User talk:Embryomystic

Welsh "bron"

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

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

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

gd:cearran-cré Question

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

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

Thanks! Kibi78704 (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sarkese Norman category?

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

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

I added the Sarkese Norman word "pumi" (apple tree) for you. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. embryomystic (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Now I added Sarkese beet. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Added cheez and pum. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Added chape, ive, and samdi. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you got nothing better to do?

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

I was going through entries using {{form of}} and changing it to other templates where applicable. I'm not sure why you objected to entries being categorised as past participles, as the category obviously already existed, but I suppose I understand your objection in the case of present participles, for the same reason. Why the rude suggestion in the subject line, though? Nothing better to do than imply that what I was doing didn't need doing? embryomystic (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Don’t worry Embryomystic, this guy is crazy. Your efforts are very much appreciated. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Who's crazy? Not me, I'm quite sane. Donnanz (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You gave me that impression, sorry if I offended you. There's nothing wrong with "form of"; it helps in a lot of cases. I will make an effort to empty the past participle category; the problem being that many Bokmål verbs are spelt the same for both simple past and past participle, and often there are two spellings for both. There are other verbs, normally derived from loanwords, where the simple past and past participle differ in spelling. But on the whole it is better not to have a specific category for past participles. Norwegian differs from Danish in this respect. Donnanz (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I support the request of Donnanz; please stop making useless undiscussed changes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Took you long enough. I would have expected you to be all over this before now. embryomystic (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Which suggests to me you actually knew you were doing something wrong. For the reader, please read Still creating unattested entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I only mean that whenever anything I do could possibly be questioned, you're there to do so. I get that that's your role here, but I'm just surprised that it took you so long. embryomystic (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

couoté and couté

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

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

Attestation

I'll be honest with you: I don't want to be like Dan Polansky (goodness knows I've had enough unpleasant interactions with him over the years), but he's right. You really need to stop creating unattested entries. All you need is one durably archived mention, which is really not asking for much, but you still can't restrict yourself to adding words that follow that criterion. For a recently unearthed example, see WT:RFV#fótaisheandálaíocht. I can't be arsed to find all your violations, but adding words like that which aren't actually used in Irish — ever, it would seem — is not helping the dictionary. It's hurting it. So please read WT:ATTEST and please stop, and save your fellow editors some unnecessary trouble. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback, but I did add that word in 2011. I know Mr Polansky has gotten on my case about more recent examples, mainly in Ido, but I've been much more careful (and in the case of Ido, my mistake was to give what was in the Ido Wiktionary more weight than it perhaps deserved). In fact, what I've been doing to Irish (and Scottish Gaelic) entries over the last while is adding citations, and I haven't overreached like I used to, adding more recent coinages from focal.ie. As I say, feedback taken, and I appreciate that people are unearthing questionable stuff that I'm responsible for, but it's not really an ongoing process, or if it is, I'd be happy to look at genuinely recent examples. embryomystic (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I'm glad to hear that you're conscious of attestability now. I notice that you created at least one entry in December 2014 that just failed RFV, but perhaps that doesn't count as recent? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that definitely counts as recent. I don't think I'm aware of that one. What word was it, if you don't mind me asking? embryomystic (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

WT:RFV#èrdistîndgi was the one I was thinking of. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realise that had been deleted, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I'll admit that I've mainly seen it in lists rather than in active use, but Jèrriais isn't exactly a powerhouse language; most of what's written is poetry, and èrdistîndgi isn't necessarily a word that ends up being used extensively in poetry. But yes. Fair enough. Lack of citable sources is lack of citable sources. embryomystic (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Wordlists are fine, iff they are durably archived (i.e. printed, most likely) and deemed trustworthy. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe the above is a gratuitous personal attack, entirely inessential to the point being made. From what I remember, I posted a relatively small number of polite requests to Embryomystic talk page over the years, asking him to heed WT:ATTEST. Or was this a Metaknowledge peculiar indirect way of saying to me something like, thank you for spotting the issue and posting to WT:RFV items midomestika, mivitrigar, diftongigar, diferencialigar, debochigar, detonigar, debetigar, deviacigar, and efervecigar? Wow! By the way, I don't remember posting any notes to Metaknowledge talk page while I remember his posting objectionable notes to my talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

{{der3}}

I think it's good to have a template that can automatically sort and balance lists. (I just noticed the edit to pie.)

But the current crammed format it takes is utterly unfriendly to new users who are not both language nerds and internet edit nerds.

I'm sure if it's your template or just one you found and use, but we should really modify it so all the terms don't have to be unreadably crammed into one line with no linebreaks or whitespace.

It would be different if editing was done directly through the GUI but not when we want to attract as many new editors as we can but we make editing harder and harder except for us trained monkeys who have been doing it for years (-;

If can probably help with coding the Lua if need be. — hippietrail (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not my template, no. And it doesn't work properly unless it's all crammed together like that (or all the links have to be {{l}}). If you could look into sorting that out, I'd be happy to do what you're asking. 03:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

duck

Can you translate ‘female duck’ into Normand? --Romanophile (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The entry already exists, at least in Jersey Norman: cannotte. I've now added it to duck. 96.127.228.3 03:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)