Wiktionary:Information desk

August 2010

have eyes bigger than one's belly and have eyes bigger than one's stomach

Are the see also's at the top of these pages appropriate? AFAIK they should go under synonyms or perhaps alternative forms. ---> Tooironic 05:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, not appropriate. The see also’s are for words that are spelled the same, or appear to be spelled the same, except for some technical difficult such as capitalization or diacritics. Those are simple synonyms (or alternative forms, more likely). —Stephen 07:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, goodo. Well do change it to the appropriate layout then. Cheers. ---> Tooironic 00:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

diabetes

How does diabetes work and what are the gladular functions that are connected with it?67.237.239.145 05:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• See w:diabetes on Wikipedia. SemperBlotto 06:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikisaurus:idiot

Why is part of this "CENSORED"? ---> Tooironic 05:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Because no sysop bothered to revert the bad edits. I don't touch Wikisaurus, it's just another sandbox as far as I'm concerned. Reverted in this case. SemperBlotto 19:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

wanksta?

wiki en has this, should wiktionary have it? --71.254.105.5 18:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• No, we don't do definitions for record titles. SemperBlotto 18:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It's also slang though. You could probably dig up some citations on Google Books. ---> Tooironic 11:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"t/+t/-t"

Hi, please, what means "t/+t/-t" in section Translations (like in Texan:

* Finnish: {{t-|fi|teksasilainen}}, {{t-|fi|texasilainen}}
* Greek: {{t|el|Τεξανός|m|tr=Texanós}}
* Hungarian: {{t|hu|texasi}}
* Portuguese: {{t+|pt|texano|m}})

? I didn't find the answer on my own. Thanks, --Jiří Janíček 13:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

See Template:t/doc. {{t}} is what human editors use, and is what you should use. A bot named Tbot (talk • contribs) will convert {{t}} to {{t+}} or {{t-}}, or convert between {{t+}} and {{t-}}, based on whether the entry exists in the foreign-language Wiktionary. So, in your example, the Finnish Wiktionary does not have entries for (deprecated template usage) teksasilainen and (deprecated template usage) texasilainen, and the Portuguese Wiktionary does have an entry for (deprecated template usage) texano. The effect of the templates is to display the superscript foreign-language-Wiktionary link in a different color: {{t|en|foo}} → foo;     {{t+|en|foo}} → foo (en);     {{t-|en|foo}} → foo. —Ruakh_TALK 13:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Where to put an animal and veterinary translation glossary

Hi. The article (temporarily userfied at wikipedia:User:Quiddity/Animal and veterinary terms in Karimojong following an AfD result of 'delete') has content that might be useful here at Wiktionary, but I'm not sure if, or where, you might want it. (The language seems to be spelled as Karamojong, here). Should I tag that page for the transwiki bot-process, or split-up the individual translations to each respective word article, or something else? Advice or assistance appreciated. Thanks. Quiddity 18:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

{{move to Wiktionary}} does. Of course, if you're willing to do more work, and the translations are correct, then adding them to the appropriate entries here would be even better.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, at present we no entries for Karamojong, though it has a language template. I don't think we have any contributors with any knowledge at all. We do seem to have a Karamojong word ngakipi in the translation table for water. In light of this, the logical home would seem to be something like Appendix:Glossary of Karamojong animal and veterinary terms. The move process Msh210 refers to preserves the edit history I believe, which might be useful in recruiting someone to contribute Karamojong language knowledge. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged for transwiki copy. I'll rename it per your suggestion, and try to keep an eye on the copy here, once the bot copies it across. Thanks again. Quiddity 21:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you call the class of pair words like 'safe and sound'?

What do you call the groups of set pair words of the same word class, e.g. 'safe and sound'?

Other examples are 'neat and tidy', 'alive and kicking'; 'peace and love'?

— This comment was unsigned.

Probably an idiomatic phrase. -- Qt-Q!U 07:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's it. Idiomatic just means that it's more than the sum of its parts. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 00:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a classical rhetorical device called "synonymia" which refers to using lists of synoyms to convey the underlying idea. The first three fit. "Peace and love" does not. Both safe and sound and alive and kicking are at least catchphrases or cliches, if not necessarily truly idioms. "neat and tidy" perhaps not. DCDuring TALK 00:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Others: hale and hearty, hard and fast, tried and true, high and dry, dead and buried, done and dusted, footloose and fancy free.

Triplets: signed, sealed and delivered. I recall some vulgar triplets also. DCDuring TALK 01:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Another: free and easy. See also (deprecated template usage) nice and, (deprecated template usage) good and. Equinox ◑ 12:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not all of them are idiomatic, some are just synonymic pairs. There _is_ a special term for the groups but I disremember it. I was hoping someone might call it to mind. Thank you for other examples anyway. — This comment was unsigned.

I'm not very good with these terms from classical rhetoric, but some of these examples make me think of (deprecated template usage) hendiadys. —Ruakh_TALK 01:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

At Silva Rhetoricae hendiadys is exemplified by the case of using "rain and weather" instead of "rainy weather". That fits "nice and warm" instead of "nicely warm" or "good and ready" instead of "well ready" (?).

The other ones seem like different aspects of the same phenomenon. The triplet "signed, sealed, and delivered" has three aspects perhaps of making a message from A to B legally effective. Not only is the blackguard John dead, but buried too. Not only is the horse home, but also hosed down (home and hosed). Not only is the work done, but also dusted (done and dusted). Along the same lines, but with different grammatical elements: been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. At the other end ready, willing, and able. And in the middle hop skip and jump.

Some of the pairs and triplets exhibit alliteration and isocolon (more or less: the same number of syllables).

I even searched for the word "pair" at Silva Rhetoricae.

IOW, I have looked high and low for a word that encompasses all and only the attributes of these expressions and have come up empty. DCDuring TALK 03:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wuthering Heights

````Wondering about the inroduction to Wuthering Heights, which I am reading again at the age of 49. I never read the intro before which is apparently by her, or her sister's nom de plur (I know what that means, I just may not be spelling it correctly. — This comment was unsigned.

Well, this is a dictionary. What exactly are you wondering about? —Ruakh<sub>TALK</sub> 00:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

(You mean (deprecated template usage) nom de plume.) Equinox ◑ 01:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"write" and "write to"

A. He wrote me yesterday. B. He wrote to me yesterday. Both are considered "correct", yes? Is one British English and the other American? ---> Tooironic 23:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I would consider "he wrote me" ungrammatical in British English. Nobody says it here. Equinox ◑ 01:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I would automatically assume that someone who says "He wrote me yesterday" was American. (We do say "He wrote me a letter yesterday" of course.) American usages are creeping in to the language on this side of the pond, so my assumption might occasionally be wrong. Dbfirs 16:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't known how to respond to this because neither sounds wrong to my US ear. I suppose "write me" seems a bit cruder. In any event, it is not common in the US except with another object. Would someone in the UK find it natural to say "He wrote a letter a letter to me" rather than "He wrote me a letter"? DCDuring TALK 17:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "He wrote a letter to me" would be standard (with the emphasis on the letter, or even on the "me"), otherwise just "He wrote to me". Dbfirs 02:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: In my US experience "He wrote a letter to me." is intelligible, but awkward-sounding and almost ungrammatical vs "He wrote me a letter.". off the top of my head, I suspect this applies to many (all?) w:ditransitive verbs. Only in utterances like "Give it to me." does the "to" seem natural, preferred to "Give me it." I hope this isn't just my idiolect. DCDuring TALK 11:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree on all counts. "He wrote me", "He wrote to me", and "He wrote a letter to X" are all fine for me, but not "He wrote a letter to me" unless the "me" is being stressed for some reason. (It's rather like verb-particle idioms such as "give up", where a personal-pronoun object must precede the particle, a "heavy" object must follow it, and any other object can do either.) —Ruakh<sub>TALK</sub> 13:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

w:Heavy NP shift is helpful for those, like me, who are playing linguistic catch-up. DCDuring TALK 15:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Neither my analogy, nor the shift described by that article, is exactly the same as this, since in both cases it's a matter of re-ordering phrases, whereas in this case it's a matter of dative shifting, though they're all related in that they all involve a preference for putting "heavy" phrases last. Unfortunately, [[w:Dative shift]] is a stub with few details, no references, and some claims that seem dubious to me. —Ruakh<sub>TALK</sub> 19:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You know, that "linguistics article is a stub. You could help Wikipedia by expanding it." ;-). The Heavy NP article just gave some confirmation about the meaning of "heavy", which I hadn't pursued the last time you used it. Is the "heavy/ight" metaphor that "light" is easier to "move" from canonical position? This would seem contrast with the metaphor of "light" verbs, which carry little semantic weight. DCDuring TALK 20:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The metaphor is that "heavy" phrases have more "weight", usually due to being longer. For example, "the man I just met" is heavier than "that man", which is heavier than heavily-stressed "him", which is heavier than normal "him". But there are other factors, not all of which are well understood. (BTW, in "heavy NP shift", if you take transformational-grammar view, it's exactly the heavy NP that is being shifted away from its canonical position.) —Ruakh<sub>TALK</sub> 21:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

w:American_and_British_English_differences#Transitivity reports the difference with respect to "write". I don't know whether there is an accepted systematic characterization of the transitivity differences. DCDuring TALK 11:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Obsolete Spelling Variants in Main Entry

Should obsolete spellings of a word be mentioned in the modern spelling's entry under the "Alternative forms" header? For example, should the obsolete spelling Haß be mentioned in the entry Hass as an "alternative spelling form", as currently is? Longtrend 08:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Obsolete entries often appear with "(obsolete)". I don't know whether we mark spellings "(archaic)" as we do senses of words. "Archaic" indicates readily intelligible, but dated, for definitions. DCDuring TALK 17:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My example is somewhat special in that German orthography is decided upon by an institution. So obsolete spellings are not just "archaic", they are officially wrong. But I guess there's nothing bad about listing the obsolete spelling marked as "(obsolete)" in the Alternative forms section? Longtrend 14:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Important note, we go by usage so spellings recommend to be obsolete during the spelling reform but are still used wouldn't be obsolete. Note the templates you want are {{qualifier}} which doesn't categorize, or {{obsolete|lang=de}} which does. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? We go by usage even for spelling when it is officially determined in some countries? (I wonder how we determine, then, at which point the spelling Haß becomes obsolete. And is there a way to mark those "officially" obsolete spellings? Surely this would be helpful.) Longtrend 14:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

To make explicit what MG is suggesting about templates: a non-categorizing label template is appropriate for obsolete senses; {{obsolete spelling of}} is used at the main entry for such a spelling and categorizes the entry (it needs a "lang=" parameter, in this case "de", to do so properly); (deprecated template usage) qualifier and similar templates do not categorize and should be used for words other than the main entry that need such a label as in the case at hand. DCDuring TALK 14:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Word for this posture

I'm looking for a word to describe the posture in which a man stands beside two ladies (or just the one) with arms intertwined, usually at formal/old/old fashioned interventions. It's also used as the starting position in a folk dance, the name of which alludes me. A name for the ladies/man themselves would also be helpful. -- Qt-Q!U 05:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

koan pronunciation

I have trouble with the IPA phonetic notation. Is koan one syllable or two? (Do the US and UK differ on this?) RJFJR 18:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Two in US and UK, it looks like. Koh-ahn. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 02:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking

Is there a reason that every term in many East-Asian usage examples is wikilinked (e.g. 中國#Mandarin)? Is there some language consideration that supersedes WT:ELE#Example sentences where it says the other terms shouldn't be wikilinked? --Bequw → τ 05:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but probably because Mandarin doesn't have spaces and so thus it's quite helpful to wikilink words for learners so they can break up the sentence better and look up words they don't know. ---> Tooironic 00:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Couple of IPA questions

Take the words (deprecated template usage) might and (deprecated template usage) mite, the IPA is /maɪt/. Isn't it possible to pronounce the /a/ and /ɪ/ separately? How would this be written to avoid ambiguity? /ma.ɪt/ I suppose. The point I'm making is about two vowel symbols put together to make one vowel sounds. Other examples would be /meɪt/ (mate) or /ʃaʊɘ/ (shower).

Separate question, what's the difference between /ɒ/ and /ɔ/? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean you pronounce (deprecated template usage) might in two syllables? I've never heard it spoken that way; for me, /aɪ/ is always a single unit and is never broken up. But it would be written /ma.ɪt/, yes.

There is no difference between ɒ and ɔ if you speak with the cot-caught merger. If you don't, the difference is only slight anyway. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 17:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes is the answer. Unless you use the syllable separator mark [.], there's no way of distinguishing between two separate vowel sounds (ie two syllables) and a diphthong (which is a single syllable). However, this is only an issue in languages where both kinds actually exist; in French for example it will always be two syllables because diphthongs aren't allowed.
  • I think that you ought to know that the French dictionaries list a lot of diphtongs, and that from Montréal's native French speakers, you can hear a lot more diphtongs than that.
• As for the difference between /ɒ/ and /ɔ/, the difference is just one of how open your mouth is: the first sound is pronounced with the tongue even further away from the roof of the mouth than the second. Also in UK English the second sound is always long (/ɔː/) which is a fairly prominent difference. You can hear the difference between cot and caught? That's it. Ƿidsiþ 08:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

How do I report a user who is persistently being a nuisance?

Hi, I really don't like having to report anyone, and have been trying to resolve matters with an editor, but they are continuing to approach me in bad faith and pretty much have from the moment I started to edit a page. The editor in question is not merely being unpleasant, unwelcoming, but also making completely unfounded accusations about me and as such is being disruptive. How do I report them? Thanks DMSBel 20:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific. I see you don't have any contributions (here) apart from this posting. If this is an issue from Wikipedia you should probably look on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for an appropriate page. Nadando 20:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

bacterium

Looks like the Polish translation here is using a Japanese translation template. ---> Tooironic 00:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Human error. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 01:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Driving License

Is Driving License considered a shortened version of the European Computer Driving License or ECDL? 78.149.229.216 08:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the ECDL is a certification of computer literacy, while a driving licence or driver's license is a permit to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. —Stephen 07:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"Colloquial" , or "vulgar" tags ?

Hello, are there tags to warn that a translation is colloquial or vulgar (or pedantic, or obsolete) ? For ex., some french translations of Aug. 26th WOTD ("kibbitz") might be colloquial ("parlotter") , or vulgar ("déconner"), but are still quite usual . Thanks, & t.y. Arapaima 08:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd put "déconner" as "slang", but not quite {{vulgarslang}}. Circeus 21:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just add {{colloquial|lang=fr}} ({{colloquial|lang=fr}}) or {{vulgar|lang=fr}} at the beginning of the definition. —Stephen 07:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

{{temp : "but of course, this is it ǃ..." (french catch-phrase : "mais oui, mais c'est bien sûr ǃ..." ) Thank you kindly for the answers Arapaima 08:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Send a message to another user.

How can I send a message to another user? Thanks. Comber 11:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Usually you would go to his discussion page to leave a message. For example, at User talk:Comber to leave a message for Comber. —Stephen 12:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Comber 13:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Referenceable

Is referenceable a word - i noticed that you have it listed in wiktionary, but i cannot find it listed in any other dictionary - and of course it comes up as a mispelled word in any word processor. For usage, "This customer is referenceable".

If it is a word, can you direct me to the appropriate authority, and if not - is there a word which could take its place?— This comment was unsigned.

Words enter a language when enough people use them; if dictionaries lack the word, they're simply behind the times. According to Google News Archive Search, the word was used in the Washington Post on September 2, 1990 (though I can't see the article in question, so can't guarantee Google hasn't messed up), and many times since the turn of the century. Google Books Search shows the word in use quite a bit.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You must know that word processor spelling checkers omit many words. OTOH, one might think twice before including in one's writings a word not common enough to be included. OTOOH, almost any verb can form an adjective by adding (deprecated template usage) -able, just as almost any adjective can form an antonymic adjective by adding (deprecated template usage) un-, eg (deprecated template usage) unreferenceable. I doubt that readers with a good (not advanced) knowledge of English will fail to get the intended meaning. DCDuring TALK 14:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

comparable

How come there are two different translation tables for the first sense? And how can we fix this? Cheers. ---> Tooironic 12:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

All of the translations but one in trans table 2 were identical to those in trans table 1. The only exception was Czech, which I bracketed as ttbc out of an abundance of caution. No language knowledge is required in such a case. More complex cases require many ttbcs. In some cases the addition of a trans tables that split an English sense may warrant splitting the sense in the English definition. In this case the Czech contributor may have been trying to split according to a not-often-maintained distinction between "can" and "may". The ttbc may/can flush out a latent definition issue. DCDuring TALK 14:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ---> Tooironic 13:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't the word "Wiktionary" allowed to exist in Wiktionary?

Why isn't the word "Wiktionary" allowed to exist in Wiktionary?

--Mortense 09:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it isn't demonstrably used as part of the language as a whole by our criteria. There is certainly no objective reason to favor our jargon over the jargon of, say, Southern California apparel-industry workers, New Zealand sheep-shearers, or Canary wharf derivatives traders. It is already favored by our criteria because it is likely to be used by the kind of folks who might write a newspaper article or book, might be studied and mentioned in a scholarly article or post on Usenet. DCDuring TALK 10:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

horizontal line?

What happened to the horizontal line in the new editing box? ---> Tooironic 23:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Offensive talk page post

Hello. I'm a Wikipedian, but I've used this site as a source several times. I was reading the Christianity talk page and saw a post that made me want to puke. It was about someone wanting to have sex with God, and as a Christian, that is utterly disgraceful. Is there a way I can delete that post? I know deleting stuff from talk pages is generally looked down upon. 63.246.228.33 03:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don’t see anything wrong with what is written at Talk:Christianity. —Stephen (Disc) 10:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. The Christian talk page. It's struck out, but that is still legible. 63.246.228.33 04:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence whatsoever at Talk:Christianity on this Wiki (English Wiktionary). Could you provide a link ? DCDuring TALK 10:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(S)he is talking about Talk:Christian. Longtrend 10:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I've removed that comment (and another one which, while not offensive, was also irrelevant/inappropriate). —Ruakh<sub>TALK</sub> 13:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

during

Does anyone else pronounce during /ˈdʒʊəɹɪŋ/? It seems to be an exception in my speech (Canadian English) to yod-coalescence occurring only in unstressed syllables, but I can't find anything to back me up on this. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 17:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

For obvious reasons, I am sensitive to the pronunciation of the this word. I have regularly heard this pronunciation for many years, mostly in the US. But I do not associate it with any particular region, register, situation. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

[1] may interest you, Internoob.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

So Leasnam hangs out there! Thanks. DCDuring TALK 20:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't all grammatical terms generally receive less stress on all syllables in normal speech. The (uncommon) surname "During" hardly ever gets the /ˈdʒʊəɹɪŋ/ pronunciation, whereas the grammatical "during" sometimes does, though usually the same /ˈdʊəɹɪŋ/ as the surname. DCDuring TALK 10:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

♡

There is something strange with the title of this page. On my PC it interprets as three horizontal lines like Ξ but the page is about the heart symbol as in playing cards. Jcwf 03:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It’s your computer, the symbol is a heart. It could be that you don’t have a font installed that contains this symbol, or it could be that the font your system uses employes poor or no font hinting. Try copying it to another program such as Wordpad and enlarge it to 72 pt. Is it still a Ξ or is it a heart? In any case, you probably need a good symbols font. Code2000 is one font of many that contains it. —Stephen (Talk) 00:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Extracting word lists

Is there a way to extract the list of all english words from Wiktionary? William

Wiktionary:FAQ#Downloading Wiktionary. --Bequw → τ 03:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

my datestamp

My preferences for time zone is set to minus 4. When I date stamp a comment and then immediately look at the stamp it reads "(11 months, 31 days ago) (UTC−4)". Do I need to adjust something? RJFJR 19:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

denotative meaning

What is the origin of the words "flappable" and "unflappable" — This comment was unsigned.

unflappable < ; flap is a noun here used as a verb.

"Flappable" seems to have been formed from "unflappable", just to mean its opposite. DCDuring TALK 00:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Growth of Wiktionary

I am amazed at how fast Wiktionary is growing, seems to be at approximately 3,000 definitions per day! What is the largest electronic dictionary now? Is it Wiktionary? It seems to be larger than the OED online! Have there been any maximum size limits to the potential of the English Wiktionary? 3,000,000? WritersCramp 17:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that we have form-of entries, which many other online dictionaries exclude. This leads to a sizable amount of entry count inflation. If you check only the English entries, it should actually be lower than OED and AHD and Random House and whatever. -- Prince Kassad 20:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The OED has more basic word entries, and much more information about each word than Wiktionary, but we are gradually catching up. The OED moves very slowly, so Wiktionary is more likely to include new words. Dbfirs 08:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

wherever

Aren't the first two adverbs conjunctions? —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You might be amused, confused, and cautioned by this quote from CGEL: "We therefore include in the preposition category all of the subordinating conjunctions of traditional grammar". (They except "that", "whether", and "if".)

Like you, I don't see the usage examples as illustrating a PoS distinction. But no dictionaries I know of follow CGEL. Some only have "adverb", some have "adverb" and "conjunction". I have passed on tackling this and other items in Category:English pronominal adverbs. That no one else has lately might be taken as a caution. DCDuring TALK 00:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Script templates

Why aren't many templates showing up in here? For example, {{Armn}} isn't showing up even though {{Armn/doc}} (where the cat lives) hasn't been edited for months. --Bequw → τ 00:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Now Armn shows up, but not {{Avst}} (and others). Weird. --Bequw → τ 01:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it’s your Vector skin. I still use the MonoBook and {{Armn}} shows up fine for me. —Stephen (Talk) 01:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Tried Monobook and when logged out. No dice on seeing Avst. --Bequw → τ 02:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I got Avst to show up there by going to edit it and clicking "Save" (without actually changing anything). A normal purge, however, did not work. We've seen this sort of issue before, but I don't know if I've heard a coherent explanation for why it happens. I think it usually passes on its own. —Ruakh<sub>TALK</sub> 02:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Statutory Rape

I know a 16 year old girl in Fort Wayne Indiana who is dating a 24 year old man. I cannot believe that this is legal but that is what a so called attorney told me online. What I would like to know is how DCS would see this. I cannot imaging the Division of Child Services being ok with this even if it is legal.— This comment was unsigned.

This is Wiktionary, a dictionary Web site. You might try a legal-advice Web site instead for help with this question. Or just ask the DCS.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

help in editing and adding

Hi, Thanks for the tips about how to get help....it is not easy to find where to click or add or ask for advice or help. I've received advice from Daniel a minute ago, but still don't understand how I can add a protologism.....if I go to the page that Daniel suggests and click on edit there is not template wizard for how to enter a new word definition. If I go onto that page he suggests by finding the list and going to enter my word then I could easily accidently edit other text that is not mine...or maybe that is the idea.....so when you add a new word in wikidictionary you get a template to fill in....can we have one of those for protologisms also? Still unable to move forward without further very basic advice. Thanks Sylvie

can you please assist me - protologism

Hi

I am not sure how to enter a protologism. I've found the page with the list of them, I've found the edit button, but what I still don't know or understand is the best way to add my newly coined word?

Can you either edit the entry I made below or better still tell me in a simple step by step guide how to do this correctly. Being pointed to a page and then being allowed to do whatever I feel with that page - somehow feels wrong and hazardous to others hard work.

mindscious: adjective [pronunciation :mīnd-shuhs ] (Blending mindful focus and conscious action to generate creativity, empowered thinking and effective leadership.) Coined by Mindscious Pty Ltd 1 December 2009. Origins: 1. Subconscious (adj.) , "not wholly conscious" 2. Mindful - mid-14c.from mind + -ful. Related: Mindfulness. 3. Consciousness - c.1600, from Latin. 'conscius' "knowing, aware," from conscire, "internal knowledge" Meaning "state of being aware". Synonyms include: coaching beginner’s mind, aligned mindfulness to leadership, focus and linked leadership.

Just add what you have there to the list. Don't be afraid of making a mess of our WT:LOP (not that what you have written is messy, I'm just saying ;) ) because it's mostly not taken that seriously. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Arabic Wiktionary

Not sure where to post this, but I noticed that the Arabic Wiktionary has a lot of uppercase English words, as opposed to lowercase ones on virtually every other Wiktionary. For example ar:Abandoned where we have abandoned. Since I don't speak Arabic, I can't even read the script, I can't negociate with them. Any takers? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

ar:Abandoned was autoimported from our Abandoned which existed at the time. The English one has since been deleted. Arabic Wiktionary also has ar:abandoned. —Stephen (Talk) 03:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

First Wiktionary day, first Wiktionary project, first Wiktionary question

I have been on Wikipedia for quite awhile. This is my first project on Wiktionary and I have a couple questions. On the page http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/perch under Etymology 1/Noun are 3 descriptions, all fish. Under Etymology 2/Noun are 5 more descriptions, number 5 being the one I was looking for. It is an English weaving term that I also found at http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-209135036.html?key=01-42160D517E1A14601209071F05684B2E224E324D3417295C30420B61651B617F137019731B7B1D6B39
Perch: A wooden frame over which fabric is draped and inspected for faults, the percher's job.
Here is a reference in a book: http://books.google.com/books?id=cAwAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=weaving+percher&source=bl&ots=04CwW_C9Ae&sig=hCh_ztKzk_xP6mPFWizz2VMzkcE&hl=en&ei=u_WgTKyUOsWAnQe2v9y8DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=weaving%20percher&f=false
The reason I would like to know the difference between Etymology 1 and Etymology 2 is that I want to add the word 'percher' that does not exist in the English Wiktionary, but was my father's job, and is listed as such on my birth certificate. I assumed for many years that is was a French word, but it is English.

Any suggestions on how to proceed?

Quebec99 21:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it isn't as easy as some. Here is something I found via Google Books:

This is way more than should be included in the definitions of any of the three terms. I would suppose that the noun "perch" belongs in Etymology 2, certainly not in Ety 1, possibly in a new Etymology we don't have. "Percher" starts a new English section at percher. "Perching" looks like a participle of "to perch" but it is not clear whether "to perch" is a real verb, whether it would be transitive or intransitive, etc. Maybe we just call "perching" a noun, pending more evidence. DCDuring TALK 22:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I took a run at percher#English. This is more obscure and complicated than most entries and we were missing an English language section with the other more common senses of "percher". I will add a new etymology for perching and a noun def. for it. DCDuring TALK 22:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't expect you to do it, but that looks good.

Quebec99 20:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There were a lot of pieces to it. It is a bit hard to explain so many elements. It's not as if we have such great documentation. You more or less study what we have, especially WT:ELE and WT:CFI and thereafter learn by hook and by crook. DCDuring TALK 21:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Talk:morphology

This was the question on the talk page, which I deleted:

"what is meaning of morphology assessment" 112.202.222.117‧T‧U

Mglovesfun (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The asker won't find any answer or clarifying question we give here without redirection, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 12:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

diachroneity

What does this word mean? — This unsigned comment was added by 173.45.202.179 (talk) at 4 October 2010. - moved from Talk:diachronic by Mglovesfun (talk • contribs)

It means something like the changes in a phenomenon at different points of time. —Stephen (Talk) 07:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it is mostly use as a specialized word in geology, where it contrasts with synchroneity. Almost all use is by geologists AFAICT. It is as if the apparently synonymous pair diachronicity/synchronicity, in use by linguists, and "synchronicity" alone, in use by Jungians, had too much connotational baggage. I will add to WT:REE (Requested Entries English). DCDuring TALK 12:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

binge

what are the origins of this word? Mjalliston 13:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 08.09.2010

Traceable to East North Central UK dialect verb meaning "to soak". DCDuring TALK 14:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

patrician

This word sounds to me like it is specifically masculine, such as Latin pater (father) or patriarch (male head of a family) - is this the case? The listed meaning refers to a 'person' without making any gender-specific reference. I note there is no corresponding 'matrician' listed. Many thanks. Careful With That Axe, Eugene 09:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In English, women may also be patrician. For example, Virginia (Volumnius). —Stephen (Talk) 10:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted wrong definition

Just a heads-up that I deleted the definition of endosome, which has been flat-out wrong since its creation. So currently there's a page with no definition. I've no time to read policies etc right now, so thought I'd post a quick note here. Adrian J. Hunter 13:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• From the OED - endosome, (a) the innermost part of a sponge; (b) Cytol., a deeply staining mass of chromatin in the middle of a vesicular nucleus in certain protozoans. You also removed the translation table - that's what we call vandalism. Edit backed out. Feel free to improve the definition. SemperBlotto 14:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In the future, please use {{rfv}} and list the entry at WT:RFV so that others can have a look and share their opinions. But at least you posted here, so that's good. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 21:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

SemperBlotto: Vandalism? I gave my reason for removing the table in the edit summary. Perhaps you'd consider the effect calling new contributors' good-faith edits "vandalism" might have on their likelihood of feeling welcome and contributing further.

Internoob: Thanks for the note. Please see #FAQ update below.

User:Vahagn Petrosyan has now edited endosome to match what three different biology textbooks I checked said in their glossaries, plus my own expectation. I've no idea where the OED is coming from – perhaps that's an obscure or outdated definition? – but the new definition matches common usage. Adrian J. Hunter 05:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Starting talk pages

In which order do I need to place a talk page's templates? Thank you. - Lo Ximiendo 21:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you mean. Which templates are you referring to? —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 02:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The templates that you see when you edit or make a page. - Lo Ximiendo 22:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think we have such templates. Can you point to a page for example? —Stephen (Talk) 09:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be talking about user boxes. We don’t use user boxes here, except for Babel boxes that describe your linguistic competencies. I know that Wikipedia has boxes for every conceivable thing, but here we only have {{babel}}. —Stephen (Talk) 08:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I also mean discussion tabs that you see on pages. - Lo Ximiendo 01:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah. We don’t have templates like that. Just click "edit" and start typing. —Stephen (Talk) 03:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Steeply raked

"Steeply raked" means "sharply angled". In practice this can be both near horizontal (as in the steeply raked windscreen of a sportscar) or near vertical (as in the steeply raked stalls of an auditorium). Any idea how to cover this? At the moment, steep just says, "Of a near-vertical gradient; of a slope, surface, curve, etc. that proceeds upward at an angle near vertical" -- which is precisely wrong if it's a steeply raked windscreen. Ideas? --Jayen466 01:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think our first problem is in missing senses of rake#Noun(, rake#Verb ?,) and raked#Adjective. I don't think "steep" has the meaning it has with "raked" with many other words. Do you know of some?

"Steep" and other words that modify "raked" might all need to be modified to allow for a different plane of reference than the horizon. Other dictionaries have a definition like ours, but often word it artfully to avoid exclusive reference to the horizontal. DCDuring TALK 15:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect entries from a questionable source

The entries i-gai, lengen-aka, nat-loun, qachun, and slades are all included in Category: Aleut phrasebook. It appears these entries were taken (rather irresponsibly) from Charles A. Lee's Alaskan Indian Dictionary, published in 1896 and digitized by Project Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10040/10040.txt). Within Wiktionary, these words have been labeled as Aleut, but they are not Aleut (Unangam Tunuu) at all; they are Alutiiq/Sugpiaq. Not only that, but their spellings are non-standard and their glosses remain to be independently verified. Works such as the Alaskan Indian Dictionary are useful for linguistic research (particularly when corroborated by other sources), but they cannot be considered definitive references and certainly not adequate sole sources for Wiktionary entries.

So, what to do with these entries? The people who created them obviously do not have the Alutiiq expertise to fix them, nor do I. I don't believe it would be responsible to leave them as is, nor do I think it would be sufficient to re-label them as Alutiiq since they really need thorough editing by someone with more than a passing familiarity with the language. My personal preference would be to see these entries deleted, in order to prevent the spreading of misinformation. What does the Wiktionary community think?

It is no problem. Just change the language header to Alutiiq, and change any language codes from ale to ems. I did i-gai for you as an example. As far as the spelling goes, it depends on whether they are misspellings, antiquated spellings, alternative spellings, or what. If misspellings, then they can be marked as such with a link to the correct spelling.

There really is no one around here with expertise in Alutiiq, so we only have the alternatives of relabeling as Alutiiq or deleting altogether. If you want to delete rather than relabel, just place {{delete}} in each affected page. —Stephen (Talk) 10:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

every cloud has a silver lining

Are there any Bible scripture(s) that support the "silver lining behind every cloud" concept? — This comment was unsigned.

Seems like a question for your minister, a Bible scholar, or Google books. It is possible someone might know of a similar proverb with a biblical source. DCDuring TALK 15:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Books

Hello everyone

Just one question. I mostly workd on the spanish wikipedia and in wikipedia in general. Over there people can create books of pages they find intresgting. Can one do this with wiktionary? If not, isn't it a good idea to allow people to create books?

The potential books have in wiktionary is huge: people could crearte vocabulary lists so they can study and review the words in and ordered way.

Thanks! --Smoken Flames 05:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

One can create such things on one's userpage and on subpages of one's user page. HTH. DCDuring TALK 11:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

But see the bookmaking extension on the other WMF wikis: I, too, think it would be a good idea to have it here. (Especially if we're to have a phrasebook.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

have eyes bigger than one's belly and have eyes bigger than one's stomach

Are the see also's at the top of these pages appropriate? AFAIK they should go under synonyms or perhaps alternative forms. ---> Tooironic 05:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, not appropriate. The see also’s are for words that are spelled the same, or appear to be spelled the same, except for some technical difficult such as capitalization or diacritics. Those are simple synonyms (or alternative forms, more likely). —Stephen 07:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, goodo. Well do change it to the appropriate layout then. Cheers. ---> Tooironic 00:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

diabetes

How does diabetes work and what are the gladular functions that are connected with it?67.237.239.145 05:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• See w:diabetes on Wikipedia. SemperBlotto 06:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikisaurus:idiot

Why is part of this "CENSORED"? ---> Tooironic 05:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Because no sysop bothered to revert the bad edits. I don't touch Wikisaurus, it's just another sandbox as far as I'm concerned. Reverted in this case. SemperBlotto 19:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

wanksta?

wiki en has this, should wiktionary have it? --71.254.105.5 18:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• No, we don't do definitions for record titles. SemperBlotto 18:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It's also slang though. You could probably dig up some citations on Google Books. ---> Tooironic 11:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"t/+t/-t"

Hi, please, what means "t/+t/-t" in section Translations (like in Texan:

* Finnish: {{t-|fi|teksasilainen}}, {{t-|fi|texasilainen}}
* Greek: {{t|el|Τεξανός|m|tr=Texanós}}
* Hungarian: {{t|hu|texasi}}
* Portuguese: {{t+|pt|texano|m}})

? I didn't find the answer on my own. Thanks, --Jiří Janíček 13:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

See Template:t/doc. {{t}} is what human editors use, and is what you should use. A bot named Tbot (talk • contribs) will convert {{t}} to {{t+}} or {{t-}}, or convert between {{t+}} and {{t-}}, based on whether the entry exists in the foreign-language Wiktionary. So, in your example, the Finnish Wiktionary does not have entries for (deprecated template usage) teksasilainen and (deprecated template usage) texasilainen, and the Portuguese Wiktionary does have an entry for (deprecated template usage) texano. The effect of the templates is to display the superscript foreign-language-Wiktionary link in a different color: {{t|en|foo}} → foo;     {{t+|en|foo}} → foo (en);     {{t-|en|foo}} → foo. —Ruakh<sub>TALK</sub> 13:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Where to put an animal and veterinary translation glossary

Hi. The article (temporarily userfied at wikipedia:User:Quiddity/Animal and veterinary terms in Karimojong following an AfD result of 'delete') has content that might be useful here at Wiktionary, but I'm not sure if, or where, you might want it. (The language seems to be spelled as Karamojong, here). Should I tag that page for the transwiki bot-process, or split-up the individual translations to each respective word article, or something else? Advice or assistance appreciated. Thanks. Quiddity 18:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

{{move to Wiktionary}} does. Of course, if you're willing to do more work, and the translations are correct, then adding them to the appropriate entries here would be even better.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, at present we no entries for Karamojong, though it has a language template. I don't think we have any contributors with any knowledge at all. We do seem to have a Karamojong word ngakipi in the translation table for water. In light of this, the logical home would seem to be something like Appendix:Glossary of Karamojong animal and veterinary terms. The move process Msh210 refers to preserves the edit history I believe, which might be useful in recruiting someone to contribute Karamojong language knowledge. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged for transwiki copy. I'll rename it per your suggestion, and try to keep an eye on the copy here, once the bot copies it across. Thanks again. Quiddity 21:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you call the class of pair words like 'safe and sound'?

What do you call the groups of set pair words of the same word class, e.g. 'safe and sound'?

Other examples are 'neat and tidy', 'alive and kicking'; 'peace and love'?

— This comment was unsigned.

Probably an idiomatic phrase. -- Qt-Q!U 07:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's it. Idiomatic just means that it's more than the sum of its parts. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 00:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a classical rhetorical device called "synonymia" which refers to using lists of synoyms to convey the underlying idea. The first three fit. "Peace and love" does not. Both safe and sound and alive and kicking are at least catchphrases or cliches, if not necessarily truly idioms. "neat and tidy" perhaps not. DCDuring TALK 00:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Others: hale and hearty, hard and fast, tried and true, high and dry, dead and buried, done and dusted, footloose and fancy free.

Triplets: signed, sealed and delivered. I recall some vulgar triplets also. DCDuring TALK 01:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Another: free and easy. See also (deprecated template usage) nice and, (deprecated template usage) good and. Equinox ◑ 12:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not all of them are idiomatic, some are just synonymic pairs. There _is_ a special term for the groups but I disremember it. I was hoping someone might call it to mind. Thank you for other examples anyway. — This comment was unsigned.

I'm not very good with these terms from classical rhetoric, but some of these examples make me think of (deprecated template usage) hendiadys. —Ruakh<sub>TALK</sub> 01:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

At Silva Rhetoricae hendiadys is exemplified by the case of using "rain and weather" instead of "rainy weather". That fits "nice and warm" instead of "nicely warm" or "good and ready" instead of "well ready" (?).

The other ones seem like different aspects of the same phenomenon. The triplet "signed, sealed, and delivered" has three aspects perhaps of making a message from A to B legally effective. Not only is the blackguard John dead, but buried too. Not only is the horse home, but also hosed down (home and hosed). Not only is the work done, but also dusted (done and dusted). Along the same lines, but with different grammatical elements: been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. At the other end ready, willing, and able. And in the middle hop skip and jump.

Some of the pairs and triplets exhibit alliteration and isocolon (more or less: the same number of syllables).

I even searched for the word "pair" at Silva Rhetoricae.

IOW, I have looked high and low for a word that encompasses all and only the attributes of these expressions and have come up empty. DCDuring TALK 03:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wuthering Heights

````Wondering about the inroduction to Wuthering Heights, which I am reading again at the age of 49. I never read the intro before which is apparently by her, or her sister's nom de plur (I know what that means, I just may not be spelling it correctly. — This comment was unsigned.

Well, this is a dictionary. What exactly are you wondering about? —Ruakh<sub>TALK</sub> 00:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

(You mean (deprecated template usage) nom de plume.) Equinox ◑ 01:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"write" and "write to"

A. He wrote me yesterday. B. He wrote to me yesterday. Both are considered "correct", yes? Is one British English and the other American? ---> Tooironic 23:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I would consider "he wrote me" ungrammatical in British English. Nobody says it here. Equinox ◑ 01:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I would automatically assume that someone who says "He wrote me yesterday" was American. (We do say "He wrote me a letter yesterday" of course.) American usages are creeping in to the language on this side of the pond, so my assumption might occasionally be wrong. Dbfirs 16:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't known how to respond to this because neither sounds wrong to my US ear. I suppose "write me" seems a bit cruder. In any event, it is not common in the US except with another object. Would someone in the UK find it natural to say "He wrote a letter a letter to me" rather than "He wrote me a letter"? DCDuring TALK 17:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "He wrote a letter to me" would be standard (with the emphasis on the letter, or even on the "me"), otherwise just "He wrote to me". Dbfirs 02:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: In my US experience "He wrote a letter to me." is intelligible, but awkward-sounding and almost ungrammatical vs "He wrote me a letter.". off the top of my head, I suspect this applies to many (all?) w:ditransitive verbs. Only in utterances like "Give it to me." does the "to" seem natural, preferred to "Give me it." I hope this isn't just my idiolect. DCDuring TALK 11:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree on all counts. "He wrote me", "He wrote to me", and "He wrote a letter to X" are all fine for me, but not "He wrote a letter to me" unless the "me" is being stressed for some reason. (It's rather like verb-particle idioms such as "give up", where a personal-pronoun object must precede the particle, a "heavy" object must follow it, and any other object can do either.) —Ruakh<sub>TALK</sub> 13:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

w:Heavy NP shift is helpful for those, like me, who are playing linguistic catch-up. DCDuring TALK 15:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Neither my analogy, nor the shift described by that article, is exactly the same as this, since in both cases it's a matter of re-ordering phrases, whereas in this case it's a matter of dative shifting, though they're all related in that they all involve a preference for putting "heavy" phrases last. Unfortunately, [[w:Dative shift]] is a stub with few details, no references, and some claims that seem dubious to me. —Ruakh<sub>TALK</sub> 19:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You know, that "linguistics article is a stub. You could help Wikipedia by expanding it." ;-). The Heavy NP article just gave some confirmation about the meaning of "heavy", which I hadn't pursued the last time you used it. Is the "heavy/ight" metaphor that "light" is easier to "move" from canonical position? This would seem contrast with the metaphor of "light" verbs, which carry little semantic weight. DCDuring TALK 20:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The metaphor is that "heavy" phrases have more "weight", usually due to being longer. For example, "the man I just met" is heavier than "that man", which is heavier than heavily-stressed "him", which is heavier than normal "him". But there are other factors, not all of which are well understood. (BTW, in "heavy NP shift", if you take transformational-grammar view, it's exactly the heavy NP that is being shifted away from its canonical position.) —Ruakh<sub>TALK</sub> 21:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

w:American_and_British_English_differences#Transitivity reports the difference with respect to "write". I don't know whether there is an accepted systematic characterization of the transitivity differences. DCDuring TALK 11:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Obsolete Spelling Variants in Main Entry

Should obsolete spellings of a word be mentioned in the modern spelling's entry under the "Alternative forms" header? For example, should the obsolete spelling Haß be mentioned in the entry Hass as an "alternative spelling form", as currently is? Longtrend 08:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Obsolete entries often appear with "(obsolete)". I don't know whether we mark spellings "(archaic)" as we do senses of words. "Archaic" indicates readily intelligible, but dated, for definitions. DCDuring TALK 17:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My example is somewhat special in that German orthography is decided upon by an institution. So obsolete spellings are not just "archaic", they are officially wrong. But I guess there's nothing bad about listing the obsolete spelling marked as "(obsolete)" in the Alternative forms section? Longtrend 14:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Important note, we go by usage so spellings recommend to be obsolete during the spelling reform but are still used wouldn't be obsolete. Note the templates you want are {{qualifier}} which doesn't categorize, or {{obsolete|lang=de}} which does. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? We go by usage even for spelling when it is officially determined in some countries? (I wonder how we determine, then, at which point the spelling Haß becomes obsolete. And is there a way to mark those "officially" obsolete spellings? Surely this would be helpful.) Longtrend 14:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

To make explicit what MG is suggesting about templates: a non-categorizing label template is appropriate for obsolete senses; {{obsolete spelling of}} is used at the main entry for such a spelling and categorizes the entry (it needs a "lang=" parameter, in this case "de", to do so properly); (deprecated template usage) qualifier and similar templates do not categorize and should be used for words other than the main entry that need such a label as in the case at hand. DCDuring TALK 14:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Word for this posture

I'm looking for a word to describe the posture in which a man stands beside two ladies (or just the one) with arms intertwined, usually at formal/old/old fashioned interventions. It's also used as the starting position in a folk dance, the name of which alludes me. A name for the ladies/man themselves would also be helpful. -- Qt-Q!U 05:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

koan pronunciation

I have trouble with the IPA phonetic notation. Is koan one syllable or two? (Do the US and UK differ on this?) RJFJR 18:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Two in US and UK, it looks like. Koh-ahn. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 02:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking

Is there a reason that every term in many East-Asian usage examples is wikilinked (e.g. 中國#Mandarin)? Is there some language consideration that supersedes WT:ELE#Example sentences where it says the other terms shouldn't be wikilinked? --Bequw → τ 05:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but probably because Mandarin doesn't have spaces and so thus it's quite helpful to wikilink words for learners so they can break up the sentence better and look up words they don't know. ---> Tooironic 00:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Couple of IPA questions

Take the words (deprecated template usage) might and (deprecated template usage) mite, the IPA is /maɪt/. Isn't it possible to pronounce the /a/ and /ɪ/ separately? How would this be written to avoid ambiguity? /ma.ɪt/ I suppose. The point I'm making is about two vowel symbols put together to make one vowel sounds. Other examples would be /meɪt/ (mate) or /ʃaʊɘ/ (shower).

Separate question, what's the difference between /ɒ/ and /ɔ/? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean you pronounce (deprecated template usage) might in two syllables? I've never heard it spoken that way; for me, /aɪ/ is always a single unit and is never broken up. But it would be written /ma.ɪt/, yes.

There is no difference between ɒ and ɔ if you speak with the cot-caught merger. If you don't, the difference is only slight anyway. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 17:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes is the answer. Unless you use the syllable separator mark [.], there's no way of distinguishing between two separate vowel sounds (ie two syllables) and a diphthong (which is a single syllable). However, this is only an issue in languages where both kinds actually exist; in French for example it will always be two syllables because diphthongs aren't allowed.
  • I think that you ought to know that the French dictionaries list a lot of diphtongs, and that from Montréal's native French speakers, you can hear a lot more diphtongs than that.
• As for the difference between /ɒ/ and /ɔ/, the difference is just one of how open your mouth is: the first sound is pronounced with the tongue even further away from the roof of the mouth than the second. Also in UK English the second sound is always long (/ɔː/) which is a fairly prominent difference. You can hear the difference between cot and caught? That's it. Ƿidsiþ 08:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

How do I report a user who is persistently being a nuisance?

Hi, I really don't like having to report anyone, and have been trying to resolve matters with an editor, but they are continuing to approach me in bad faith and pretty much have from the moment I started to edit a page. The editor in question is not merely being unpleasant, unwelcoming, but also making completely unfounded accusations about me and as such is being disruptive. How do I report them? Thanks DMSBel 20:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific. I see you don't have any contributions (here) apart from this posting. If this is an issue from Wikipedia you should probably look on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for an appropriate page. Nadando 20:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

bacterium

Looks like the Polish translation here is using a Japanese translation template. ---> Tooironic 00:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Human error. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 01:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Driving License

Is Driving License considered a shortened version of the European Computer Driving License or ECDL? 78.149.229.216 08:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the ECDL is a certification of computer literacy, while a driving licence or driver's license is a permit to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. —Stephen 07:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"Colloquial" , or "vulgar" tags ?

Hello, are there tags to warn that a translation is colloquial or vulgar (or pedantic, or obsolete) ? For ex., some french translations of Aug. 26th WOTD ("kibbitz") might be colloquial ("parlotter") , or vulgar ("déconner"), but are still quite usual . Thanks, & t.y. Arapaima 08:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd put "déconner" as "slang", but not quite {{vulgarslang}}. Circeus 21:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just add {{colloquial|lang=fr}} ({{colloquial|lang=fr}}) or {{vulgar|lang=fr}} at the beginning of the definition. —Stephen 07:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

{{temp : "but of course, this is it ǃ..." (french catch-phrase : "mais oui, mais c'est bien sûr ǃ..." ) Thank you kindly for the answers Arapaima 08:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Send a message to another user.

How can I send a message to another user? Thanks. Comber 11:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Usually you would go to his discussion page to leave a message. For example, at User talk:Comber to leave a message for Comber. —Stephen 12:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Comber 13:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Referenceable

Is referenceable a word - i noticed that you have it listed in wiktionary, but i cannot find it listed in any other dictionary - and of course it comes up as a mispelled word in any word processor. For usage, "This customer is referenceable".

If it is a word, can you direct me to the appropriate authority, and if not - is there a word which could take its place?— This comment was unsigned.

Words enter a language when enough people use them; if dictionaries lack the word, they're simply behind the times. According to Google News Archive Search, the word was used in the Washington Post on September 2, 1990 (though I can't see the article in question, so can't guarantee Google hasn't messed up), and many times since the turn of the century. Google Books Search shows the word in use quite a bit.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You must know that word processor spelling checkers omit many words. OTOH, one might think twice before including in one's writings a word not common enough to be included. OTOOH, almost any verb can form an adjective by adding (deprecated template usage) -able, just as almost any adjective can form an antonymic adjective by adding (deprecated template usage) un-, eg (deprecated template usage) unreferenceable. I doubt that readers with a good (not advanced) knowledge of English will fail to get the intended meaning. DCDuring TALK 14:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

comparable

How come there are two different translation tables for the first sense? And how can we fix this? Cheers. ---> Tooironic 12:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

All of the translations but one in trans table 2 were identical to those in trans table 1. The only exception was Czech, which I bracketed as ttbc out of an abundance of caution. No language knowledge is required in such a case. More complex cases require many ttbcs. In some cases the addition of a trans tables that split an English sense may warrant splitting the sense in the English definition. In this case the Czech contributor may have been trying to split according to a not-often-maintained distinction between "can" and "may". The ttbc may/can flush out a latent definition issue. DCDuring TALK 14:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ---> Tooironic 13:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't the word "Wiktionary" allowed to exist in Wiktionary?

Why isn't the word "Wiktionary" allowed to exist in Wiktionary?

--Mortense 09:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it isn't demonstrably used as part of the language as a whole by our criteria. There is certainly no objective reason to favor our jargon over the jargon of, say, Southern California apparel-industry workers, New Zealand sheep-shearers, or Canary wharf derivatives traders. It is already favored by our criteria because it is likely to be used by the kind of folks who might write a newspaper article or book, might be studied and mentioned in a scholarly article or post on Usenet. DCDuring TALK 10:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

horizontal line?

What happened to the horizontal line in the new editing box? ---> Tooironic 23:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Offensive talk page post

Hello. I'm a Wikipedian, but I've used this site as a source several times. I was reading the Christianity talk page and saw a post that made me want to puke. It was about someone wanting to have sex with God, and as a Christian, that is utterly disgraceful. Is there a way I can delete that post? I know deleting stuff from talk pages is generally looked down upon. 63.246.228.33 03:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don’t see anything wrong with what is written at Talk:Christianity. —Stephen (Disc) 10:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. The Christian talk page. It's struck out, but that is still legible. 63.246.228.33 04:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence whatsoever at Talk:Christianity on this Wiki (English Wiktionary). Could you provide a link ? DCDuring TALK 10:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(S)he is talking about Talk:Christian. Longtrend 10:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I've removed that comment (and another one which, while not offensive, was also irrelevant/inappropriate). —Ruakh<sub>TALK</sub> 13:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

during

Does anyone else pronounce during /ˈdʒʊəɹɪŋ/? It seems to be an exception in my speech (Canadian English) to yod-coalescence occurring only in unstressed syllables, but I can't find anything to back me up on this. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 17:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

For obvious reasons, I am sensitive to the pronunciation of the this word. I have regularly heard this pronunciation for many years, mostly in the US. But I do not associate it with any particular region, register, situation. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

[2] may interest you, Internoob.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

So Leasnam hangs out there! Thanks. DCDuring TALK 20:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't all grammatical terms generally receive less stress on all syllables in normal speech. The (uncommon) surname "During" hardly ever gets the /ˈdʒʊəɹɪŋ/ pronunciation, whereas the grammatical "during" sometimes does, though usually the same /ˈdʊəɹɪŋ/ as the surname. DCDuring TALK 10:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

♡

There is something strange with the title of this page. On my PC it interprets as three horizontal lines like Ξ but the page is about the heart symbol as in playing cards. Jcwf 03:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It’s your computer, the symbol is a heart. It could be that you don’t have a font installed that contains this symbol, or it could be that the font your system uses employes poor or no font hinting. Try copying it to another program such as Wordpad and enlarge it to 72 pt. Is it still a Ξ or is it a heart? In any case, you probably need a good symbols font. Code2000 is one font of many that contains it. —Stephen (Talk) 00:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Extracting word lists

Is there a way to extract the list of all english words from Wiktionary? William

Wiktionary:FAQ#Downloading Wiktionary. --Bequw → τ 03:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

my datestamp

My preferences for time zone is set to minus 4. When I date stamp a comment and then immediately look at the stamp it reads "(11 months, 31 days ago) (UTC−4)". Do I need to adjust something? RJFJR 19:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

denotative meaning

What is the origin of the words "flappable" and "unflappable" — This comment was unsigned.

unflappable < ; flap is a noun here used as a verb.

"Flappable" seems to have been formed from "unflappable", just to mean its opposite. DCDuring TALK 00:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Growth of Wiktionary

I am amazed at how fast Wiktionary is growing, seems to be at approximately 3,000 definitions per day! What is the largest electronic dictionary now? Is it Wiktionary? It seems to be larger than the OED online! Have there been any maximum size limits to the potential of the English Wiktionary? 3,000,000? WritersCramp 17:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that we have form-of entries, which many other online dictionaries exclude. This leads to a sizable amount of entry count inflation. If you check only the English entries, it should actually be lower than OED and AHD and Random House and whatever. -- Prince Kassad 20:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The OED has more basic word entries, and much more information about each word than Wiktionary, but we are gradually catching up. The OED moves very slowly, so Wiktionary is more likely to include new words. Dbfirs 08:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

wherever

Aren't the first two adverbs conjunctions? —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You might be amused, confused, and cautioned by this quote from CGEL: "We therefore include in the preposition category all of the subordinating conjunctions of traditional grammar". (They except "that", "whether", and "if".)

Like you, I don't see the usage examples as illustrating a PoS distinction. But no dictionaries I know of follow CGEL. Some only have "adverb", some have "adverb" and "conjunction". I have passed on tackling this and other items in Category:English pronominal adverbs. That no one else has lately might be taken as a caution. DCDuring TALK 00:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Script templates

Why aren't many templates showing up in here? For example, {{Armn}} isn't showing up even though {{Armn/doc}} (where the cat lives) hasn't been edited for months. --Bequw → τ 00:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Now Armn shows up, but not {{Avst}} (and others). Weird. --Bequw → τ 01:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it’s your Vector skin. I still use the MonoBook and {{Armn}} shows up fine for me. —Stephen (Talk) 01:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Tried Monobook and when logged out. No dice on seeing Avst. --Bequw → τ 02:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I got Avst to show up there by going to edit it and clicking "Save" (without actually changing anything). A normal purge, however, did not work. We've seen this sort of issue before, but I don't know if I've heard a coherent explanation for why it happens. I think it usually passes on its own. —Ruakh<sub>TALK</sub> 02:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Statutory Rape

I know a 16 year old girl in Fort Wayne Indiana who is dating a 24 year old man. I cannot believe that this is legal but that is what a so called attorney told me online. What I would like to know is how DCS would see this. I cannot imaging the Division of Child Services being ok with this even if it is legal.— This comment was unsigned.

This is Wiktionary, a dictionary Web site. You might try a legal-advice Web site instead for help with this question. Or just ask the DCS.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

help in editing and adding

Hi, Thanks for the tips about how to get help....it is not easy to find where to click or add or ask for advice or help. I've received advice from Daniel a minute ago, but still don't understand how I can add a protologism.....if I go to the page that Daniel suggests and click on edit there is not template wizard for how to enter a new word definition. If I go onto that page he suggests by finding the list and going to enter my word then I could easily accidently edit other text that is not mine...or maybe that is the idea.....so when you add a new word in wikidictionary you get a template to fill in....can we have one of those for protologisms also? Still unable to move forward without further very basic advice. Thanks Sylvie

can you please assist me - protologism

Hi

I am not sure how to enter a protologism. I've found the page with the list of them, I've found the edit button, but what I still don't know or understand is the best way to add my newly coined word?

Can you either edit the entry I made below or better still tell me in a simple step by step guide how to do this correctly. Being pointed to a page and then being allowed to do whatever I feel with that page - somehow feels wrong and hazardous to others hard work.

mindscious: adjective [pronunciation :mīnd-shuhs ] (Blending mindful focus and conscious action to generate creativity, empowered thinking and effective leadership.) Coined by Mindscious Pty Ltd 1 December 2009. Origins: 1. Subconscious (adj.) , "not wholly conscious" 2. Mindful - mid-14c.from mind + -ful. Related: Mindfulness. 3. Consciousness - c.1600, from Latin. 'conscius' "knowing, aware," from conscire, "internal knowledge" Meaning "state of being aware". Synonyms include: coaching beginner’s mind, aligned mindfulness to leadership, focus and linked leadership.

Just add what you have there to the list. Don't be afraid of making a mess of our WT:LOP (not that what you have written is messy, I'm just saying ;) ) because it's mostly not taken that seriously. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Arabic Wiktionary

Not sure where to post this, but I noticed that the Arabic Wiktionary has a lot of uppercase English words, as opposed to lowercase ones on virtually every other Wiktionary. For example ar:Abandoned where we have abandoned. Since I don't speak Arabic, I can't even read the script, I can't negociate with them. Any takers? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

ar:Abandoned was autoimported from our Abandoned which existed at the time. The English one has since been deleted. Arabic Wiktionary also has ar:abandoned. —Stephen (Talk) 03:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

First Wiktionary day, first Wiktionary project, first Wiktionary question

I have been on Wikipedia for quite awhile. This is my first project on Wiktionary and I have a couple questions. On the page http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/perch under Etymology 1/Noun are 3 descriptions, all fish. Under Etymology 2/Noun are 5 more descriptions, number 5 being the one I was looking for. It is an English weaving term that I also found at http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-209135036.html?key=01-42160D517E1A14601209071F05684B2E224E324D3417295C30420B61651B617F137019731B7B1D6B39
Perch: A wooden frame over which fabric is draped and inspected for faults, the percher's job.
Here is a reference in a book: http://books.google.com/books?id=cAwAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=weaving+percher&source=bl&ots=04CwW_C9Ae&sig=hCh_ztKzk_xP6mPFWizz2VMzkcE&hl=en&ei=u_WgTKyUOsWAnQe2v9y8DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=weaving%20percher&f=false
The reason I would like to know the difference between Etymology 1 and Etymology 2 is that I want to add the word 'percher' that does not exist in the English Wiktionary, but was my father's job, and is listed as such on my birth certificate. I assumed for many years that is was a French word, but it is English.

Any suggestions on how to proceed?

Quebec99 21:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it isn't as easy as some. Here is something I found via Google Books:

This is way more than should be included in the definitions of any of the three terms. I would suppose that the noun "perch" belongs in Etymology 2, certainly not in Ety 1, possibly in a new Etymology we don't have. "Percher" starts a new English section at percher. "Perching" looks like a participle of "to perch" but it is not clear whether "to perch" is a real verb, whether it would be transitive or intransitive, etc. Maybe we just call "perching" a noun, pending more evidence. DCDuring TALK 22:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I took a run at percher#English. This is more obscure and complicated than most entries and we were missing an English language section with the other more common senses of "percher". I will add a new etymology for perching and a noun def. for it. DCDuring TALK 22:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't expect you to do it, but that looks good.

Quebec99 20:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There were a lot of pieces to it. It is a bit hard to explain so many elements. It's not as if we have such great documentation. You more or less study what we have, especially WT:ELE and WT:CFI and thereafter learn by hook and by crook. DCDuring TALK 21:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Talk:morphology

This was the question on the talk page, which I deleted:

"what is meaning of morphology assessment" 112.202.222.117‧T‧U

Mglovesfun (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The asker won't find any answer or clarifying question we give here without redirection, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 12:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

diachroneity

What does this word mean? — This unsigned comment was added by 173.45.202.179 (talk) at 4 October 2010. - moved from Talk:diachronic by Mglovesfun (talk • contribs)

It means something like the changes in a phenomenon at different points of time. —Stephen (Talk) 07:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it is mostly use as a specialized word in geology, where it contrasts with synchroneity. Almost all use is by geologists AFAICT. It is as if the apparently synonymous pair diachronicity/synchronicity, in use by linguists, and "synchronicity" alone, in use by Jungians, had too much connotational baggage. I will add to WT:REE (Requested Entries English). DCDuring TALK 12:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

binge

what are the origins of this word? Mjalliston 13:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 08.09.2010

Traceable to East North Central UK dialect verb meaning "to soak". DCDuring TALK 14:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

patrician

This word sounds to me like it is specifically masculine, such as Latin pater (father) or patriarch (male head of a family) - is this the case? The listed meaning refers to a 'person' without making any gender-specific reference. I note there is no corresponding 'matrician' listed. Many thanks. Careful With That Axe, Eugene 09:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In English, women may also be patrician. For example, Virginia (Volumnius). —Stephen (Talk) 10:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted wrong definition

Just a heads-up that I deleted the definition of endosome, which has been flat-out wrong since its creation. So currently there's a page with no definition. I've no time to read policies etc right now, so thought I'd post a quick note here. Adrian J. Hunter 13:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• From the OED - endosome, (a) the innermost part of a sponge; (b) Cytol., a deeply staining mass of chromatin in the middle of a vesicular nucleus in certain protozoans. You also removed the translation table - that's what we call vandalism. Edit backed out. Feel free to improve the definition. SemperBlotto 14:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In the future, please use {{rfv}} and list the entry at WT:RFV so that others can have a look and share their opinions. But at least you posted here, so that's good. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 21:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

SemperBlotto: Vandalism? I gave my reason for removing the table in the edit summary. Perhaps you'd consider the effect calling new contributors' good-faith edits "vandalism" might have on their likelihood of feeling welcome and contributing further.

Internoob: Thanks for the note. Please see #FAQ update below.

User:Vahagn Petrosyan has now edited endosome to match what three different biology textbooks I checked said in their glossaries, plus my own expectation. I've no idea where the OED is coming from – perhaps that's an obscure or outdated definition? – but the new definition matches common usage. Adrian J. Hunter 05:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Starting talk pages

In which order do I need to place a talk page's templates? Thank you. - Lo Ximiendo 21:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you mean. Which templates are you referring to? —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 02:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The templates that you see when you edit or make a page. - Lo Ximiendo 22:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think we have such templates. Can you point to a page for example? —Stephen (Talk) 09:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be talking about user boxes. We don’t use user boxes here, except for Babel boxes that describe your linguistic competencies. I know that Wikipedia has boxes for every conceivable thing, but here we only have {{babel}}. —Stephen (Talk) 08:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I also mean discussion tabs that you see on pages. - Lo Ximiendo 01:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah. We don’t have templates like that. Just click "edit" and start typing. —Stephen (Talk) 03:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Steeply raked

"Steeply raked" means "sharply angled". In practice this can be both near horizontal (as in the steeply raked windscreen of a sportscar) or near vertical (as in the steeply raked stalls of an auditorium). Any idea how to cover this? At the moment, steep just says, "Of a near-vertical gradient; of a slope, surface, curve, etc. that proceeds upward at an angle near vertical" -- which is precisely wrong if it's a steeply raked windscreen. Ideas? --Jayen466 01:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think our first problem is in missing senses of rake#Noun(, rake#Verb ?,) and raked#Adjective. I don't think "steep" has the meaning it has with "raked" with many other words. Do you know of some?

"Steep" and other words that modify "raked" might all need to be modified to allow for a different plane of reference than the horizon. Other dictionaries have a definition like ours, but often word it artfully to avoid exclusive reference to the horizontal. DCDuring TALK 15:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect entries from a questionable source

The entries i-gai, lengen-aka, nat-loun, qachun, and slades are all included in Category: Aleut phrasebook. It appears these entries were taken (rather irresponsibly) from Charles A. Lee's Alaskan Indian Dictionary, published in 1896 and digitized by Project Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10040/10040.txt). Within Wiktionary, these words have been labeled as Aleut, but they are not Aleut (Unangam Tunuu) at all; they are Alutiiq/Sugpiaq. Not only that, but their spellings are non-standard and their glosses remain to be independently verified. Works such as the Alaskan Indian Dictionary are useful for linguistic research (particularly when corroborated by other sources), but they cannot be considered definitive references and certainly not adequate sole sources for Wiktionary entries.

So, what to do with these entries? The people who created them obviously do not have the Alutiiq expertise to fix them, nor do I. I don't believe it would be responsible to leave them as is, nor do I think it would be sufficient to re-label them as Alutiiq since they really need thorough editing by someone with more than a passing familiarity with the language. My personal preference would be to see these entries deleted, in order to prevent the spreading of misinformation. What does the Wiktionary community think?

It is no problem. Just change the language header to Alutiiq, and change any language codes from ale to ems. I did i-gai for you as an example. As far as the spelling goes, it depends on whether they are misspellings, antiquated spellings, alternative spellings, or what. If misspellings, then they can be marked as such with a link to the correct spelling.

There really is no one around here with expertise in Alutiiq, so we only have the alternatives of relabeling as Alutiiq or deleting altogether. If you want to delete rather than relabel, just place {{delete}} in each affected page. —Stephen (Talk) 10:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

every cloud has a silver lining

Are there any Bible scripture(s) that support the "silver lining behind every cloud" concept? — This comment was unsigned.

Seems like a question for your minister, a Bible scholar, or Google books. It is possible someone might know of a similar proverb with a biblical source. DCDuring TALK 15:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Books

Hello everyone

Just one question. I mostly workd on the spanish wikipedia and in wikipedia in general. Over there people can create books of pages they find intresgting. Can one do this with wiktionary? If not, isn't it a good idea to allow people to create books?

The potential books have in wiktionary is huge: people could crearte vocabulary lists so they can study and review the words in and ordered way.

Thanks! --Smoken Flames 05:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

One can create such things on one's userpage and on subpages of one's user page. HTH. DCDuring TALK 11:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

But see the bookmaking extension on the other WMF wikis: I, too, think it would be a good idea to have it here. (Especially if we're to have a phrasebook.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)