User talk:Bogorm/archive5

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

Antecedent confabulations[edit]

Auguſt-November 2008
December 2008-February 2009
March-May 2009
June-December 2009

Are you still interested...[edit]

...in being an admin? If so, I'd like to re-nominate you. Ƿidsiþ 11:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am. Thank you for your confidence. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's done – you just need to accept, at WT:VOTE. Ƿidsiþ 20:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Administratorship[edit]

Congratulations! :-)  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 08:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Raifʻhār. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Please add an entry to the list at Wiktionary:Administrators. Also, whenever you are editing here, please have a second session monitoring Recent Changes (ideally from the time you last left the wiki). You can then mark good edits as patrolled, revert vandalism, and block users when you feel the need. Cheers. SemperBlotto 09:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    Ok, I shall try to do my best. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

German citations of vitam impendere vero[edit]

Would you be able and willing to translate those German quotations at vitam impendere vero#Quotations (the one about Schopenhauer and the one by Nietzſche) to the English, please?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Die Unzeitgemäßen Betrachtungen are available in English here, so I just copied the translation. Regarding the second sentence about Schopenhauer I can propose the following:
and grumbling did he seclude himself to Frankfurt am Main in order to, as he put it, vitam impendere vero, to devote his whole life to the procession of his thoughts on innumerable facts from nature and life here, unconcerned about the lukewarmness of his coëvalscontemporaries.
I expanded the scope of the quotation a bit. Check my translation for errors and add it, if you find it satisfactory. I did not add it on myself, because both German and English are foreign laguages for me. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The entry coëval which we have here, does not indicate the possibility of this word being applied to human beings. Can it indeed refer to human beings - my coëvals, the people living in the same age as I? If not, replace it with contemporaries or with whatever you præfer. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
That’s great; thanks. :-) Coëval is very similar to contemporary, but has the more specific sense of someone or something of the same age (e.g., two six-year-olds would be close coëvals); given the context, do you think this meaning is appropriate? (It certainly can be used of human beings, but contemporaries may be better if the intended meaning is simply “people who live at the same time as him”.)  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, given the context, contemporaries suits better. Which spelling do you consider recommendable from an etymological point of view: coëval or coæval? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I’ve added your translation. Coæval is the etymologically præferable spelling (cf. mediæval), and it is also easily attestable; if the ligature is to be eschewed, however, then a diæresis or hyphen is then necessary (rendering coëval and co-eval, respectively), so as to guard against the misinterpretation of the oe as an etymological diphthong, which would render the mispronunciation *[ˈsiːvəl] and the misspelling *cœval, which error is itself easily attested.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Might I ask why you requæsted a translation for the German quotations, but not for the French one? Do you expect it to be more easily understood? Perhaps French is more widespread among English speakers as a foreign language than German, is it not? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Same with regard to Dutch - I do not understand Dutch at all and most English speakers perchance too. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

супруга[edit]

Re this (a bit belated response, I know): you can find the complete answer here, §389-391 (p. 153-154). That book is highly recommended as regards the intricacies of SC grammar. --Ivan Štambuk 08:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

salut[edit]

merci pour ton message.

je vois sur ta page d'utilisateur que tu te poses la question du lien entre baraque et le bulgare baraka (qui veut dire quoi ?)

Pour baraque, voici ce que dit le TLFi :

Par l'intermédiaire de l'ancien provençal (cf. baraca en 1381 dans une charte de Marseille) du catalan de Valence barraca (« petite construction primitive servant d'abri ») attesté depuis 1249, d'origine très obscure, probablement préromane : barraca serait un dérivé préroman, soit de *barra « barre transversale », soit de *barrum « argile », mot préroman ibérique, l'argile et le bois entrant dans la construction des premières baraques catalanes.

P. Aalto, Neuphilol. Mitt., t. 39, pp. 375-386, s'appuyant sur la ressemblance entre un type de temple babylonien et la baraque de pierres sèches courante aux îles Baléares, propose comme étymon du catalan barraca le syriaque parakkā, de l'assyrien parakku « temple, palais », mais cette hypothèse, séduisante, manque de fondements linguistiques : le mot manque en arabe, langue qui aurait pu servir d'intermédiaire, et aucune attestation en catalan ancien de barraca ne se rapporte aux Baléares.

Le tchèque barák, le russe барак a le même sens que le français baraque et a sans doute été emprunté soit directement, soit via l'allemand Baracke, lors des guerres (guerre de trente ans, de Succession d'Autriche, guerres napoléoniennes, etc.) - c'est un mot fréquent dans l'argot militaire.

--Diligent 11:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey there.[edit]

Hey there Bogorm :) Feel like adding some translations? demonology could use quite a few translations, and I think that you'd be able to add quite a few :) Cheers, Razorflame 17:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

nargila[edit]

please create the entry :) with all the nuances you know of. 81.68.255.36 21:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You can requæst the creation of the entry at Wiktionary:Requæsted entries:Serbo-Croatian. I am no native speaker of Serbo-Croatian and am not experienced in creating Serbo-Croatian entries. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Aramaic[edit]

It's not because I don't consider it Aramaic, it's because the words have Aramaic categories but not Aramaic sections. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but Syriac is to be regarded as a variety of Aramaic. This means that if something is Syriac, then it is Aramaic. Syriac is (according to some scholars) a dialect of the Aramaic language or (according to the rest) a language of the Aramaic language family. In both cases the Syriac words are Aramaic words and I suspect that this is the reason why 334a (who is our only Aramaic/Syriac contributor) has added the arc cathegories. If you have any doubts, you can address him on arc wikipedia or per e-mail. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It is also curious that you removed the arc cathegories from the entries in the prædominant Syriac spelling, but not from the alternative spellings (which contain the header Aramaic). It would be also interesting to know why 334a has decided not to add the header Aramaic to the entries in Syriac spelling, but as you can see from the pages of the alternative spellings, the language is the same. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

scita and scienda[edit]

Hi Bogorm. Forgive the spam, but I need to know urgently what the two Latin words scita and scienda mean. My guess is that they're related to either sciō (I can, know, understand, have knowledge) or scītor (I seek to know”, “I ask, enquire) (which we don't have), or to both of them. They have a specialised use in English as terms of political science, as demonstrated by this quotation:

As modern life becomes increasingly complicated across many different sociopolitical levels, Kuehnelt-Leddihn submits that the Scita — the political, economic, technological, scientific, military, geographical, psychological knowledge of the masses and of their representatives — and the Scienda — the knowledge in these matters that is necessary to reach logical-rational-moral conclusions — are separated by an incessantly and cruelly widening gap and that democratic governments are totally inadequate for such undertakings." (taken from w:Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn#Work)

Any help you can give me with these words (the greatest being the creation of entries for them) would be very much appreciated. Thanks and regards.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Doremítzwr. No, it is not spam, for the application of Latin words in English texts always raises my inquisitiveness and is something I find intriguing. scitus is the past participle of sciō and means known. scita is either the nominative or ablative feminine singular form or the nominative or accusative neuter form. In our case I think it is the neuter nominative plural form, which means the known things. The past participle of scītor is scitatus, which is different from scita/scitus. scitus may be the past participle of the verb scisco (I investigate, seek to know) as well, but I would not bet that this is the meaning in this sentence. As for scienda, it is gerundivum or participium futuri passivi (in our case again neuter plural) and its translation into English would be the things which ought to be known or the things which one ought to know. In this case the only possible verb whence this form derives is sciō. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you; that's very clear. I understand well now. I looked up scīscō in my Latin dictionary; it listed the senses "to seek to know; to search, inquire", "to learn, ascertain", and (of public procedure): "to assent to or approve after examination, to vote for, enact, ordain". I light of those senses I have no doubt that scīta is the nominative neuter plural form of the past participle of scīscō — the intended meaning in English is clearly "those things that have been sought to be known and learned [by the people and their representatives] and [that they have] enacted by vote" (which is an excellent word for the job, I must say). As for scienda, your assessment makes sense and is intuitive to me; however, it is not reflected in the conjugation table given for sciō (it says that that verb has no passive-voice forms). Moreover, my dictionary lists the verb as sciŏ; is the final vowel indeed short, or is my dictionary incorrect in this assertion? Thanks very much for your help.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea why the past participle of scio is not visible in the entry, but Dvoreckij lists it, so it is undoubtedly attested. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you care to correct the entry?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like to, but after this objurgative discouragement from EncycloPetey I struggle to abstain from editing Latin entries contenting myself with fixing some blunders in the etymology sections of non-Latin entries which I spot. However, in this case, I shall be bold and risk another objurgation relying on your explicite exhortation :) The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 06:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I was going to add the participle, but from all three templates for Latin 4th conjugation verbs (Template:la-conj-4th, Template:la-conj-4th-depon, Template:la-conj-4th-nopass) only the one for deponent verbs contains perfect participle and sciō is no deponent verb. Fixing templates is beyond my capabilities. If you addressed EncycloPetey on this issue, I am sure that he would respond more obligingly than if I did. But Dvoreckij and Korol'kov’s dictionary lists scitus as the perfect participle of sciō and scīscō. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
To interrupt, I can't see why a petty argument almost a year ago should stop you from editing more significantly in Latin. You yourself say you have a proficiency of 3 (able to contribute with an advanced level of Latin), and so it feels as if we are wasting a good opportunity for valuable edits, especially since there are so few contributors. Regarding the two requests, scita and scienda, I added them yesterday, with some of their related terms; if you see any errors, please correct them. Caladon 07:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I do not see any errors. It is just that I cannot figure out how the perfect participle can appear on the entry sciō, if from the three templates for 4th conjugation Latin verbs only the template for deponent verbs allows perfect participles. If you can add the participle, please do so. I addressed the issue at Talk:scio as well. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
It is vital to link sciō to sciendus and scītus somehow. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no perfect active participle, only the perfect passive participle; hence, why for the deponent template, it is listed under active, since it acts like an active participle. Unless you mean why someone has added the no passive template for sciō; this will need more investigation, and I am not sure as to the difference between sciō's parts and scīscō's parts as they appear to be share the third and fourth principal parts. For some inchoative verbs, we don't list the third and fourth parts anyway. Caladon 07:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I meant the perfect passive participle. The Template:la-conj-4th allows for it, so perhaps one ought to switch to this template. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, Bogorm, for your work on these Latin entries. I've now added entries for their English descendants. I needed this information for an academic paper I had been working on, and which had me rushed off my feet (hence my absence for the past several days). I'm pretty busy with things IRL ATM, so I shan't be editing much here for a while. BTW, thank you for congratulating me. :-)  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:hr:Fantasy[edit]

If you have the time I would very much appreciate it if you could work on the things in this category. 50 Xylophone Players talk 22:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

While I'm at it, could you also tell me if đul is really Bosnian-exclusive and adjust the entry? Thanks. 50 Xylophone Players talk 22:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite having learnt the Serbo-Croatian language at an intermediate level, I am not sufficiently conversant with it in order to determine whether a word is used regionally or not. You need to address Ivan with this issue. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, never mind then. :) Ivan gave me links for SC resources before and the weekend is coming up so hopefully I'll have the time to sort it out myself if I can. 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

غومبه (γumba)[edit]

Hi Bogorm, thanks for adding the cognate to غومبه. I also added synonyms and the other meaning (mushroom). Avestan Pashtun 09:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

деведесет[edit]

Do you know if this word means the numeral ninety in Bulgarian? Thanks, Razorflame 22:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the Bulgarian spelling is деветдесет (90) and the stress falls on the last syllable (devetdesét) in order to præclude the possible phonetical misapprehension of the numeral as 9-10 (which would be девет (devet)-десет (deset), dévet-déset), when pronounced. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

паразит[edit]

Kad imaš vremena, bi li poboljšao bugarsku sekciju? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Уређено. Нисам знао да учиш српскохрватски језик, свака част. Када пишем на српскохрватском, увек преферирам ћирилицу, јер она је моја матерња абецеда. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Свиђа ми се ћирилица, али треба ми значајна свота времена да је читам :D — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

негов, неин[edit]

Привет, какое ударение в словах негов и неин (his, her), négov и néin? --Anatoli 00:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Да. Правильно угадал. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Мерси :) --Anatoli 19:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

слънчев вятър[edit]

Could you check the pronunciation I added? I'm about 80% sure on it, and that's not enough for me. I'm also gonna try to add declension, but I've never used the Bulgarian declension templates... So I might need a hand with that aswell. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 18:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the inflection. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

空間, et al[edit]

Hi, thank you for your Mandarin contributions. However I'd like to ask you to please abide by the standard Mandarin formatting on Wiktionary. For more information, check out How to Create a Basic Chinese Entry or How to Add a Chinese Translation. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask them on my talk page. Cheers. ---> Tooironic 05:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian translations[edit]

Hi, How are you? I kindly encourage you to do more Bulgarian translations and check existing for transliteration (presence and accuracy). I've been doing this along with other languages but I thought, since we have an active native speaker, he could do a bit more. :) I often struggle with determining the word stress. Meaning friendly only, we need more Bulgarian and other Slavic presence! --Anatoli 00:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I am fine, thanks; and you? I shall do my best, but you have probably noticed that during my activity in the main space I am focussed on the etymology, quotations, der. t., rel. t. sections, so I edit only now and again the translations sections. However, we have two regular contributors (two anons - 213.191.193.62 and 93.152.180.56) who are prolific in their translations, but are not particularly keen on providing them with transliterations. I could go after some of their edits and provide them with due tranliterations. Whenever you have any doubts regarding the stress, feel free to ask me. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 06:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Posting snippets[edit]

Re: "If you, EncycloPetey, and Dan, are unwilling to accept apologies from Sven, however pænitent and unambiguous they may be (such as the one I quoted from meta), then please at least do not publish excerpts from his e-mails without his permission. The procedure Conrad followed is the proper one - forwarding e-mails to the person who demanded them. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)"

I have posted no excerpt from an e-mail. But tell me, do you have a hyperlink to an explanation of why posting snippets from abusive e-mails online is bad? What online resources or books say that posting snippets from e-mails is bad, and what online resources explain why it is bad? I had a vague recollection that it could be something to be better avoided, but have no clear idea why. --Dan Polansky 07:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that you (to be præcise - thou) have(hast) not posted any excerpts from e-mails, but you (to be præcise - ye) declined Sven’s apology. Posting excerpts from any e-mail online is unacceptable. In the same section above you(thou) can(st) notice the proper way e-mails are to be forwarded - to the e-mail of the person interested in them (as Conrad did), but not online. Conrad’s reluctance to publish e-mails online suffices to prove the inadmissibility of this approach. Please bear with mine archaism this time(ye, thou), because it is the only way to clarify the issue and the addressed person(s) (by distinguishing between thou and ye). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Re "Posting excerpts from any e-mail online is unacceptable." Why? Any hyperlinks? Anyone who thinks the same? Let point out the distinction between publishing complete emails online and publishing one-sentence snippets. Archaisms suck. --Dan Polansky 08:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Re "Conrad’s reluctance to publish e-mails online suffices to prove the inadmissibility of this approach." One person's reluctance to do something can hardly prove anything. And, in a way, prescriptive statements such as those containing words "should", "ought to" and "inadmissible" cannot be proved at all, only descriptive statements. That said, prescriptive statements can be meaningfully discussed. --Dan Polansky 08:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not intent on wading through the legislation of vaious UN members about publication of personal data(such as text from one’s e-mail), but if you have any doubts, refer to Conrad. I relied on his reluctance, because he is far more conversant with computer and data protection issues than both of us. Please, address him. You admittedly had a vague recollection that it could be something to be better avoided, which I had as well. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
You have stated in an unambiguous tone something that you can neither justify nor provide hyperlinks to. I have stated my uncertainty; you have failed to state your uncertainty. I am asking for hyperlinks, so I can find out more about the subject. If you have no hyperlinks, and can recommend no books that I should look into, then say so clearly. --Dan Polansky 09:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I searched for certain documents concerning explicitly the content of e-mails, but I found only this: an article (138) from the Criminal Code of the Russian Fœderation stating that the breach of confidentiality of the personal correspondence is to be punished... an so on. E-mails are personal correspondence. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
That is in Russian :(. --Dan Polansky 10:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but it undoubtedly criminalises the breach of confidentiality of correspondence (нарушение тайны переписки) with up to 80 000 RUB = 2 100 EUR (and e-mails are personal correspondence). I could not find (at least not speedily) similar documents from the legislation of other major Europæan countries (France, Germany). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) It is in Russian, it does not define "breach of confidentiality of correspondence", and it is from a Russian legal code. I mean, I really am not interested in the legal code of Russian federation. --Dan Polansky 10:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for barging in here, feel free to revert. Here's a decent link. Try a google search with 'email confidentiality etiquette' for more. Ultimately, this falls under the realm of etiquette, not law (there may well be laws about email confidentiality, but the issues being discussed are most certainly outside of their scope). As such, it is not defined and published by an authoritative body, but is rather a part of a general social awareness, which may well be different in different cultures. I can only speak of my own feelings on the matter, which perhaps could be taken to be typical, but certainly not normative. When someone posts something on Wiktionary (or similar), it is assumed that the posting is public, because that's just the way this project works. When someone sends another person an email, it is private by its nature. The acceptableness of reposting contents of an email really depends on the context. If Ivan sends me a link to a great linguistic resource (which he actually has, numerous times), then I would feel pretty free to forward that email to anyone I think would find it useful, as it's not really private, personal information, nor something that Ivan could be embarrassed about. However, if someone, say, sent me an email about a painful abusive situation they were in (this hasn't actually happened, that I can think of, at least not in regards to Wiktionary, it's just a good example), it would most certainly be wrong to divulge that to anyone without the sender's permission, as the contents are deeply personal. In regards to the issue at hand, I'm not sure I agree with Bogorm, though I'm not sure I disagree. There are two things which make me think that it might have been ok for EP to quote Sven. First, it was evidence used in a discussion of the sender's character, and such is directly relevant to the conversation. Secondly, I think that Sven abnegated some of his rights to courtesy by such vitriolic comments. Again, I'm not sure. Anyway, that's my two cents. I hope it's useful. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you (Atelaes) regarding posting e-mails publically in general, but in the specific case of posting e-mails on Wiktionary, there's the additional issue of the WMF Terms of Use, which state in part:
If you want to import text that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others, you can only do so if it is available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license.
E-mails are not generally available under such terms.
RuakhTALK 17:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
While that is generally true for complete texts, we usually do not worry when making short quotations from sources. The posting of complete e-mails, especially with the address of the sender, would be unethical (even with the sender's permission, in my estimation). However, see also the MW Privacy Policy #3 (a link to this policy is displayed when using the send e-mail feature). --EncycloPetey 03:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome![edit]

I will be creating an account soon, its just that I did not have time during the last 2 edits I made. I've been using Wiktionary for quite a long time now so I think I can find my own way easily enough. I have made a few minor edits before but now I think I will make an account and possibly become more active. Thanks 86.146.20.52 12:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

ps. What languages do you speak and to what levels? 86.146.20.52 13:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

pss. Forget about that last question, I've just seen your user page 86.146.20.52 13:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

When you create your own user page, you may want to indicate the languages you speak by inserting {{babel}} with the necessary parameters, e. g. {{babel|en|de-3|fr-2|ja-1}}. You can also refer to the description page of the template. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've created my account now. I'm confused as to how you created the scripts box and your time zone box. Can you help me there? Hhaayyddnn 13:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for helping me start in the right direction. Hhaayyddnn 14:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

sh interwiki[edit]

I see you keep adding it manually again. Why is that so? Interwicket misses sh.wiktionary completely or..? --Ivan Štambuk 17:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Interwicket does not handle sh interwikis. There is a bot VolkovBot which I once spotted doing that, but I observed it once adding the sh interwiki 3 or 4 months after I created the article on sh wiktionary. Is there a way to run VolkovBot more often? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Contact the bot operator, Volkov, on the Russian Wikipedia. He will get around to it eventually. Razorflame 18:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Diego Grez Bot (talkcontribs) seems to handle it now. I could write a bot that could do just that (it would take like ~5 minutes), but now it seems unnecessary (I forgot about this discussion altogether until now). --Ivan Štambuk 22:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian help[edit]

Hey there Bogorm. I've come across this Bulgarian word: развален in my searches across the Internet, and I translated it as broken. Could you possibly make this entry for me please? Thanks, Razorflame 18:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The answer is jein - it means broken in the senses not working, not operational, but not in the sense of fragmented. It is the past passive participle of the verb развалям (corrupt). Hitherto, I have never created entries about participles, but I shall try. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Looked good, expect for the fact that you forgot to add the adjective sense ;) I did so for you :) Razorflame 19:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This was not necessary. The meaning I mentioned is easily derived by the verb (развалям-corrupt, but also cause malfunction). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Can it also mean "fucked" (pardon my French) ? --Ivan Štambuk 20:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
From the senses at hand at fucked it can mean not operational, but it is never used for computers (as in the example sentence at fucked). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh btw I removed the =Adj= and replaced =Verb= with =Participle=. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please check kiss me - bg, mk[edit]

Hi,

Could you add the word stress, please for Bulgarian and Macedonian? Any Bulgarian additions to Category:English_phrasebook would be great. :) --Anatoli 22:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked the Bulgarian translation and added three more. Before I add translations to phrases, I need to know how many of them will survive this discussion. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
With regard to the mk translation, you know, I do not consider it necessary. You are perhaps aware that once there was a Siberian wikipedia with separatist agenda whose language is of course Russian and it has been closed after people on meta realised that. But we do not allow Siberian translations, do we? However, mk enjoys the status of being proclaimed an official language in a certain country, which is not the case with Siberian and this leads some people to think of it as of a distinct language arguably not identical with Bulgarian. You may want to catch a glimpse at Talk:Macedonia and Talk:Macedonian, if you are interested. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Bogorm. I won't ask you for mk translations any more. I see your feelings about it - I didn't know. What exactly do you suggest with numerous Macedonian entries, translations, grammar tables - remove, merge with Bulgarian, nest like dialects? I will read the discussions later. I have certainly heard and read about this issue. The trouble is, if you want to provide the information only - although Bulgarian and Macedonian are mutually comprehensible, standard Macedonian and Bulgarian are far from identical, even if we ignore some spelling differences. Although I support a unified approach for Serbo-Croatian language(s), I don't think it's the same situation with Bulgarian and Macedonian. We don't even have templates like we have for Hindi/Urdu where you can always see the spelling in the sister language. In other words, we don't have any reality in Wiktionary to support your point. --Anatoli 22:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I shall try to explain why the difference is seemingly significant. Firstly, FYROM has existed as an entity since 1944, whereas nationalist regimes in Croatia and BiH have been ruling since 15-20 years. Secondly, when the brand new Bulgarian grammar of Prof. Ljubomir Andrejčin was issued (after the abolition of the yat and ѧ), the Yugoslavian authorities delivered a copy to their subordinates in Skopje and told them: make what you wish, but codify mk as a language as dissimilar from Bulgarian as you can (this was explained by Prof. Božidar Dimitrov). So they introduced the Cyrillic letter j amd џ from SC, the letters ћ and ђ under the guise of к and г with dome strokes above them, introduced a series of Serbisms and Turcisms otherwise completely obsolete in Bulgarian and the process became virtually irreversible. Besides, in contemporary FYROM it is virtually inconceivable to declare yourself a Bulgarian - you can declare yourself being a Turk, Albanian, Greek, Serbian, but if you try with Bulgarian, persecution is imminent (there are numerous examples from the recent times). This was meant as a simple deviation which you will not find on those two discussion pages. As for the templates, I am willing to create templates for spelling differences, but how is the community to be persuaded to let me implement them, if nobody except me consider the Slavomacedonian speech a dialect of Bulgarian? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, please, please![edit]

Pretty pretty please refrain from at the very least the long s in the Beer Parlour? I understand that sometimes it is done in jest at something, but it's truly difficult and makes catching up on things difficult. I really don't mind if you use archaicisms of grammar but if you could keep the archaicisms of spelling to one or two pointedly chosen ones per comment would make my life so much easier. I hate to nag and remind you, but it keeps springing up and then it takes me ages to decipher a comment (especially if I do not have my screenreader on to begin with, at which point I have to turn it on). Danke. --Neskaya contribs talk? 06:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I shall not use it anymore except in my signature. I am sorry for the laboriousness and trouble it caused. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry for having to be [potentially] annoying about it. But I appreciate your helpfulness in this matter more than I can easily express. And do, do keep the grammar bits, though -- those make your writing distinct and interesting to read even without the archaic spelling. And interesting is good, because well, variety is the spice of everything.  :) --Neskaya contribs talk? 07:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the elating feedback. What do you mean by grammar bits? Some grammatical blunders which I commit? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. I never actually thought it was grammatical blunders. Sometimes, your use of grammatical features seems a little more formal and archaic than the standard English casual register, but it's always nice to read when I can in fact read it. :) —Neskayagawonisgv? 05:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

pleasey please[edit]

I would love your input at "Proposal for (toned) pinyin words" at BP. So far I've gotten very little response. Thanks. ---> Tooironic 08:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Meta[edit]

You've been mentioned. --Ivan Štambuk 18:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Funny how when we do something people don't like here, people mention wikipedia policy pages... — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 18:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for apprising me thereof. I retorted at the accusations. By the way, how on Earth did you unearth (sorry for the tautology) this issue on meta? I appear over there once in a month and I would probably contrive searching through all user talk pages containing my nickname once in a year. How do you keep track of the relevant discussions there, Ivan? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Normally I would have ignored Meta as I have no business there, but ever since my name was mentioned at several occasions, and my person and actions thereof were discussed, without anyone bothering to notify me for days, I keep close tabs on it. With a bit of elementary programming, one can do wonders in keeping track of cyberspace. --Ivan Štambuk 20:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
But this user perseveres in his canvassing, which he has already inflicted on a third user on meta. I am at a loss as to how to respond, since this user does not seem to comprehend why the flag of a separatist entity may be admissible on wikipedia user pages, but is not on wiktionary user pages, in spite of the circumstantial explication I provided. Am I supposed to wait until people on meta get tired of him? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
That's what I would do. I suspect that the Meta folks will tire of him quick enough. And even if, worst case, unlikely scenario, he does convince someone important that you're a terrible person, I rather doubt it would amount to much. The English Wiktionary protects its sovereignty rather fiercely, and if some random Meta person tried to come over and desysop you I suspect that no one here would accept it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Flibjib8[edit]

Atelaes and I have responded on my talk page. --EncycloPetey 22:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

spam eh?[edit]

[1]

Uhhh yaa, I'm a Spick'n'Span PR-guy trying to promote my product on an online dictionary...

gimme a break.

It was a valid alternate definition. I don't care if you disagree with my edit.. of course you're welcome to remove it.. but try assuming a little good faith before labeling things as SPAM. I found that very offensive because I'm very much against spamming. -- OlEnglish 13:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be borne in mind that spam has a more general definition here. Bogorm was not necessarily accusing you of anything malicious. Generally, we don't include entries (or definitions) for brand names unless they have entered the general lexicon to mean something more than a simple reference to the brand name (i.e. bandaid is often used to refer to adhesive bangages, regardless of manufacturer). Bogorm was right to remove the definition. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I see. Sorry then. I'm kind of new to Wiktionary, and I generally define spam by its intended meaning, a deliberate attempt at advertising, which was NOT my intention. I understand now not to add any brand names, thanks for explaining. -- OlEnglish 13:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian[edit]

Yo Bogorm! What's happening? Anyways, I was wondering if you could make some Bulgarian entries :) Like, could you mass make Bulgarian entries? ;) That would be awesome :) Cheers, Razorflame 05:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Most Bulgarian entries here are made by Arath. I must admit I am not equipped with the tools Ivan has at his disposal in order to propagate Serbo-Croatian entries. However, I have noticed the implementation of similar automatic tools by Arath (when he was creating Bulgarian entries en masse) and if you entreat him, he will most likely accede thereto. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 06:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the information. Razorflame 07:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Note[edit]

On this edit, you say something which is not what I was trying to say. What I was trying to say was that if Wanjuscha were to make any new Russian verb entries, if s/he could add a to before the words in those new Russian verb entries. I know that the three words that I mentioned in this talk page message aren't verbs, but to pickle, etc. are verbs, which was what I was trying to get at. Furthermore, I do know how Russian verbs end :) Razorflame 12:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

But this to is completely dispensable for everyone who has the slightest idea of Russian grammar. Exempli gratia, очередь, when translated as queue, can be interpreted neither as the verb queue (because its ending does not match those three), nor as the adjective (because it does not end in -ый, -ий or -ой). Therefore, it is the noun queue. The same applies for other parts of speech. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving entries[edit]

Hi. Can you explain to me how to move an entry to its correct spelling? I don't know how to do that. Xoolanguage 13:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out. Xoolanguage 14:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

fathom[edit]

You said:

I don't think that fathom as in "grasp an idea" is obsolete. —This unsigned comment was added by Georgeghodgesiii (talk • contribs) 05:16, 8 May 2010.

   Of corse, it is not. Who claims that? Only one of the nominal senses is obsolete, but none of the verbal ones. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 05:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC) 


Answer per Wiktionary:


     fathom (plural fathoms)
        1. (obsolete) Grasp, envelopment, control.
        2. (nautical) A measure of length corresponding to the outstretched arms, standardised to six feet, now used mainly for measuring depths in seas or oceans.

[edit]


Georgeghodgesiii 05:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You claimed that the verbal sense, the sense of fathom as verb, was obsolete, whereas, as you already copied, only one of the nominal senses, id est the senses of fathom as a noun, is marked as obsolete. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

haiþns[edit]

Здрасти. Can you check my Gothic spelling in հեթանոս (hetʿanos, heathen), please? --Vahag 08:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Привет, Вааг (by the way, привет is also used in Bulgarian). The spelling is correct. However, in Köbler's dictionary this Gothic adjective is marked as reconstructed. There was no attestation for it, but once it is listed, the possibility of its having been used in the Gothic language is reasonably high. Perhaps it ought to be tagged with an asterisk though (see carp#Etymology_1). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. --Vahag 12:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)