Talk:interjectionally

When I stumbled upon "interjectionally" on wikitionary.org, it was defined as such:

Adverb

interjectionally (not comparable)

  1. In an interjectional way; having the form of an interjection.

         Though derived from a verb phrase, "kickass" can be used interjectionally.

The example, "though derived from a verb...," exhibits that the original author had some understanding of the definition of a interjection, as they're usually derived from nouns. Here's the problem: It uses the word to define itself. That's a violation of the laws of definition. This definition hasn't told me anything about the word itself and has failed to define the word.

I have absolutely no experience in making formal definitions on words, so don't be surprise if it's not as concise as you'd expect, but I have to correct the current situation!

Upon further investigation, I find that the original author has plagiarized the definition directly from Merriam-Webster.com, which is disappointing.

Based upon the definition of Interjection, I've revised the current definition, leaving the current definition in tact for dispute.

Also, because I'm a bit upset, I'll note that in the first definition, the word "kickass" is used as an adjective, and doesn't fit into the definition of a verb phrase. In fact, "kicking ass" or "to kick ass" are verb phrases. "Kickass" is a singular word, and is a slang adjective.

Isn't Webster's in the public domain? Many words were taken from public domain dictionaries. -- 124.171.169.189 05:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC) << -- posted by original author

No problems with Websters, problems with a. definitions that don't define anything b. people who don't put any efforts into their contributions. I could copy websters. Doesn't mean anything. I haven't thought, learned, or expanded anything available to the public. << -- Response

It does define something. It says the [sense/phrase/action] resembled an interjection: an exclamation. -- 124.171.169.189 05:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it does - no argument, but it's still a violation of the rules of definiton regardless of what webster does. You cannot define a word with itself or any form thereof. Why was my revision such a crime? In addition to that - I've still added something that wasn't there before People browsing the web may find that my definition and example clarify the original definition. What about that? Why are you trying to limit public input? I mean, I left your original definition intact! You, however, tried to delete mine.

The added sense was redundant. If I was 'limiting public input' I would have simply removed it, but I didn't delete, just marked it so that the community would discuss it at WT:RFD. Redundant senses are (afaik) not included because you could imagine the size of e.g. be if they were. Also, nearly all words which are other words with morphological POS-alterations will cross reference to the headword. What you did wrong? Nothing in so far as adding the sense, because I'm sure everyone adds a redundant sense from time to time; but you didn't accept your sense was subject to deletion and removed the {{rfd-sense}} template even after I added it with a comment saying not to do that until a consensus is made at WT:RFD. -- 124.171.169.189 05:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

First, you didnt' add the RDF tag to my post, you deleted the first two lines of my addition, and added the RFD tag to the beginning of your own definition. There's a huge difference there. I'll restate that I left the original definition in tact, so considering your deletion, I'd say that's justification for me making comment on your action (I wouldn't have changed a thing if you hadn't done so first). Second, you didn't add anything specifying not to delete your entry (which I never did). As for adding a reduntant sense, I never argued with you in the reply above. I simply stated that what was provided was a. unoriginal and b. vague. I think that we've wasted more server space going back and forth about nothing than if you had simply added the tag to your original definition, which I left in tact. (noting that in discussion we've used around 4500bytes, and in definition entry it's closer to 600bytes, which is still less that 1Mb of server space... not too bad)

[1]. What did I remove wrong? 1) we don't have duplicate headers for the same word. 2) we don't separate same-language sections, nor do we use underscores to separate anything. 3) the interwiki link you added was a duplicate. 4) "revision" is amateurish. What then did I remove which I should have left? -- 124.171.169.189 06:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, there definitely was confusion here. I originally posted the first definition, then went back to check my work and decided to add to the first definition. There's a difference in the posting times because of this. In fact, when I clicked the "save page" button after editing the page. Here's the revision I created, before seeing your page: http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=interjectionally&direction=next&oldid=8727608 There's a lapse in time here, but I originally posted a definition, then added a second revision, which was eventually deleted by you. I still stand by my post, as I believe that definitions cannot be defined by any form of the words themselves. Regardless of server errors or user laziness, you cannot tell me that the redness of a ball is the red of a ball. I've just been informed of nothing at all. It's redundant and ignorant. Get a dictionary, interpret & create useful content. As for you complaining about my lack of formatting know-how - I also apologize. I know HTML, but nothing of wiki code. I didn't know how to create headings, etc. Sorry. Cheers! {{unsigned}]

Most dictionaries are not afraid to define a derived term using the term it is derived from or an even more basic form with the same stem (ie, to define (deprecated template usage) interjectionally using (deprecated template usage) interjection or (deprecated template usage) interject [or (deprecated template usage) interjectional???]). This works satisfactorily if the term used is widely understood. It is sometimes better to find some widely used synonym. But lexicography texts and commentators do not recommend the strict rule that you suggest. I don't think that "redness" is anywhere defined without use of the term "red". At the end of a chain of definitions is almost always an "ostensive" definition (pointing to a picture or a thing itself or giving an example in some other way) or a "non-gloss definition", showing how a word is used (eg, a word like "and" or most basic prepositions). Most of our color entries have color squares. An encyclopedic-technical definition using a wavelength of light is worse than useless for normal people.

It is sometimes handy to save the user a click-and-download by incorporating some synonyms into the derived-term definition, but the root terms usually have much fuller definitions and the derived terms can, in principle, build from any of the meanings of the root word and, in reality, often build from more than one of them.

BTW, one of the desiderata for definitions is that the wording offered be "substitutable" for the word being defined in the most common uses. Thus, "in an interjectional way/manner/style", "as an interjection", "in the form of an interjection" are possibilities. However, none of the wordings is wholly satisfactory in every possible usage. For an adverb, there are often clear distinctions in wording or sense when the adverb is used to modify a verb, an adjective or adverb, or a sentence. We haven't explored whether "interjectionally" can be used to modify sentences and adjectives/adverbs. DCDuring TALK 18:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion debate

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Sense: Words spoken in an exclamatory & spontaneous way, as reaction.

Recently added by an anon. I think this is covered in sense 1: In an interjectional way; having the form of an interjection. -- 124.171.169.189 04:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

All revisions made by this anon have been reverted. Doesn't seem to understand the difference between parts of speech. SemperBlotto 07:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You reverted his edits back to mine requesting this deletion. His created sense is still there. I'll remove it. -- 124.171.169.189 07:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)