User:PUC/Old

I speak French, and English at a B2 level, though my receptive skills are higher.

Audio (UK)

(file)

: girth? Welcome to Wiktionary, the Department of Redundancy Department.

Subpages

Per utramque cavernam/Base words needing translations Per utramque cavernam/French Per utramque cavernam/Old Per utramque cavernam/Related terms:Russian/говорить Per utramque cavernam/Romance languages Per utramque cavernam/Sandbox Per utramque cavernam/Socks Per utramque cavernam/Standing issues Per utramque cavernam/To be created Per utramque cavernam/To do Per utramque cavernam/Universal Declaration of Human Rights Per utramque cavernam/Users Per utramque cavernam/WOTD-like thing Per utramque cavernam/common.js

Thoughts

• Our ratio is heavily skewed. We work too much on (IMO often useless) noun phrases and transparent compound nouns, and neglect grammatical words (conjunctions, prepositions, prepositional phrases, sentence adverbs, interjections)
• The "no-space constraint" argument is a red-herring; the truth is that every extra piece of information is attention-intensive (taxing), and might detract the reader from what's truly important. By all means, let's be thorough; but by no means should we be redundant. Let's put everything (and I truly mean everything) that's interesting and specific to an entry in that entry, but not a iota more; if there's a common denominator to several entries (let's say > 10 entries), another place should be found.
• Wiktionary:Votes/2014-11/Entries which do not meet CFI to be deleted even if there is a consensus to keep
• Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-09/CFI and trimming the Idiomaticity section (action 3)
• Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-02/CFI: List of terms
• Talk:disease-free: About hyphenation
• Talk:fasque: About spaces
• Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/věda

Wise words

• Atelaes: Ancient Greek is rife with compounds, and I think it silly and couterproductive to make affix entries for every word which appears in a compound. I simply list the regular component etyma if a word appears in a compound, and follows normal compound rules
• Algrif: I'm not going to get hot under the collar about any of these. We are talking about where to draw the line. All the above items are more or less on the line itself. If they are made as entries, all well and good, but I just hope it doesn't open the door to thousands of get entries, making the useful ones disappear in a welter of pointless entries.
• Equinox: Whom will this serve, apart from some misguided god of "all words in all languages"?
• DCDuring: Delete, unless we really do want to become a short-attention-span encyclopedia.
• DTLHS: Saying that Wiktionary is "not paper" and therefore there is no reason to ever delete translations is ridiculous. Every entry has a real, measurable cost of maintenance, and editors' time and energy is finite.
• DCDuring: Our arguments seem increasingly Scholastic to me.
• Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: Having honest, truthful labels that are useful to users and will prevent them from looking like fools for using a proscribed term is much more important than trying to promote a sociolinguist’s utopia.
• Wyang: not all words a Chinese person says or writes when they speak Chinese is Chinese ― they can mix a lot of English, Malay, Japanese, etc. words in, depending on where they are and how much Chinese/other languages they know. Likewise, Latin-script marketing in running Greek text is just not Greek.
• Palaestrator verborum: animal equipment once was at least to a certain extent vocabulary that everybody knew and has roughly foreseeable ends, and also the former has more inventions in each language while the latter has realistic chances to back up etymological studies
• Angr: I don't feel any particular need to show respect to poorly researched work done in the past. People who don't know what eye dialect is shouldn't go around labeling things {{eye dialect of}}.
• Metaknowledge: True descriptivism must include prescriptivism.
• DTLHS: I advocate the policy that misspellings should have 10 citations spanning at least 100 years, deleted on sight if no citations provided, must be used at least twice in a single work (to avoid typos).
• Chuck Entz: There's also the "well, duh!" factor. Having entries with no real content independent of the meaning of their parts makes readers ask "why did you make me waste my time reading this?"
• Fay Freak: as I said earlier, an entry in one language suffices, a Greek entry marketing is otiose
• DCDuring: I doubt that rules for inclusion for English terms and applicable to other languages and vice versa. More outrageous is the ratchet effect by which a term being included in any language supposedly compels some kind of entry in English, with the translation table then compelling entries in all other languages (limited only by attestation).