dialect, -sche, (and I don't mind being blissfully ignorant on that subject, since I think it's irrelevant to most parts of editing on Wiktionary) [though I remember seeing a reference to you at some point being in the Inland-North, though I don't really know the relevance of that] so I don't know where you'd fall anent this matter, but I would honestly hope (and truly do think) that that wouldn't (and shouldn't) matter, considering the argument here is transcription, and any linguist worth their salt knows how to properly transcribe vowel phonemes, and knows the difference between two different phonemes, whether monophthong, diphthong, or otherwise, irrespective of whether or not the vowel phonemes in question occur in his or her dialect.

Now, I firmly trust your knowledge and expertise in this field, hence why I have come to you. I think you may be able to help in settling this issue. So, if you'd be willing to offer your tuppence-worth on this matter, I'd be very grateful.

The aforementioned discussion can be found here: Tharthan (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

My "e-mail this user" link should be enabled (in the toolbar on the side of this page, a few items below "what links here"); if it's not, let me know. (Not that I check my e-mail with any frequency at all...)
My "expertise in this field" is amateur compared to Angr's. But since I've been asked, I'll give my thoughts:
I remember noticing during a previous Tea Room discussion of the M-m-m merger that one of the problems one faces if one wants to transcribe 'marry', 'merry' or 'Mary', or for that matter 'air' or 'ear', is that the IPA doesn't have symbols that denote these sounds perfectly, so one is left using approximate transcriptions. That's not automatically problematic — if a language's "e" sound is actually 15% closer to canonical /ɛ/ than canonical /e/ is, it's fine to nonetheless transcribe it as /e/, or if necessary /e̞/; one needn't invent a whole new letter for it. It does, however, mean that discussions of whether or not sounds are distinct (and discussions of how to transcribe them) are more difficult. For example, according to our entry and, 'merry' is /ˈmɛɹi/ and 'Mary' is /ˈmɛəɹi/ for speakers who don't have the M-m-m merger, while both are /ˈmɛɹi/ for speakers who do. However, both our audio clips and's contain a vowel that is distinct from the /ɛ/ in 'bet' (i.e., the Vr sequences in the audio clips aren't just /ɛ/ followed by /ɹ/). That means that someone who was trying to figure out whether her pronunciation of 'Mary' used /ɛə/ or /ɛ/ would run into trouble if she tried pronouncing 'Mary' and then pronouncing words with /ɛ/ in them like 'bet' to see if she used the same vowel in both — she'd probably conclude that she didn't use the same vowel for the two words, even if the vowel she used in 'Mary' was the one we transcribe as /ɛ/.
However, setting that issue to the side...
According to our entry and, 'air' is /ɛəɹ/*, with the same vowel as unmerged 'Mary'. Our audio clip is curt and sounds like it contains only a single (non-diphthong) vowel, but's has more of a /ə/. Likewise, 'affair' is /əˈfɛəɹ/ per, and the vowel in the audio file is the same as the vowel (diphthong) in's 'Mary' audio file.
That means it would be reasonable to transcribe the sound as /ɛəɹ/ (or /ɛɚ/, which is synonymous) for (some) American accents. But is /ɛɹ/ wrong? Well, is there an American accent that contrasts /ɛɹ/ and /ɛəɹ/ in this (non-intervocalic) context? If not, then the worst one can say is that /ɛɹ/ is potentially confusing, but as long as there's a page explaining how the symbols are used, it's not wrong, and it's possibly not even any more confusing (or any less accurate) than our use of /ɛ/ to mean one thing in merry and another in bet.
Merriam-Webster and Random House use the same transcription for 'merry' and 'affair', but also for 'Mary' (apparently they treat the M-m-m merger as standard). The various dictionaries that make up transcribe 'merry' and 'affair' differently.
You can raise the issue in the Tea Room for broader discussion if you think the default transcription of the 'air'/'affair' sound should be switched from /ɛɹ/ to /ɛəɹ/ (or /ɛɚ/). I have no strong preference, since I don't think either transcription is ideal (I don't think there is any ideal transcription of the sound).
Note that transcribing 'air' (and 'affair', etc) narrowly, in square brackets, as [ɛəɹ] or [ɛɚ] is another matter entirely, and probably a lot more straightforward.
(* Our entry also lists /ɛːɹ/ as a possible US pronunciation of 'air', but this is suspect, since vowel length is not phonemic in American English. Actually, that's another case where a small distinction is glossed over and one symbol is used for two slightly different but non-contrastive things: /i/, /u/, etc is longer in some words than in others in American English, but they're not distinguished as having /i/ vs /iː/ because vowel length is not actually contrastive.)
- -sche (discuss) 09:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, you're right. I didn't notice that on the sidebar.
I actually agree with you there, because I initially transcribed the /ɛə/ vowel as /e/, because that's how my mind thought of it (this might be due to plain /ɛ/ indeed being a plain /ɛ/ in my dialect, whilst /ɛə/ is more of an /ɛ̝ə/ in my dialect). Nevertheless, I agreed that the sound was far closer to /ɛə/ than /e/, so I changed my transcription practices accordingly.
Then is it fine to list both pronunciations /ɛɚ/ and /ɛɹ/? You're right to say that there is probably no English dialect that contrasts /ɛɹ/ and /ɛɚ/ (my non-mMm merger dialect doesn't, since, as far as I know, /ɛɹ/ doesn't end any word in the language [with the possible exception of "err", as I mentioned on Angr's talk page]), but it's still better to list both pronunciations /ɛɚ/ and /ɛɹ/ than to list just /ɛɹ/ and have people say "Wait a minute... "affair" has the same vowel as "fairy", which is /ɛɚ/ for me in my non-mMm merger dialect, but yet the only pronunciation listed here is /ɛɹ/. Am I wrong in pronouncing it /ɛɚ/?" Furthermore, it couldn't do any harm to have both pronunciations listed. So could we at least have both /ɛɚ/ and /ɛɹ/ pronunciations given for affair? Tharthan (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for resolving the mini-contretemps at "bear"... AnonMoos (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


I hadn't realized I had accidentally put words in the wrong category. Thanks for the heads up. — LlywelynII 23:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


Is this really stressed on the second syllable? —CodeCat 18:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. You can find confirmation of this in the Duden's ersatz notation and its sound file, DWDS' sound file, de.Wikt's transcription and our own sound file. Stress was originally on the first syllable per the Duden, but in a quick search I didn't find any info on how recent "originally" was. (The search did turn up another reference, Deutsche Lautlehre, ISBN 8251916453, which confirmed the second-syllable stress in the process of citing the word as an example of how die kurzen, gespannten Vokale [... die] nur unbetont erscheinen [...] treten auch in ursprünglich deutschen Wörtern auf.) - -sche (discuss) 19:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for verifying. It's strange to me, because the Dutch equivalent levendig unambiguously has initial stress. —CodeCat 19:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
No problem. And: aha, Weigand's 1860 dictionary clarifies that it was "still in Gryphius' and Opitz' time regularly stressed le´bendig, like Middle High German ´bedec, Old High German (still rare) ´bêntîg (Tatian 90, 2). The current stress is explained in Grimm's Grammar" as the result of the tones of -end and leb- switching. - -sche (discuss) 19:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Lewis and Clark[edit]

I've borrowed Lewis and Clark: Pioneering Naturalists, which has two appendices of plants and animals "discovered" by Lewis and Clark. For my purposes the listed species name(s) and vernacular names are of greatest interest. The appendices don't have non-English names. But the discoveries have references to the volume and page in Thwaite's edition and most have a date and location for the discovery. Have you already mined Lewis and Clark for native names? Do you intend to do so? Are there other sources for that? DCDuring TALK 20:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've only 'spot mined' Lewis and Clark, i.e. when Google Books let me know that a page of their journals mentioned pasheco, I checked the surrounding pages for other native / native-derived words. I haven't mined the whole work. If you'd like me to (try to) find and add native names for any of species or vernacular names you add, I'll see what I can do. I've been rather distracted from my Native American word documentation project. - -sche (discuss) 01:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


I've started a page User:DCDuring/Geology and copied your items there, as well as a WP table. It suggests some lines for improving our entries as well as showing redlinks. I also came across the Geowhen Database, which is a convenient source of confirmation of the meaning of some of these terms. DCDuring TALK 17:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know, although I haven't had much time for editing lately, I'm still available to help with geological terms, as I have some training in the field. If you leave me a message on my talkpage or tag me in relation to any issue you have when adding geological jargon or etymologies thereof, I'll be sure to respond. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
If I can find the time, I'll check out which terms are (a) most-linked to within Wiktionary or, probably more usefully, Wikipedia (I wonder if there's a toolserver/wmflabs tool that does that), and/or (b) most common in ngrams. It would make sense to tackle those first. - -sche (discuss) 01:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi. I saw you reverted some of my edits on this word. I was mistaken to change the etymology in the way I did. I thought the theory of its deriving from Slavic was outdated, so I put that one into a "postscript". I've since seen that Kluge is also of this opinion and I was about to make that revert myself. -- As to the quotation I deleted, I just think that it misleads people to believe the word is obsolete and there are no more current quotations to be found. I don't think such quotations are very useful, but I will refrain from deleting them from now on. Sorry! And best regards!Kolmiel (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and I made a little edit on the wording of your version, because I thought it might suggest that German Schmetten is from English (which of course you didn't intend).Kolmiel (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

think of the children[edit]

Hi there -sche, you had previously pitched in and helpfully formatted an entry I improved, Streisand effect, as Word of the day.

Equinox (talkcontribs) created the entry on think of the children and I recently improved it.

I nominated it at Wiktionary:Word of the day/Nominations, however Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talkcontribs) mentioned at user talk:Equinox that unfortunately these days most of those that appear on the Main Page are recycled entries from prior years because it's pretty inactive.

I was wondering if you could add it to one of the upcoming dates for Word of the day?

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I was able to get help from others, but thanks for your time. :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad someone helped you, and glad a new word will be featured. I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner. Perhaps over the upcoming holidays, when people have time off from work and school, someone will have time to set a bunch more Words of the Day. 01:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Non-Oxford British English standard spelling[edit]

Why put this at all? The fact that Oxford University Press uses the z spelling has nothing to do with the usage of the word. But I know you must have some reason for putting it in. What is it? Renard Migrant (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi; sorry for not responding sooner. It seemed like the best way of distinguishing the two British spellings. Everyone (in Britain) spells flavour the same, but with something like actuali[sibilant]e, some Brits (most noticeably those affiliated with the OUP) spell it actualize, while many others spell it actualise. As I mentioned to an IP on Stephen's talk page, there have been a few discussions of how to describe the spellings that are used by British people, and other people throughout the Commonwealth, and all of the wordings have problems. Calling the spelling Oxford uses "Oxford British", and the other by elimination "non-Oxford", seemed best to me, but I'm open to being persuaded that another wording would be better. - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


Re diff: I do think this is "more worthy of an 'uncommon' label than other -es genitives vs -s ones", because Archives really is virtually unknown in any German written in the past 175 years. That's why I wanted to label it "archaic", but the anon changed it to "rarer" because of a single cite on b.g.c from 2006 (which I think is simply a mistake on the author's part, but I can't prove it). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

As the user points out on WT:RFD, there are more modern cites than just the one in the entry. And ngram data for both eines Archivs vs eines Archives and the compound Staatsarchivs vs Staatsarchives show that the -es version is still about half as common now as it was in the past (i.e. there does not seem to have been any sharp drop-off in usage), and it is about 1/25th as common in the modern era as the -s version, which is not an unusual ratio for an -es vs an -s form. Compare how, in the other direction, Geschäftsfreunds is now about 1/25th as common as Geschäftsfreundes, and Jubiläumsjahrs is about 1/15th as common as Jubiläumsjahres. (Those are two of the words the Duden cites in explaining how euphony helps decide which genitive ending to use.) - -sche (discuss) 22:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
But those are compounds, which are always skewed toward using the e-less form (eines Hofes is 15× more common than eines Hofs, but Hauptbahnhofes is only half as common as Hauptbahnhofs). The fact that Archiv isn't a compound would lead us to expect Archives to be more common than Archivs, not 25× rarer. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


I'd be shocked if you found this as the imperfect subjunctive is a literary tense and fucker is new and extremely informal. Previous discussions have been favourable to creating all hypothetical verb forms because RFVing them would be a monstrously time consuming issue. See for example défragmentassions and the definition of défragmenter. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


I'm not Wonderfool... don't know what else to say. And you accused me of being WF in the edit summary of the creation of fuckass. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 21:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year![edit]

Hey -sche! How have the holidays been for you? Tharthan (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


See WT:RFV#Schlackenlosigkeit. The discussion has advanced beyond my extremely modest knowledge of German and may even need a native speaker. DCDuring TALK 23:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Αγαρηνών et al[edit]

The "misused" templates were put there for a purpose - if you want to change any more Greek entries please let me know.   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 11:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


Could you check the codes on this page? Thanks. DTLHS (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Meh. Someone changed the header, but not the codes, from nds-de to plain nds (rather than adding a separate section for the Dutch Low Saxon term). >.>   The entry could be band-aided by either changing the header or the codes, but the general disagreement and slow-motion edit-warring about how to handle the various Low German lects makes for so much ugliness that I am losing interest in editing them. - -sche (discuss) 03:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Why the "hmm..."?[edit]

I agree that the previously-listed meaning of that was odd, but... what is the meaning of your edit summary? Are you doubtful of something? Or...? Tharthan (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Mostly I was doubting the previously-listed meaning, but I also wonder if the wording I introduced really covers the citations, and/or if there are actually two senses, one used of people, and the other of places (the latter presumably similar to shire#Verb). - -sche (discuss) 23:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I share your doubts. Also, are you sure that parish is a verb? Parished could easily be interpreted as a denominal adjective. DCDuring TALK 23:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The 1972 citation and the second sentence of the 1992 citation seem very verbal to me. I'll see if I can find other inflected forms. - -sche (discuss) 01:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Check out the 1917 and 1991 citations (the latter technically of re-parish). There's also the citation below, which I can't make sense of. - -sche (discuss) 01:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • 1903, Maxwell Gray, Richard Rosny, page 210:
    "You will take pleasure in parishing. Mother used to parish."
    "How do you know I like parishing?"
    "Your uncle said so."
    "Oh! did he?"
    "And you may like the rectory people; it's a fine old house, and often full of visitors."
after e/c
I'm not hostile to the verb view for the sense, just uncertain. I've looked for the parishing form, but just found it with certainty for what is now a new intransitive sense, for a distinct etymology of parish#Etymology 2 ("perish"), and for a noun sense. I may just have a block for the verb sense. There was a book title that seemed to be the sense I've been doubting.
The citation above is of the definition I added: "To visit residents of a parish". It's used of parish priests and also of women doing socializing possibly under color of visiting the sick, aged, shut-ins etc. DCDuring TALK 01:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll add it to that sense, which is now well-cited. - -sche (discuss) 01:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The 1917 cite is syntactically though not semantically intransitive. The "re-parishing" cite is helpful. It's tough with a word that shows up so uncommonly in what are to me somewhat alien contexts. The word is certainly used with a meaning that is at least nearly verbal. I doubt anyone would challenge it on the same grounds such as my doubts. DCDuring TALK 02:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


As was revealed in a discussion that I had previously with Dbfirs, it seems the distribution of /ɛəɹ/ and /æɹ/ words differs between British English and dialects of North American English that do not possess the merry, Mary, marry merger.


"vary" is often /væɹi/ in non-merry,Mary,marry merger dialects (though, I will admit, its traditional /vɛəɹi/ pronunciation is still heard amongst the older generation. My mother, for instance, uses /vɛəɹi/, whilst my father and I use /væɹi/ [as does much of the younger generation]. Similarly, parent for myself, my family, and most of my peers is /ˈpæɹənt/, whilst /pɛəɹənt/ is the pronunciation I have heard in church and by some others. It seems to be about a 50-50 distribution.

In conclusion, some words that have a traditional /ɛəɹ/ in British English and old fashioned North American English seem to have shifted to /æɹ/ in the younger generations.

Do you (or anyone else visiting your talk page) have any idea as to why this might be? Tharthan (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Generic phonetic simplification? Influence from GenAm, where the sounds aren't distinguished? I don't know. North American English regional phonology#New_England says "Western New England [... and] Connecticut and western Massachusetts in particular show the same general phonological system as the Inland North, and some speakers show a general tendency in the direction of the Northern Cities Vowel Shift—for instance, an /æ/ that is somewhat higher and tenser than average[.]" The phoneme that's next higher than /æ/ is /ɛ/. You're describing things going in the opposite direction, but I can imagine how a reduction in the contrast between the two sound in non-Mary-merging dialects, combined with an outright merger of the sounds in the surrounding dialects, could lead people who tried to maintain a distinction between the words (Mary, marry, merry) to use a new / un-original sound to do so. In English, I've heard people maintain the pen/pin distinction backwards, and in German people mix up [ɛː] and [eː] if they try to maintain a distinction between them. - -sche (discuss) 21:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... it seems to me to be more of a specific hypercorrection than anything else, though, because other words besides the previous two seem to retain their correct pronunciations. I dunno. I just hope that we don't have another Great Vowel Shift or anything like that any time soon, because that seems to be the direction being headed towards. Tharthan (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi there. I wanted to ask you about the [phonetic] transcription of the German /phonem/ /ʃ/. Should it be [ʃʷ] because of the lip rounding, or should we not use [ʷ] just as we've decided not to use [ʰ]? I personally would be in favour of [ʃʷ] because unlike aspiration there seems to be little regional/idiolectal variation and, even more importantly, there would be no wondering when and when not to use it since /ʃ/ would just always become [ʃʷ]... But I don't know. What do you think?Kolmiel (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I would treat it like aspiration, and so I wouldn't use it. I note that de.Wikt, which only uses narrow transcriptions, doesn't use [ʷ]. You could ask on WT:T:ADE, though. This is not entirely here or there, but ... people occasionally propose "diaphonemes" around here (ultra-broad transcription); this seems like the opposite, ultra-narrow transcription. Perhaps one day we'll start adding both and have a sequence of //ultra-broad//, /broad/, [narrow] and [[ultra-narrow]] transcriptions. - -sche (discuss) 21:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
No it's fine, just wanted to check if you were in favour of using it. It's not that important I guess, and it's not a "Herzensangelegenheit" of mine.
I just think we shouldn't base our decision on the German wiktionary. Their transcriptions aren't narrow, they're just given between squared brackets because most traditional dictionaries do that. They would be very wrong if understood literally, especially things like [pakn̩] which don't exist in the German language and which I suspect might be almost physically impossible to the human mouth.Kolmiel (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The names= field in the data modules[edit]

I'm looking at changing this now, and I already made a few initial modifications. But I'd like to confirm just what the plan was again. If I remember correctly, the idea was to split it into three fields:

  1. canonicalName
  2. otherNames
  3. Some field for the things that are subsumed under this name, but are not just alternative names.

I'm not sure what to call that third field, though, so do you have suggestions? Also, what should be done in ambiguous cases where there is no agreement whether something should be classified a subvariety or not? Perhaps, I could only split off number 1 for now, leaving 2 and 3 together until we sort that out more completely. —CodeCat 22:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, great! :)
Perhaps the third field could be called "varieties" or "varietyNames"?
I assume that when you say "no agreement whether something should be classified a subvariety or not", the alternative to classifying it as a subvariety is classifying it as an alternative name for the whole language. (If there's disagreement about whether or not something is a dialect of one language or a separate language, that's a question we're going to settle at an earlier stage, namely the stage of granting it a code or not, before we ever get to any of these names fields. Right?) There are cases where certain names refer both to dialects and to the whole language; in the earlier discussion I suggested that in such cases we could either (1) list the name in both places, or (2) decide that anything listed in a higher field will not be repeated in a lower field (so, anything listed in "otherNames" will not be repeated in "varietyNames"). - -sche (discuss) 22:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The question is mostly relevant to reconstructed languages, at least in the way I intended it. Proto-Uralic for example has Proto-Finno-Ugric as a subvariety, but some linguists contend that they are one and the same. Austronesian is often considered synonymous with Mon-Khmer (both share a Wikipedia article too). And there are probably similar situations for other languages.
I'm not sure if "varieties" is clear enough. I would like to have "sub" in the name so that it's clear in what way it's distinct from "otherNames". So "subvarieties"? I've also seen "sublects" used by some people. —CodeCat 22:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, I would handle proto-language cases the same as other cases, either always list such names in both fields, or decide one field always has priority. The first approach might more accurately convey that some authorities use _(whatever)_ as an alt name for the whole language and other authorities use it as the name of a "dialect", and keeps us from having to pick which field to list the name in. If we went with the second approach, my gut reaction would be to "prioritize" the "higher" field, and so list "Proto-Finno-Ugric" as an alternative to "Proto-Uralic" and not list it as a dialect.
As for the name: well, how about "subvarieties"/"subvarietyNames"? All but one of the hits of google books:"sublect" OR "sublects" are scannos of "subject". Or perhaps something like "subsumedVarieties", to convey that the main purpose is to list cases where ISO-code-having subvarieties have been subsumed, rather than e.g. to start listing every non-code-having dialect of English. - -sche (discuss) 23:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Of the two, I like "sublects"- it sounds more neutral. Actually, it's the "sub" part that makes me nervous. Except in the case of pluricentric languages, we don't explicitly mention the standard lect at all, which is every bit as much a sublect as all the things we call the sublects. More often than not, the only difference between the "standard" and the "sublects" is an accident of history: In Old English, for instance, the Wessex dialect is generally treated as standard, but eventually the East Midlands dialect took its place. That means a sublect became the standard and the standard became a sublect. In reality, though, they're still just two sublects, with the main difference being that the standard sublect tends to influence and crowd out the other sublects.
Of course, it would look funny to include "Standard xyz" in the list of sublects, so I guess we're stuck with the current arrangement. Still, I wonder if there's a way to distinguish the language as a whole from its sublects without implying that only those lects different from the standard are sublects.Chuck Entz (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
This raises the question of what we want to list in sub[variety/lect] field. Initially, when subvariety names were included in languages' lists of alt names, it was because the named subvarieties had previously been considered languages (generally by the ISO, but in some cases merely by us via granted and then revoked exceptional codes); the subvariety names were listed so that people who thought they were languages would know where they went.
However, I can see how we might find it useful to make comprehensive lists of languages' dialects (including dialects when have never been considered own languages); such lists could in some far-future version of Wiktionary be meshed with the context labels so that entries could be put in cleanup categories if they were categorized as belonging to another language's dialect, for instance.
I'd still use "subvarieties" for the name since "sublects" doesn't appear to be a word; even the Google Scholar hits are scannos for "subjects", lol. - -sche (discuss) 19:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to make a list of dialects. But it would be very hard to manage because there are so many, and there will always be a need to specify a particular variety that is more fine-grained than any we've defined so far. So if we want to add something like that, we would have to take the possibility of unrecognised dialects into account, like the label template already does. —CodeCat 20:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Merging of honor and consensus[edit]

I believe your merges are not based on consensus, as you probably know. For the record. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi! If this is a real French verb, could you define it? If it's not a real verb, I'll need to delete all the inflected forms someone created for it (Special:WhatLinksHere/surbasser). - -sche (discuss) 09:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Most often, it's a typo for surpasser or surbaisser. However: 1. it seems that, in architecture, surbassé has been used as well as surbaissé (but I cannot find citations clearly showing that it was used as a verb). 2. I also find surbassé used for music, and very few uses clearly using a verb surbasser (try to Google "il surbasse" and "qui surbasse"). I think I can guess the sense (make music overbassed), but I'm not a specialist. Lmaltier (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for checking! - -sche (discuss) 21:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Flood flag[edit]

Hi, could you give me the flood flag for about 20 minutes, please? --Type56op9 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Nah, you're not supposed to be operating a bot. - -sche (discuss) 19:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it's not a bot. It is WT:ACCEL, which looks like a bot. --Type56op9 (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I just went through and patrolled your latest batch. - -sche (discuss) 20:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi, could you create a language module for Proto-Ta-Arawakan as well? --Victar (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I've created a family code for Ta-Arawakan, "awd-taa". However, neither "Proto-Ta-Arawakan" nor "Proto-Ta-Arawak", nor "Proto-Ta-Maipurean", "Proto-Ta-Maipuran", or any of the other alt names I tried gets any Google Books or Scholar hits, or even raw web hits. Are you sure it's a valid proto-language? - -sche (discuss) 19:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, what happens is it usually just gets called Proto-Arawak. Incidentally, Arawak is also a language within Ta-Arawak, otherwise known as Lokono. It's all very convoluted, but consequentially I have these reconstructions that shouldn't be called Proto-Arawakan since they aren't attested outside of Ta-Arawak, ex. *hayaba. --Victar (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I've also seen it awkwardly called "proto-Caribbean Northern Arawak". --Victar (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification. In general, I would say "meh, if someone wants to create entries for such-and-such proto-language that existed, go for it". However, User:Tropylium has recently been arguing against creating separate codes and appendices for cases where things are reconstructible only to certain dialects of proto-languages, and if other linguistic works just treat Proto-Ta-Arawak as Proto-Arawak (and AFAICT never mention or confirm the existence of Proto-Ta-Arawak at all), that does make me question if we really need a code for it. Tropylium, do you have an opinion on this? - -sche (discuss) 03:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia's classification, it seems that Ta-Arawakan is a fairly deep subgroup within the wider Arawakan family, and accepted by each of the three otherwise very different classification schemes. Sounds like good enough grounds for separate treatment. Cleanup will still be possible later, if it turns out that there exists a better way to define a subgroup comprising these languages (but AFAIK Arawakan is not one of those families where a micro-detailed family tree is known yet). --Tropylium (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I have created "Proto-Ta-Arawakan" with the code "awd-taa-pro". - -sche (discuss) 04:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to you both! Yeah, the whole Arawak tree is outdated, based on paper from 1991. I'm working on a draft for a new version based on various published works, w:User:Victar/Template:Arawakan languages. --Victar (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder where the heck the D came from in awd and in Taíno the Q in tnq? I think the Arawak languages just got the bottom of the barrel. If I had some say, I would rename Arawak to lcn for Lokono/Locono and use arw for the language family. --Victar (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, some forethought would have done the ISO good. Particularly strange are the cases where languages which have three-letter names have been given codes that aren't those three letters, e.g. Abu is ado (while abu is Abure), Col is liw, and so on. - -sche (discuss) 03:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


"sınalgı" was deleted but they (88.XXX.XXX.XXX) added again! --123snake45 (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

CodeCat has deleted it. The IP seems to be correct that there are citations of the word on Usenet now, but there are only two of them, and they're from only a few months apart; the word would need three citations spanning over a year to meet WT:CFI. - -sche (discuss) 02:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The author (Arslan Tekin) says: "Look at it, it is using sınalgı for television and ünalgı for telephone at Kyrgyzstan"

So, it is Kyrgyz. It isn't Turkish. --123snake45 (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


Can you take a look at rfv page? I've added the citations with Azerbaijani adaptations so you may compare them. -- 17:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I invited three Turkish-speaking users to take a look at the citations. One of them, User:Dijan, is the one who said the previous citations were Azeri. The Azeri versions you've provided do look consistent with Dijan's comment that "every single one of them is a Turkish rendition of the Azeri language (literature and poetry) that was not translated into Turkish", but I will wait for the other users to comment. I'm at a disadvantage here because I (and more other Wiktionarians) don't speak Turkish or Azeri, and it's clear there are people with axes to grind on both sides of this issue — in some cases it seems pretty clear that people have made up words that aren't actually in use, and in other cases people seem to be refusing to believe words that seem real (e.g. Citations:haydamak, where it looks like other print dictionaries are confirming that the citations are using haydamak to mean "drive"). - -sche (discuss) 17:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


I don't agree that languages are proper nouns, but if that is Wiktionary policy, I'm not going to upset the apple cart, but just let you know that not everyone agrees. Donnanz (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that there's a policy, but it certainly seems to be common practice; all the other language names I can think of are currently categorized as proper nouns: Portuguese, Spanish, Basque, French, English, Dutch, German, Danish, Norwegian, Chinese, Navajo, etc. However, there has been some discussion in the past about how some of the things that are commonly categorized as proper nouns, such as personal names, fail to meet some of the usual tests of proper-noun-ness (names are countable; "there are two Johns in my class"). You could bring the matter up in the BP and see what others think. Languages do seem to meet more tests of proper-noun-ness than personal names, though (and there wasn't even consensus to stop treating names as proper nouns). - -sche (discuss) 18:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, OK, I'll think about the Beer Parlour. I would categorise names such as Gertrude, the Houses of Parliament, the White House, and the Black Sea as proper nouns, and surnames of course, and stop there. But as you point out there can be a problem with people's names; the Browns and the Joneses spring to mind. Also place names, two Bristols, two Birminghams, two Londons (maybe more), but place names and people's names are really proper nouns despite that. Donnanz (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
If you are thinking about the matter, consider that taxa are considered proper nouns, because they are names of individual natural kinds (old-style Linnaean taxonomy) or lineages. This is somewhat similar to the Roman gens, or other groups of descendants of a common ancestor. Organization names, toponyms of all kinds, brands/trademarks are all proper nouns, whatever word class their components are. DCDuring TALK 18:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't argue with taxa (taxas?), brands, trademarks, names of organisations etc. I think it's just languages as proper nouns I disagree with. Donnanz (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The argument, I think, is that a language is a singular thing that a community speaks, just like e.g. a country is a singular place that a community lives. Of course, both can be pluralized: one can speak of Germanies, Americas, and even Frances, and one can speak of "various Englishes" (American, British, Indian, etc), "Norwegians" (Bokmal, Nynorsk, Riksmal, etc), "Germans", etc (though our entries currently don't, except in the first case). It may well be as technically inaccurate to label countries and languages as proper nouns as it is to label personal names as proper nouns. On the other hand, it seems to be common, among those dictionaries which use the label "proper noun", to label all of those types of thing as proper noun, and they do generally fit tests of proper-noun-ness. - -sche (discuss) 19:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
There's quite a few examples of plural place names: Aleutians (that entry needs splitting), Falklands, Faroes (Faroe Islands), Netherlands (Nederland in Dutch) to name a few. But languages (in my opinion) are mass nouns, instead of Englishes and Norwegians (the people are Norwegians), we should refer to forms of English, forms of Norwegian and so on. Donnanz (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I think Netherlands (where the word for a singular country happens to be plural) is different from Frances (the plural of France, used to talk about e.g. different temporal or social incarnations of France). I can find several instances of Netherlands being pluralized, both invariantly ("the two Netherlands", a la "the two fish") and, rarely (and only "in the wild", not in places that meet CFI), as Netherlandses.
Hmm, mass nouns... that's plausible. Well, we have a fair few grammarians here, let's see what they think. Would you like to bring it up in the BP, or would you like me to?
DCDuring, does CGEL say anything about whether languages are nouns or proper nouns or mass nouns? For that matter, does it say anything about whether given names are proper nouns or not? (Apologies if you've answered the latter question previously and I'm forgetting.) - -sche (discuss) 21:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the name Netherlands may be historical as it also took in the all the low countries including Belgian Flanders at one time. It is still referred to as het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (qv Nederlanden). Anyway, I suppose I had better start a thread in the BP. Donnanz (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@-sche: I don't see any explicit statement in CGEL that a name of a language is a proper noun nor that is any other type of noun. There is no reason why a proper name couldn't have a homonym that is a mass noun. Or rather isn't that just one of the generic secondary uses of many proper names, eg, "We've had too little Ruakh in our discussions lately." (The "too much" examples would cause trouble.) DCDuring TALK 23:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


Sorry for all the deletion requests. I was basing the original reconstructions on some outdated material. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. With wt:AWB, it's not that hard to delete a bunch of pages. - -sche (discuss) 07:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

dative -e[edit]

Hi. Do you know why the tag for the dative -e in declension tables was changed from "archaic" to "rare"? I think "archaic" is much better than "rare". It wasn't rare in the 19th century; and it isn't just rare today. "Rare" implies that it's not common but still freely applicable. Which is not the case. With the exception of some fixed expressions, the dative -e is dead in contemporary German and using it doesn't just make you sound formal or antiquated, but downright ridiculous (Da ich morgen einen Termin beim Arzte habe, kann ich leider nicht zum Betriebsfeste kommen...) I don't know if some of you discussed this, but I would urgently recommend to change it back to "archaic".Kolmiel (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, since changing these templates seems to be easy (which I didn't know it was): The present subjunctive forms of the 2nd person need a tag "archaic", or preferably "obsolete", as well. Something like du wollest, du sprechest, du zeigest or ihr wollet, sprechet, zeiget doesn't exist in contemporary German. It's even more ridiculous than the dative -e. (Only exception: du seist.)Kolmiel (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the tag was changed. I would guess that someone felt "archaic" was too strong a term for something that was still common in writing within older peoples' living memory, and which is still found today in very formal contexts and many common set phrases. I can think of several possible tags, of varying strength, that might constitute a middle ground between "archaic" and "rare" (the latter of which I agree is insufficient): "dated", "now rare", "now literary", "chiefly archaic" ... one could even go for a combination like "archaic, now only literary", but that might be too wordy to fit in the template without looking bad. Perhaps we should move this discussion to WT:T:ADE for broader input? As for wollest, etc: "obsolete" is definitely too strong a word; the issue is really that it's literary, not used in speech or informal writing. - -sche (discuss) 22:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The tag on Template:de-decl-noun-m-s-es-unc and Template:de-decl-noun-m-es-unc says "archaic", and seems never to have been changed from saying that. Which templates have been changed to say "rare"? - -sche (discuss) 22:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
All that I have seen in practice now say "rare". Check Haus or Freund, or most any one.
As to the present subjunctive, I think you are mistaken. What you are talking about is the form ending in -e (wolle, müsse, schreibe, esse). This form is literary. But any other form that still exists theoretically (wollest, wollet, müssest, müsset, schreibest, essest, etc. etc.) is dead and indeed obsolete. I don't know what the contemporary DUDEN grammars say, but my DUDEN grammar from as early as the 1960ies defines them as unused, and says that verbs (with the exception of sein), in practice, only have one present subjunctive form (the one ending in -e). This form is used for the 3rd person singular, and in six irregular verbs (können, wollen, müssen, dürfen, sollen, wissen) also for 1st person singular. All other forms are phantoms and don't occur in practice. It would be preferable to delete them altogether, but they need to get a tag. Everything else would be deceiving and indeed making people's German worse.
I'm going to check a contemporary grammar as soon as I get one in my hand...Kolmiel (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Sein retains all forms except the 2nd person plural: ich sei, du seist, er sei, wir seien, sie seien. Only ihr seiet is obsolete.
Yeah, and mögen is another exception. But du mögest etc. is only possible for the optative: Er sagte, du mögest ihm bitte die Kopien schicken. Otherwise the same applies as above: Er sagte mir, du *mögest Käse. doesn't work.Kolmiel (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I happened to come by a bookshop this afternoon and got a look at the current 8th edition of Duden – Die Grammatik (2009). On page 535 they give an overview of the present subjunctive forms that they regard as relevant for current German. (They say “im Wesentlichen” because, of course, some archaic form may still on a rare occasion be seen in poetic or deliberately antiquated usage). Those forms are:
And they add a note: “Viele Schreiber ziehen außerdem den Konjunktiv II in der 2. Person Singular und Plural vor.
This is just the same as what I said before, with the only difference that there are 8 forms (ihr seiet and the 2nd singulars of the preterite-presents) that the Duden people won’t consider archaic/obsolete—but just dated or avoided.Kolmiel (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the dative -e: aha, thanks for the links! I had just looked at the templates themselves, but most of them default to not showing any dative -e or tag (see e.g. Template:de-decl-noun-n), and I had a brain fart and didn't think to check the guts. It looks like an IP edit-warred the "rare" tag in based on "im Sinne". I changed it back to "archaic"; it may take a while for the change to propagate out to entries, but if any entries are still showing "rare" even after you clear the cache and refresh them by editing them, let me know. (I'll respond to the rest of your comments later.) - -sche (discuss) 21:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


I replied to your post on my talk page. WikiWinters (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

A friendly request to enable AWB use[edit]

And also, could you remove edit protected status for CheckPage? I can't edit it. --Dixtosa (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I can add you to the checkpage. :) I'm not going to unprotect it, though; it's supposed to be protected, as a safeguard against people who don't know what they're doing adding themselves to it. - -sche (discuss) 18:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Using passer and sortir with être[edit]

Do passer and sortir use être under exactly the same circumstances? Their usage notes are a little different, and I'm not sure if that's meant to imply that the terms use être under different circumstances or not. If they use être under the same circumstances, I'd like to reword Template:U:fr:may take être as much as needed and deploy it on both entries; otherwise, there doesn't seem to be a use for that template (it's currently unused and there's no point in templatizing usage notes that only apply to a single entry) and I'd like to delete it, unless you know of other entries that could use it. - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this template is OK, it applies to both entries, but a more complete list is (at least) descendre, monter, passer, redescendre, remonter, rentrer, repasser, rerentrer, rerepasser, reressusciter, reretourner, ressortir, ressusciter, retourner, sortir. This list is not limitative (when you add re- to a verb, this is the same rule). Actually, avoir or être is used depending on the meaning, and this is best explained with examples, but the template seems to be a good summary: when used transitively (or with a transitive sense, even when the complement is omitted), it's always avoir. Otherwise, it's être. Lmaltier (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! I'll clean the template up a bit and add it to those entries. - -sche (discuss) 22:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Also note that using être is also systematic for pronominal uses of verbs: cf. je me suis trompé vs j'ai trompé. But this is a different issue, it's not limited to a few verbs. Lmaltier (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Crucially important question[edit]

From which episode of QI do those words on your main page come? It's snowy in Tennessee, and there's nothing to do. JohnC5 05:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@JohnC5: I believe it was the J series episode 13 on "Jobs". Those were all occupations people said they had in old British censuses. - -sche (discuss) 05:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I have seen that episode! Probably deserves a rewatching... JohnC5 05:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Questionable revert[edit]

I would appreciate it if your reverts were a bit more careful. For instance here, I think that edit would have been fine since many people confuse UUers for a religious denomination. However most academics refers to it as a distinct religion. By highlighting the coordinate terms, it would have been clearer that this is a distinct religion. I'm disappointed with your knee-jerk finger-trigger like reactions. 16:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The merits aside, someone with your long, ugly history of questionable and often downright awful edits (yes, it's obvious who you are, whatever IP you happen to be using at the moment) is in any position to criticize the people who have to clean up after you. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it's better to put the coordinate terms, synonyms, etc in the lemma entry, rather than in all the various possible abbreviated forms (UUers, UUs, etc). - -sche (discuss) 17:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

allosexual entry[edit]

Many thanks for your improvements, which were far above my Wiktionariological or semantic capabilities. Looks great! FourViolas (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Trans and frequencies[edit]

You must have the frequencies form transman, transwoman, etc. wrong; please check Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No, Ngram Viewer clearly shows that the spaced form is more common in the case of trans woman (link, which looks like this to me — is it different for you?). For trans man, the unspaced form was still slightly more common at the time Google's data cut off (2008), but the spaced form was becoming more common while the unspaced form was becoming less common, so it seems likely that more recent data would show the same situation as with trans woman, i.e. that the spaced form is more common (especially in light of the proscription of the unspaced form by some authorities). - -sche (discuss) 08:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
For transwoman, my mistake: I used the default Ngram settings which ends in 2000[5], but when one extends the graph to 2008[6], the picture changes.
For transman, you are making the less common form[7] (factor 1.6) the main dictionary entry, with justification that relies on extrapolation rather than actual situation. When one combines this with the proscriptions expressed online, I am not sure what to think of this. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, to assume that the actual situation matches the situation a decade ago would also be making an assumption. It would be a reasonable assumption for most words, which have many decades of use, which have consistent (parallel) trendlines, and which the events of 2008-2015 can't be expected to have had much of an impact upon. (For example, couch and sofa.) In this case, however, the trendlines are divergent (and only go back about 15 years anyway), and increasing awareness by the general public of trans people's preferences can be expected to have influenced usage in the same direction as the trendlines were going when the data cut off. (Consistency with trans woman also plays a role.) - -sche (discuss) 09:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
You actually have a good point; the 2008 data is 7 ears old. To bet that the trend for transman has after 2008 developed in a way parallel to trends seen even before 2008 for transwoman seems reasonable enough. Fair enough. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


Concerning this. Just a thought, but I'm not convinced that it's sensible to split the definitions. This is because it seems not clear in many citations (especially earlier ones) which sense exactly is meant, and more generally I suspect that the precise meaning lies on a continuum between the two rather than being neatly split into one or the other. At any rate that was my impression when I was working (briefly) on the word. Ƿidsiþ 07:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A lot of citations are ambiguous, yes. However, enough are unambiguous that I don't think conflating them is appropriate, particularly because the distribution of meanings seems to have a temporal component, i.e. the meaning seems to have changed over time. Citations that refer to the past often explicitly refer to hijras as eunuchs, defined by anatomy, while contemporary uses often (mostly?) refer to the third-gender people, defined by social role/presentation. Some of the latter works even explicitly specify that (modern) hijras are not necessarily eunuchs: google books:"uncastrated hijra|hijras" gets a few hits, and google books:"castrated hijra|hijras" (which would be redundant if hijras were necessarily eunuchs) gets several more, including some like "the not-yet-castrated hijra", "they were indistinguishable from castrated hijras when crossdressed - clearly, becoming hijra as a livelihood required neither castration nor gharana affiliation", and "[they] may or may not be castrated. Hijra is a developed stage." Perhaps the solution is to make the two specific senses into subsenses of a broad 'coverall' sense? - -sche (discuss) 08:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
And then there are google books:"female hijras", who most of the citation make clear have attained hijra status by adopting a third-gender role and not by castration. These would be especially hard to work in to a 'coverall' sense — they would require it to be very broad indeed, to cover both eunuchs and women. Perhaps the solution is to have a {{qualifier}} or usage note explain that some uses don't distinguish male eunuchs from male-bodied third-gender people? - -sche (discuss) 08:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Upper Franconian language‏‎[edit]

User:Purodha added user boxes that triggered the creation of a whole bunch of bad language categories and redlinks by Babel AutoCreate- pretty much the gamut of nds-nl & nds-de lects. I've gotten rid of most of the redlinks by replacing the narrow-lect category link with the appropriate broader-language category link in the User categories that were created. The one holdout is Upper Franconian, code vmf (see Category:User vmf): I'm not really sure whether it's nds-nl or nds-de. Any suggestions? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: See here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It's been a while since I was looking into this, so I forgot some important details. Yes, it's High German, not Low German. If you follow the link to the Wikimedia discussion, it turns out that after we had deleted the vmf code, Ethnologue came out with corrections that led to vmf being deemed eligible for a wiki after all. Now that Ethnologue is no longer claiming that vmf applies to Mainz and Frankfurt, we may need to revisit the issue. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I have been busy, but I will look into it. (I wonder if they have also clarified frs any.) - -sche (discuss) 01:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Apparently they have, it's now called "Saxon, East Frisian Low". (But the population count is still wrong, hmph.) -- Liliana 01:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
While you're here, what are your thoughts on the newly-redefined Upper Franconian? do you think it should be included? All the varieties of German are such a mess to pick apart into discrete lects... - -sche (discuss) 02:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Ethnologue does a horrible job at the German dialects. It appears to cover some, but not all of them and it's generally a huge mess to work with. (I hope you've seen my newest BP topic regarding the Swiss German lects.)
Have you seen the current vmf entry? It says "Hessen state: mostly River Main area, east of Mainz and Frankfurt." How much Hesse is there at the Main east of Frankfurt? lol. They really can't figure out what they want with this code, and it doesn't help that it's called "Mainfränkisch" with "Ostfränkisch" being a supposed alternate name, even though Mainfränkisch is just one of many subdivisions of Ostfraänkisch.
I mean, we could theoretically use it for the Franconian lects, but... eh. -- Liliana 00:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

frs Module errors[edit]

These have been hanging around since you removed the frs code. There were 146 to start with. I've chipped away at a few of the obvious ones, but there are still about 135. The problem is, I don't know which ones are Saterland Frisian, which ones are East Frisian Low Saxon, and which are some unspecified extinct Frisian East Frisian dialect.

It won't do to have all of those module errors for an extended period- there's already been one unrelated module error that I only found out about by going through all 136 entries in the category (there's an error in a Korean module that's since brought the total up to 199). Do you think you'll be able to fix them soon? Is there anything I can do to help? Maybe User:Leasnam, who added most of them, might be able to help. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been changing them as I see them...but the majority of those I've added, by the looks of them, represent a sampling of various unspecified extinct East Frisian dialects. Where I can connect them to a modern Saterland Frisian word I am updating them, but not universally. Sometimes I just change the code to stq to get rid of the error short term Leasnam (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Ugh, this is one of the few downsides to our use of language modules rather than language templates: I thought I had cleaned up all the uses of frs. (I should have waited for and searched an updated database dump to be sure.) I would temporarily reinstate the code, except that Ethnologue clarified that it refers to the Low German lect, which means I'd be replacing missing information (module errors) with potentially incorrect information (it's often unclear whether uses of the code on here are meant to refer to Frisian or Low German), which I am not sure would be an improvement. I'll chip away at what I can. If an entry simply lists an East Frisian word as a cognate (not an etymon), and it's not possible to determine which precise Frisian-ic or Low-German-ic lect it belongs to, it can simply be dropped, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 04:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I have no qualms about dropping a non-essential cognate. We can fix later if need be Leasnam (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Here is the reference cited in the first appendix entry I looked at. It seems to be treating East Frisian as a whole, which would include not just Saterland Frisian, but also at least a couple of the extinct dialects. Maybe we need an exception code for Frisian East Frisian as a whole, or maybe we should make stq the code for the whole language. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It would be sensible to do one of those things, yes. In the past I had proposed creating gmw-fre or gmw-efr for East Frisian, but there was insufficient support for that because it was at the time still unclear if frs really referred to the Low German lect. - -sche (discuss) 14:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to de-sysop/de-checkuser Connel MacKenzie[edit]

Since you participated in the the 2012 vote to de-sysop and de-checkuser Connel MacKenzie, you may wish to participate in the current discussion of this proposal. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


"not convinced that this form is German and not Latin, but w/e" -- even states that there's a vocative for Jesus and Jesus Christus: "Jesus [...] Anredefall: Jesus und Jesu", "Jesus Christus [...] Anredefall: [...] Jesu Christe" ("Anredefall" is German for English vocative). There most likely would still be an ablative (cf. "von dem Nomine" [Nomen], "von dem Corpore" [Corpus], "von dem/der Radice" [Radix]), but the ablative of (Latin) Jesus and Christus equals the dative and so duden only mentions a dative. Also, though it should be obvious: the vocative of Jesus and Christus can especially be found in religious song books and most likely religious prayers etc. -13:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Changing the parent language of Yiddish from MHG to OHG[edit]

(Pinging people who may be interested) @Metaknowledge, CodeCat, Angr:

It is not clear that Yiddish branched strictly after the beginning of the MHG period. See for example section 7.25 in Max Weinreich's History of the Yiddish Language, where he concludes "Hence we have to postulate that Yiddish began to take shape as early as the Old High German period" (p. 424). Is this enough of a reason to change Yiddish's ancestors = from "gmh" to "goh"?

Another more difficult question would be whether to add Hebrew, Aramaic, Yevanic, and/or Judeo-Romance as an ancestors (which in some sense they are), but then again we don't put Frankish as an ancestor of French (perhaps we should?).

--WikiTiki89 18:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the second question is the easier one: No. Languages that are the sources of loanwords—even large numbers of them—are not considered ancestral. Anglo-Norman is not an ancestor of English; Latin is not an ancestor of Albanian and Welsh; Italian is not an ancestor of Maltese; and Hebrew, Aramaic, Slavic, etc., are not ancestors of Yiddish. I have no objection to changing the parent language of Yiddish to OHG. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
But they're not exactly loanwords, they're more like kept-words. Jews that spoke other languages and settled in German-speaking areas, slowly and gradually adopted more and more German words and grammar, keeping many words and grammatical structures from their former languages, especially from Hebrew. This had already happened several times before and so the Hebrew words and grammatical structures were direct continuations from when Hebrew was their native language. This is different from loanwords, which speakers of one language simply borrow from another language. I presume that there was similar situation with French and Frankish, although I have never read about this and far fewer Frankish words survived in French for it to be significant. --WikiTiki89 19:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Contact languages of any kind are going to be impossible to represent accurately in terms of choosing a language as a "parent". MHG seems no less (in)accurate to me as compared to OHG; during both time periods, there was an attested Jewish form of the language written in Hebrew script that had a lot of Semitic vocabulary. Yiddish has some differences in sound changes that allow us to estimate its general point of divergence, but the differences do not seem to be particular to Yiddish so much as features of some of the High German lects (not the one(s) that led to Modern Standard German). In the meantime, I think keeping it as MHG is perfectly fine, considering that MHG already represents a span of varying lects within certain parameters of time and space which arguably include the Jewish varieties. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Well Weinreich says on the same page as the quote above "Yiddish speakers were in close contact with German speakers, and it need not occasion surprise had the German component of Yiddish, although already part of an independent language, continued to be affected by changes that took place in the German determinant." I don't know whether you find that contradictory to your point or not. --WikiTiki89 19:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The ancestry of Yiddish is the subject of some disagreement. Wikipedia calls the view of a MHG origin a "prevailing" view. Bernard Spolsky (The Languages of the Jews: A Sociolinguistic History, 2014, page 157) says "The basis for Yiddish was a Middle High German dialect, for Yiddish often agrees with Middle High German rather than with modern German[.]" And Paul Wexler (Two-tiered Relexification in Yiddish, 2002, page 133) goes so far as to say "there are no specific Old High German phonological or lexical features in Yiddish (see Simon 1991: 253)." But Wexler believes the ultimate origin of Yiddish is actually Slavic, and the Germanic content is the result of relexification in the 9th to 12th centuries; indeed, his full sentence (emphasis mine) is "The first relexification to German took place in the Middle High German period, to judge from the fact that there are no specific Old High German phonological or lexical features in Yiddish." In turn, Weinreich says what you quote, but Wikipedia says that his model also posits that "Jewish speakers of Old French or Old Italian, who were literate in Hebrew or Aramaic, migrated to the Rhine Valley, [...] encountered and were influenced by Jewish speakers of High German" and that the ultimate origin of Yiddish is the fusion of all this, not simply OHG.
Perhaps we shouldn't list a parent at all?
De facto, we more often give OHG words than MHG words as the etyma of Yiddish words. (In the past, some entries gave modern High German forms as etyma, but this was known to be problematic and has for the most part been addressed.)
- -sche (discuss) 22:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The way I see it is that listing MHG as a parent implies also OHG, but listing OHG as a parent does not imply MHG. So if we are unsure about MHG, then listing OHG is not wrong. But what actual consequences does listing the parent in the module have? What got me thinking about this was when I was adding פֿאָרן (forn) to *faraną and was unsure whether to put it under MHG or under OHG. Perhaps this should be decided on a word-by-word basis. If we know a word came from MHG, then we will list it under MHG, if we know it did not, then we would list it under OHG, and if it is unclear, that is where we need to choose a default and where I think OHG would be a better choice. --WikiTiki89 22:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Frankish isn't really an ancestor of French: there were an awful lot more of the Romance-speaking Celts then there were Franks, so the Franks were somewhat like the Mongols in China- more important historically than linguistically. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, then my comparison to French/Frankish was wrong. My point remains about Yiddish/Hebrew. --WikiTiki89 14:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


Pertain, which pertaining is just a modified version of, is defined here on English wiktionary as "Verb[edit] pertain (third-person singular simple present pertains, present participle pertaining, simple past and past participle pertained)

(intransitive) to belong (intransitive) to relate, to refer, be relevant to" The "to belong" sense of pertaining is already covered by "of pedophilia", the "to relate" sense is already covered by "related to pedophilia", so it is redundant. Although its not necessary to be as simple here as on simple English wiktionary, its still important. Its best when writing to write in simple language, not complex. There is a book about this topic by H.W. Fowler called The King's English, you should read it. His first points in the book are, prefer simple words to complex words, prefer short words to long words, prefer common words to unusual words, and prefer Germanic words to Romance words. He would agree with me that pertaining would need to go in this case. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)