User talk:PUC/2020

diff

Is there are rule against it? There are a couple of small benefits:

1. If, a new L2 is added, no need to add it. Some new editors forget this.
2. If you copy/paste an entry to another busy page, it makes it easier to format.

What's the downside? I've seen this in one of about pages. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev: There might well be a rule (or not), but I don't feel like looking for it. In any case, the vast majority of entries don't do that, and imo it's better to be consistent. I guess if you want to keep using it I won't object, but I don't think that's a good idea. PUC – 15:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

taxlink

As far as I know, the template 'taxlink' is supposed to be used only when there's no Wiktionary entry for that specific taxon. If one tries to use the template in such case and one clicks 'Show preview', the preview page will display the instructions to this end. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It is you!

Bary! Barytonesis, my guru! It is really you. How nice to see you - thanks for this. I always remember your lessons, back in 2018, when you patrolled me: I have been studying since then (Fromkin) and now trying to move to 2nd year curriculum! Truly: I appreciate your effort to teach me, to introduce me to your science, since I was a random ignorant user.
So, it is PUC -At first, I thought from Puck-. Hope you are corona-well. Stay safe!@ ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ | 23:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

m'enfin!

This is, apparently, short for mais enfin (when carelessly prononunced?). Should it have an entry, or be mentioned at m’? Equinox ◑ 13:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Removals and edit summaries

I would like to request that when you remove something from an entry, you indicate so in the edit summary. Disclaimer: Unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary does not have any formulated requirements on edit summaries. My request is not based on policy but rather on my common sense, which may not really be common. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: Ok, I'll try to take up the habit. PUC – 11:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

(se) mésailler, mésaillé

I'm reading a book about French colonial history which uses this verb. It seems to meet CFI (and mean "marry below one's station")... should it be created (with a conjugation table) at mésailler or se mésailler? - -sche (discuss) 02:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Your interest in "if"

Hello, PUC. Notwithstanding your interest in my edits, I'm not satisfied that being unable to see how they're an improvement qualifies as a reason to discount them. If you had read the corresponding tag for my initial edits you would have seen the purpose in addressing the circularity issues that were apparent in the original entry.

Namely, the parenthetical text merely repeats what's in the definitional text. As Wiktionary strives to eliminate such circularity/reflexivity wherever practicable, the edits conform to that standard of practice. More specifically:

• "Tell me whether you can see her. (the speaker wants to know whether the addressee can see her)" provides no linguistic reference point; "Tell me whether you can see her. (the speaker wants to know the positive or negative instance of the addressee's ability to see her)" supplies linguistic reference points for "whether" (i.e. stemming from the "whether or no" phrase attested from the 1650s) and "ability to" relates to the meaning denoted by "can."
• "Tell me if you can see her. (if the addressee can see her, then he or she must tell the speaker something)" includes identical verbiage that lacks any provision of further linguistic reference points; "Tell me if you can see her. (if the addressee can see her, then he or she must let the speaker know") supplies a linguist reference point for "tell" in order to establish which of its several meanings is intended.

Despite the foregoing, I admit a bit of negligence in failing to provide a cognate meaning of "if" in the final parenthetical I provide above. At the time the definition was beginning to seem hopelessly circular/reflexive. I welcome anyone to improve that part of it. --Kent Dominic (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Have you seen Wiktionary:Tea_room#if? Equinox ◑ 12:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. --Kent Dominic (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Idioms within idioms

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2020/February#Idioms_within_idioms --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Backinstadiums: 1) You should never replace headword templates with plain text. 2) I've already fixed the headword. Don't revert me again. PUC – 17:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@PUC: I've done it couple of times if you want to check --Backinstadiums (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

What's the point ?

as_I_live_and_breathe&oldid=59371736 : translate this third meaning. I think that in a literal use. What's the point put this third sense?. The same for other languages.--BoldLuis (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Patch box entry

Hello; I was in the process of trying to enter patch box (without a dash), as the primary entry for patch-box, the current entry in the Wiktionary. Per Merriam-Webster, the correct spelling is without a dash. Thank you for correcting my capitalization error. Unless you have an objection, or alternate source for the spelling, I would like to proceed with making "patch box" the primary entry, and "patch-box" the alternate spelling. I haven't worked on Wiktionary much, so your help and suggestions would be appreciated. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@OvertAnalyzer: Hello. I don't have an objection. I simply want to avoid needless duplication of content, so if you intend to reverse the main entry and "alternative form" entry that's fine by me. PUC – 13:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

médiathèque

Hey Puck, would you be able to track down early hits for médiathèque? The oldest attestation date in a reference work is early seventies, but I strongly suspect it's a few years older than that. If so, we can straightforwardly state that mediatheek was borrowed from French. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo:

This 1969 book apparently has it ("Bref, il est peut-être temps de modifier le nom de ces institutions qui de bibliothèques sont devenues de véritables "médiathèques"."), but I can't see the relevant passage, unfortunately.

Or does this instance from 1870 count? PUC – 16:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that's the exact same year the oldest Dutch hits are from (example). That's probably too flimsy to assert a borrowing from French, even though that is a far more likely direction... The result from 1870 is of course not valid. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

parler de corde dans la maison d'un pendu

Oh PUC it's annoying when you create entries with no definition (translation). That's Wonderfool behaviour. I unfortunately don't know this one; what does it mean, in simpler words? Then maybe I can give you an English version. Equinox ◑ 23:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't think of a good translation for this. Is it by accident (like put one's foot in one's mouth) or could it be deliberate and malicious? Equinox ◑ 22:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

rolling boil

Please add French before I actually convince myself it's le rouler-bouler. Equinox ◑ 21:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"Passive" and "active" for adjectives?

Heya PUC, question for you.

Your predecessor :) Barytonesis added labels to the English suspicious entry here back in October 2017. I'm not at all familiar with "active" and "passive" as descriptions of adjectives; as I learned the terms, this is limited to descriptions of verbs. See also Appendix:Glossary#passive_voice and Appendix:Glossary#active_voice. I'm worried that this usage may be overly jargon-y, and may not be well understood by our readers. Would you object to changing these labels?

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 05:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Removed, looking back I realise they were not terribly useful anyway. PUC – 19:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

split -ment categories

I see you've created both Category:French adverbs suffixed with -ment and Category:French words suffixed with -ment (adverbial), the former using |pos= and the latter |id=. IMO they should be converted into the former as a standard, with both parameters funneling into the same category. My rationale is that it looks less clunky, and there isn't a relevant adjective for every part of speech. Thoughts? Ultimateria (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ultimateria: Yes, I was thinking about that just a few days ago. I have a slight preference for Category:French words suffixed with -ment (adverbial), because it makes it clearer that there are two different (and etymologically unrelated) suffixes at work, and that they're the ones determining the POS.

However, I also agree that it's clunky. The problem is that with the current infrastructure, it's not possible, AFAIK, to get to a less clunky category name that would still make it clear what we're dealing with (Category:French words suffixed with adverbial -ment, maybe?) when using the affix/suffix templates; the only other option is indeed Category:French adverbs suffixed with -ment, which is imo a bit less clear but can be arrived at by template.

So, in conclusion: yes, let's use Category:French adverbs suffixed with -ment.

(What did you mean by "there isn't a relevant adjective for every part of speech"?) PUC – 10:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I see your point about distinguishing the etymologies of -ment, but at least that info is one click away from the category and its pages.

I meant that there's an adjective for adverb in adverbial, but not for every part of speech. I was thinking very hypothetically that a category might use a part of speech that doesn't have an adjective, like gerundive...which apparently exists? So never mind haha Ultimateria (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Re. "take place"

Differentiating syntactical construction (or form) from lexicographical meaning is pretty standard from a linguistic standpoint. E.g. see "media" or "data" in Merriam-Webster. I've changed "structure" to construction" in the take place entry accordingly. The distinction needs to be noted for anyone who might mistake "take place" to be a phrasal verb rather than a verb phrase. Cheers. --Kent Dominic (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)