User talk:Embryomystic

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

Welsh "bron"[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to thank you for your excellent example sentence on bron#Welsh. It is a moving sentence, and indeed - she does have an incredible pair.

Timeroot (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I had honestly forgotten about doing that, and laughed and laughed and laughed when I got your message. You're very welcome. I think the entry needed it. embryomystic (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

gd:cearran-cré Question[edit]

Hi. Waaay back at 22:52, 28 August 2011, you created an entry for cearran-cré, giving "clay-beetle, earth-beetle" as the definition. I would like to find the closest taxon to this insect but am unable to do so based on this definition. I realize it was quite a while ago, but can you possibly remember where you may have found this translation? I have been looking for a definition of either "clay-beetle" or "earth-beetle" in English, but have been unsuccessful so far. At this point, I do not believe there is an insect with either of those English names. Perhaps your definition simply a translation of each term in the compound word rather than an actual translation of the whole word? If that were true, then it seems as if "clay-beetle, earth-beetle" would be better used as an etymology than a translation. Any help or insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Kibi78704 (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I got it from Dwelly, and I've now added a reference (I was a lot less inclined to do that in 2011, mea culpa). The translation I gave is what was in the source, and I haven't been able to find any better translations yet. You're right that it does seem to be a translation of the etymology rather than anything taxonomically specific. embryomystic (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Kibi78704 (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sarkese Norman category?[edit]

Have you ever considered creating a category for Sarkese Norman? (Also, I noticed a few mistakes you made with a few entries in the Celtic languages, such as a wrong language header.) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Eventually a Sark Norman category will indeed be warranted. In the meantime, I'm creating entries that will be sorted into said category when it is created. And I'm not surprised that I've made occasional mistakes. Thanks for fixing them. embryomystic (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

molétchulaithe[edit]

Is the word molétchulaithe meant to be an ordinary adjective or something else? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's epicene, but other than that, entirely ordinary. I'm not sure why I originally created the entry as an adjective form. embryomystic (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you got nothing better to do?[edit]

I'm wondering why all the changes to Norwegian entries. They were already OK, I thought. Donnanz (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I was going through entries using {{form of}} and changing it to other templates where applicable. I'm not sure why you objected to entries being categorised as past participles, as the category obviously already existed, but I suppose I understand your objection in the case of present participles, for the same reason. Why the rude suggestion in the subject line, though? Nothing better to do than imply that what I was doing didn't need doing? embryomystic (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Don’t worry Embryomystic, this guy is crazy. Your efforts are very much appreciated. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Who's crazy? Not me, I'm quite sane. Donnanz (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
You gave me that impression, sorry if I offended you. There's nothing wrong with "form of"; it helps in a lot of cases. I will make an effort to empty the past participle category; the problem being that many Bokmål verbs are spelt the same for both simple past and past participle, and often there are two spellings for both. There are other verbs, normally derived from loanwords, where the simple past and past participle differ in spelling. But on the whole it is better not to have a specific category for past participles. Norwegian differs from Danish in this respect. Donnanz (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I support the request of Donnanz; please stop making useless undiscussed changes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Took you long enough. I would have expected you to be all over this before now. embryomystic (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Which suggests to me you actually knew you were doing something wrong. For the reader, please read Still creating unattested entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I only mean that whenever anything I do could possibly be questioned, you're there to do so. I get that that's your role here, but I'm just surprised that it took you so long. embryomystic (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

couoté and couté[edit]

Hi, is the term couoté used in continental Normandy? I also converted couté over to using the word Norman (along with frâse and soupe). --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Pages that were classified as 'Norman' before the merger by default refer to continental Norman. It's often worth checking the Norman Wikipedia (couoté). embryomystic (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Citations vs usexes[edit]

Hi! I've noticed you formatting some citations with {{usex}}, e.g. on pseudohermaphroditic and allergewöhnlichsten. As its documentation says, that template is for made-up usexes, and formats things accordingly (putting the initial citation in italics) in a way that's undesirable for real citations. I can see how it would be advantageous to have citations enclosed in a template that would tell screen readers and other things what language to read the citation in, though. {{lang}} could be used for that, though perhaps we should ask in the BP whether enclosing citations in any template is something the community wants. {{lang}} doesn't have a parameter for translations, but they can just be left as they are, outside of a template, because they should be in English and English is the default language of the site, so parsers and screen readers etc should already handle them correctly. - -sche (discuss) 17:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I must have missed that in the documentation. I'll endeavour to be more careful in future. embryomystic (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

New Irish template[edit]

Just calling your attention to the new template {{ga-decl-noun}}, with which it is possible to add declension tables for multi-word noun phrases (e.g. noun + genitive, noun + adjective). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for the heads-up. I will have a look. embryomystic (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yiddish Word "Mel"[edit]

I added the Yiddish word מעל (mel), and I'm curious about whether it's feminine and neuter. How come it isn't in you list of Yiddish words (if it wasn't at all)? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It's in Yiddish Dictionary Online, which is a resource I like to use, but I haven't added absolutely everything from that dictionary to my to-do list. Only so many hours in the day, unfortunately. As for its gender, it certainly is listed there as both feminine and neuter. Differing between dialects, perhaps? embryomystic (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

sînge[edit]

Could you update this entry, if it pleases you? --Romanophile (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Certainly. Done and done. embryomystic (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)