User talk:Tchirruá
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Sabe se é usado em algum contexto regional, ou se é arcaico/obsoleto/raro/etc.? — Ungoliant (Falai) 09:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Que eu saiba não tem regionalismo quanto ao uso, quanto se é arcaico/obsoleto/raro ao menos isso posso dizer que não está nessas condições, contudo é frequente lá no extrato do material produzido pela mídia dita especilizada em futebol (crônicas/comentários/notícias e afins) vez por outra dá as caras, fora dessa mídia eu diria que é um tanto infrequente, desculpa te deixar na mão e não ter respostas mais substanciosas.--Tchirruá (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ninguém precisa saber tudo. Nunca vi o termo sendo usado, apenas goleiro e guarda-redes (só em Portugal), por isso suspeitei que fosse raro ou regional. Agradeço pela resposta. — Ungoliant (Falai) 06:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
What is your source for the existence of mane in Timorese Portuguese?
Also, stop adding rare words as translations when common ones are already present. And don’t bother trying to hide what you’re doing, I do use my watchlist. — Ungoliant (falai) 05:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- For mane's source, Infopédia (Isn't it reliable?), about rare words I don't know what you mean, a word is a word, do I need to use a rareometer?, Where are they rare? to me they aren't rare, and some are neologism, and I'm not trying to hide anything, all edits still there, how can I hide it? If I recall right in Portuguese do exist prescription which recomends the natives to use "portuguesed" form(s) of word(s) originated from others languages over the original spelling of the very same word when such nativization do exists, and ultimatelly, you're speaking as you're trying to rule me based on your own preferences.--Tchirruá (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Infopedia is not reliable; read WT:CFI (at least the General Rule section). A word is a word, but why list the rare spelling like lóbi as a translation of lobby when the spelling lobby much, much more common? It only serves to waste space. Even if adaptation of foreign loanwords was a mandatory rule of standard Portuguese grammar (and it’s not), the fact is that most people do not adapt recent loanwords (ever seen someone use mause instead of mouse, rause instead of house?) That is not my personal preference, as I prefer using the lusified words when they exist, it’s just how things are. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought it was a free and libre dictionary, you prove me wrong, even if I'm right I'm not, I accept your advice to stop editing.--Tchirruá (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- You don’t need to stop editing, just stop trying to promote rare spellings and uncitable words. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought it was a free and libre dictionary, you prove me wrong, even if I'm right I'm not, I accept your advice to stop editing.--Tchirruá (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Infopedia is not reliable; read WT:CFI (at least the General Rule section). A word is a word, but why list the rare spelling like lóbi as a translation of lobby when the spelling lobby much, much more common? It only serves to waste space. Even if adaptation of foreign loanwords was a mandatory rule of standard Portuguese grammar (and it’s not), the fact is that most people do not adapt recent loanwords (ever seen someone use mause instead of mouse, rause instead of house?) That is not my personal preference, as I prefer using the lusified words when they exist, it’s just how things are. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)