User talk:Lexicografía

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

Welcome![edit]

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) 04:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

logodaedaly[edit]

Please note what we do with variant spellings: [1]. Cheers, —Internoob (DiscCont) 00:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

...and variant pronunciations. If you need any clarification, please don't hesitate to ask me on my talkpage.​—msh210 (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that. So the other pronunciations go inside the same template as the first one? ~ Logodaedalist | Talk ~ 17:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, separated by a | (pipe, vertical bar). If one pronunciation is regional (say, American) and the other is general or from a different region, then no: they go on separate lines like this (for butter):
{{a|US}} {{IPA|/ˈbʌtə/}}
{{a|UK}} {{IPA|/ˈbʌɾɚ/}}
Here, {{a|US}} marks the region.​—msh210 (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agh, this place is confusing. I think you got US and UK mixed up there. but I think I understand. thanks! ~ Logodaedalist | Talk ~ 17:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I did get them mixed up, sorry. You have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask me on my talkpage. There are other fora available instead, but I think it's best that you not use them!​—msh210 (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

how to format quotations[edit]

Here's a close approximation to how to format quotations. Hope this helps.​—msh210 (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Better still, if you could learn to use {{quote-news}}, {{quote-book}} et al., you could not have to worry about where to put italics or bold or what order the parts go in, and it has the advantage that thousands of quotes could be changed with a single edit. But sometimes there is one where you don't know how to put it into the template, so you have to do it by hand (like this one: I don't know where to put in the word "wire"). —Internoob (DiscCont) 01:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try those. BTW, what do you mean by "thousands of quotes could be changed with a single edit"? ~ Logodaedalist | Talk ~ 01:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
If someone decided to edit the template, the quotes that use the template would be reformatted accordingly. —Internoob (DiscCont) 01:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha. ~ Logodaedalist | Talk ~ 01:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

references[edit]

Hi. If you add etymology (or other info, like pronunciation) which is not common knowledge and which you got from some source, you should preferably indicate where you got it from beneath a References header as described at [[Wiktionary:Entry layout explained#References]]. If you have any questions or seek clarification, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page.​—msh210 (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Mm-kay. So I should cite the book I'm using? ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 20:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

... OK so that page directed me to a category full of reference templates for specific sources but is there a generic one? ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 20:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
As it says there, "References here may be given in a normal bibliographic format showing author, title, place of publication, publisher and year of publication. Reference templates (beginning with “R:”) are used for some of the most common sources". If you're using an uncommon one, you can just type in the bibliographic info each time. If you're going to cite the same reference time after time, though, then it might be worth making a template for it, and I can probably do that for you if you like.​—msh210 (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how to do references, but a template would be sweet. The book I'm using is Ballyhoo, Buckaroo, and Spuds by Michael Quinion. ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 19:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Google Books (at least, the page you linked to) doesn't let me see how that book is laid out. Does it have headwords (words used as titles of sections that discuss those words)? If so, will those be the sections that discuss the entries you're adding the reference to? (For example, will you generally or always cite the "whatever" section of the book in the Wiktionary entry for whatever?) Otherwise, what soprts of sections (chapters, etc.) does the book have? Knowing this will help me devise a template.​—msh210 (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, the words are bolded at the beginning of each ...word discussion. I'd probably do by page number, though, since the sections aren't numbered. ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 19:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Are they in alphabetical order? If so, they're easily found. The benefit of using headwords rather than page numbers is in the variability of page numbering among editions. (Though content can change, too, of course.)​—msh210 (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they're in alphabetical order. ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 19:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
You can use {{R:BBS}}.​—msh210 (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Mm-kay. Where do I put it? ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 19:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
You add a ===References=== section at the bottom of the English-language section of an entry, and just type {{R:BBS}} in it. If you want to get fancier, you can instead put <ref>{{R:BBS}}</ref> after the information that comes from Quinion (this will generate a number for a footnote), and then <references/> under the ===References=== (this will generate the footnote).​—msh210 (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

like this? [2] ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 19:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Precisely.  :-) ​—msh210 (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Er, oops, no. Almost precisely: I should have mentioned that you should precede it by an asterisk: see my change.​—msh210 (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Sheesh, this stuff is hard. Alright. ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 20:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
In fact, it's not that hard if you remember it this way: every header needs stuff to be bulleted under it except for the etymology and the part of speech (which takes a numbered list as you know). Some editors don't use them for usage notes either, but most do. —Internoob (DiscCont) 20:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

break a leg[edit]

The way I read the etymology now, it sounds like the English comes from the Yiddish הצלחה און ברכה, which in turn comes from the German Hals- und Beinbruch, which in turn may come from the Hebrew הצלחה וברכה. Is that really what you meant? Is that really right? It sounds rather implausible to my lay ears.​—msh210 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what my book says. . . that the German expression is probably a corruption of the Hebrew, and that it may have come to English through Yiddish. Wikipedia seems to agree too. ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 18:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, no, Wikipedia says it came the other way, first from Yiddish and then German. But whatever. ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 18:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Imma[edit]

[[Citations:I'ma]] might interest you.​—msh210 (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that. Do the citations need to stay on that page or should they be added into the entry? — lexicógrafo | háblame — 19:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
They can stay there.​—msh210 (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

AFAICT I'ma seems to be most common variant. No?​—msh210 (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's Imma. 42 million Google hits for Imma, 35 million for I'ma. — lexicógrafo | háblame — 19:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course, that 35 million is not excluding everything it brings up for "I'm a", which is a very common phrase. — lexicógrafo | háblame — 19:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:English cognate expressions[edit]

You might want to talk a look at these. Cognate expressions involve some kind of repetition of the same meaning in two different grammatical roles: to "see the sights", to "walk the walk", "by the by". The constructions may be viewed as snowclones, even if they do not meet WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 14:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

translation tables[edit]

Pleasedonotremoveblanklinesbetweentranslationtablesasthisrunsthemtogethersothatitisdifficulttotellwhereonestopsandanotherbegins. --EncycloPetey 16:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. I thought they were like definitions and quotes and stuff where you can't have blank lines otherwise it messes up the numbering. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 16:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


9/11[edit]

I think you might be mistaken in that "9/11" refers to the attacks themselves, and not their date. Maybe it's both? —Internoob (DiscCont) 00:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably a bit of both, yes. I can imagine saying both "After 9/11[date] ..." and "The terrorists who planned 9/11[attacks]...".— lexicógrafa | háblame — 01:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Re WT:ELE[edit]

Hi Lexicografía. Concerning your work on spiritistic and other entries, please note that Etymology sections precede Pronunciation sections as a rule (per WT:ELE#Etymology); the exception being homonyms, where common practice permits that a shared Pronunciation section may precede numbered Etymology sections. Thanks, and keep up the good work! — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, okay. I'm used to the Merriam-Webster format where pronunciation is first. Thanks. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 15:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's the same with the OED (whose order is Pronunciation, Spellings, Etymology). We just do things differently. It may be because we, unlike most dictionaries, don't have numbered entries, but rather combine homographs in one entry. Pronunciation tends to be the tersest information, so it makes sense to put it first where the entry concerns only one word (etymologically speaking); however, because we need to distinguish words firstly by etymology, it makes sense that their sections come first, allowing everything else to be "nested" underneath them (for that reason, I think we're wrong to list Alternative forms before Etymology (especially since they usually vary because of etymology), but I don't think it's a major issue). — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I see. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 16:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

piem[edit]

Hi. Is this any mnemonic for pi's digits, as you've written the definition, or only a poem, as the etymology you supplied would imply? Also, is it only a mnemonic for pi's digits, or even one for a continued fraction for pi? (I'd search for uses of the term to determine the definition, but there are many false positives from other languages.) Hope your seeming break from enwikt is short-lived if real.​—msh210 (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Guess it wasn't very short, but I'm glad it's over, anyway. Welcome back!  :-) ​—msh210 (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, and happy pi day! (3/14) — lexicógrafa | háblame — 21:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

TV[edit]

I thought you'd be busy adding words to Wiktionary today....  ;-) ​—msh210 (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I'll probably work on adding some this week. Did you get to watch it last night? — lexicógrafa | háblame — 15:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
None of it, unfortunately. You?​—msh210 (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I may or may not have been glued to the television all day... — lexicógrafa | háblame — 13:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 :-) ​—msh210 (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

linkfix in the TR[edit]

Thanks.  :-) ​—msh210 (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 18:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)