User talk:Pingku

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

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

RuakhTALK 05:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested words[edit]

Thanks you for requesting several interesting words. You seem to know the meaning of them, so why not have a go at adding them yourself? It is not difficult, and any mistakes will be corrrected. SemperBlotto 09:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

menare il can per l'aia[edit]

Yes, this means "to beat about the bush". aia is the courtyard in the middle of the square of buildings that make up a traditional Italian farmstead/farmhouse. Threshing will be done there at one time of the year (with the big door open to create a draught) but every other activity goes on there as well. I have visited one when the women were removing corn (maize) from the husks and singing rude songs at the same time. SemperBlotto 16:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

bale needle[edit]

Thanks. The thing I have is small and cheap-looking. It is made from a single ~3/32" rod. The shank is about 4" long, with just a 1/4" to 3/8" dull hook on the end. It might indeed be a "bale needle", but it seems implausible that a city boy like me should have come across one. Some tools seem to belong to occupations that are small (unlike woodworking) and worked by folks not likely to write (unlike electronics engineers), so that their names for things may be lost or, at least, hard to find. DCDuring TALK 16:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

ana[edit]

I believe someone once said "better late than never." I have edited ana to include a couple of citations for the sense that once bothered you, and to slightly alter the definition. Pingku 17:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Good work! Looks great. Ƿidsiþ 06:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

shrieve[edit]

Hi Widsith,

Could you have a look at this entry when you have time?

(1) I'm principally concerned about my conjugation of the verb, which, when it comes down to it, I don't have evidence to support. (2) I used 'alternative form' rather than 'alternative spelling' for the verb (in particular) since the conjugation looks like it might/must differ significantly - in simple past and p.p.) (3) I'm happier about the combination of 'obsolete' and 'alternative', since (luckily) it seems in both etymologies that the alternative to "shrieve" is at least as old (the etymology is just as applicable) as well as being more modern. The entry also implies that, in each case, there has been a time in the past when both usages were current.

I couldn't find a template for 'obsolete term for', which I first thought of using.

Cheers, Pingku 15:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  • We have {{obsolete spelling of}}, which is what I use for these cases. But someone should really create {{obsolete form of}}, because "spelling" always implies to me that the words were pronounced the same, which of course they usually weren't. The verb conjugation looks good to me. As ever, citations will clear most problems up, but it just depends how much time and effort you want to put into finding them. Ƿidsiþ 15:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

modality[edit]

If you like modality, you might also like alienans and w:Linguistic modality, especially the types defined at SIL (links at See also). It might be worthwhile to create and populate Category:English modal adjectives. DCDuring TALK 11:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

noticeably[edit]

I am having trouble with the sentence adverb sense of this. I am not sure whether one would call it a speech-act or a modal adverb (or both), nor whether it is common enough in such possible sense(s) to warrant the effort. Any thoughts? DCDuring TALK 20:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

admin?[edit]

Hi. You've been here a while, and have made interesting, positive edits, and seem to be skilled in lexicography. Would you be interested in becoming an administrator to help us out? --Rising Sun talk? 00:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please accept the nomination at Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2010-02/User:Pingku for admin --Rising Sun talk? 06:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Arean etc.[edit]

Hi Pingku,

A couple follow-up questions for you at RfV:Arean, if you don't mind, on Mimantean &c. kwami 20:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

admin2[edit]

Hi Pingku, would you be interested in running for adminship again? --Downunder 21:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks, but I don't think so, just at the moment. Cheers, Pingku 13:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

commital[edit]

Not that I really care, but is this a misspelling or perhaps an obsolete form (in some cases, anyway) rather than an "alternative form"? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The citation I used was from Enc Brittanica 11. Commital gets about 4000 hits on gbooks, and non-commital about 8000. I haven't tried to break it down by date, but there are some modern ones in the list. I haven't tried to verify all the senses either... — Pingkudimmi 13:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

jackpot[edit]

Would you like to comment discussion at Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#jackpot? --Hekaheka 16:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

admin 3[edit]

Fancy being an admin this time round? You'd be able to edit protected pages, such as for WT:WOTD. --Rockpilot 12:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm happy for the time being working at my own speed and on whatever sparks my interest. There's still heaps I can learn, and no compelling reason to seek special privileges. — Pingkudimmi 16:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

citations[edit]

Just wanted to say good work for all the citations you've been adding recently. Our entries stand or fall on citation evidence really, so it's always nice to see someone working on them! Ƿidsiþ 11:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :) — Pingkudimmi 11:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

shop stealer[edit]

Hey there - I see you did a bunch of work on our "shop stealer" entry.

But are you positive of the etymology? How did you establish that "shop steal" came first and then "shop stealer". To me it seems much more likely that "shop stealer" came first because it sounds natural whereas "shop steal" is probably a back-formation because it sounds unnatural. — hippietrail (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. "Shoplifter" and "shoplifting" are apparently quite old (online etym says 1680 for the former). The verb usage seems 20C, but predates what I can see of "shop stealer" and related. I've edited the entry and think/hope it does the situation justice. — Pingkudimmi 15:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the images[edit]

Wow, you've been adding a lot of them. I hope you are having fun. I have enjoyed getting some good images, especially those that explain the name, whether a taxon or a vernacular one. My current favorite of my own finds is at [[Helicobacter]]. You have to double-click on the image to see why. DCDuring TALK 16:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Pterodroma[edit]

There is no need for {{taxlink}} if the Wiktionary entries already exist. Many of the species entries for birds have been created, including every species of Pterodroma. Btw, thanks for the good Translingual entries. DCDuring TALK 00:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops! I guess I forgot to check, sorry. — Pingkudimmi 05:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I really do appreciate the entries. We have just a few million more taxa to go. Actually, I don't know a rational basis to add taxa other than in response to expanding the definitions of normal words and responding to items in the news. I also have been adding items from lists of native US plants, species with mapped genomes, etc. Someone has been adding endangered species, someone added many liverworts, someone else many bird genera and species, yet another added spiders. Obviously folks will work on their interests. Any other list ideas? DCDuring TALK 12:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
No problem, I'm still having fun. My efforts are pretty random; I start with something I read and move up or down the hierarchy. I primarily refer to Wikipedia and Wikispecies, but sometimes they disagree. I occasionally look to ITIS, which is a bit of a mystery. Often I just stop when there's disagreement. So, as for being systematic, I have my doubts. The top of the hierarchy is at least as problematic as any other area. From my point of view, learning what the problems are is one of the interesting bits. Towards the objective of "completing" the list, it may make sense to start a project of the month (or six months, or whatever). With prizes! :) — Pingkudimmi 14:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I've been learning a lot about taxa. The instability of the placement of specimens in species is matched by the instability of placement of species in genera and orders in superorders, etc. We have to somehow accommodate the variety of points of view over time, but without descending to the level of individual published species description.
The level of taxon that might be meaningful to a normal human differs radically by the branches and, of course, by how significant the interaction with ordinary human concerns: food, disease, visual interest, cuteness, etc. Our level of coverage of liverworts, for example, far exceeds what normal humans might have an interest in. On the other hand often human interest in subclassification goes beyond what taxonomists can provide, eg, in types of squash. DCDuring TALK 17:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I find it interesting to ponder the issues associated with the taxonomy list project. The problems with instability and lack of agreement among taxonomists must be common to all such projects (Wikispecies, ITIS, to name two) and they would have to decide among competing taxonomies, and have strategies for so deciding. To some extent, Wiktionary does the same, but ultimately we look to document all usages. In essence, our primary concern is the term, rather than the taxon: a given term may be used to refer to different taxa, which may be close or far apart. I guess this issue can be avoided in any particular taxonomic system, but I don't think our objectives will allow us to ignore it. — Pingkudimmi 17:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I haven't always lived up to my current beliefs which are apparently about the same as yours. I wouldn't know how to, say, attest to all the alternative placements of one taxon in the various hierarchies that have existed. One problem is that {{taxon}} biases a contributor toward defining a taxon in terms of its position in the hierarchy. This, in turn, biases us toward the non-cladistic approach to classification, one in which each taxon has some relatively small set of differentia from the other members of the next higher taxon.
We need to get better at actually defining the taxa in a way that might be relevant to at least some users. English vernacular names are not really adequate as the the English vernacular name entries are often not very different from the taxon entries, if there is an unambiguous English vernacular name or, indeed, any English vernacular name at all. Also, in many cases there are a large number of English "vernacular" names, some unambiguous in someone's system (eg, USDA plants database, Wilson and Reeder's Mammal Species of the World), some truly vernacular and probably ambiguous. I think we are far from having a standard approach to this beyond what we have, because no standard approach will yield a good one- or two-line definition. I have kind of a checklist of types of material for the definiens: English vernacular names, where native, where cultivated, obvious physical features (though a good picture is better), use or danger to mankind, newsworthiness, more or less in that order. I'd recommend it to someone who didn't have their own, but I'd welcome hearing about other possible items for the checklist or approaches other than a checklist. I'd fooled around at WT:Taxonomic names with thoughts about this. DCDuring TALK 18:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
One of the concerns I have with entries is disagreement about the hierarchy. I get information from Wikipedia and Wikispecies, but occasionally one will include subfamilies, say, which the other doesn't. I can't tell why this disagreement exists, but presumably they are using different sources (and possibly different methodologies). Ideally, if both situations are valid, used, taxonomies, we would want to document this. Lately, when this happens, I have simply listed both the subfamilies and the genera at the family level (the thinking being that these are hyponyms that can be used, but may not always be). While this approach fits with a "simply describe" methodology, perhaps something better can be done?
As for your checklist, maybe it makes sense to make different lists for plants vs animals, well-studied vs less well studied taxa, etc.? I've linked to ITIS a few times, but I don't actually understand what they are and what they do (apart from somehow magically combine information from different sources). — Pingkudimmi 17:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't thought about the state-of-knowledge dimension, partially because my ability to assess that well is not good. Frankly, as soon as I have to assess something I feel that I am not being a lexicographer. For now, I am going to be working on native US plants and species invasive in the US once I have gotten beyond filling in the most common missing taxonomic names. I may learn enough about a limited set of problems in somewhat greater depth to help me understand issues of broader scope. For example, I have to deal with the USDA Plants database as another source of discrepancy in taxonomic placement. They are somewhat behind the curve of WP and Wikispecies. I am also considering using references to external sites for synonyms, especially for the less common ones, in case someone thinks they need to be added. Externally linked synonyms are not much help for someone using Wiktionary to look something up but can provide confirmation about synonyms and their status.
Usually, the existence of additional layers of names in a taxonomic hierarchy is not much of a problem, if they are actually used, especially if they are monophyletic and therefore less likely to be rendered obsolete. I am at a loss as to how to attest terms not in current use. Does Google books have enough coverage of older scholarly journals to provide an adequate corpus? No one has been challenging these, but they could. DCDuring TALK 03:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

admin 4[edit]

It´s the time of the year that I go about nominating you for adminship again. Do you accept? Come on, you know you want it... -WF

No change. Thanks anyway. — Pingkudimmi 13:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Okey dokey. I'll ask you again in 2015! -WF

New list of wanted taxa[edit]

See User:DCDuring/MissingTaxa. It is based on two or more occurrences of a taxon enclosed in {{taxlink}}. It is just another listing to consider. I will update it from time to time, now that I know how. DCDuring TALK 23:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hamiltonian[edit]

Could you explain to me why you merged the William and Alexander definitions into a single etymology? It seems confusing that way, which is why I had them separate. Maybe there's some reason I'm missing. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 15:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

William Hamilton and Alexander Hamilton are usages of the same term Hamilton, in the sense of surname. Therefore they are the same as regards etymology, which concerns the origin of words. While it seems useful to distinguish between the two people, it is not an etymological distinction with regard to the term Hamiltonian. You could regard it as a distinction between origins of different meanings of the same word, but that distinction is not the same as the etymology of the term. Your concern might be resolved by improving the comment in the etymology. I'll have another look later. Hope that helps. — Pingkudimmi 03:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

{{#invoke:language utilities|lookup_language|yi|names}} at cockamamie[edit]

This edit was rather bizarre IMHO. Was it intentional? Do/did you feel that we should use the notation {{#invoke:language utilities|lookup_language|langcode|names}} in entries? —RuakhTALK 22:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. I believe I was trying to use etyl, but was led down the garden path by an injunction to use #lookup. — Pingkudimmi 03:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Colchicaceae[edit]

What do you think of the way it now shows tribes and genera under hypernyms? Do you think it is easy for the more 'normal' users of this kind of entry to understand? I'd like to be able to convey the tree structure without special graphics and without taking up a lot of vertical screen space. I don't think it's more work. It might be less for some entries. DCDuring TALK 17:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

As phylogeneticists have as a goal only two-way branches at each node of their trees, we would need the ability to show more than two, possibly as many as four, levels of the tree. That seems hard to read with just parentheses and/or other brackets. DCDuring TALK 18:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I first saw this version on my smartphone, and, I have to say, it looked pretty ugly. (I should say uglier than usual, as these entries are clearly not designed - perhaps not designable - for such viewing.) The recursive use of brackets near the end at first looked like a mistake, though I quickly realised what was going on. Mobiles aside, the brackets are confusing, and they are already used for vernacular names.
Is it really necessary to put hierarchy information on the page? This is, after all, just the sort of problem hyperlinks were designed for. I'm inclined to keep to information that is directly relevant to the term. I'm also inclined to let the "hierarchy" look after itself, as it were, and just document the links at the node level. With obsolete senses, multiple usages, rival taxonomies and whatnot, the "hierarchy" is for us a fairly complicated network. Others can ignore that complexity by ignoring past usages and choosing one among rival taxonomies - neither of which we should be doing. The more we stray from the focus on the term, the more likely it is we will run into complexities in the network. — Pingkudimmi 08:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
It didn't look too good to me either, but the problem it was attempting to address bothers me.
The hierarchy upward is a substitute for definitions. It is because there are often no well-known vernacular names and because we often have no meaningful definitions that I insert Hypernym chains in hopes that folks can get the point where they say "Oh, it's a kind of X!". If we are to trim our content to let the hierarchy take care of itself, then there is a strong case for not skipping directly to genera and species when there are subfamilies, tribes, and subtribes and subgenera and sections that intervene between family and genus and between genus and species, respectively.
In the spirit of trying to connect to things that give someone a clue about the higher taxa, I should probably add any synonyms (particularly in the vicinity of family names) for the higher taxa. Type species and genus and pictures are helpful at lower levels.
The External links, especially to sources that have serious taxonomy give a sense of multiple definitions without us explicitly adding them. DCDuring TALK 18:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused that you're talking about hypernyms (the entry doesn't yet have that section) and tribes/genera (which are hyponyms in this case). Are you referring to another term?
In any case, my concerns originate from the instability of this information and the fact that it appears to duplicate what other data bases do. My bias as an ex-programmer is to avoid duplication. And I've noticed the hierarchy has instability at all levels.
Just a thought: is it possible to use the hover feature to provide information such as vernacular names? Or (my speculation) an analogue of show/hide that would expand the line rather than add lines? — Pingkudimmi 15:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I was reacting to your stated inclination "to let the "hierarchy" look after itself". Upward the hyponyms add value. Downward the intermediate levels can add value by eliminating mind-boggling blocks of blue links for genera and species.
Even if the hierarchy information is not up-to-the-minute, or even up-to-the-decade, it provides reference points for understanding. But this suggests that multiple reference points may be required for an entry of robust utility.
I am getting a better understanding of what is relatively useful and stable as time goes on. Kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders, families, genera, and species are the ranks of greatest use in definition because they have the longest history and even the most revolutionary of phylogeneticists tend toward keeping some contact with traditional groups. Connection with names in the vernacular is also somewhat stabilizing. The type species or genus for any taxon that has one is useful because, whatever the changes in the composition of the taxon, it gives a clue as to where the concept originated. The Etymology often provides additional clues especially in the case of de-generic names. The newer clades are often problematic, often not getting much use before becoming dated, archaic, even obsolete.
Our previous practice of including in the entry only the next taxon up the hierarchy seems to me to have been mistaken in that it made our definition depend for its intelligibility on a little-known taxon, an obscure or missing vernacular name, and a missing or hard-to-understand characterizaton of the traits of the taxon.
Of all of the taxonomic sites that I go to, few have entries that only display the immediately adjoining taxonomic levels. Some have vertical, indented lists; some have horizontal lists; some show tree graphics. The ones that only have the adjoining levels usually have a great deal of other content, including what we would call coordinate terms and, possibly, many synonyms, or reference to the original publication of the taxon.
The information we seem to add is historical etymology, gender, vernacular names, and multiplicity of links. The hierarchy is useful, however, for definition (upward) and for connection to multiple vernacular names (downward).
The hover idea is interesting and implementable in HTML. I don't know whether there is something in Mediawiki, CSS, or JS that makes it easy to implement. DCDuring TALK 17:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be worthwile thinking about designing templates for formatting the information. This might limit us by imposing hierarchical strictures on the display, but at least it would separate the display from the content, allowing us to define them separately. I've no experience with writing templates, but I imagine nestable templates for: species, species-list, genus, genus-list, etc.; each with parameters as needed. Hope that makes sense. Any comments? Are there limitations that would kill the idea? — Pingkudimmi 15:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorghum hyponyms[edit]

On July 29, 2013 you added a big list of hyponyms. But the lists of accepted species at The Plant List and the lists of species at Wikispecies and Wikipedia are much shorter - and include some names not on the list you added. Where did your list come from?

As a general rule I try to add only lists of accepted species. If we do add old synonyms for current species names in a given genus, we should distinguish them. But many of the terms are best placed under derived terms as the species represented by the name are now assigned to other genera. DCDuring TALK 22:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

They were from Wikispecies. The WS entry was later updated (in December), apparently to match World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (published on the web). (There seems to be a problem with the link, though, and I can't double-check the source.) WS is now close to, but not in precise agreement with WP. I'll have another go at the entry later - there's at least an NCBI link to be added. Of course, feel free to add the fruits of your own research. :) — Pingkudimmi 08:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't really do a lot of research., hoping you remembered what you'd done. I use {{R:TPL}} to give a link to The Plant List which allows names to be sorted by some categorical values (eg, Accepted name, Synonym, Unresolved) and degree of certainty. It is a more reliable list than either WP or WSpe. NCBI and ITIS are often not comprehensive, COL too. EoL has many taxonomic trees all at once, but doesn't digest the information much. TPL has the advantage as a reference for us that it has a lot of synonyms, so that a user could find almost any genus or infrageneric name that ever had much currency. I was thinking of adding some kind of note to some templates to indicate what they are good for. I give a much higher value to accepted names of extant species than any other type of name, but if an older name still has some currency, eg, as shown in its being used in definitions in enwikt, we should add it, even if the definition is from an old source like the Sanskrit dictionary we've copied. And there are still so many relatively common species and genera for which we lack entries or have only stub entries. DCDuring TALK 21:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)