User talk:-sche

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search


Contents

Archives[edit]

ubersexual / including non-durable citations[edit]

see User talk:-sche/Archive/2011

Translations of attributive use of nouns[edit]

see User talk:-sche/Archive/2011

Add replacements to edit summary[edit]

In AWB Options > Normal setting uncheck 'Add replacements to edit summary' and it'll make the edit summaries only what you put in the 'Default Summary' box. Makes edit summaries shorter and more 'human'. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks for the tip. :) - -sche (discuss) 18:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

WOTD[edit]

I'd like to take over WOTD — at least for now. I've already set up new words for October 28-31 to get the ball rolling again. Looking over diffs to see what others had done allowed me to figure out the basics, but there's still many other things I need to know about the process, especially what I need to do to create an archive, set up a new month, and polish the entry pages for words before they appear. Thanks! Astral (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you're interested!
The front-end part is simple—pick words and plug them into the templates. You're already doing a good job of that; I like your Halloween pick. As you seem to have gathered, the last definition doesn't end with a full stop/period (though if a word has multiple definitions, the preceding definitions do), because the template already adds one: double-dotted vs fixed. Featured words should have pronunciation info (either IPA or audio); the template will automatically notice and include an audio pronunciation if one is present.
The more additional info an entry has, like etymology, illustration or examples of usage, the more interesting it is likely to be to users who click through to it; on the other hand, trying to cite and find a picture for every word you feature on WOTD is a recipe for burning out. Strategise.
Once you've set a word, add the was-wotd template to the entry, so that it won't be featured again (mostly).
To create an archive, do what Ruakh did here, changing {{wotd archive|PREVIOUS|NEXT|YEAR|DAYS}} to the previous month, the next month, the year (four digits) and the number of days in the month (28, 29, 30, 31), and updating the pagename to the relevant month and year. An easy way of creating an archive is to copy-and-paste the relevant month's Recycled Page, e.g. Wiktionary:Word of the day/Recycled pages/October, simply changing {{wotd recycled}} to {{wotd archive}} and adding the YEAR and DAYS parameters.
At the end of the month, subst: all of the templates by changing each day's {{Wiktionary:Word of the day to {{subst:Wiktionary:Word of the day. The reason for not subst:ing a day before it's done is that someone might tweak the definition or fix a typo, etc.
- -sche (discuss) 04:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. This is very helpful. I've got a couple of questions. First, I'm not good with IPA, so is there a way I could arrange for someone who is to add pronunciation data to entries before they appear? Second, is it okay to occasionally select words I've nominated myself? I already did this with trainiac, because I wanted something "fun" between mulct and peri-urban, but I don't want to do it again if it's something that should be avoided. Astral (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, exactly how far back does the prohibition against using words featured as WOTDs on other sites go? It makes sense not to copy words other sites have featured recently, but three, four, five years back seems like a another matter. I need a verb, and wanted to use photobomb, but it was featured on Urban Dictionary in 2009, and more recently as a noun on September 28 of this year. Astral (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
So, I chose ambuscade instead, only to discover it was a Merriam Webster WOTD in 2010. Can't win. :( Astral (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I'm not Sche (@Sche: feel free to correct me on anything I say). Anyway, I think that choosing words that you nominate is fine, and that if you find a concise way to list all the entries you want IPA for pronto (on a subpage, maybe?) I would be happy to help out, as would Sche, Angr, et al. (probably) given their past contributions in that regard (and they're probably more trustworthy than I am). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you can just comment that you'd like to feature a word but it lacks pronunciation info. Many users watch that page, and someone should take care of it. And yes, you can feature words you've nominated—at least, I did. It's probably best to let a couple days pass between when you nominate a word and when you use it, in case anyone comments with objections, but I doubt anything you nominate will be objectionable (you know not to nominate redlinks or offensive words). As for other sites' words of the day: personally, I never paid much attention to that rule; I checked if a word had been featured on another site in the past few months, and if not, looked no further. Sometimes, people would strike words that had been featured by other sites years ago, and in those cases, I respected the strikings and didn't use those words, but I didn't strike words that had been featured by other sites years ago myself. - -sche (discuss) 05:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Inscriptions and whatnot[edit]

Discussion moved to WT:T:ALA.

̶s̶̶c̶̶h̶̶r̶̶i̶̶e̶̶f̶̶s̶̶t̶̶a̶̶n̶, ̶s̶̶k̶̶r̶̶i̶̶if̶̶s̶̶t̶̶a̶,̶s̶̶c̶̶h̶̶r̶̶i̶̶e̶̶w̶̶s̶...Spelling standards for Low German.[edit]

Ahoy. Please refer to this, leave a comment and maybe distribute it to people you know might have an interest in this. We can do it!

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Stardsen#Low_German Korn (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Slovincian[edit]

WT:LANGTREAT doesn't mention Slovincian. I was wondering whether we made the decision not to treat it as a dialect of Kashubian, or whether it just happened that way. I have no preference one way or the other, since I don't know much about it anyway. --WikiTiki89 16:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it just happened that way. I mean, both Slovincian and Pomeranian have exceptional codes, so someone made the conscious decision to treat them, Kashubian, and Polish as distinct from each other. But both codes were created by the same user who also created separate exceptional codes for the Pitcairn and the Norfolk varieties of Pitcairn-Norfolk, which subsequent discussions all agreed to re-merge, so it's possible (and indeed, apparently the case) that it was just that one use who got the idea that they should be split. There does not seem to have been any community discussion of Slovencian, Kashubian or Pomeranian, but Wiktionary:About Slovincian has been created. I have updated LANGTREAT to note that "in practice,..." they are currently distinct. - -sche (discuss) 18:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Data consistency checking module[edit]

Kephir wrote Module:data consistency check which performs a check on all the data modules, and makes sure there aren't any discrepancies. There are some, so I thought you might like to know. —CodeCat 23:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Among other things, aus, sai, and cai ought to go, stupid geographic categories that they are. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
@CodeCat: thank you for the link. (And @Kephir, if you're reading this, thanks for designing that module!) @Metaknowledge: Indeed, and nai (which several things currently list as their family!). qfa-ame should also go, IMO, or at least be voted upon like Altaic and Zuni needs to be updated not to list qfa-ame as its family even if it is kept. (If qfa-ame is kept, we should reconsider having deleted Penutian.) I've been meaning to start Requests for Deletion, but I've been busy. Feel free to beat me to it. - -sche (discuss) 09:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others#Certain_geographic_language_families. - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Removing scripts[edit]

Some entries may specify a script with sc= even if no language has that script specified. When you remove the scripts, those entries will eventually trigger script errors. —CodeCat 14:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I checked for such entries. When they existed, I added the script code to the relevant language code rather than removing it. - -sche (discuss) 20:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png Barnstar
For your continuous work to improve coverage and consistency of languages, families and such. —CodeCat 03:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! :) - -sche (discuss) 06:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Dard etymology[edit]

I thought it was a bit odd to offload this to the talk page. As with any part of an entry, we sometimes have incomplete data that needs further massaging. In this case I imagine I had copied the root word(s) from Wikipedia. I'm doing it again right now with kachori; surely it's better to have something than nothing, and to put it in the right place where it will be seen? Equinox 23:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

On kachori, the etymology gives several words in specific languages, which it implies are etyma. (I say "implies" because it doesn't say "from Hindi..." so they might be cognates.) That's not problematic. On Dard, the "etymology" consisted of dard spelled in two different scripts, each of which is used by numerous (sometimes unrelated) languages... that's not helpful, IMO, because it's not even verifiable/falsifiable. Is the implication that Dard derives from Sanskrit, which is written in Devanagari? Modern Hindi/Urdu, which is written in both scripts? Persian? Konkani? Talysh? Or that it's cognate or related to a word in those languages? - -sche (discuss) 02:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I've re-added it, but with languages specified. (Can't be sure it's from either the Hind or the Persian word, but it's clearly related to them, so I've said that.) How's it look? - -sche (discuss) 02:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: jewing / using labels on inflected forms[edit]

see User talk:-sche/Archive/2014

ISO codes[edit]

Where can I find a full list of all current ISO language codes, preferably all on one page? --WikiTiki89 04:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the list of current ISO codes I've been using to find out which ISO codes we're missing. (And here is their not-entirely-complete list of retired codes.) I don't know what you plan to do with the data, but note that it wouldn't be a good idea to automatedly import "missing" codes, since in many cases they are codes that have been intentionally excluded. Hope that helps, - -sche (discuss) 05:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I just wanted the convenience of searching through them with Ctrl+F. --WikiTiki89 05:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Silberfolie[edit]

Does this mean real "silver" "foil", or just silver foil made from aluminium. (I'm pretty sure that Silberpapier means the aluminium product silver paper. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It has both meanings. You can wrap a pita in Silberfolie made of aluminium, or you can "gild" (err..."silver") something in a thin layer of Silberfolie made of silver. Silberpapier likewise has both meanings. google books:"silver foil" gild suggests that "silver foil" also has both senses, and google books:"silver paper" gold OR gild suggests that "silver paper", in addition to meaning aluminium foil, can also (rarely, and possibly SOP-ily) refer to a certain Oriental product — apparently paper which has been coated in a thin foil of silver. - -sche (discuss) 19:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I have never heard of "silver foil" referring to aluminum foil and would have always assumed it meant real silver. In the US, aluminum foil is generally known as tin foil. --WikiTiki89 23:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sardinian[edit]

Your proposal to merge the Norwegians made me think: do you think that we should continue to keep Sardinian divided? I thought that these were dialects, and I don’t think we are supposed to treat dialects as independent languages. --Æ&Œ (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, our treatment of Sardinian is weird.
There is quite a difference between the case of the written standards of Norwegian, which have existed since only the late 1800s / early 1900s, and the case of the dialects of Sardinian, whose predecessors have been separate from Italian's since the first century BCE and which may have started to distinguish themselves from each another only a little later than that. There is, however, an amusing parallel between our granting of codes to Norwegian and (only) two of its 4+ written standards, and our granting of codes to Sardinian and (only) two of its 3+ dialects (not counting sdc and sdn, since there is disagreement over whether they are Sardinian, Corsican, or independent languages).
There does seem to be general agreement that src and sro are mutually intelligible. WP says they "differ mostly in phonetics, which does not hamper intelligibility among the speakers". Roberto Bolognesi, in his Phonology of Campidanian Sardinian, does assert that "is only for the Campidanian area, as already recognized in Wagner (1951), that it is possible to speak of a uniform variety of Sardinian and of a general mutual intelligibility of the different dialects". Nonetheless, the variety that is an official language of Sardinia is one that unifies the two dialects, and moreover, (you must already see this, I'm just saying it so I can copy and paste this comment into any discussion about unifying Sardinian) we ourselves already unify them: we have a Category:Sardinian language with most of our Sardinian entries in it, we just also have a Category:Campidanese Sardinian language with 36 entries and a Category:Logudorese Sardinian language with 13 entries.
Do you think the topic of merging Sardinian should be raised now, or would it be better to wait until some of the other major lect-merger discussions we're having have been resolved? - -sche (discuss) 19:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I’m not exactly sure if I am understanding you when you say that they’re already unified; I’m assuming that you are refering to the hypernymous code (sc) much like we have Norwegian no. I would feel more comfortable if we postponed the Sardinian debate since I’d rather we focus on problems individually. --Æ&Œ (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm referring to sc. I think the fact that we already have most of our entries using sc shows that we de facto accept that Sardinian is possible to unify (rather than taking Bolognesi's view and baulking at the idea of a unified Sardinian the way we baulked at e.g. the idea of there being a unified "Berber" language). We're just being "schizophrenic" by also having dialect codes. Waiting till the other discussions resolve is my preference as well, so, great. - -sche (discuss) 20:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The Norwegian vote ended recently. Is it time to start a new election? --Æ&Œ (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I'm sorry for not replying to this until now.
My inclination would be to start a discussion on WT:RFM, since the issue seems minor (we have few entries in the affected dialects) and unlikely to be controversial, but you could start discussion in the BP if you would prefer. (In any case, I don't imagine there will be enough controversy to merit moving to a formal vote on WT:V.) - -sche (discuss) 00:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

JA phonetics shifts[edit]

I noticed this edit, changing ">" to "from". As introduced to me at Wiktionary by User:Bendono's edits, this is meant to convey "this older reading became this other reading", so "[kɨ] > [ki]" is meant to convey "[kɨ] became [ki]", kind of backwards from your edit. I'm not sure what the best notation would be, and I'm tired enough that my brain's not fully firing on all cylinders; I'd appreciate it if you could rework that phrasing as you see appropriate. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ha, wow, this is exactly why words are better than greater-than-signs: some of the places on en.Wikt that I've seen people write ">", they've meant "from", other places, they meant "to". (Words are also more helpful than ">" to screen readers.)
So many etymologies contain phonological information of that sort that someone (possibly me) should design a template for them, firstly to automatically apply the class that is currently applied by {{IPAchar}}, and secondly to standardise whatever wording we decide to put around and between "[kɨ]" and "[ki]". Perhaps the template could take readings as numbered parameters, and {{ja-reading-etymology|kɨ|ki}} would display The phonological evolution was from [kɨ] to [ki]. And if a third parameter were supplied, {{ja-reading-etymology|kɨ|ki|ke}}, it would display The phonological evolution was from [kɨ] to [ki] to [ke]. And so on. Would that be a good wording? - -sche (discuss) 05:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Where have you ever seen ">" meaning "from"? --WikiTiki89 07:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I have AWB set to point it out to me whenever a page I'm on uses ">" or "<". I've encountered maybe ~500 instances of those characters (not counting uses in HTML tags), of which there have been maybe a dozen that had "[newer language] [word] > [older language] [word]" in their etymologies, which have been the most unambiguous cases of ">" = "from". I've seen about as many entries with "<" for "to". Using "greater than" to mean either "from" or "to" is such a strange idea to begin with that I wouldn't even try to guess whether such uses were intentional or the result of someone's finger slipping and typing the wrong one of the two. I don't feel like tracking down specific examples at the moment, but I'll let you know next time I see one. (And BTW, that's not to speak of the variation between entries that present their etymologies in the format "[current form] [some terse symbol or word, typically either ">" or "<" but sometimes "←", meaning "from"] [older form] [terse symbol] [oldest form]" vs those that use the format "[oldest form]" [terse symbol or word meaning "to"] [older form] [terse symbol] [current form]". That variation can itself lead to confusion, particularly when — as in the case of numerous Finnish etymologies — the "[current word]" is omitted, and the string just starts or ends with ">"/"<"/"←"/"→".) - -sche (discuss) 08:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The only way I've ever seen them is "<" = "from" and ">" = "to". It may be a strange idea, but it is widespread in historical linguistics. --WikiTiki89 09:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Lukewarmer[edit]

Hello, I've been trying to mark lukewarmer for deletion because of the discussion taking place at w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lukewarmer. However the edit filter won't let me. It would be awesome if you could delete the page yourself. Thanks, Jinkinson (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. - -sche (discuss) 17:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A request[edit]

Based on this piece of comment, is it okay to make Perfective Counterpart and Imperfective Counterpart headers? --KoreanQuoter (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't. It doesn't seem necessary to add a new header just for that: if a word has only one or two perfective/imperfective counterparts, they could just be listed on the headword line; if there are more (or even if there are only a few), they could be listed in the ====Synonyms==== or ====Related terms==== section, whichever is appropriate. If you want to list them on the headword line, the current {{ru-verb}} templates could probably be expanded to accommodate that; you could ask about that in the Grease Pit. - -sche (discuss) 19:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

protestant[edit]

You can't call protestant a capitalisation, it's the exact opposite; the uncapitalised form of Protestant. In my opinion that template doesn't apply in this situation, and using it leads to confusion. I have come across this paradox elsewhere, but I can't remember where. Donnanz (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That's like saying that you can't call a nanometer a length because it's not long. --WikiTiki89 18:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
What's a nanometre got to do with it? Donnanz (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Because we use "capitalization" to mean some sort of measure of how capitalized a word is, and not capitalized at all is one possibility. The word "length" is another example of how we take a biased word and use it as a neutral term for a measurement. We don't have to switch to the word "shortness" when talking about nanometers. --WikiTiki89 18:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia's w:Capitalization (disambiguation) oddly does a better job of defining "capitalization" than our entry: one of the things it refers to is "choice of case in text", and one choice of case is "lowercase". This is the sense used by the template. As I noted in my edit summary, the template is regularly used for variations in capitalization in either direction. If you look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:alternative capitalization of, roughly half of the uses of it are on uncapitalized pages, soft-redirecting them to capitalized pages, and the other half are soft-redirects in the other direction. - -sche (discuss) 18:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you expect the man in the street (i.e. average user) to understand this inflexible philosophy? I, for one, do not. It's rather daft in situations like this. Donnanz (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The only "inflexible philosophy" I see is your philosophy that "alternative capitalization of" has to mean "alternative form written with an uppercase letter of". "Choice of case (whether ALL CAPS, CamelCase, Sentence case, or all lowercase)" is a regular meaning of "capitalization" in English. I've expanded our entry on capitalisation accordingly. - -sche (discuss) 19:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
My ""inflexible philosophy"? Huh! I know my interpretation of "capitalisation" is correct; the statement "Choice of case ...... or all "lowercase"" (sic) is WRONG (that's capitalisation for you). I see I'm not going to win this argument, but I hope you have a light-bulb moment one day. In the meantime, I have better things to do. End of argument. Donnanz (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Condensed version of your comment: "I don't have an inflexible philosophy, I'm just right and you and Wikitiki [and all the books that use 'capitalization' to mean 'choice of case'] are wrong!" lol. - -sche (discuss) 20:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Correct. Donnanz (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
This may actually be an American thing. Compare definition 4 in the Collins English Dictionary to definition 5 in the Collins American English Dictionary. --WikiTiki89 20:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I find I'd be inclined to follow Donnaz's usage. To me capitalization in "His capitalization of the letters is wrong" is equivalent to "That he capitalized all of the letter is wrong". I could accept the other meaning as a possibility, but it would not be my favored interpretation. DCDuring TALK 20:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
How about (discussing e.g. a student's paper) "her capitalization is all over the place". To me, that implies that her paper contained things like "the Russian armed Forces attacked budapest with Tanks and planes", not usually (and certainly not exclusively) that it consisted of "THE RUSSIAN ARMED FORCES ATTACKED BUDAPEST WITH TANKS AND PLANES". - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I was just about to add a comment on that. There are situations in which I could accept the meaning as "choice of orthographic case", but I would interpret "her capitalization is all over the place" as "her use of capital letters is inconsistent." Note that this interpretation would probably not lead to not getting the point intended. I think that my English has a narrow construction of words derived from the orthographic sense of capital and capitalize. I wouldn't say "Her capitalization is wrong." if she failed to use any capital letters and would not give that interpretation to someone else's utterance of that sentence. DCDuring TALK 21:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The sole definition of capitalization at MWOnline is "the use of a capital letter in writing or printing", completely in accord with my idiolect's usage and interpretation of the word. DCDuring TALK 21:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:-sche/ek[edit]

Can this go? —CodeCat 20:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to keep it as a model of how entries would look if we gathered citations from all stages of a language's development onto one page. That's something that is not done at present except partially for English, where somewhere between 50–100+ entries include Middle English (but AFAIK never Old English) citations.
As an aside, I wonder how hard it would be to find all the files like File:Ég.ogg (with no langcode prefix), and find what langcode refix they should have, and [have Commons admins] move them...
- -sche (discuss) 21:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Not too hard if we add some code to the template we use to add the files to entries. It could check the parameter to see if it begins with the given language code, and categorise it if not. —CodeCat 21:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Great, especially if it could categorise (or a list could be made) based on which prefix was missing. I think Commons has tools for moving things in batches, e.g. "move all these 200 files to have a de- prefix". - -sche (discuss) 22:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't really know anything about how audio files are handled on Wiktionary, though. Which templates should this be added to? —CodeCat 23:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Just {{audio}} for now. There are probably some other templates used to display audio files (some are listed here), and there may even be some bare links, but those can be tracked down later; I think {{audio}} is the most commonly used template. - -sche (discuss) 03:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Shortcuts to templates[edit]

I've updated {{shortcut}} so that it can be used easily to indicate shortcuts for template names. The parameters can optionally include "Template" as part of the name, the template strips it out anyway. See {{context}} and {{label}} for examples. —CodeCat 23:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, good idea; thanks for doing that. :} - -sche (discuss) 01:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

prijsgeven[edit]

The noun is really just the gerund of the verb. I wanted to remove the entry altogether as our verb entries generally don't include the gerund, but it has a quotation that I didn't want to remove. So I did diff instead. It looks kind of odd though, having a form-of definition pointing to the same page. What do you think? —CodeCat 02:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

To whatever extent that the gerund is considered a form of the verb and doesn't have distinctly nounal features like a plural (like English gerunds or would-otherwise-be-gerunds sometimes have), the quotation could be placed under the relevant verb sense and the noun section could be removed. The translation could be amended to "the disclosing of our DNA". If the noun section is to be retained, I think it would be helpful if the same terminology were used in it as in the verb's conjugation table, which means either the verb's conjugation table could be adapted to label the gerund as such, like "infinitive (and gerund)", or the template used to define the noun could be adapted to use the same label as the conjugation table, like "gerund (infinitive) of". - -sche (discuss) 02:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Dutch gerunds are certainly nouns. They don't have plurals, but they do have gender. It's the same in German. —CodeCat 03:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Then why do you want to remove the noun section? - -sche (discuss) 03:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Because all verbs have a gerund and it's always identical in form to the infinitive. So it would imply that we'd always have a noun section on the same page as verbs. I'm not sure if that's practical. —CodeCat 03:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
All German verbs can be substantivised, too. It happens that they get capitalised as part of the process, and Wiktionary puts different capitalisations on different pages... would it be consistent to exclude Dutch gerunds because they don't get capitalised? Substantivisations also inflect nounally in German, as in des Schwimmens — but then, Dutch gerunds also inflect nounally, or did in the past, right, as in willens en wetens? Also, it's only in theory that all verbs can be substantivised; in both Dutch and in German, there are probably cases where a verb is attested while its substantivisation isn't. (Strictly in theory, even the reverse could be true: there could be three citations of a gerund and only two of its verb.) So, Dutch gerunds could be allowed but not made a high priority. Or, if not, then as I said: to whatever extent the gerund is subsumed into the verb, quotations of it can go under verb senses. - -sche (discuss) 04:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Reversal[edit]

Hi,

Your reversal and the summary don't make sense to me. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад)

I was looking at the edit backwards, I apologise; Wikitiki clarified that in his subsequent reversal of my reversal of your reversal of the IP's removal of the links. - -sche (discuss) 21:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

aWa[edit]

Wiktionary:Sandbox/aWa is a page specially designated for testing. And you could have just asked me about adding archiving capability to Wiktionary:RFM unresolved requests subpages… Keφr 05:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that sandbox, but it's alright, I was doing a "real conditions" test of the archival of a section that didn't contain a pagename in its header to a manually-supplied 'target' talk page. When I archived the discussion which ultimately ended up here, the archiver initially put it here. I was testing whether that was because of a bug in the archiver or because I accidentally copied the whole string from the top of the page I wanted to put the discussion (having navigated to to be sure of what it was called), as opposed to just the pagetitle. It turned out to be the latter. - -sche (discuss) 07:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Garifuna[edit]

{{en-noun}} doesn't support pl2= anymore and hasn't for a while now. Just letting you know. —CodeCat 18:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I actually worked on some Garifuna stuff for Wikipedia. Are there any entries for Garifunan words on here? Tharthan (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Catholic[edit]

Hello. I note your reversion on "Catholic", but don't agree. You may not be much aware of Christian Orthodoxy or its relation to Roman Catholicism, but both churches lay claim to catholicity. This is one result of the East-West schism which separated them in 1054, which may seem like a long time ago, but the ramifications are still very much alive. The Roman church came to be known as "Roman Catholic" specifically because of this claim to catholicity, and chose that name as part of establishing its claim. What you may not know is that what we know here in the west as the "Eastern Orthodox Church" also calls itself officially the "Orthodox Catholic Church", for much the same kinds of reasons. That knowledge is simply not widely known in the west. Even in the east, the title itself is not unduly emphasized. Instead, the teaching of the church as to its catholicity is made more prominent. But the counter-claim to the Roman church is just as firmly established. For "Catholic" then, with a capital C, it is indeed used as an adjective in modifying references to the Orthodox Church.

I think the official church title is enough to establish the capitalized form in relation to eastern orthodoxy. Other orthodox church references in English can probably be found, but Orthodoxy is spreading in the west only in more recent times, from areas that don't historically speak English so much, and rules of capitalization vary in other languages. Translations from original documents in other languages may or may not be done by people who are fully aware of such specific English usage.

I would argue that the entry ought to be changed back to something similar to what I had put there. What do you say? Evensteven (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know "as opposed to" means "contrasting with" and has nothing to do with their opinions. --WikiTiki89 18:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
No argument there. And "in contrast to" also has the same meaning. But it's a fact of human psychology that how something (including a wording) is interpreted can sometimes be subject to association: "opposition" in this case. The wrong association can sometimes result in misinterpretation, and non-native speakers of English (or the less fluent) are more subject to this kind of difficulty. "Contrast" or "differentiation" are more neutral, less likely to get there. It's not about being incorrect; it's about being helpful. This is a totally different issue than "Catholic" in reference to the Orthodox Church, however. Evensteven (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I imagine citations (passages from books that use the term "Catholic" in its various senses) will do more than anything to establish what senses the word has. It'd be particularly useful to see under what circumstances (C|c)atholic is used, with a particular meaning, in a way that actually contrasts with other possible meanings. (Uppercase "Catholic" in the sense "Roman Catholic" contrasts with e.g. "Protestant" when people speak of "Protestant England passing anti-Catholic laws", laws directed against the church that follows the Pope/Bishop of Rome, not specifically against e.g. Orthodox churches.) The inclusion of "Catholic" in the name of Orthodox churches that claim catholicity is easy to see as merely an instance of honorific capitalisation, in the absence of evidence that "Catholic" is used by itself to mean (or include) the Orthodox. Compare the inclusion of "Holy" in the names of churches — it doesn't mean "Holy" with a capital "H" means "sacred", it means "holy" (like "catholic") has one of its usual meanings, and was given honorific capitalisation as part of a Proper Noun/Name of an Important Thing. - -sche (discuss) 00:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I edit mostly on Wikipedia, and don't know what your standard ways of looking at things is. As I said, the official title of the eastern church is "Holy Orthodox Catholic Church", capitalized "Catholic" because it is part of the title, hence a proper name. That is seen, of course, in formal references. Outside that context, Catholic is not generally used (although nothing would prevent it). Then, it's Orthodox Church, or perhaps Eastern Orthodox Church. The one other instance of a capitalized Catholic that I see normally lies in the phrase from the Nicene Creed, "one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church", when the Orthodox church is identified as being just that. I would argue that's not an honorific or a proper name, but a reference to its catholicity. I see both these types of usage in Timothy Ware's The Orthodox Church, chapter 16, The Reunion of Christians, pp 315, 330, Penguin Books, 1991. (Note the edition is not the more recent 1993 one, with revisions, but both are current in use.) Ware also quotes an Anglican, Bishop Ken the Non-Juror, as saying "I die in the faith of the Catholic Church, before the disunion of east and west", p 325. Here the Catholic reference is again clearly to catholicity, and it was taken in a context where the Bishop was expressing his affirmation as an Anglican to catholicity, and his connection to Orthodoxy as a result of it. That usage can cut a number of ways, but it is not in this case separated from Orthodoxy either. I don't know if these quotes are retained in the 1993 edition of Ware, but if they are, the page numbers and placement in the volume might be different. The 1991 edition also has many references to "Catholic", alone and with "Roman", meaning the Roman church, in the common abbreviated uses we tend to see often in English. Frankly, it's not that many books on Orthodoxy that tend to mention other churches in multiple contexts like this one does. And "Catholic" definitely tends to be restricted in context with respect to Orthodoxy to just the title, and to affirmations of catholicity.
One more thing I can attest to: that the usage is notable among Orthodox. Both uses I mention are the guarantor of official recognition on the part of the church itself that it identifies with being "Catholic". Secondly, not all rank and file Orthodox, especially in more isolated regions, actually know this about the Orthodox church. It has been surprising to me how often the WP article on the "Eastern Orthodox Church" has been edited to reject the "Catholic" label, by strongly anti-Roman Orthodox. A number of those have even rejected official pronouncements from reliable Orthodox sources, saying that "Catholic" cannot mean anything but Roman Catholic. One was asked by another editor if he said the Nicene Creed in services. (If he doesn't, he doesn't go to Orthodox services; it's in virtually all of them). The WP article is burdened by proofs. I suspect that some of that controversy can also spring from lack of expertise with English, as references to Orthodoxy are found in English much less than references to Catholicism, and the latter may be all some of those more isolated Orthodox have ever seen in English.
In any case, the Orthodox church takes its catholicity very seriously, though an Orthodox attitude on that point does not get so emotional when confronted with rival claims. (It talks regularly with Catholics, Anglicans, and others about ecumenical issues, and this one comes up all the time.) Whatever the sensitivity of an individual, reference to these matters in English is as common as might be expected in relation to the frequency with which these matters come up in English, and are quite notable there. In addition, English Wiktionary is (I am sure) referenced quite often by speakers (principally) of other languages, in other nations, and I would imagine that Catholics and Orthodox alike in those locations would reference this particular entry more often than the general populations.
You know my opinion fairly completely now, and have one explicit source that gives all the senses I have seen in English. I'll leave it to you Wikitionarians to decide what to do next. Just don't make the decision based only on conformity with the way things are normally done on Wiktionary, because this item has its own peculiarities that should be taken fully into account. I think the significance to readers may alter the normal balance point. Oh, and if you've been wondering, no, I'm really not trying to push some anti-Catholic point of view, just trying to expose a smaller-scale but important usage. The existing material relating to the Roman church is clearly correct and suitable in its essence.
Thanks for listening. Evensteven (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
One more thing. "Catholic" within the title to both Roman and Orthodox churches are in fact references to catholicity also. Note above the Anglican's use of "Catholic", capitalized, to highlight catholicity. The capitalization in the titles might be thought to come from their being in titles, but the capitalization for reference to catholicity is retained in all contexts. Use of "Catholic" as in Roman church can be seen as taken wholesale from the title, but it can also be seen as reference to catholicity. The origin of the capitalization is not clear, as usage is mixed. Capitalization is a mixed art in English anyway. Look at most 18th century documents. Evensteven (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
A Wiktionary question for you. - Would it have been better of me to create a discussion page for the "Catholic" entry when raising this whole question? That's what I would have done on Wikipedia, but I note that most entries have no discussion page already. I hesitated, not knowing if that's as much a part of the working culture here. I expect to drop in on Wiktionary from time to time, and would like to establish my bearings a little better. Evensteven (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
See the edit notice. Keφr 14:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

RfD close[edit]

When you deleted financial service, did you also intend to delete financial institution? The latter is under the header of the former. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for catching that, and sorry I didn't notice this message until now. (I wonder why I didn't get one of those bright orange notifications until Anatoli's comment, below. Oh well, I've deleted the entry now...) - -sche (discuss) 23:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

kv language code[edit]

Hi,

I must have missed something. What happened to "kv"? Is it retired? It's still in Module:languages/data2. Or are you orphaning it first. I noticed that Komi changes to Komi-Zyrian in translations. Which module does this conversion? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I am converting kv to kpv per WT:RFM#Komi_language. (Note also several older discussions, including WT:RFM#Category:Komi_language and Template talk:kpv.) Since it was (not unanimously, but sufficiently) decided to treat the two varieties of the macrolanguage Komi (kv) as separate lects, and we already have entries using the varieties' codes (kpv and koi), kv is no longer necessary or desirable: having it allows people to add words without specifying variety, which we don't want if (and insofar as) we consider the varieties to be separate languages. According to their headers, our kv entries are all Komi-Zyrian, anyway (as opposed to pan-Komi), so I am converting them to kpv. Then kv can be removed from the module. - -sche (discuss) 23:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, agreed. For "pan-Komi", if we get any, we can have duplicate entries. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Sirup[edit]

You had added Sirup as a Middle High German word with a quote from 1563. It seemed to be an obvious mistake to me, since Middle High German is normally used for German until ca. 1350, maybe 1400~50, but certainly not 1563. So I deleted it. Only then did I see that you were the one who'd made this entry. I don't know, but it seems that sirup was one of the spellings used in (actual) Middle High German, but we don't normally use capitalized lemmas for MHG, do we? As far as I know capitalization of noun swas still very rare at that time... Anyway, you decide whether you want to put it back up, but you shouldn't use that quote, because it's Early Modern German, not Middle High German. Best regards.Kolmiel (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Unblock script[edit]

Hey -sche,

I know I haven't been keeping up with Wiktionary affairs much nowadays, since I've been so busy with Commons and MediaWiki.org and all, but do you still remember Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/January#Infinite-duration blocks of IP addresses? I cooked up a script in Python which I believe should do the job, and if you want to run it on your account I can email the script if necessary. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Have the blocks not been lifted already? Keφr 15:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I lifted or shortened all of the blocks except the blocks of Tor nodes and proxies, and the blocks of IPs which were also subject to global bans, blocks, or locks. Hundreds of those blocks remain. TeleComNasSprVen and Amgine argued in the BP that it would be good to lift them, too, because "even those addresses get reassigned", and because the "WMF makes exceptions for certain users which have justified to the stewards their use of such IPs[, ... and] for such users the local blocks prevent their participation in project even though they have been cleared by community Stewards". We just have to decide if we do, in fact, want to lift those blocks. Note that prior to running the script we may want to manually shorten (rather than entirely lift) our handful of recent (post-2011) permablocks: of 110.173.0.18, 193.63.87.227, 108.62.89.242, and 81.70.250.48.
If we do want to lift all the remaining local blocks (I think it would be reasonable to), you should probably send your script to someone with enough Python skillz to check it before running it (not me, lol). :p - -sche (discuss) 18:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I think we might need to poke someone from the WMF for that. And tell them to fix the database in the meantime. Keφr 19:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

wash#Noun[edit]

Yes, the existing definition was not too good. I inserted what I think is a better definition for the sense of wash after the one you worked on. I think it fits the citation perfectly. Importantly, I think this sense of wash only applies to an outcome, actual or expected. DCDuring TALK 18:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've moved the citation and the wording about "no net change". Should the "something where no progress is made" sense be removed now, or do you think it is attested and distinct from the "losses and gains are equivalent, no net change" sense? - -sche (discuss) 21:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
In my idiolect, insofar as it is distinct from the new sense, it is not correct. But the English-speaking world has lots of variation.
A couple of OneLook dictionaries say it is US. Neither Collins nor Macmillan have it, suggesting it is not UK. It was not in Websters 1828 or 1913. A related sense of wash = wash sale appeared in Century. The wording in the dictionaries that have the sense usually includes no explicit mention of "progress", sometimes "yield" or other indication of result, so I would be happy deleting or "merging" the senses.
Relatedly, I don't get the sense development from the other senses to the "equivalence/balance" sense(s) or to the "wash sale" sense. I could see sense development from the "wash sale" sense to the "equivalence/balance" sense. DCDuring TALK 00:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
On stackexchange, one commenter suggests that "the usage derived from "wash out" back in the 20's". Nothing about their evidence suggests to me that the usage derives from "wash out", but ngram data does at least suggest that the dating is broadly right: it seems to have arise sometime between 1880 and 1950. Stackexchange also suggests that "wash sale" may derive from this sense of "wash". - -sche (discuss) 21:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
On Google Books, I spot a couple instances of "wash loan", an interest-free loan, which seems like another derivation of this sense of "wash". - -sche (discuss) 21:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
"Wash sale" is related, but it mostly leads to discussions of the specific US tax law provisions. "Wash transaction" is more informative, showing that the term covered a variety of types of transactions in which an apparent "real" transaction is offset by an exactly corresponding undisclosed transaction, to achieve some financial gain by fooling someone. I still have trouble grasping the metaphorical connection with other senses of wash. DCDuring TALK 06:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Todo/mismatched translation codes[edit]

Hi, please take a look at this, especially at any languages you have renamed. DTLHS (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Will do; thanks for regenerating the list. - -sche (discuss) 15:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Oi vey![edit]

You added the Oroko language section with a Bantu language header and language code (bdu), but cited Blust's Austronesian comparative dictionary, which has oi as the Bimanese (our Bima, code bhp) word for water to match your definition.

The obvious questions:

  1. Is oi really the Oroko word for water?
  2. Do we need to create a Bima section?
  3. What should I do with the Oroko categories I just created based on Category:Oroko nouns' presence in Wanted categories. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Hm, it looks like I got the codes for w:Bima language (Bantu) and w:Bima language (Austronesian) mixed up in adding the translation to [[water]] and in creating that entry. (Or possibly WT:EDIT's autocomplete-the-language-name function mixed them up.) I'll fix it up. Good of you to notice. I'd just leave the Oroko categories; I've never been a fan of deleting empty POS and language categories (the latter in particular should never be deleted, IMO), since they're bound to fill up eventually. - -sche (discuss) 01:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused.[edit]

There is no question that I don't merge "cot" and "caught", but I still wonder something...

I've been wondering exactly how to pronounce /ɒ/ all of this time, because I assumed that I didn't have it. The closest that I have come (or so I thought) was by rounding my lips whilst making the /ɑ/ sound. Yet all that sounded like to me was a short "/ɔ/".

So I decided to compare the audio files listed on Wikipedia for /ɔ/ and /ɒ/. These are the aforementioned audio files: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Open-mid_back_rounded_vowel.ogg , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Open_back_rounded_vowel.ogg

In comparing them, I noticed something. The sound file that supposed represented /ɒ/ sounded closer to my "/ɔ/". In fact, only when I dropped the "r" from "north" and stressed the remaining vowel did I actually produce a sound that was more-or-less identical to the sound clip attached to /ɔ/.

In addition, my "/ʌ/" resembles the sound clip attached to "/ɐ/" far more than it does the sound clip attached to /ʌ/ (the sound clip attached to that sounds more like /ɜ/ to me. Though... not identical.)

However, in all of the cases that I mention something sounded "closer" to something, I merely meant just that. More specifically, my "/ʌ/" does not sound exactly like the sound clip of /ɐ/; in particular, my "/ʌ/" is a little gentler sounding (to explain, if I try to mimic the sound clip for /ɐ/, then my teeth are exposed and my front teeth push back. Meanwhile, my "/ʌ/" has the softness of a non-rhotic /ɶ/ if that's possible (by that, I mean that the sound clip for /ɶ/ [1] sounds rhotacised to me). In addition, my "ɔ" indeed sound more like the sound clip given for /ɒ/ than the sound clip given for /ɔ/, but it has a similar issue in "softness/gentleness" as the previous.

Any ideas at what the problem here is/what sounds I'm actually producing? Tharthan (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not always easy to tell what precise phoneme someone is producing even when one hears them speak, but when one merely reads text, it's very difficult indeed. I can make two comments, though:
  1. I've never been convinced that all of WP's IPA phoneme audio files, especially the audio files of unusual sounds like /ɶ/, are as perfectly spot-on as WP's decision to provide them in the infoboxes of the IPA phonemes suggests they are.
  2. If your /ɔ/ sounds more like WP's /ɒ/ than like its /ɔ/, and your /ʌ/ sounds more like WP's /ɐ/ than like its /ʌ/, then it could be that either the person who did WP's audio files was pronouncing things slightly too high, or you are pronouncing things slightly lower than is canonical. (Apologies if this is a trivially obvious and unhelpful observation.)
- -sche (discuss) 00:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
No apologies necessary, I am very much appreciative of both your observations and your opinions on this particular matter. From what you said, I was able to figure that (if we presume that the audio files for the vowel sounds that are used on Wikipedia are spot-on) this is how my vowels work. Areas where I seem to deviate are coloured green: IPA Vowel Chart (Tharthan).png
My question is, how would I then more accurately transcribe these questionable vowels? Should I transcribe my "/ʊ/" as /ʊ̈ /, or as /ɵ/(there is no audio clip for /ʊ̈ /, so I don't know whether it would be the best representation of my "/ʊ/" or not, but I can say for certain that my "/ʊ/" is very much like the audio clip for /ɵ/; only a tad softer)? I'm already leaning towards transcribing my "/ʌ/" as /ɞ/ if it comes to that, but I am unsure about how I should transcribe the other "green vowels".
Now, the reason I ask about how I should transcribe these "green vowels" is because someone else listened to my audio clip for Boston on here, and decided it would be more accurate to transcribe my pronunciation of it as [ˈbɒːstɪn] rather than what I was already transcribing it as. The thing is, I can't refute the idea that my "/ɔ/" is more of an /ɒː/, due to what we have just been discussing, and I don't want to consciously lie to people about my pronunciations, so...
How would you recommend I transcribe my pronunciations on Wiktionary from now on? Should I just stick with how I was already transcribing them because such particular accuracy might not be necessary here, or should I only change my transcription of some of the "green vowels", OR should I change the transcription of all of the "green vowels", and (if so) how do you think I should transcribe them? Tharthan (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I had the same observation about the /ɒ/ in the sound files, it sounds more closed and I would interpret it as /ɔ/. I don't speak a language variety that contrasts these, but I do contrast Dutch /ɔ/ and /ɑ/ with English /ɒ/. And to me, the sound file is closer to my Dutch /ɔ/ than to my English /ɒ/. —CodeCat 18:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The way I see it, IPA symbols are more relative than absolute and thus have different absolute locations for each accent of each language. Since the Rhode Island accent (which is mostly what Tharthan speaks) has all three of (using Wikipedia-style phonemes) /ɑː/, /ɒ/, and /ɔː/, it makes sense to use different letters for each of them. I prefer, respectively, [a(ː)], [ɒ(ː)], and [ɔ(ː)]. The second one is rounded or at least semi-rounded, which is why I don't think it should be [ɑ(ː)]; and the third one is more closed than the second, and the next closest symbol is [ɔ(ː)]. --WikiTiki89 18:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@CodeCat I wasn't aware that Dutch didn't distinguish between /ɔ/ and /ɒ/. Is it a dialectal thing, or is it standard all around? Like, would somebody from Friesland who is speaking Dutch maybe have that phoneme, whilst a Hollander would not (or something like that)? Also, if the audio clip for /ɒ/ actually represents /ɔ/, then what does the audio clip for /ɔ/ represent?
@Wikitiki89 But wasn't IPA supposed to clear up a lot of that relativity when it comes to transcription? That's the whole reason why I've loved IPA ever since I've first seen it (which was when I was a wee lad of but four and a half years old. I saw it in my father's copy of Oxford, you see). In either case, my "/a/" is much softer (and not all my vowels are soft, by the way. My /æ/ is pretty much identical to that of the voice clip on Wikipedia) than actual /a/, hence why I've transcribed it up till now as /ɑ/ (but perhaps /ɑ̈/ would be a better way to transcribe it?) Either way, how would you recommend I transcribe the vowels marked in green? Tharthan (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
IPA was supposed be a single set of symbols that can be used for any human language. No system can clear up all the relativity. How you should transcribe the vowels in green depends on the other vowels you distinguish. Can you perhaps re-create this image with the other vowels you use bolded? --WikiTiki89 20:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Tharthan: Dutch has /ɔ/ and /ɑ/, but no /ɒ/. I suppose the latter might be an allophone of /ɑ/ for some speakers or in some places in a word, but it's not really contrastive. —CodeCat 21:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89 Sure. I'll do that tomorrow. It's wicked late at the moment, so I need to get to sleep. @CodeCat Ah. I see... Tharthan (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC) @Wikitiki89 I have now done what you requested. The vowels that I have that sound exactly the same as Wikipedia's sound clips and I don't question the transcription of are marked in red. In addition, another green vowel was added because I forgot to mark it before. So the red vowels and green vowels make up my vowel inventory that I use every day when speaking English. Tharthan (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! If I were you, I would continue to transcribe exactly as you have them there, except that you could switch to using [ɐ] for /ʌ/. You can't use [ɞ] as you mentioned above because [ɞ] is the rounded counterpart of [ɜ], and I doubt your pronunciation is close enough to [ɜ] anyway. I really don't know how to tell apart [ɐ] and [ʌ], despite how far apart they seem to be on the chart. Even Russian has a sound that is interchangeably transcribed as either [ɐ] or [ʌ]. You can't use [ɒ] for /ɔ/ because it's already taken. You could also use [ɵ] for /ʊ/ (I know [ɵ] is even used for the "feminine" RP realization of /ʊ/). And just to make sure I understood you correctly, your /e/ and /o/ are meant to represent the first part of the diphthongs /eɪ̯/ and /oʊ̯/, correct? --WikiTiki89 14:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If I can't use /ɒ(ː)/ for my "/ɔ/, then what should I use for it? It clearly sounds different than a real /ɔ/ (which I have before words like "north" [/ɔɹ/] and the like), yet it's not the same as plain /ɒ/ either.

My /o/ is usually /oʊ/. HOWEVER, when pronouncing stressed words like "ohhhhh" or something like that, I do actually pronounce it with a monophthong vowel. This vowel is actually in between /o/ and /o̞/. This could be because (when I was around nine or ten years old) I started studying Japanese, which I think has an /o̞/ sound. Or it could have something to do with my Polish ancestry (I am Irish, Polish, French and Portuguese, as well as about 1% Algonquian, along with maybe a few other things because my father didn't ever know his natural mother [except that he visited her once when he was quite little and remembers that she was blonde] and was instead adopted by his aunt [who was the sister of his father]. The first two of those five [Irish {Some dialect of Irish English was spoken by my Irish ancestors} and Polish] have been the most influential on the idolect-bund of my family.) Specifically, the fact that my Gran (my mother's mother) spoke Polish (almost as well as my Babci and Dziadziu, but they passed away when my Mom was seven; the same age I was when my Gran passed away), and taught my mother a good several words of Polish herself, along with proper pronunciation, is likely the reason behind why my /ɑ/ sounds far different than an /a/ to me, and why I've always tended to pronounce Japanese words/Japanese loan words ending in "e" with /ɛ/ instead of /e/ (because in my household we grew up saying "na zdrowie" [which we actually usually pronounced as /nɑz‿stroβvijɛ/ or {when speaking very fast} /nɑz‿stroʋyjɛ:/] when we did a toast), why I have always had both /ɾ/ and /r/ in phonemic inventory (this is mostly due to the fact that we ate pierogis [which we pronounced /pɛˈɾoːɡi/] a lot). Other things we often said were "dziękuję" (which we pronounced /dʒ‿ɛ̃kujɝ/), and "jak się masz" (which we pronounced /jakʔʃɛmɑʃ/). For reference, by the way, all of my ancestors (whether Irish, Polish, French or Portuguese) initially came to New England around the late 1800s. The first generation Irish part of my family lived until about 1990 or so.

As is the case with my /o/, my /e/ tends to be a diphthong (much more so than my /o/ tends to be a diphthong, however). Nonetheless, in rare cases I will pronounce a true /e/ in a word. Tharthan (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Well if you use [ɒ(ː)] for your /ɔː/, then how would it be differentiated from your /ɒ/? At least /ɔɹ/ is differentiable by the /ɹ/. The other option is to start using diacritics, but I think of that as a last resort or for super narrow transcriptions. --WikiTiki89 21:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose you're right. I'd rather not use diacritics for IPA if I don't have to, so I'll just stick to something similar to what you recommended. I think I'll use /ɵ/ for /ʊ/ unless I somehow find an audio clip for /ʊ̈ / (or maybe I'll just stick with /ʊ/ à la what I am doing with using /ʌ/ instead of /ɐ/) Tharthan (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Usexes at приказать долго жить[edit]

Since you have not actually created an RFC discussion, I will make my comment here: The usexes are actually just usage examples quoted from a Russian phraseological dictionary. I guess it's possible they are actually quotations of literature, but the phraseological dictionary does not say where they came from, implying in my mind that they are just usage examples. --WikiTiki89 23:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether we actually allow this, but if not, blame Anatoli. --WikiTiki89 23:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
That's my thinking too. The usage examples only look like they're from literature but they may have been made up by the creators of the dictionary. I couldn't find the same texts in Google books. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't create a thread on WT:RFC because I figured it was an easy issue to fix and one of the page's watchers would fix it quickly.
I think it would be desirable to either find actual examples of use, or make up our own usexes, or at least cite the dictionary that's being quoted (i.e. cite it in the manner other quoted works are cited in, "Year, Author, Work")... but it's certainly odd to cite another dictionary's usex... - -sche (discuss) 00:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Well that's why I added the Tolstoy quote. I was too lazy to look for more after that, but I think ideally there should be an old quote and a recent quote each for both senses. --WikiTiki89 00:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I have changed for a simpler usage example. Too much hassle! --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Riemen[edit]

Hi, thanks for adding the etymological info that I had asked about to [[Riemen]]. Could you add a References section and list the full names of the works by Chudinov, Dahl, and Vasmer? Thanks! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done; cheers! - -sche (discuss) 15:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

medize[edit]

I tried to change "Greece" to something else ("Greeks") because the sentence looks a bit odd to me, since as you know there was concept of polis, but not concept of a unified society or state called Greece to which Greeks can be loyal back then. Could you reword that sentence without mixing state and people, or could you think of an alternative? --Z 18:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, what about "to be loyal to Persians rather than Greeks"? - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Beyblade[edit]

Guess what? Three citations from sources having nothing to do with the subject, and more, from Google Books. Gotcha there! Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

TR[edit]

What does TR mean as said here? Pass a Method (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

WT:TR. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Betanure Jewish Neo-Aramaic[edit]

User:Rakkalrast added a word in this language to *šan-, but we don't have a language code for it, since it does not have an ISO code. Should we create this language (LINGUIST List gives it the code: lsd-bet) or merge it with Leshana Deni (code: lsd)? --WikiTiki89 15:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

A variety of Neo-Aramaic spoken by ≤ 17 families?... there comes a point, for me at least, when it even considering something a dialect as opposed to an idiolect becomes iffy; certainly, I don't see any evidence that we need to handle Betanure as a full language rather than using qualifier tags and one of our existing headers. And Hezy Mutzafi's 2008 work on The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Betanure (ISBN 3447057106) affirms that Betanure is part of the Lishana Deni Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect cluster. - -sche (discuss) 16:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Proto-Algonquian[edit]

I wonder why the Proto-Algonquian words have all those dots in them. Are they morpheme boundaries? —CodeCat 17:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Placing a mid-dot after a [Proto-Algonquian] vowel is the usual way of indicating that the vowel is long. One also sees colons used for this purpose (presumably approximating IPA /ː/), mostly though not exclusively in works that also lack other "advanced" characters and substitute e.g. "?" and "0" for "ʔ" and "θ". (On rare occasion, I've even seen authors just double the vowel, or use circumflexes as in Fox orthography.) Morpheme boundaries are indicated when necessary by a hyphen, which does mean that reading old messily-printed or poorly-scanned texts sometimes requires one to have enough knowledge to tell whether a long vowel or a morpheme boundary is to be expected in the particular place. This is documented on WT:AALG#Vowels (though perhaps not clearly enough—what do you think?), and will be documented on WT:AAQL once I add info on phonology to that page. - -sche (discuss) 17:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I wonder why they didn't go with the more common practice of using macrons... —CodeCat 18:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know. The practice of using mid-dots for PA seems to have originated with Leonard Bloomfield, who first reconstructed PA, and who also used mid-dots for Menominee. Neither language uses any diacritics. - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Prakrits in Module:etymology language/data[edit]

WT:FSCK spews warnings about these not having a parent; I guess they should be put under pra, pka, pmh or psu. All of these were added by User:DerekWinters in June. Since you are the one who usually maintains our languages lists, what do you think should be done with them? Keφr 22:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I've put them under "pra". If anyone wants to make a case for sorting them more narrowly (e.g. under "pka"), they're welcome to. The codes don't seem to be used anywhere, though, and I'm not sure it makes sense to have them in Module:etymology language/data rather than (a) having them in Module:languages/datax or (b) not having them at all. I guess the logic is that they're not different enough from "pka" to be worth giving separate L2s, but they might still be worth mentioning in etymologies (although so far they haven't been)? - -sche (discuss) 00:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:rfquotek[edit]

I have nominated this template for deletion. I don't see how it is useful for anything that we do, and it seems to create a large number of unattractive and intractable problems. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I admit it's not without its problems. However, I think more good than harm, and you may be surprised to learn that the situation prior to the creation of the template was even more unattractive and problematic. I'll comment on RFD with some links to evidence of that, among other things. - -sche (discuss) 19:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Quick question[edit]

Is the nonstandard pronunciation of trough a result of an "anti-th fronting" of sorts? Mayhap... a "hypercorrection"? Or did some dialects actually have a /x/ → /θ/ shift?

I remember seeing that there was once a time when some (Middle?) English dialects confused /ʍ/ and /θ/, but I don't recall seeing anything about a dialectal /x/ → /θ/ shift anywhere. Tharthan (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. Based on my feeling that /f/ and /θ/ alternate more often than /x/ and /θ/, I would have hazarded a guess that the shift was not an early one of /x/ → /θ/ but rather a later one of /f/ → /θ/. However, William Dwight Whitney, in his 1870 Language and the Study of Language, writes:
  • Thus, when the English gave up in pronunciation its palatal spirant—still written in so many of our words with gh—while it usually simply silenced it, prolonging or strengthening, by way of compensation, the preceding vowel, as in light, bough, Hugh, it sometimes substituted the labial spirant f, as in cough, trough; and, in the latter word, a common popular error, doubtless going back to the time of the first abandonment of the proper gh sound, substitutes the lingual spirant th, pronouncing troth.
Elsewhere I can find a note from 1917 by American linguist Edgar Howard Sturtevant that "until my thirtieth year I pronounced 'trough' as 'trouth'", and confirmation from Peter Davies' 1983 Success with words: a North American guide to the English language that even at that date "trough is [still] sometimes pronounced /trōth/". The comments on this blog post contain some more information on the subject.
Perhaps someone in the wt:Tea Room can tell you more.
Incidentally, Merriam-Webster contains the interesting note (using their non-IPA notation) that the term is pronounced "by bakers often /trō/".
- -sche (discuss) 19:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see then. That word in particular must have been very variable in its pronunciation for a good long while now. Thanks for the explanation. Tharthan (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

'tard[edit]

{{alternative form of}} doesn't even categorise anymore, so there's no problem removing the key. —CodeCat 21:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Mordvin[edit]

jade#Etymology 2 mentions the language Mordvin, but we consider Mordvin to be two different languages: Erzya (myv) and Moksha (mdf). Is it worth creating a small language family for Mordvinic languages (probably not)? If not not, how can I determine which language was meant in the etymology? --WikiTiki89 19:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

As a first step, I'd declare the term's language to be "und", and say it's from "either Erzya or Moksha". This obviates the need to create a code for Mordvinic (though one could still be created if there happened to be other reasons why it would be useful). Next, knowing that Moksha and Erzya are both written in Cyrillic, I'd test various possible Cyrillic spellings of the term combined if possible with various possible Russian translations, to see if I could find any Russian linguistic texts that mentioned the term — I've been able to verify the identity of some Lak and other Caucasian terms that way.
PS #1: that reminds me of how useful it would be if we had entries for the Russian abbreviations of various languages' names. I've added some (д.-в.-н.), but I think I stupidly didn't record the Caucasian abbreviations at the time I had them in front of me, even though it took me a while to figure them all out with the help of ru.wikipedia. Maybe I'll go looking for them again; shouldn't be too hard to find them again, and you and Anatoli can help verify what they're abbreviations of.
PS #2: do you think it's redundant to say "obviates the need" or "obviates the requirment", since obviate already specifies "bypass a requirement" in its definition? I've never been sure... - -sche (discuss) 20:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
After taking a look at the languages' orthographies, the only Cyrillic spelling of al'd'a that makes sense is альдя, for which Google shows several results in some strange language that might be either Moksha or Erzya, or might be something else entirely. I don't know nearly enough about these languages to be able to identify them, and none of the results are dictionaries. RE PS #1: Russian abbreviations always confuse me too. I'm not even sure whether the language abbreviations are standardized enough between dictionaries for it to make sense to add them. RE PS #2: I think the definition is supposed to be "bypass [a requirement]" in other words the requirement (or the word requirement itself) is meant to be the direct object of "obviate". --WikiTiki89 02:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I checked such spellings as алда, ал'д'а and альдьа after I posted, and I couldn't find anything in a Uralic language, either. Some hits were Kazakh(!).
Per Thorson's 1936 Anglo-Norse studies: an inquiry into the Scandinavian elements in the modern English dialects, volume 1, derives dialectal English yad / yaad / yaud (used in "Sc Nhb Lakel Yks Lan", which I take to be Scotland, North Humberside?, Lakeland?, Yorkshire, and Lancashire) from Old Norse jalda (dialectal Swedish jäldä), from a Finnish word "elde" (citing "FT p. 319, Torp. p 156 fol."), but says "Eng. jade is not related." Likewise the Saga Book of the Viking Society for Northern Research, page 18, says "There is thus no etymological connection between ME. jāde MnE. jade and ME. jald MnE. dial. yaud etc. But the two words have influenced each other mutually, both formally and semantically." I'll see about expanding jade and yaud with this information. - -sche (discuss) 03:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
One last question, though. Should "Mordvin" be added as an alternative name for both Moksha and Erzya? --WikiTiki89 13:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, enough references (especially old ones but even some modern ones) speak of "Mordvin" as a language made up of Moksha and Erzya dialects, rather than as a family, that recording that asan alt name would be helpful. - -sche (discuss) 15:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It's эльде both in Moksha and Erzya. See Имяреков, Мокшанско-русский словарь, 1953, page 124b, and Серебренникова Б. А., Бузакова Р. Н., Мосина М. В. (ред.), Эрзянско-русский словарь, 1993, page 781b. If you can't find a spelling for any Uralic, Altaic or a Caucasian language, ask me, I have a lot of sources. --Vahag (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, that's good to know. I knew you had resources on Caucasian languages, but didn't know about Finno-Ugric. I'll add a Moksha section to [[эльде]]. :) - -sche (discuss) 17:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Haida languages[edit]

Have we thought out the treatment of these yet? We have both the macrolanguage code hai (and a category for terms derived from it, including the entry gwaai that I think I'll go and RFV) as well as the two sublects, hdn and hax, the latter of which I just unwittingly made a terms derived from category for. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I recall looking into the Haida lects, but it seems from my "Note 2" in this RFM that I held off on posting about them for some reason, and then got distracted by events in real life. WT:LANGTREAT says to treat only the macrolanguage as a language, but like the pronouncements I mentioned in that RFM, it seems there was never discussion about that. There are noticeable phonological differences between the Northern and Southern lects. Each of those lects is in turn made up of its own (sub-)dialects, but the sub-dialects within each group are mutually intelligible, so it doesn't seem to be a problem to merge those (into hax and into hdn), and it seems most references do. I looked at a number of North Haida, South Haida and plain "Haida" materials (Enrico's Northern Haida Songs, etc) and references before I posted the above-linked RFM last year and planned to comment about Haida; I'll see if I can find the notes I made then. - -sche (discuss) 22:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
A tad more research on the matter suggests to me that we should deprecate the use of the macrolanguage and reassign it, then create categories for the sublects. If you've notes on it, though, I'll wait for you to start the RFM instead of blowing ahead myself. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, here are my notes, which I'd be happy to summarize in any RFM on the subject, or which you can feel free to pull from.
- -sche (discuss) 05:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, for entries I would suggest using Enrico's orthography (or maybe Bringhurst's), so as to avoid characters like that are hard to input and liable to display incorrectly. - -sche (discuss) 06:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
All sounds good, and you can feel free to copy my Support over to the RFM for splitting and deprecating hai, but I'm not on board with the orthography. In British Columbia, I've only seen the orthography with x̱ used, so I would presume it is standard among speakers and linguists. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia says SHIP's orthography "is the usual orthography used in Skidegate", while Enrico's is what I saw in my (limited) review for Northern Haida—but perhaps the set of materials I have access to is not representative of all materials. Are the texts you see in British Columbia Southern Haida, or are some Northern Haida? Meh, it would be undesirable to use two different orthographies... I suppose we can normalize both (South and North) on the SHIP spellings and mention the other spellings as alternative forms. (Cf this subthread, if you're bored.) - -sche (discuss) 23:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, after waiting a few days for some other discussions to settle down, I started Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2014/August#Haida_lects. - -sche (discuss) 19:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The power of 'and'[edit]

We COULD have both fixing AND fixing to be intelligible on their own, something we do with many comparable situations. DCDuring TALK 21:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I've replied at WT:RFM so as to keep discussion in one place. Cheers! - -sche (discuss) 22:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Attestability of "yellowman"[edit]

The search for attestability seems to yield mostly references to a White Jamaican reggae artist. Purplebackpack89 04:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I tried searching for the plural, "yellowmen", and although that turned up some scannos, it also turned up enough valid hits that I've now created yellowman. - -sche (discuss) 21:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Two is enough? DCDuring TALK 23:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The search turned up more than the two hits I typed up. CFI doesn't require that citations be typed up and put in entries unless the entries are challenged, but I have typed up a third citation. Incidentally, it also contains "whitemen" and "blackmen". - -sche (discuss) 00:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Appendix:Place names in New York area with possible native American origins[edit]

I gathered these from the book mentioned in the Appendix at a WP edit-a-thon held today at a local library. You provided an etymology for Mamaroneck that was better than that in the book, by Richard Lederer (or his father?). A few of the toponyms in the Appendix (eg, Osceola, Mohegan) are taken from native American tribes not from the immediate area, a few from neighbors on the west side of the Hudson, Connecticut, farther north in New York, or possibly from Long Island, but at least 80% are from tribes that lived in what are now Westchester, Putnam, or Bronx counties. The spellings are the only ones Lederer had. I assume he rejected some for good reason. He seems to have taken many of them from land purchase records of the 17th century. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, neat. I will look over the list and see if I can clarify / expand any of the etymologies. Should I remove placenames from the list once we have entries for them with complete etymologies (as in the case of Ossining), or what? - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's keep them as examples of what can be achieved, at least for now.
Lederer seems to have worked fairly diligently through his sources, which include hundreds of primary documents and secondary works. I didn't see any works in the bibliography that seemed to be specifically books or articles on the native languages themselves, but I ran out of time so I didn't look all that carefully. I'll be able to take a closer look soon. I may also extract the Dutch origin names. The English ones are fairly uninteresting, even to locals.
Why are Germans so fascinated by native Americans? DCDuring TALK 04:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I have the towns there to provide a hint where in the county these places are, in case geography might have a bearing on the language of the toponym. There are a few from the Long Island Sound area, more from Bronx and Yonkers and along the Hudson to Peekskill, and others inland in northern Westchester. HTH. DCDuring TALK 04:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure there are books written on that subject. I think it's partly the earlier European Noble Savage myths, combined with the lack of territorial conflicts that might have provided motivation for negative stereotypes, but also just the lure of the exotic and safely far away. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I wonder that myself sometimes.
If you're asking why so many materials on native American tribes and languages were compiled by Germans, a large part of the answer is prosaic. Germany has long produced large numbers of ethnographers and linguists. A lot of materials on Pacific and African peoples and languages were also compiled by Germans.
If you're asking why so many non-linguists love "Indian" things ... well, that's Karl May's doing. He bought into and sold others on the romanticized notion Chuck mentions of simple and noble, exotic people living "authentic lives".
The town names should be helpful. - -sche (discuss) 07:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Neologisms and "Web Words"[edit]

Personally, I've always taken "Web words" happily so long as they met certain criteria. I've always been particularly fond of Germanic or otherwise native ones, due to my love of writing "native" poetry.

Anent neologisms... it's been somewhat iffy. I am accepting of some, but not of others. For instance, "selfie" is a term that I never use; opting for the fairer "self-snapshot" or "snapshot of oneself". On the other hand, "troll" (as in the sense of "to bait and wait so as to start trouble" or the like) is one that I have happily accepted with open arms (mayhap due to its origins in angling terminology, though I honestly can't say for sure).

Now, the reason why I bring this up is because it seems that Wiktionary's methods of determining which "web words" and which neologisms are acceptable for inclusion are somewhat murkily composed. Whilst terms like "halgi" are included, others are not. I can't really tell what the "criteria for inclusion" entails sometimes, because it seems a bit vague.

Might you be able to shed some light on this? Tharthan (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, numerous discussions have made it apparent that Wiktionary's policy on citing the internet is not as clear as it could be; in particular, it can take a while to unpack the ramifications of the words "durably archived" / "permanently recorded" in WT:CFI. But once those words are unpacked, "web words" and "print words" are subject to the same criteria for inclusion. Words in major languages have to be used, as in "he took a selfie", and not just mentioned, as in "he used the word 'selfie' to describe the picture he took of himself". (Lines like "he took what he called a 'selfie'" fall into a grey area of debatable use-vs-mention-ness.) The uses have to span a year, to weed out fad words that are only popular for a month, like the Russian translation of "pink slime" (which was only somewhat less of a fad in English). And the uses have to be in "durably archived"/"permanently recorded" media.
What is durably archived? Books, newspapers, journals and magazines are durably archived. (Google Books and Issuu are good ways of using the internet to search through those media.) Websites are not durable, because they go offline (and moreover are edited and reworded) without warning. Even articles on the websites of news organizations can be taken down — a Wikipedia article I just edited discussed a story which was removed at the request of the journalist, allegedly after he was intimidated. Even the Internet Archive, which has been discussed in the past, is not a durable archive, because it removes pages if site owners request that. The only online corpus which is durably archived is Usenet, because it is decentrally archived, and attempts to censor things from it have indeed failed (e.g. someone at one point tried to delete alt.religion.scientology, and failed). This failure of most web sources to be durably archived can make it harder to cite "web words" (cf. this). However, if a web word is attested per those criteria, it can have an entry just like any other attested word.
Does this clear things up any?
Note that because of the nature of Wiktionary (it's a work in progress, and it's a wiki anyone can edit in real-time), some unattested words may have entries (you can RFV those), and some attested words may not have entries yet (you can create those). Also note that strings that are analysable as misspellings (e.g. strings like licencise, and probably also uncommon strings from lolcat-speak or doge-speak) may be excluded as such. - -sche (discuss) 23:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes. That clears up a lot. I now have a more adequate understanding of how the process works. Thanks much.
So citations from Usenet are considered to be among those of the "durably archived" / "permanently recorded" variety? Or, are they only somewhat so, and are thusly taken with a grain of salt? Tharthan (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Usenet is as durably archived as print media, so a use of a word on Usenet is 'worth' as much as a use of a word in a book. But Usenet is more likely than print media to contain typos/misspellings, so if a string is analysable as a typo/misspelling, and it is only supported by Usenet citations, people may be more likely to analyse it as a misspelling and not an intentional use of a certain spelling/word. (For example, book citations might have done more to convince people of the word-hood of licencise than these Usenet citations did in this discussion.) But even books contain typos : I can't find an example offhand, but in RFV, if a book uses an unusual spelling sometimes and the usual spelling other times, it's usually assumed that the instances of the unusual spelling are typos. And when it's clear that something isn't a typo/misspelling, like "Rightpondian" or the video-game sense of "pull", then it doesn't matter whether the citations come from books or Usenet. There seem to be about 1100 entries that cite Usenet. - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Rollback in error at told[edit]

I believe this rollback was done in error. The alternate pronunciations that were there were intentional. I intend to restore them. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I should have undone your edit with a more informative summary, I'm sorry. The pronunciations you added are unattested and dubious, per discussion on Angr's talk page, so I've removed them until such time as evidence of them comes along. Rollback is sometimes/often used as a quick way of undoing edits around here (if the edits are merely felt to make the entry worse, without the implication 'rollback' has on Wikipedia that the edits are vandalism), since Wiktionary's relatively small number of admins tend to be a lot busier than Wikipedia's larger number of admins... but it can tend to cause confusion, like now, when the edit was intentional and in good faith, but still made the entry worse. - -sche (discuss) 14:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I've started a thread at Wiktionary:Tea_room/2014/September. It's important that this be sorted out, because bowl-bull, cull-coal, etc. have indeed become homophones, and it effects even General American for most people certainly my age (34) and younger. - Gilgamesh (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, erm...[edit]

I would have e-mailed you this or sent this message to you via a more private method if I could have, because I feel posting this here might come off as rude to the person in question (though I do not intend it as such).

User:Angr and I seem to be in disagreement over what should be allowed transcription-wise for a certain word, and we seem to be at a deadlock. As such, I thought that maybe a third party could be brought in so as to maybe give their opinion on the matter.

Now, I don't know really anything about your dialect, -sche, (and I don't mind being blissfully ignorant on that subject, since I think it's irrelevant to most parts of editing on Wiktionary) [though I remember seeing a reference to you at some point being in the Inland-North, though I don't really know the relevance of that] so I don't know where you'd fall anent this matter, but I would honestly hope (and truly do think) that that wouldn't (and shouldn't) matter, considering the argument here is transcription, and any linguist worth their salt knows how to properly transcribe vowel phonemes, and knows the difference between two different phonemes, whether monophthong, diphthong, or otherwise, irrespective of whether or not the vowel phonemes in question occur in his or her dialect.

Now, I firmly trust your knowledge and expertise in this field, hence why I have come to you. I think you may be able to help in settling this issue. So, if you'd be willing to offer your tuppence-worth on this matter, I'd be very grateful.

The aforementioned discussion can be found here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Angr#Affair Tharthan (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

My "e-mail this user" link should be enabled (in the toolbar on the side of this page, a few items below "what links here"); if it's not, let me know. (Not that I check my e-mail with any frequency at all...)
My "expertise in this field" is amateur compared to Angr's. But since I've been asked, I'll give my thoughts:
I remember noticing during a previous Tea Room discussion of the M-m-m merger that one of the problems one faces if one wants to transcribe 'marry', 'merry' or 'Mary', or for that matter 'air' or 'ear', is that the IPA doesn't have symbols that denote these sounds perfectly, so one is left using approximate transcriptions. That's not automatically problematic — if a language's "e" sound is actually 15% closer to canonical /ɛ/ than canonical /e/ is, it's fine to nonetheless transcribe it as /e/, or if necessary /e̞/; one needn't invent a whole new letter for it. It does, however, mean that discussions of whether or not sounds are distinct (and discussions of how to transcribe them) are more difficult. For example, according to our entry and dictionary.com, 'merry' is /ˈmɛɹi/ and 'Mary' is /ˈmɛəɹi/ for speakers who don't have the M-m-m merger, while both are /ˈmɛɹi/ for speakers who do. However, both our audio clips and dictionary.com's contain a vowel that is distinct from the /ɛ/ in 'bet' (i.e., the Vr sequences in the audio clips aren't just /ɛ/ followed by /ɹ/). That means that someone who was trying to figure out whether her pronunciation of 'Mary' used /ɛə/ or /ɛ/ would run into trouble if she tried pronouncing 'Mary' and then pronouncing words with /ɛ/ in them like 'bet' to see if she used the same vowel in both — she'd probably conclude that she didn't use the same vowel for the two words, even if the vowel she used in 'Mary' was the one we transcribe as /ɛ/.
However, setting that issue to the side...
According to our entry and dictionary.com, 'air' is /ɛəɹ/*, with the same vowel as unmerged 'Mary'. Our audio clip is curt and sounds like it contains only a single (non-diphthong) vowel, but dictionary.com's has more of a /ə/. Likewise, 'affair' is /əˈfɛəɹ/ per dictionary.com, and the vowel in the audio file is the same as the vowel (diphthong) in dictionary.com's 'Mary' audio file.
That means it would be reasonable to transcribe the sound as /ɛəɹ/ (or /ɛɚ/, which is synonymous) for (some) American accents. But is /ɛɹ/ wrong? Well, is there an American accent that contrasts /ɛɹ/ and /ɛəɹ/ in this (non-intervocalic) context? If not, then the worst one can say is that /ɛɹ/ is potentially confusing, but as long as there's a page explaining how the symbols are used, it's not wrong, and it's possibly not even any more confusing (or any less accurate) than our use of /ɛ/ to mean one thing in merry and another in bet.
Merriam-Webster and Random House use the same transcription for 'merry' and 'affair', but also for 'Mary' (apparently they treat the M-m-m merger as standard). The various dictionaries that make up thefreedictionary.com transcribe 'merry' and 'affair' differently.
You can raise the issue in the Tea Room for broader discussion if you think the default transcription of the 'air'/'affair' sound should be switched from /ɛɹ/ to /ɛəɹ/ (or /ɛɚ/). I have no strong preference, since I don't think either transcription is ideal (I don't think there is any ideal transcription of the sound).
Note that transcribing 'air' (and 'affair', etc) narrowly, in square brackets, as [ɛəɹ] or [ɛɚ] is another matter entirely, and probably a lot more straightforward.
(* Our entry also lists /ɛːɹ/ as a possible US pronunciation of 'air', but this is suspect, since vowel length is not phonemic in American English. Actually, that's another case where a small distinction is glossed over and one symbol is used for two slightly different but non-contrastive things: /i/, /u/, etc is longer in some words than in others in American English, but they're not distinguished as having /i/ vs /iː/ because vowel length is not actually contrastive.)
- -sche (discuss) 09:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, you're right. I didn't notice that on the sidebar.
I actually agree with you there, because I initially transcribed the /ɛə/ vowel as /e/, because that's how my mind thought of it (this might be due to plain /ɛ/ indeed being a plain /ɛ/ in my dialect, whilst /ɛə/ is more of an /ɛ̝ə/ in my dialect). Nevertheless, I agreed that the sound was far closer to /ɛə/ than /e/, so I changed my transcription practices accordingly.
Then is it fine to list both pronunciations /ɛɚ/ and /ɛɹ/? You're right to say that there is probably no English dialect that contrasts /ɛɹ/ and /ɛɚ/ (my non-mMm merger dialect doesn't, since, as far as I know, /ɛɹ/ doesn't end any word in the language [with the possible exception of "err", as I mentioned on Angr's talk page]), but it's still better to list both pronunciations /ɛɚ/ and /ɛɹ/ than to list just /ɛɹ/ and have people say "Wait a minute... "affair" has the same vowel as "fairy", which is /ɛɚ/ for me in my non-mMm merger dialect, but yet the only pronunciation listed here is /ɛɹ/. Am I wrong in pronouncing it /ɛɚ/?" Furthermore, it couldn't do any harm to have both pronunciations listed. So could we at least have both /ɛɚ/ and /ɛɹ/ pronunciations given for affair? Tharthan (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

bear[edit]

Thanks for resolving the mini-contretemps at "bear"... AnonMoos (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

I hadn't realized I had accidentally put words in the wrong category. Thanks for the heads up. — LlywelynII 23:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

lebendig[edit]

Is this really stressed on the second syllable? —CodeCat 18:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. You can find confirmation of this in the Duden's ersatz notation and its sound file, DWDS' sound file, de.Wikt's transcription and our own sound file. Stress was originally on the first syllable per the Duden, but in a quick search I didn't find any info on how recent "originally" was. (The search did turn up another reference, Deutsche Lautlehre, ISBN 8251916453, which confirmed the second-syllable stress in the process of citing the word as an example of how die kurzen, gespannten Vokale [... die] nur unbetont erscheinen [...] treten auch in ursprünglich deutschen Wörtern auf.) - -sche (discuss) 19:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for verifying. It's strange to me, because the Dutch equivalent levendig unambiguously has initial stress. —CodeCat 19:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
No problem. And: aha, Weigand's 1860 dictionary clarifies that it was "still in Gryphius' and Opitz' time regularly stressed le´bendig, like Middle High German ´bedec, Old High German (still rare) ´bêntîg (Tatian 90, 2). The current stress is explained in Grimm's Grammar" as the result of the tones of -end and leb- switching. - -sche (discuss) 19:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Lewis and Clark[edit]

I've borrowed Lewis and Clark: Pioneering Naturalists, which has two appendices of plants and animals "discovered" by Lewis and Clark. For my purposes the listed species name(s) and vernacular names are of greatest interest. The appendices don't have non-English names. But the discoveries have references to the volume and page in Thwaite's edition and most have a date and location for the discovery. Have you already mined Lewis and Clark for native names? Do you intend to do so? Are there other sources for that? DCDuring TALK 20:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've only 'spot mined' Lewis and Clark, i.e. when Google Books let me know that a page of their journals mentioned pasheco, I checked the surrounding pages for other native / native-derived words. I haven't mined the whole work. If you'd like me to (try to) find and add native names for any of species or vernacular names you add, I'll see what I can do. I've been rather distracted from my Native American word documentation project. - -sche (discuss) 01:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Geology[edit]

I've started a page User:DCDuring/Geology and copied your items there, as well as a WP table. It suggests some lines for improving our entries as well as showing redlinks. I also came across the Geowhen Database, which is a convenient source of confirmation of the meaning of some of these terms. DCDuring TALK 17:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know, although I haven't had much time for editing lately, I'm still available to help with geological terms, as I have some training in the field. If you leave me a message on my talkpage or tag me in relation to any issue you have when adding geological jargon or etymologies thereof, I'll be sure to respond. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
If I can find the time, I'll check out which terms are (a) most-linked to within Wiktionary or, probably more usefully, Wikipedia (I wonder if there's a toolserver/wmflabs tool that does that), and/or (b) most common in ngrams. It would make sense to tackle those first. - -sche (discuss) 01:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Schmand[edit]

Hi. I saw you reverted some of my edits on this word. I was mistaken to change the etymology in the way I did. I thought the theory of its deriving from Slavic was outdated, so I put that one into a "postscript". I've since seen that Kluge is also of this opinion and I was about to make that revert myself. -- As to the quotation I deleted, I just think that it misleads people to believe the word is obsolete and there are no more current quotations to be found. I don't think such quotations are very useful, but I will refrain from deleting them from now on. Sorry! And best regards!Kolmiel (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and I made a little edit on the wording of your version, because I thought it might suggest that German Schmetten is from English (which of course you didn't intend).Kolmiel (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

think of the children[edit]

Hi there -sche, you had previously pitched in and helpfully formatted an entry I improved, Streisand effect, as Word of the day.

Equinox (talkcontribs) created the entry on think of the children and I recently improved it.

I nominated it at Wiktionary:Word of the day/Nominations, however Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talkcontribs) mentioned at user talk:Equinox that unfortunately these days most of those that appear on the Main Page are recycled entries from prior years because it's pretty inactive.

I was wondering if you could add it to one of the upcoming dates for Word of the day?

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I was able to get help from others, but thanks for your time. :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad someone helped you, and glad a new word will be featured. I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner. Perhaps over the upcoming holidays, when people have time off from work and school, someone will have time to set a bunch more Words of the Day. 01:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Non-Oxford British English standard spelling[edit]

Why put this at all? The fact that Oxford University Press uses the z spelling has nothing to do with the usage of the word. But I know you must have some reason for putting it in. What is it? Renard Migrant (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi; sorry for not responding sooner. It seemed like the best way of distinguishing the two British spellings. Everyone (in Britain) spells flavour the same, but with something like actuali[sibilant]e, some Brits (most noticeably those affiliated with the OUP) spell it actualize, while many others spell it actualise. As I mentioned to an IP on Stephen's talk page, there have been a few discussions of how to describe the spellings that are used by British people, and other people throughout the Commonwealth, and all of the wordings have problems. Calling the spelling Oxford uses "Oxford British", and the other by elimination "non-Oxford", seemed best to me, but I'm open to being persuaded that another wording would be better. - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Archiv(e)s[edit]

Re diff: I do think this is "more worthy of an 'uncommon' label than other -es genitives vs -s ones", because Archives really is virtually unknown in any German written in the past 175 years. That's why I wanted to label it "archaic", but the anon changed it to "rarer" because of a single cite on b.g.c from 2006 (which I think is simply a mistake on the author's part, but I can't prove it). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

As the user points out on WT:RFD, there are more modern cites than just the one in the entry. And ngram data for both eines Archivs vs eines Archives and the compound Staatsarchivs vs Staatsarchives show that the -es version is still about half as common now as it was in the past (i.e. there does not seem to have been any sharp drop-off in usage), and it is about 1/25th as common in the modern era as the -s version, which is not an unusual ratio for an -es vs an -s form. Compare how, in the other direction, Geschäftsfreunds is now about 1/25th as common as Geschäftsfreundes, and Jubiläumsjahrs is about 1/15th as common as Jubiläumsjahres. (Those are two of the words the Duden cites in explaining how euphony helps decide which genitive ending to use.) - -sche (discuss) 22:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
But those are compounds, which are always skewed toward using the e-less form (eines Hofes is 15× more common than eines Hofs, but Hauptbahnhofes is only half as common as Hauptbahnhofs). The fact that Archiv isn't a compound would lead us to expect Archives to be more common than Archivs, not 25× rarer. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

fuckasses[edit]

I'd be shocked if you found this as the imperfect subjunctive is a literary tense and fucker is new and extremely informal. Previous discussions have been favourable to creating all hypothetical verb forms because RFVing them would be a monstrously time consuming issue. See for example défragmentassions and the definition of défragmenter. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Schlackenlosigkeit[edit]

See WT:RFV#Schlackenlosigkeit. The discussion has advanced beyond my extremely modest knowledge of German and may even need a native speaker. DCDuring TALK 23:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Αγαρηνών et al[edit]

The "misused" templates were put there for a purpose - if you want to change any more Greek entries please let me know.   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 11:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

gahn[edit]

Could you check the codes on this page? Thanks. DTLHS (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Meh. Someone changed the header, but not the codes, from nds-de to plain nds (rather than adding a separate section for the Dutch Low Saxon term). >.>   The entry could be band-aided by either changing the header or the codes, but the general disagreement and slow-motion edit-warring about how to handle the various Low German lects makes for so much ugliness that I am losing interest in editing them. - -sche (discuss) 03:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Why the "hmm..."?[edit]

I agree that the previously-listed meaning of that was odd, but... what is the meaning of your edit summary? Are you doubtful of something? Or...? Tharthan (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Mostly I was doubting the previously-listed meaning, but I also wonder if the wording I introduced really covers the citations, and/or if there are actually two senses, one used of people, and the other of places (the latter presumably similar to shire#Verb). - -sche (discuss) 23:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I share your doubts. Also, are you sure that parish is a verb? Parished could easily be interpreted as a denominal adjective. DCDuring TALK 23:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The 1972 citation and the second sentence of the 1992 citation seem very verbal to me. I'll see if I can find other inflected forms. - -sche (discuss) 01:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Check out the 1917 and 1991 citations (the latter technically of re-parish). There's also the citation below, which I can't make sense of. - -sche (discuss) 01:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • 1903, Maxwell Gray, Richard Rosny, page 210:
    "You will take pleasure in parishing. Mother used to parish."
    "How do you know I like parishing?"
    "Your uncle said so."
    "Oh! did he?"
    "And you may like the rectory people; it's a fine old house, and often full of visitors."
after e/c
I'm not hostile to the verb view for the sense, just uncertain. I've looked for the parishing form, but just found it with certainty for what is now a new intransitive sense, for a distinct etymology of parish#Etymology 2 ("perish"), and for a noun sense. I may just have a block for the verb sense. There was a book title that seemed to be the sense I've been doubting.
The citation above is of the definition I added: "To visit residents of a parish". It's used of parish priests and also of women doing socializing possibly under color of visiting the sick, aged, shut-ins etc. DCDuring TALK 01:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll add it to that sense, which is now well-cited. - -sche (discuss) 01:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The 1917 cite is syntactically though not semantically intransitive. The "re-parishing" cite is helpful. It's tough with a word that shows up so uncommonly in what are to me somewhat alien contexts. The word is certainly used with a meaning that is at least nearly verbal. I doubt anyone would challenge it on the same grounds such as my doubts. DCDuring TALK 02:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Distribution[edit]

As was revealed in a discussion that I had previously with Dbfirs, it seems the distribution of /ɛəɹ/ and /æɹ/ words differs between British English and dialects of North American English that do not possess the merry, Mary, marry merger.

Particularly...

"vary" is often /væɹi/ in non-merry,Mary,marry merger dialects (though, I will admit, its traditional /vɛəɹi/ pronunciation is still heard amongst the older generation. My mother, for instance, uses /vɛəɹi/, whilst my father and I use /væɹi/ [as does much of the younger generation]. Similarly, parent for myself, my family, and most of my peers is /ˈpæɹənt/, whilst /pɛəɹənt/ is the pronunciation I have heard in church and by some others. It seems to be about a 50-50 distribution.

In conclusion, some words that have a traditional /ɛəɹ/ in British English and old fashioned North American English seem to have shifted to /æɹ/ in the younger generations.

Do you (or anyone else visiting your talk page) have any idea as to why this might be? Tharthan (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Generic phonetic simplification? Influence from GenAm, where the sounds aren't distinguished? I don't know. North American English regional phonology#New_England says "Western New England [... and] Connecticut and western Massachusetts in particular show the same general phonological system as the Inland North, and some speakers show a general tendency in the direction of the Northern Cities Vowel Shift—for instance, an /æ/ that is somewhat higher and tenser than average[.]" The phoneme that's next higher than /æ/ is /ɛ/. You're describing things going in the opposite direction, but I can imagine how a reduction in the contrast between the two sound in non-Mary-merging dialects, combined with an outright merger of the sounds in the surrounding dialects, could lead people who tried to maintain a distinction between the words (Mary, marry, merry) to use a new / un-original sound to do so. In English, I've heard people maintain the pen/pin distinction backwards, and in German people mix up [ɛː] and [eː] if they try to maintain a distinction between them. - -sche (discuss) 21:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... it seems to me to be more of a specific hypercorrection than anything else, though, because other words besides the previous two seem to retain their correct pronunciations. I dunno. I just hope that we don't have another Great Vowel Shift or anything like that any time soon, because that seems to be the direction being headed towards. Tharthan (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

sch[edit]

Hi there. I wanted to ask you about the [phonetic] transcription of the German /phonem/ /ʃ/. Should it be [ʃʷ] because of the lip rounding, or should we not use [ʷ] just as we've decided not to use [ʰ]? I personally would be in favour of [ʃʷ] because unlike aspiration there seems to be little regional/idiolectal variation and, even more importantly, there would be no wondering when and when not to use it since /ʃ/ would just always become [ʃʷ]... But I don't know. What do you think?Kolmiel (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I would treat it like aspiration, and so I wouldn't use it. I note that de.Wikt, which only uses narrow transcriptions, doesn't use [ʷ]. You could ask on WT:T:ADE, though. This is not entirely here or there, but ... people occasionally propose "diaphonemes" around here (ultra-broad transcription); this seems like the opposite, ultra-narrow transcription. Perhaps one day we'll start adding both and have a sequence of //ultra-broad//, /broad/, [narrow] and [[ultra-narrow]] transcriptions. - -sche (discuss) 21:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
No it's fine, just wanted to check if you were in favour of using it. It's not that important I guess, and it's not a "Herzensangelegenheit" of mine.
I just think we shouldn't base our decision on the German wiktionary. Their transcriptions aren't narrow, they're just given between squared brackets because most traditional dictionaries do that. They would be very wrong if understood literally, especially things like [pakn̩] which don't exist in the German language and which I suspect might be almost physically impossible to the human mouth.Kolmiel (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The names= field in the data modules[edit]

I'm looking at changing this now, and I already made a few initial modifications. But I'd like to confirm just what the plan was again. If I remember correctly, the idea was to split it into three fields:

  1. canonicalName
  2. otherNames
  3. Some field for the things that are subsumed under this name, but are not just alternative names.

I'm not sure what to call that third field, though, so do you have suggestions? Also, what should be done in ambiguous cases where there is no agreement whether something should be classified a subvariety or not? Perhaps, I could only split off number 1 for now, leaving 2 and 3 together until we sort that out more completely. —CodeCat 22:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, great! :)
Perhaps the third field could be called "varieties" or "varietyNames"?
I assume that when you say "no agreement whether something should be classified a subvariety or not", the alternative to classifying it as a subvariety is classifying it as an alternative name for the whole language. (If there's disagreement about whether or not something is a dialect of one language or a separate language, that's a question we're going to settle at an earlier stage, namely the stage of granting it a code or not, before we ever get to any of these names fields. Right?) There are cases where certain names refer both to dialects and to the whole language; in the earlier discussion I suggested that in such cases we could either (1) list the name in both places, or (2) decide that anything listed in a higher field will not be repeated in a lower field (so, anything listed in "otherNames" will not be repeated in "varietyNames"). - -sche (discuss) 22:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The question is mostly relevant to reconstructed languages, at least in the way I intended it. Proto-Uralic for example has Proto-Finno-Ugric as a subvariety, but some linguists contend that they are one and the same. Austronesian is often considered synonymous with Mon-Khmer (both share a Wikipedia article too). And there are probably similar situations for other languages.
I'm not sure if "varieties" is clear enough. I would like to have "sub" in the name so that it's clear in what way it's distinct from "otherNames". So "subvarieties"? I've also seen "sublects" used by some people. —CodeCat 22:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, I would handle proto-language cases the same as other cases, either always list such names in both fields, or decide one field always has priority. The first approach might more accurately convey that some authorities use _(whatever)_ as an alt name for the whole language and other authorities use it as the name of a "dialect", and keeps us from having to pick which field to list the name in. If we went with the second approach, my gut reaction would be to "prioritize" the "higher" field, and so list "Proto-Finno-Ugric" as an alternative to "Proto-Uralic" and not list it as a dialect.
As for the name: well, how about "subvarieties"/"subvarietyNames"? All but one of the hits of google books:"sublect" OR "sublects" are scannos of "subject". Or perhaps something like "subsumedVarieties", to convey that the main purpose is to list cases where ISO-code-having subvarieties have been subsumed, rather than e.g. to start listing every non-code-having dialect of English. - -sche (discuss) 23:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Of the two, I like "sublects"- it sounds more neutral. Actually, it's the "sub" part that makes me nervous. Except in the case of pluricentric languages, we don't explicitly mention the standard lect at all, which is every bit as much a sublect as all the things we call the sublects. More often than not, the only difference between the "standard" and the "sublects" is an accident of history: In Old English, for instance, the Wessex dialect is generally treated as standard, but eventually the East Midlands dialect took its place. That means a sublect became the standard and the standard became a sublect. In reality, though, they're still just two sublects, with the main difference being that the standard sublect tends to influence and crowd out the other sublects.
Of course, it would look funny to include "Standard xyz" in the list of sublects, so I guess we're stuck with the current arrangement. Still, I wonder if there's a way to distinguish the language as a whole from its sublects without implying that only those lects different from the standard are sublects.Chuck Entz (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
This raises the question of what we want to list in sub[variety/lect] field. Initially, when subvariety names were included in languages' lists of alt names, it was because the named subvarieties had previously been considered languages (generally by the ISO, but in some cases merely by us via granted and then revoked exceptional codes); the subvariety names were listed so that people who thought they were languages would know where they went.
However, I can see how we might find it useful to make comprehensive lists of languages' dialects (including dialects when have never been considered own languages); such lists could in some far-future version of Wiktionary be meshed with the context labels so that entries could be put in cleanup categories if they were categorized as belonging to another language's dialect, for instance.
I'd still use "subvarieties" for the name since "sublects" doesn't appear to be a word; even the Google Scholar hits are scannos for "subjects", lol. - -sche (discuss) 19:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to make a list of dialects. But it would be very hard to manage because there are so many, and there will always be a need to specify a particular variety that is more fine-grained than any we've defined so far. So if we want to add something like that, we would have to take the possibility of unrecognised dialects into account, like the label template already does. —CodeCat 20:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

surbasser[edit]

Hi! If this is a real French verb, could you define it? If it's not a real verb, I'll need to delete all the inflected forms someone created for it (Special:WhatLinksHere/surbasser). - -sche (discuss) 09:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Most often, it's a typo for surpasser or surbaisser. However: 1. it seems that, in architecture, surbassé has been used as well as surbaissé (but I cannot find citations clearly showing that it was used as a verb). 2. I also find surbassé used for music, and very few uses clearly using a verb surbasser (try to Google "il surbasse" and "qui surbasse"). I think I can guess the sense (make music overbassed), but I'm not a specialist. Lmaltier (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for checking! - -sche (discuss) 21:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Flood flag[edit]

Hi, could you give me the flood flag for about 20 minutes, please? --Type56op9 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Nah, you're not supposed to be operating a bot. - -sche (discuss) 19:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it's not a bot. It is WT:ACCEL, which looks like a bot. --Type56op9 (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I just went through and patrolled your latest batch. - -sche (discuss) 20:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Proto-Ta-Arawakan[edit]

Hi, could you create a language module for Proto-Ta-Arawakan as well? --Victar (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I've created a family code for Ta-Arawakan, "awd-taa". However, neither "Proto-Ta-Arawakan" nor "Proto-Ta-Arawak", nor "Proto-Ta-Maipurean", "Proto-Ta-Maipuran", or any of the other alt names I tried gets any Google Books or Scholar hits, or even raw web hits. Are you sure it's a valid proto-language? - -sche (discuss) 19:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, what happens is it usually just gets called Proto-Arawak. Incidentally, Arawak is also a language within Ta-Arawak, otherwise known as Lokono. It's all very convoluted, but consequentially I have these reconstructions that shouldn't be called Proto-Arawakan since they aren't attested outside of Ta-Arawak, ex. *hayaba. --Victar (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I've also seen it awkwardly called "proto-Caribbean Northern Arawak". --Victar (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification. In general, I would say "meh, if someone wants to create entries for such-and-such proto-language that existed, go for it". However, User:Tropylium has recently been arguing against creating separate codes and appendices for cases where things are reconstructible only to certain dialects of proto-languages, and if other linguistic works just treat Proto-Ta-Arawak as Proto-Arawak (and AFAICT never mention or confirm the existence of Proto-Ta-Arawak at all), that does make me question if we really need a code for it. Tropylium, do you have an opinion on this? - -sche (discuss) 03:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia's classification, it seems that Ta-Arawakan is a fairly deep subgroup within the wider Arawakan family, and accepted by each of the three otherwise very different classification schemes. Sounds like good enough grounds for separate treatment. Cleanup will still be possible later, if it turns out that there exists a better way to define a subgroup comprising these languages (but AFAIK Arawakan is not one of those families where a micro-detailed family tree is known yet). --Tropylium (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I have created "Proto-Ta-Arawakan" with the code "awd-taa-pro". - -sche (discuss) 04:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to you both! Yeah, the whole Arawak tree is outdated, based on paper from 1991. I'm working on a draft for a new version based on various published works, w:User:Victar/Template:Arawakan languages. --Victar (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder where the heck the D came from in awd and in Taíno the Q in tnq? I think the Arawak languages just got the bottom of the barrel. If I had some say, I would rename Arawak to lcn for Lokono/Locono and use arw for the language family. --Victar (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, some forethought would have done the ISO good. Particularly strange are the cases where languages which have three-letter names have been given codes that aren't those three letters, e.g. Abu is ado (while abu is Abure), Col is liw, and so on. - -sche (discuss) 03:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

sınalgı[edit]

"sınalgı" was deleted but they (88.XXX.XXX.XXX) added again! --123snake45 (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

CodeCat has deleted it. The IP seems to be correct that there are citations of the word on Usenet now, but there are only two of them, and they're from only a few months apart; the word would need three citations spanning over a year to meet WT:CFI. - -sche (discuss) 02:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The author (Arslan Tekin) says: "Look at it, it is using sınalgı for television and ünalgı for telephone at Kyrgyzstan"

So, it is Kyrgyz. It isn't Turkish. --123snake45 (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

düşerge[edit]

Can you take a look at rfv page? I've added the citations with Azerbaijani adaptations so you may compare them. --85.103.244.86 17:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I invited three Turkish-speaking users to take a look at the citations. One of them, User:Dijan, is the one who said the previous citations were Azeri. The Azeri versions you've provided do look consistent with Dijan's comment that "every single one of them is a Turkish rendition of the Azeri language (literature and poetry) that was not translated into Turkish", but I will wait for the other users to comment. I'm at a disadvantage here because I (and more other Wiktionarians) don't speak Turkish or Azeri, and it's clear there are people with axes to grind on both sides of this issue — in some cases it seems pretty clear that people have made up words that aren't actually in use, and in other cases people seem to be refusing to believe words that seem real (e.g. Citations:haydamak, where it looks like other print dictionaries are confirming that the citations are using haydamak to mean "drive"). - -sche (discuss) 17:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Maori[edit]

I don't agree that languages are proper nouns, but if that is Wiktionary policy, I'm not going to upset the apple cart, but just let you know that not everyone agrees. Donnanz (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that there's a policy, but it certainly seems to be common practice; all the other language names I can think of are currently categorized as proper nouns: Portuguese, Spanish, Basque, French, English, Dutch, German, Danish, Norwegian, Chinese, Navajo, etc. However, there has been some discussion in the past about how some of the things that are commonly categorized as proper nouns, such as personal names, fail to meet some of the usual tests of proper-noun-ness (names are countable; "there are two Johns in my class"). You could bring the matter up in the BP and see what others think. Languages do seem to meet more tests of proper-noun-ness than personal names, though (and there wasn't even consensus to stop treating names as proper nouns). - -sche (discuss) 18:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, OK, I'll think about the Beer Parlour. I would categorise names such as Gertrude, the Houses of Parliament, the White House, and the Black Sea as proper nouns, and surnames of course, and stop there. But as you point out there can be a problem with people's names; the Browns and the Joneses spring to mind. Also place names, two Bristols, two Birminghams, two Londons (maybe more), but place names and people's names are really proper nouns despite that. Donnanz (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
If you are thinking about the matter, consider that taxa are considered proper nouns, because they are names of individual natural kinds (old-style Linnaean taxonomy) or lineages. This is somewhat similar to the Roman gens, or other groups of descendants of a common ancestor. Organization names, toponyms of all kinds, brands/trademarks are all proper nouns, whatever word class their components are. DCDuring TALK 18:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't argue with taxa (taxas?), brands, trademarks, names of organisations etc. I think it's just languages as proper nouns I disagree with. Donnanz (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The argument, I think, is that a language is a singular thing that a community speaks, just like e.g. a country is a singular place that a community lives. Of course, both can be pluralized: one can speak of Germanies, Americas, and even Frances, and one can speak of "various Englishes" (American, British, Indian, etc), "Norwegians" (Bokmal, Nynorsk, Riksmal, etc), "Germans", etc (though our entries currently don't, except in the first case). It may well be as technically inaccurate to label countries and languages as proper nouns as it is to label personal names as proper nouns. On the other hand, it seems to be common, among those dictionaries which use the label "proper noun", to label all of those types of thing as proper noun, and they do generally fit tests of proper-noun-ness. - -sche (discuss) 19:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
There's quite a few examples of plural place names: Aleutians (that entry needs splitting), Falklands, Faroes (Faroe Islands), Netherlands (Nederland in Dutch) to name a few. But languages (in my opinion) are mass nouns, instead of Englishes and Norwegians (the people are Norwegians), we should refer to forms of English, forms of Norwegian and so on. Donnanz (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I think Netherlands (where the word for a singular country happens to be plural) is different from Frances (the plural of France, used to talk about e.g. different temporal or social incarnations of France). I can find several instances of Netherlands being pluralized, both invariantly ("the two Netherlands", a la "the two fish") and, rarely (and only "in the wild", not in places that meet CFI), as Netherlandses.
Hmm, mass nouns... that's plausible. Well, we have a fair few grammarians here, let's see what they think. Would you like to bring it up in the BP, or would you like me to?
DCDuring, does CGEL say anything about whether languages are nouns or proper nouns or mass nouns? For that matter, does it say anything about whether given names are proper nouns or not? (Apologies if you've answered the latter question previously and I'm forgetting.) - -sche (discuss) 21:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the name Netherlands may be historical as it also took in the all the low countries including Belgian Flanders at one time. It is still referred to as het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (qv Nederlanden). Anyway, I suppose I had better start a thread in the BP. Donnanz (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@-sche: I don't see any explicit statement in CGEL that a name of a language is a proper noun nor that is any other type of noun. There is no reason why a proper name couldn't have a homonym that is a mass noun. Or rather isn't that just one of the generic secondary uses of many proper names, eg, "We've had too little Ruakh in our discussions lately." (The "too much" examples would cause trouble.) DCDuring TALK 23:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Moves[edit]

Sorry for all the deletion requests. I was basing the original reconstructions on some outdated material. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. With wt:AWB, it's not that hard to delete a bunch of pages. - -sche (discuss) 07:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

dative -e[edit]

Hi. Do you know why the tag for the dative -e in declension tables was changed from "archaic" to "rare"? I think "archaic" is much better than "rare". It wasn't rare in the 19th century; and it isn't just rare today. "Rare" implies that it's not common but still freely applicable. Which is not the case. With the exception of some fixed expressions, the dative -e is dead in contemporary German and using it doesn't just make you sound formal or antiquated, but downright ridiculous (Da ich morgen einen Termin beim Arzte habe, kann ich leider nicht zum Betriebsfeste kommen...) I don't know if some of you discussed this, but I would urgently recommend to change it back to "archaic".Kolmiel (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, since changing these templates seems to be easy (which I didn't know it was): The present subjunctive forms of the 2nd person need a tag "archaic", or preferably "obsolete", as well. Something like du wollest, du sprechest, du zeigest or ihr wollet, sprechet, zeiget doesn't exist in contemporary German. It's even more ridiculous than the dative -e. (Only exception: du seist.)Kolmiel (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the tag was changed. I would guess that someone felt "archaic" was too strong a term for something that was still common in writing within older peoples' living memory, and which is still found today in very formal contexts and many common set phrases. I can think of several possible tags, of varying strength, that might constitute a middle ground between "archaic" and "rare" (the latter of which I agree is insufficient): "dated", "now rare", "now literary", "chiefly archaic" ... one could even go for a combination like "archaic, now only literary", but that might be too wordy to fit in the template without looking bad. Perhaps we should move this discussion to WT:T:ADE for broader input? As for wollest, etc: "obsolete" is definitely too strong a word; the issue is really that it's literary, not used in speech or informal writing. - -sche (discuss) 22:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The tag on Template:de-decl-noun-m-s-es-unc and Template:de-decl-noun-m-es-unc says "archaic", and seems never to have been changed from saying that. Which templates have been changed to say "rare"? - -sche (discuss) 22:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
All that I have seen in practice now say "rare". Check Haus or Freund, or most any one.
As to the present subjunctive, I think you are mistaken. What you are talking about is the form ending in -e (wolle, müsse, schreibe, esse). This form is literary. But any other form that still exists theoretically (wollest, wollet, müssest, müsset, schreibest, essest, etc. etc.) is dead and indeed obsolete. I don't know what the contemporary DUDEN grammars say, but my DUDEN grammar from as early as the 1960ies defines them as unused, and says that verbs (with the exception of sein), in practice, only have one present subjunctive form (the one ending in -e). This form is used for the 3rd person singular, and in six irregular verbs (können, wollen, müssen, dürfen, sollen, wissen) also for 1st person singular. All other forms are phantoms and don't occur in practice. It would be preferable to delete them altogether, but they need to get a tag. Everything else would be deceiving and indeed making people's German worse.
I'm going to check a contemporary grammar as soon as I get one in my hand...Kolmiel (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Sein retains all forms except the 2nd person plural: ich sei, du seist, er sei, wir seien, sie seien. Only ihr seiet is obsolete.
Yeah, and mögen is another exception. But du mögest etc. is only possible for the optative: Er sagte, du mögest ihm bitte die Kopien schicken. Otherwise the same applies as above: Er sagte mir, du *mögest Käse. doesn't work.Kolmiel (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I happened to come by a bookshop this afternoon and got a look at the current 8th edition of Duden – Die Grammatik (2009). On page 535 they give an overview of the present subjunctive forms that they regard as relevant for current German. (They say “im Wesentlichen” because, of course, some archaic form may still on a rare occasion be seen in poetic or deliberately antiquated usage). Those forms are:
And they add a note: “Viele Schreiber ziehen außerdem den Konjunktiv II in der 2. Person Singular und Plural vor.
This is just the same as what I said before, with the only difference that there are 8 forms (ihr seiet and the 2nd singulars of the preterite-presents) that the Duden people won’t consider archaic/obsolete—but just dated or avoided.Kolmiel (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the dative -e: aha, thanks for the links! I had just looked at the templates themselves, but most of them default to not showing any dative -e or tag (see e.g. Template:de-decl-noun-n), and I had a brain fart and didn't think to check the guts. It looks like an IP edit-warred the "rare" tag in based on "im Sinne". I changed it back to "archaic"; it may take a while for the change to propagate out to entries, but if any entries are still showing "rare" even after you clear the cache and refresh them by editing them, let me know. (I'll respond to the rest of your comments later.) - -sche (discuss) 21:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

A friendly request to enable AWB use[edit]

And also, could you remove edit protected status for CheckPage? I can't edit it. --Dixtosa (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I can add you to the checkpage. :) I'm not going to unprotect it, though; it's supposed to be protected, as a safeguard against people who don't know what they're doing adding themselves to it. - -sche (discuss) 18:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Using passer and sortir with être[edit]

Do passer and sortir use être under exactly the same circumstances? Their usage notes are a little different, and I'm not sure if that's meant to imply that the terms use être under different circumstances or not. If they use être under the same circumstances, I'd like to reword Template:U:fr:may take être as much as needed and deploy it on both entries; otherwise, there doesn't seem to be a use for that template (it's currently unused and there's no point in templatizing usage notes that only apply to a single entry) and I'd like to delete it, unless you know of other entries that could use it. - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this template is OK, it applies to both entries, but a more complete list is (at least) descendre, monter, passer, redescendre, remonter, rentrer, repasser, rerentrer, rerepasser, reressusciter, reretourner, ressortir, ressusciter, retourner, sortir. This list is not limitative (when you add re- to a verb, this is the same rule). Actually, avoir or être is used depending on the meaning, and this is best explained with examples, but the template seems to be a good summary: when used transitively (or with a transitive sense, even when the complement is omitted), it's always avoir. Otherwise, it's être. Lmaltier (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! I'll clean the template up a bit and add it to those entries. - -sche (discuss) 22:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Also note that using être is also systematic for pronominal uses of verbs: cf. je me suis trompé vs j'ai trompé. But this is a different issue, it's not limited to a few verbs. Lmaltier (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Crucially important question[edit]

From which episode of QI do those words on your main page come? It's snowy in Tennessee, and there's nothing to do. JohnC5 05:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@JohnC5 I believe it was the J series episode 13 on "Jobs". Those were all occupations people said they had in old British censuses. - -sche (discuss) 05:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I have seen that episode! Probably deserves a rewatching... JohnC5 05:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Questionable revert[edit]

I would appreciate it if your reverts were a bit more careful. For instance here, I think that edit would have been fine since many people confuse UUers for a religious denomination. However most academics refers to it as a distinct religion. By highlighting the coordinate terms, it would have been clearer that this is a distinct religion. I'm disappointed with your knee-jerk finger-trigger like reactions. 84.13.154.209 16:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The merits aside, someone with your long, ugly history of questionable and often downright awful edits (yes, it's obvious who you are, whatever IP you happen to be using at the moment) is in any position to criticize the people who have to clean up after you. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it's better to put the coordinate terms, synonyms, etc in the lemma entry, rather than in all the various possible abbreviated forms (UUers, UUs, etc). - -sche (discuss) 17:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

allosexual entry[edit]

Many thanks for your improvements, which were far above my Wiktionariological or semantic capabilities. Looks great! FourViolas (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Trans and frequencies[edit]

You must have the frequencies form transman, transwoman, etc. wrong; please check Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No, Ngram Viewer clearly shows that the spaced form is more common in the case of trans woman (link, which looks like this to me — is it different for you?). For trans man, the unspaced form was still slightly more common at the time Google's data cut off (2008), but the spaced form was becoming more common while the unspaced form was becoming less common, so it seems likely that more recent data would show the same situation as with trans woman, i.e. that the spaced form is more common (especially in light of the proscription of the unspaced form by some authorities). - -sche (discuss) 08:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
For transwoman, my mistake: I used the default Ngram settings which ends in 2000[2], but when one extends the graph to 2008[3], the picture changes.
For transman, you are making the less common form[4] (factor 1.6) the main dictionary entry, with justification that relies on extrapolation rather than actual situation. When one combines this with the proscriptions expressed online, I am not sure what to think of this. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, to assume that the actual situation matches the situation a decade ago would also be making an assumption. It would be a reasonable assumption for most words, which have many decades of use, which have consistent (parallel) trendlines, and which the events of 2008-2015 can't be expected to have had much of an impact upon. (For example, couch and sofa.) In this case, however, the trendlines are divergent (and only go back about 15 years anyway), and increasing awareness by the general public of trans people's preferences can be expected to have influenced usage in the same direction as the trendlines were going when the data cut off. (Consistency with trans woman also plays a role.) - -sche (discuss) 09:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
You actually have a good point; the 2008 data is 7 ears old. To bet that the trend for transman has after 2008 developed in a way parallel to trends seen even before 2008 for transwoman seems reasonable enough. Fair enough. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

hijra[edit]

Concerning this. Just a thought, but I'm not convinced that it's sensible to split the definitions. This is because it seems not clear in many citations (especially earlier ones) which sense exactly is meant, and more generally I suspect that the precise meaning lies on a continuum between the two rather than being neatly split into one or the other. At any rate that was my impression when I was working (briefly) on the word. Ƿidsiþ 07:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A lot of citations are ambiguous, yes. However, enough are unambiguous that I don't think conflating them is appropriate, particularly because the distribution of meanings seems to have a temporal component, i.e. the meaning seems to have changed over time. Citations that refer to the past often explicitly refer to hijras as eunuchs, defined by anatomy, while contemporary uses often (mostly?) refer to the third-gender people, defined by social role/presentation. Some of the latter works even explicitly specify that (modern) hijras are not necessarily eunuchs: google books:"uncastrated hijra|hijras" gets a few hits, and google books:"castrated hijra|hijras" (which would be redundant if hijras were necessarily eunuchs) gets several more, including some like "the not-yet-castrated hijra", "they were indistinguishable from castrated hijras when crossdressed - clearly, becoming hijra as a livelihood required neither castration nor gharana affiliation", and "[they] may or may not be castrated. Hijra is a developed stage." Perhaps the solution is to make the two specific senses into subsenses of a broad 'coverall' sense? - -sche (discuss) 08:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
And then there are google books:"female hijras", who most of the citation make clear have attained hijra status by adopting a third-gender role and not by castration. These would be especially hard to work in to a 'coverall' sense — they would require it to be very broad indeed, to cover both eunuchs and women. Perhaps the solution is to have a {{qualifier}} or usage note explain that some uses don't distinguish male eunuchs from male-bodied third-gender people? - -sche (discuss) 08:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Upper Franconian language‏‎[edit]

User:Purodha added user boxes that triggered the creation of a whole bunch of bad language categories and redlinks by Babel AutoCreate- pretty much the gamut of nds-nl & nds-de lects. I've gotten rid of most of the redlinks by replacing the narrow-lect category link with the appropriate broader-language category link in the User categories that were created. The one holdout is Upper Franconian, code vmf (see Category:User vmf): I'm not really sure whether it's nds-nl or nds-de. Any suggestions? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz See here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It's been a while since I was looking into this, so I forgot some important details. Yes, it's High German, not Low German. If you follow the link to the Wikimedia discussion, it turns out that after we had deleted the vmf code, Ethnologue came out with corrections that led to vmf being deemed eligible for a wiki after all. Now that Ethnologue is no longer claiming that vmf applies to Mainz and Frankfurt, we may need to revisit the issue. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I have been busy, but I will look into it. (I wonder if they have also clarified frs any.) - -sche (discuss) 01:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Apparently they have, it's now called "Saxon, East Frisian Low". (But the population count is still wrong, hmph.) -- Liliana 01:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
While you're here, what are your thoughts on the newly-redefined Upper Franconian? do you think it should be included? All the varieties of German are such a mess to pick apart into discrete lects... - -sche (discuss) 02:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Ethnologue does a horrible job at the German dialects. It appears to cover some, but not all of them and it's generally a huge mess to work with. (I hope you've seen my newest BP topic regarding the Swiss German lects.)
Have you seen the current vmf entry? It says "Hessen state: mostly River Main area, east of Mainz and Frankfurt." How much Hesse is there at the Main east of Frankfurt? lol. They really can't figure out what they want with this code, and it doesn't help that it's called "Mainfränkisch" with "Ostfränkisch" being a supposed alternate name, even though Mainfränkisch is just one of many subdivisions of Ostfraänkisch.
I mean, we could theoretically use it for the Franconian lects, but... eh. -- Liliana 00:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

frs Module errors[edit]

These have been hanging around since you removed the frs code. There were 146 to start with. I've chipped away at a few of the obvious ones, but there are still about 135. The problem is, I don't know which ones are Saterland Frisian, which ones are East Frisian Low Saxon, and which are some unspecified extinct Frisian East Frisian dialect.

It won't do to have all of those module errors for an extended period- there's already been one unrelated module error that I only found out about by going through all 136 entries in the category (there's an error in a Korean module that's since brought the total up to 199). Do you think you'll be able to fix them soon? Is there anything I can do to help? Maybe User:Leasnam, who added most of them, might be able to help. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been changing them as I see them...but the majority of those I've added, by the looks of them, represent a sampling of various unspecified extinct East Frisian dialects. Where I can connect them to a modern Saterland Frisian word I am updating them, but not universally. Sometimes I just change the code to stq to get rid of the error short term Leasnam (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Ugh, this is one of the few downsides to our use of language modules rather than language templates: I thought I had cleaned up all the uses of frs. (I should have waited for and searched an updated database dump to be sure.) I would temporarily reinstate the code, except that Ethnologue clarified that it refers to the Low German lect, which means I'd be replacing missing information (module errors) with potentially incorrect information (it's often unclear whether uses of the code on here are meant to refer to Frisian or Low German), which I am not sure would be an improvement. I'll chip away at what I can. If an entry simply lists an East Frisian word as a cognate (not an etymon), and it's not possible to determine which precise Frisian-ic or Low-German-ic lect it belongs to, it can simply be dropped, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 04:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I have no qualms about dropping a non-essential cognate. We can fix later if need be Leasnam (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Here is the reference cited in the first appendix entry I looked at. It seems to be treating East Frisian as a whole, which would include not just Saterland Frisian, but also at least a couple of the extinct dialects. Maybe we need an exception code for Frisian East Frisian as a whole, or maybe we should make stq the code for the whole language. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It would be sensible to do one of those things, yes. In the past I had proposed creating gmw-fre or gmw-efr for East Frisian, but there was insufficient support for that because it was at the time still unclear if frs really referred to the Low German lect. - -sche (discuss) 14:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Christe[edit]

"not convinced that this form is German and not Latin, but w/e" -- even duden.de states that there's a vocative for Jesus and Jesus Christus: "Jesus [...] Anredefall: Jesus und Jesu", "Jesus Christus [...] Anredefall: [...] Jesu Christe" ("Anredefall" is German for English vocative). There most likely would still be an ablative (cf. "von dem Nomine" [Nomen], "von dem Corpore" [Corpus], "von dem/der Radice" [Radix]), but the ablative of (Latin) Jesus and Christus equals the dative and so duden only mentions a dative. Also, though it should be obvious: the vocative of Jesus and Christus can especially be found in religious song books and most likely religious prayers etc. -13:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Changing the parent language of Yiddish from MHG to OHG[edit]

(Pinging people who may be interested) @Metaknowledge, CodeCat, Angr

It is not clear that Yiddish branched strictly after the beginning of the MHG period. See for example section 7.25 in Max Weinreich's History of the Yiddish Language, where he concludes "Hence we have to postulate that Yiddish began to take shape as early as the Old High German period" (p. 424). Is this enough of a reason to change Yiddish's ancestors = from "gmh" to "goh"?

Another more difficult question would be whether to add Hebrew, Aramaic, Yevanic, and/or Judeo-Romance as an ancestors (which in some sense they are), but then again we don't put Frankish as an ancestor of French (perhaps we should?).

--WikiTiki89 18:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the second question is the easier one: No. Languages that are the sources of loanwords—even large numbers of them—are not considered ancestral. Anglo-Norman is not an ancestor of English; Latin is not an ancestor of Albanian and Welsh; Italian is not an ancestor of Maltese; and Hebrew, Aramaic, Slavic, etc., are not ancestors of Yiddish. I have no objection to changing the parent language of Yiddish to OHG. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
But they're not exactly loanwords, they're more like kept-words. Jews that spoke other languages and settled in German-speaking areas, slowly and gradually adopted more and more German words and grammar, keeping many words and grammatical structures from their former languages, especially from Hebrew. This had already happened several times before and so the Hebrew words and grammatical structures were direct continuations from when Hebrew was their native language. This is different from loanwords, which speakers of one language simply borrow from another language. I presume that there was similar situation with French and Frankish, although I have never read about this and far fewer Frankish words survived in French for it to be significant. --WikiTiki89 19:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Contact languages of any kind are going to be impossible to represent accurately in terms of choosing a language as a "parent". MHG seems no less (in)accurate to me as compared to OHG; during both time periods, there was an attested Jewish form of the language written in Hebrew script that had a lot of Semitic vocabulary. Yiddish has some differences in sound changes that allow us to estimate its general point of divergence, but the differences do not seem to be particular to Yiddish so much as features of some of the High German lects (not the one(s) that led to Modern Standard German). In the meantime, I think keeping it as MHG is perfectly fine, considering that MHG already represents a span of varying lects within certain parameters of time and space which arguably include the Jewish varieties. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Well Weinreich says on the same page as the quote above "Yiddish speakers were in close contact with German speakers, and it need not occasion surprise had the German component of Yiddish, although already part of an independent language, continued to be affected by changes that took place in the German determinant." I don't know whether you find that contradictory to your point or not. --WikiTiki89 19:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The ancestry of Yiddish is the subject of some disagreement. Wikipedia calls the view of a MHG origin a "prevailing" view. Bernard Spolsky (The Languages of the Jews: A Sociolinguistic History, 2014, page 157) says "The basis for Yiddish was a Middle High German dialect, for Yiddish often agrees with Middle High German rather than with modern German[.]" And Paul Wexler (Two-tiered Relexification in Yiddish, 2002, page 133) goes so far as to say "there are no specific Old High German phonological or lexical features in Yiddish (see Simon 1991: 253)." But Wexler believes the ultimate origin of Yiddish is actually Slavic, and the Germanic content is the result of relexification in the 9th to 12th centuries; indeed, his full sentence (emphasis mine) is "The first relexification to German took place in the Middle High German period, to judge from the fact that there are no specific Old High German phonological or lexical features in Yiddish." In turn, Weinreich says what you quote, but Wikipedia says that his model also posits that "Jewish speakers of Old French or Old Italian, who were literate in Hebrew or Aramaic, migrated to the Rhine Valley, [...] encountered and were influenced by Jewish speakers of High German" and that the ultimate origin of Yiddish is the fusion of all this, not simply OHG.
Perhaps we shouldn't list a parent at all?
De facto, we more often give OHG words than MHG words as the etyma of Yiddish words. (In the past, some entries gave modern High German forms as etyma, but this was known to be problematic and has for the most part been addressed.)
- -sche (discuss) 22:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The way I see it is that listing MHG as a parent implies also OHG, but listing OHG as a parent does not imply MHG. So if we are unsure about MHG, then listing OHG is not wrong. But what actual consequences does listing the parent in the module have? What got me thinking about this was when I was adding פֿאָרן (forn) to *faraną and was unsure whether to put it under MHG or under OHG. Perhaps this should be decided on a word-by-word basis. If we know a word came from MHG, then we will list it under MHG, if we know it did not, then we would list it under OHG, and if it is unclear, that is where we need to choose a default and where I think OHG would be a better choice. --WikiTiki89 22:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Frankish isn't really an ancestor of French: there were an awful lot more of the Romance-speaking Celts then there were Franks, so the Franks were somewhat like the Mongols in China- more important historically than linguistically. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, then my comparison to French/Frankish was wrong. My point remains about Yiddish/Hebrew. --WikiTiki89 14:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Pertain[edit]

Pertain, which pertaining is just a modified version of, is defined here on English wiktionary as "Verb[edit] pertain (third-person singular simple present pertains, present participle pertaining, simple past and past participle pertained)

(intransitive) to belong (intransitive) to relate, to refer, be relevant to" The "to belong" sense of pertaining is already covered by "of pedophilia", the "to relate" sense is already covered by "related to pedophilia", so it is redundant. Although its not necessary to be as simple here as on simple English wiktionary, its still important. Its best when writing to write in simple language, not complex. There is a book about this topic by H.W. Fowler called The King's English, you should read it. His first points in the book are, prefer simple words to complex words, prefer short words to long words, prefer common words to unusual words, and prefer Germanic words to Romance words. He would agree with me that pertaining would need to go in this case. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

paurometabolous‎[edit]

Howdy-doo! I was just curious where you found the meaning of incomplete. It seems closely related to the meanings I've seen, but not quite the same. Just thought I'd ask. —JohnC5 04:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw it in The Century Dictionary (1914) defined as "characterized by incomplete metamorphosis", and that sense is suggested by citations like "cockroaches, grasshoppers, lice, true bugs, and so on, undergo paurometabolous or incomplete development" (Foundations of Wildlife Diseases, 2014, ISBN 0520958950, page 126). That citation is why I offered the shorter gloss "incomplete" before the semicolon, btw (since "paurometabolous development" is not "development characterized by incomplete development"). It's probably not a separate sense, and could be removed if sense 1 were expanded a bit. Btw, Century has a second sense, "of or belonging to the Paurometabola", which is defined as "in Brauer's system of classification, those insects in which the metamorphoses are slow, inconspicuous, and very incomplete, as the Orthoptera". The former looks like a candidate for Category:mul:Taxonomic names (obsolete). - -sche (discuss) 05:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Based on the wiki page for w:Hemimetabolism, I believe the word incomplete is used to mean "not executing all of the normal stages of metamorphosis," as opposed to "failing to complete metamorphosis." The ambiguity lies in that the members of Paurometabola succeed at their form of metamorphosis, but this metamorphosis does not conform to the standard metamorphic pattern. I might suggest abridged or atypical as opposed to incomplete because the latter most sounds like the bugs never succeed at maturing, which is certainly not true. Does this sound reasonable to you? —JohnC5 21:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Good point about w:Hemimetabolism. Actually, why don't we just link to that page? See what you think of my change to the entry, and feel free to undo or expand upon it. - -sche (discuss) 00:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me! :)JohnC5 00:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Partition verb senses by grammar, semantics, register/topic/context?[edit]

Looking at your excellent, extensive work on take reminded me of a question that bothered me about sense division, especially in verbs (though it comes up in other word classes).

Which of the various possibilities should take precedence in grouping definitions? For verbs, most dictionaries divide definitions into transitive and intransitive and, as a result, have some redundancy and obscure some semantic relationships. I often feel that certain groups of registers/topics, eg, sports, games, nautical, belong together no matter whether there are semantic reasons to split them. Some would group all archaic and obsolete senses.

We already split some semantically analogous senses by PoS eg, adjectives and adverbs, conjunctions and adverbs, conjunctions and pronouns, prepositions and adverbs, adverbs and nouns (eg, home). These splits make it harder to see the semantic similarities. Have we written off that kind of semantic visibility? Do we have to?

My natural inclination is to have grammar take precedence, but I'd be happy to hear arguments for the other possibilities. DCDuring TALK 20:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Working on take got me to thinking about sense grouping, too. I don't desire to adopt other dictionaries' practice of separating transitive and intransitive verbs, I only separated them on take to make the entry easier to work on. Now that I'm finished adding senses, I'll probably go back and interweave the transitive and intransitive ones, since I think it's better to group definitions/senses according to meaning. Separating transitive and intransitive senses often obscures the fact that some senses are ambitransitive (as here, where it resulted in what was basically the same sense being listed twice) or ergative.
Separating different parts of speech seems to me like a good practice to continue. The cases where it proves difficult (however) or could be regarded as obscuring semantic connections (home) are too few and far between to justify abandoning the practice.
- -sche (discuss) 05:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
If an English L2 section is to be read as some kind of structured, terse essay on a term, then it certainly makes sense to group somewhat semantically.
OTOH, if an English L2 section is intended to help an ordinary user find a definition, at least some users would benefit from a transitive/intransitive split, which would support faster scanning for the possible definition. (This argument also favors topical labels, which I have, perhaps wrongly, opposed.)
Another consideration is entry maintainability. Of course, to tinker with your efforts would be gilding the lily, but it is easier to assess, analyze, and repair the range of coverage of a set of definitions, if the set can be made smaller on some easy-to-determine grounds, like the hard grammatical distinction of transitivity/intransitivity. DCDuring TALK 12:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
You are right that transitivity is an (possibly the only) easy-to-determine hard-and-fast distinction, and that segregating senses according to it could help people find specific senses. I'm not strongly opposed to it, I simply think semantic grouping is better. Where would ambitransitive and ergative senses go if senses were split by transitivity? In sections all their own, e.g. between the transitive and intransitive senses? (That would seem a bit awkward, but not outright problematic.) Or would they be duplicated and placed in both the transitive and the intransitive section? That would seem unhelpful to English-speakers, though perhaps helpful to translators (if they have distinct translations in some languages, which seems likely).
Other ways of sorting verb senses are by age (oldest—or newest—senses first) and by commonness (most—or least—common senses first). I suppose those are not mutually exclusive with grouping senses by meaning or transitivity.
Perhaps someone will devise a gadget that will give users buttons, similar to the "show/hide quotations" buttons but located e.g. at the top of each POS section, which will allow users to optionally hide senses with certain tags, e.g. obsolete, archaic, transitive, intransitive, even US (if a user knows they're searching for a sense Brits use), UK, etc.
- -sche (discuss) 21:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
We could have sortable tables of definitions! Ugly, and needing a lot of artificial data to generate what we think is appropriate. Or we could let users run SQL queries against a database of definitions.
I've never been convinced of the utility of ergative and other high-falutin' linguists' labels for the supposed 'normal' users, if indeed we have any 'normal' users. Those mostly seem good for making sure that someone working on an entry checks to make sure that the appropriately reworded definition appears in both transitive and intransitive sections, ie, duplicate underlying semantics.
After group by the hardest of grammatical distinctions, I would group semantically, preferrably using subsenses, ordering the senses by date of attestation of the sense (in principle) or degree of concreteness (which might coincide with date of attestation for the definition in the language or an ancestor. Subsenses would follow the same ordering principle within the sense. But recourse to attestation actually means relying of OED for many words, though not so much for more recent sense development.
As we don't really have a clearly dominant approach, I think we can still let contributors do it the way they want to. I would not impose my ideal grouping and order on an entry that was a good example of another set of organizing principles and hope that no-one would waste time merely reordering and regrouping mine, unless there was a good reason (clear error, reorganizer actually working from the OED, etc). DCDuring TALK 22:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Orange links and ACCEL[edit]

Hi. Is there any way to combine the orange link gadget with the WT:ACCEL one? --Type56op9 (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of (I think people have asked about that before). It would be useful, though. You could ask in the Grease Pit. - -sche (discuss) 18:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not as such. Acceleration works by adding preloads to a redlink, which requires that there be nothing there. One would have to have an app to add a language section to an existing entry, which would require different methods. It may be possible (bots certainly have no trouble with it), but it wouldn't be a trivial exercise. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
My illegal bot made such additions the time. But then it got blocked, so I had to hide the fact I was using a bot by changing the code. Then people figured out I was still using a bot. However, if this new orange-accel tool was around, I could use the illegal bot again, and pretend I was using the tool. Everyone's a winner! --Type56op9 (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Whoops.[edit]

On the "Greek" page, that was a filter that I put on my computer that did that. I'll have to make sure to check that in the future to make sure that it doesn't sneak into my edits by accident. The filter replaces words with "[word deleted]". I installed the filter because too many people were swearing left and right on many of the websites that I visit, and I grew tired of seeing it.

But yes. xD

That was pretty funny. My bad. Tharthan (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the explanation; I had wondered why it flagged "clit" but not "anal sex", haha. Thankfully people around here don't swear that much (not that I mind) — I guess it's to be expected that dictionary-editors know more articulate ways of expressing themselves. - -sche (discuss) 18:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, frankly I would have set it to change each word to a clean synonym, but the filter in question only allows for one all-encompassing replacement (which kind of stinks, because it reminds me of those old IRC-type chatrooms that just replaced vulgarities with asterisks rather than creatively write around them). But it's the best I can find for Firefox.

By the way, I have to ask:

You said that the main criterion for cited sources is that they must be durably archived. Are there any exceptions to that? Do we allow citations of tabloids or other "buzzword books" that may indeed use a neologism or retronym for over a year but be truly the only ones to do so. Tharthan (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Durably-archived tabloids are allowed; they aren't prestiguous, but their vocabulary is part of the great big grab-bag which is the English (or German, etc) language. Terms which are "neologisms", "slang", "informal", "rare", etc should certainly be marked with those labels, however, and in exceptional cases one can write usage notes.
What kind of "buzzword books" do you mean? Books that define and then give made-up examples of slang are disallowed by WT:CFI#Conveying_meaning, which "filters out [...] made-up examples of how a word might be used". But authors who like to work as many words from those kinds of books into their own literature, well, they're allowed. I got the impression that Georgette Heyer copied words from the 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue and pasted them into her dialogues, sometimes clumsily. In fact, that makes me realize [5].
If a work is of such low quality that one can't be sure it is in fact using a given word (as opposed to unintentionally containing a string as a typo or misspelling), it is generally excluded, however (because CFI requires evidence of use). So, a citation like "Berlin, Germany has many ihstoric stires, as do most other cities in Germanny." would probably not be accepted as evidence that "Germanny" is an alternative spelling of "Germany". (But a book from 1600 that said "Southern Germanny is a Land of mannifold historickal Constructions, of a Roman Charackter" would suggest that "Germanny" was once an obsolete spelling of "Germany".)
- -sche (discuss) 21:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Stolperstein[edit]

Hallo -sche,
nach längerer Zeit habe ich mal wieder eine größere Bearbeitung getätigt und dabei den oben genannten Eintrag erweitert. Könntest du mal bitte drüberschauen und etwaige Format-, Formulierungs- und Übersetzungsfehler korrigieren. Danke im Voraus und lieben Gruß dir, Caligari ƆɐƀïиϠ 06:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Natürlich; und lieben Gruß auch dir! PS, there must be something in the air (as they say) causing people to undertake big multilingual projects, since I just attempted one in the other direction, expanding (take and then) de:take. - -sche (discuss) 09:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I guess my English got a bit rusty. So again, many thanks for your swift corrections. Each and every correction will improve further editings...hopefully :-).
@de:take: Wow! Indeed. Great job so far with regards to the massive content expansion. Let me know when you think you completed expanding "take". There are some formatting issues that I'll let you know on your German user talk once you've done with expanding. There need to be some "Feintuning" with regards to the format. As an advice I would recommend that you take a look at articles in de:Kategorie:Polnisch, de:Kategorie:Tschechisch or de:Kategorie:Schwedisch. If you need specific help, don't hesitate to let me know.
Lieben Gruß dir, Caligari ƆɐƀïиϠ 15:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Moinsen. WT: ANDS.[edit]

Moinsen. Ich biete dies: User_talk:Korn/sandkist Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Merging the German and Dutch lects... bleh. I don't oppose it, or support it. (As I wrote further up on this page, "the general disagreement and slow-motion edit-warring about how to handle the various Low German lects makes for so much ugliness that I am losing interest in editing them" at all.) I strongly suggest, almost to the point of insist, that one orthography should be chosen for forms to be lemmatized on / normalized to (I don't know if this is what you intended the "consonants" and "vowels" sections to do), so that we don't end up with five entries lemmatized five different ways, representing the same diphthong five different ways, as if all the words were pronounced differently, when in fact they just use different orthographies or have predictable dialectal variation. Nouns should uniformly begin with majuscule letters, or uniformly not do that, for the same reason.
I've made a few typofixes and other small changes, e.g. dropping the Dutch spellings of "coïnciding" and "reëmergence". Also note that merging Plautdietsch would need discussion quite apart from merging GLG and DLS, because people (e.g. Angr, and me) in past discussions have supported keeping it separate on account of its separate history and development on another continent.
I also suggest either dropping the "During Middle Low German [...] Central and Upper German" line, or rewriting it to give native forms (we'll have to suck it up, bite the bullet, and perform whatever other idioms are necessary to give one dialect's forms as examples) so that it doesn't imply Low Germans actually used the words "German", "Low Landic", etc, especially given that "Low Landic" gets all of four Google hits. (Alternatively, a phrasing like During Middle Low German times, the language was known by cognates of the terms "Dutch", "Saxon", "Netherlandish" or "Netherdutch" would technically be accurate, but confusing to the uninitiated.)
- -sche (discuss) 17:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Ganz ruhig. Ich glaube, Du verstehst meine Intention falsch. Der von mir geschriebene Text sollte ein Ausgangspunkt für ein Gespräch zwischen uns beiden über die Änderung des ANDS sein. Die derzeit existenten ANDS-DE, -NL und PDT sollte das noch gar nicht berühren, weshalb sie auch nicht erwähnt sind. Die Sektion über die Konsonanten und Vokale soll interessierte Autoren und Nutzer nur darauf hinweisen, dass eine Schreibung nicht bedeutet, dass überall dieselbe Aussprache vorherrscht und ggf. zu weiteren Eintragungen im Pronunciation-L3 anregen. (Oder wenigstens überhaupt welchen.) Von der Plautdietsch-Geschichte bin ich nicht überzeugt, da sich Plautdietsch kaum bis gar nicht von anderen Dialekten unterscheidet. Und den Teil mit den native forms verstehe ich ganz einfach nicht. Es klingt, als würdest Du befürchten, dass die Leser fälschlicherweise denken, dass die Holländer sich tatsächlich mit englischen Worten benannt hätten. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Old Italic display help[edit]

Hello! Remember this discussion way in which you mentioned you make fonts? Well, this is not exactly that, but I have been working on making Appendix:Old Italic script with all of the relevant Old Italic languages (I still need to add Raetic, Camunic, Lepontic, etc.). I will then use this table as a references to create Module:Ital-translit which will service all of the Old Italic languages. I thought that it would be very nice to be able to show all the different letter forms that would map to any given Unicode letter. The documentation for how the Unicode block is defined is here and contains descriptions of all the different letter forms for each sub-script (in section 3). I was hoping you (or someone you could suggest) might be able to create PNG's for the use in {{t2i}} so that we could display all the Old Italic letter forms both in this appendix and potentially in the mainspace for quoting inscriptions. I know that this isn't a high priority for anyone, but now that I've started, I've gotten quite excited about the whole business. Below are some other reference materials for all the scripts. I'm not hoping for every little variation of every character, but if you make PNG's for the major ones, I'll do all the rest. Also, if this is just too much work, just tell me. —JohnC5 21:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll see what I can do. Btw, I notice the Glagotic t2i images are a mix of svgs and gifs, although svg versions exist for at least some of the gifs and could be swapped in. - -sche (discuss) 20:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that is rather weird. I have not idea how why that is the case. Also, the behavior for which I asking you is a little different than the normal t2i behavior, because I would want {{t2i|a|a2|a3|a4|a5}} to be different versions of the same letter. Just making sure you understand that for which you signed up.
Also, thanks! —JohnC5 23:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Other resources[edit]