User talk:Beobach972/archive001

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

ß or ss?[edit]

Shouldn't that double "s" be a ß?

Perhaps. See what you think now.

German / English[edit]

See how we treat this sort of thing => inundation / Inundation (you added "inudation" by the way (deleted). Here is our standard welcome. SemperBlotto 16:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! I didn't even realise (or, realize) I had made a spelling mistake. By the way, I don't know how to delete entries, so when I changed the 'ss' to 'ß' and the entry for Fussb... became useless, I simply converted it to a dandy little re-direct to the good page (Fußb...), but if you wanted to delete it (this one), I don't think it would hurt. Beobach972 20:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)



Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Old Prussian entries[edit]

I'm really glad to see someone taking on the task of entering words from Old Prussian. I thought I was the only person with a copy of Scmalstieg's books. However, please note that you have created all your entries as Proper Nouns (capitalized). Unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary is case sensitive, so entries should not be capitalized unless the word is always capitalized. See scutum and Scutum for an example of what we do when both a capitalize and non-capitalized version exists. --EncycloPetey 01:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't use redirect pages on Wiktionary when we can avoid them, so justr migrate the pages. However, the migration will automatically create redirect pages, which will require an administrator to delete. If you let me know when you've finished moving them, I can go in and delete the redirect pages. (Your user log and the move log will let me know what ages were moved.) --EncycloPetey 00:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


All seem to be alright now. 03:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Andrew massyn 03:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Rest assured, unless your account is somehow compromised, you won't be blocked. Note the Capital "i" in place of a lower case "L" in the impostor username (courier for readability, above.) --Connel MacKenzie 03:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome messaging[edit]

When you {{welcome}} ~~~~ new users, be careful to use the anon version for numeric IP addresses: {{welcomeip|~~~~}}. Without the extra nudge to create an account, many forget to. --Connel MacKenzie 03:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

template redesign[edit]

One thing I observed from the most recent round of "template wars" is that it is always better to create new templates with a new name, then convert all the 'old's to 'new's. Then delete the template (via RFDO) and move the 'new' template to the 'old' name...unless the new name is superior, of course.

Just my two cents...

--Connel MacKenzie 04:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Subscripts in H2O etc.[edit]

The subscript 2 in the article title H2O or in the article itself is not very convincing :-)
I tried: <sub>2</sub>, but didn't like that either.

Jan from Belgium, 1 August 2006

I agree. The font which my computer uses makes the '2' look as though it had a space after it. But, that is a problem with the fonts; my rationale is that at least this way it is technically correct (more than having the entry at "H2O"). Beobach972 00:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi Beobach. I see you've been clearing out uncategorized categories, as I have been doing. A useful and easy-to-use tool is Template:catred, which will rid categories from the aforementioned page. --Dangherous 22:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Oohh, thanks... that'll be a help. I've just been tagging the empty redirects with deletion tags. There are, however, some categories I see no point in redirecting, so I do tag them for deletion. Beobach972 00:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:English nouns[edit]

Um... we're enerally not using this category (or verb or adjective) anymore. The category is far too large and unwieldy to be of any value. Also, rather than "Proper Noun", we're trying to use one of the subcategories of proper noun whenever possible. --EncycloPetey 03:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for informing me! What categories should be used instead? I'll try to be specific with proper nouns (though personally I do feel they should be dropped into the super-cat too; ie [[Category:Female given names]] [[Category:English proper nouns]]), but what about verbs, where should they go? Beobach972 04:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Correction: The size of the category does not make it useless, but adding it manually creates more difficulty than the utility of the category justifies. So, rather than add Category:English nouns manually to English noun entries, please add {{en-noun}} immediately after the "===Noun===" line. {{en-noun}} will soon (but must not yet) categorize the terms as Category:English nouns. Please feel free to contact me with any questions, comments, etc. Rod (A. Smith) 04:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I'll try to start using the template - I'm just trying to help get this place categorised! I do have a question, though - is there a way to cause that template to not display a plural form? (Most of the entries I have tagged so far have been proper nouns - and it is probably not linguistically nacceptable to have Spain, plural: Spains or James, plural: Jameses.) Beobach972 04:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
For proper nouns, I've usually gone without the template, though I imagine it would be a simple matter to create a new template for proper nouns. Check with Rod A Smith -- He's the one who created the current en-noun template, and might be able to answer your question better than anyone. If the current template doesn't handle proper nouns yet, he could probably arrange for it to do so quickly and safely. --EncycloPetey 04:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Although there is no mandate to use {{en-proper noun}}, using it allows proper noun entries to use the same format as common noun entries. That consistency is very noticeable to the editors who choose to display the entry headwords in tables instead of single lines. It also gives us the ability to modify the format consistently at some later date or to categorize proper nouns automatically. Rod (A. Smith) 04:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
If you use {{en-noun|-}} it will display the noun as "uncountable" rather than the default -s plural. Although your examples are Proper nouns rather than uncountable. Robert Ullmann 21:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

en-noun and ?en-proper-noun?[edit]

(see also what the three of us have said here). Rod, does your template work for proper nouns as well? (I know that we could make it work for many, as-is (American, Americans) but if it added in a "Category:English nouns" tag that would not be right... thus I suppose we need a separate template. Do we have one already? If not, you should just be able to copy the code from the en-noun one to create it. (&sorry if you reply to my own talk page in the time it takes to post this here!) Beobach972 04:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

{{en-proper noun}} should address your concerns. :-) Rod (A. Smith) 05:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Ohh, nice! I'll try it out tomorrow when I am awake. Beobach972 05:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Reminder: please use {{en-noun}} instead of Category:English nouns to mark an entry as a noun. Rod (A. Smith) 04:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, after I hit 'submit' it occured to me they weren't nouns at all, they are proper nouns. So, we're all wrong :) ... Well, I'll clean them up (if you haven't beat me to it). Beobach972 04:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey - what would I do to categorise plurals (Czechs), your template (is that only for singular?) or a 'manual' category tag? And, what category should they go in (I've been putting them in the same category as the singular, but is there a separate category for English plurals?)? Beobach972 17:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
There is not yet a template for entries other than the lemma forms. There should be one, though, in my not-so-humble opinion. :-) There is also a category Category:English plurals, but that category will obviously become so big that it should only be managed through the yet-to-be-created non-lemma templates. Until we have such templates, feel free to enter the plural category manually. Or, if you're ambitious and prepared to explain it, create the plural template. :-) Rod (A. Smith) 18:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Beobach972, what is your native language? Rod (A. Smith) 20:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A bastardised blend combination of English and German. Niederpreussich is "unfortunantly" an archaic and Balticised dialect though, so I am indeed presently having to learn standard NHG. (If you were asking, it's no trouble for me to speak in English on here.) Beobach972 21:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Out of random curiousity, is there a Babel template for that? I know we have one for nds. Beobach972 21:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Arian Heresy[edit]

I created that entry and think that a clear exposition of the heresy has been reduced to a meaningless definition. Would you consider reverting it? Andrew massyn 22:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm; I do feel there out to be a more flowing way of introducing the explaination; however, since I cannot think of one, I shall revert my edit. Erm, that is, if I can figure out how to do that. [...] Alright; see what you think. I also randomly linked it to wikipedia. Oh, and clarified that Arius was the chief proponent of it (if I'm wrong on that, correct me), somewhat satisfying the flowingness. Beobach972 00:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Out of curiousity (and I may be a bit biassed on this myself, but) isn't calling something a 'heresy' inherently a bit POV? Id est, how do we draw the line between what is a heresy and what is just a religion? (For example- Catholics think Protestants are all heretics; but I'm fairly sure it'd be a bad idea to create Luther's German heresy.) Is there a policy on that? Should there be one? Beobach972 00:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, one would think it is POV; but it is always called the "Arian Heresy". The reason (of course!) is that it was the status quo pro ante: the view before the Nicean Council deified Christ. Thus it had to be made a Heresy, so the new creed could take effect. Who was pushing the deification? Nicholas of Myra. You know: he was later sainted. Jolly Old Saint Nicholas. Santa Claus. (grin). The whole story needs the wikipedia link, but that has some odd lacunae ... Robert Ullmann 21:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Tehe. Yes, Santa Claus; the misogynist matchmaker and cultist. Ah, perhaps I will create Luther's German heresy \ the German heresy then... it seems like a good exercise to find attestations for. Beobach972 22:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Plurals of nouns[edit]

That are also verbs, are also the third-person singular present tense of the verb: beards, bites, binds, casts, crews ... Robert Ullmann 21:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

One thing at a time. I've added them now; never fear; it's just easier to do one sense at a time. Beobach972 22:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay! btw, you are getting an extra line (---- type line) in between the POS? Robert Ullmann 22:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes I am; thank you for pointing that out... I'm too used to putting lines between different languages. Beobach972 22:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for moving it - I noticed that the entry didn't match the house style just after I created it (oops), but as a new user I didn't have move privileges yet. I'd planned to just come back later (as in, now) and fix it. Thanks! -- Stillnotelf 03:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome! Thank you for creating the entry for sporadically. Beobach972 02:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Latin entries[edit]

If you plan to create Latin entries, then you should keep up with the Wiktionary:About Latin discussion I've started. You've already created some pages in what would be non-standard format. See the page, and you'll understand some of the reasons why I hadn't yet created the entries for Latin days of the week. --EncycloPetey 06:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh. I shall take a look at it now. Beobach972 02:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Tartar nonsense[edit]

I shall be dealing with these queries at rfv in the next week or so. Please put a clear recommendation as to whether to keep or remove on the rfv page to assist me. I have also asked Eric Utgard to do the same. Many thanks for your help. Andrew massyn 07:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I have made recommendations on most of them; I shall get the rest later today or tomorrow. I am struck by how much this RFV has helped not only to determine which terms are verifiable and which are not, but also to greatly clean up the spelling. Beobach972 21:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


See Leonardo and Baxter for what I think these should contain. Just saying "a male given name" doesn't really tell people anything. SemperBlotto 21:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I shall include the etymological information with the names. One question, though - does that belong in the definition, or under the ==Etymology== header? Beobach972 00:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

not paper..."Confer"[edit]

Please remember that very few abbreviations are used, when describing terms. Last I heard, only gender descriptions are supposed to be abbreviated. (I've been half-pushing to also abbreviate parts-of-speech, transitive/intransitive, countable/uncountable, but that doesn't seem to get much support.) So, the Webster 1913 abbreviation "cf." should always become "confer". Thanks for all you do and keep up the great work. --Connel MacKenzie 22:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Multi-sentence definitions[edit]

I noticed something curious you said on Paul G's talk page, that struck me as very, very strange. Perhaps I am accustomed to dictionaries of a very different style than you are. But now I'm terribly curious: what objection do you have to multi-sentence definitions? Since when is clarity a bad thing in a dictionary? --Connel MacKenzie 04:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me as unnecessary... if one sentence can define the word, then -- lex parsimoniae -- why have more? For example, instead of defining 'Abbe' as A male given name. A Swedish hypocoristic male given name for Abraham or Albert., as it is now -- or even A male given name. A Swedish hypocoristic name, short for Abraham or Albert. -- it could be A Swedish hypocoristic male given name, short for Abraham or Albert., with no clarity lost.
I understand, of course, that this is not a paper dictionary, so we do not have (?) as pressing a need for succinctness, and we do have new issues -- like templates that insert whole sentences and make it difficult not to use two sentences. Thus, if we must, we must. Beobach972 00:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


Saw your request for point in spanish. Do you still need translations?

Bearingbreaker92 16:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • you have five points- tienes cinco puntos
  • that item costs three points - ese artículo cuesta tres puntos

you can only get one item per box-solo compra un artículo por caja

I hope they help.

Bearingbreaker92 17:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The request from Wiktionary:Translation requests[edit]

French and Spanish translation request for 'point'[edit]

I have several questions. First, what is a good translation of the English word ‘point’, in the English usage as ‘universal money’ (e.g. "you have five points, that item costs three points", into French and [Mexican] Spanish? If you could give me both the singular and plural (and dual, if applicable) forms of the words, it would be appreciated. Secondly, could you translate the sentence "you can only get one item per box" \ "you can only purchase one item from each box" (as in : you can't purchase two items if they're both in the same box, you can only purchase one of them) into French and (Mexican) Spanish? Beobach972 21:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

For French: point could be translated with point, that would sound ok/
"you can only get one item per box" <-- "tu/vous ne peux/pouvez avoir qu'un objet par boîte."
"you can only purchase one item from each box" <-- "tu/vous ne peux/pouvez acheter qu'un objet de chaque boîte."
an IP proposed: "tu/vous peux/pouvez acheter seulement un objet de chaque boîte.", but that sounds less French to me.
Kipmaster 16:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


(oops) ;-) bd2412 T 03:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Divide Category:English words spelled with diacritics or ligatures?[edit]

Greetings! Since you are particularly involved in the maintenance of this category, what is your opinion on dividing into separate categories for diacritics and ligatures, respectively? bd2412 T 19:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. It makes it more specific (and we can still link the two categories). The two concepts are almost opposites; ligatures join letters whereas some diacritical marks separate letters. (We ought to keep the current category, of course, as a master category, plus the default category for those rare words spelt with both diacritics and ligatures.) -- Beobach972 20:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll duplicate this comment on the Category talk: page. -- Beobach972 20:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

ISO codes[edit]

Please don't add ISO codes into Language categories. It is much easier to simply add that information to the entry for the languag ename, and also link to the Wikipedia article, where the ISO code will also be given. --EncycloPetey 18:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for letting me know! -- Beobach972 18:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-02/Trademark designations[edit]

Greetings! Since you participated in the discussion at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Use of ® and ™ in entries, I thought you might want to cast a vote at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-02/Trademark designations. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


Please do NOT delete entries from RfV. Such deletions may be construed as vandalism. --EncycloPetey 00:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I was clearing out the rfvfailed entries in accordance with the guidelines given on the RFV page; in particular I was clearing the ones for which no verification had been provided and which had been deleted but which had nevertheless left to languish on the page for several months beyond the specified time limit. I apologise for not clarifying that in each of the edit summaries, and if that seemed like vandalism. How is one supposed to go about removing such deleted rfvfailed words? -- Beobach972 00:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The prodedure has never been made fully clear to me, but I do know that discussions are archived. For those that pass, the archiving procedure is clearly explained at the toip of the RfV page, but I've no idea where failed entries have their discussions archived. Connel might know. --EncycloPetey 04:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't pull out a badge just because someone's trying to do constructive work. Admins are not the only ones who can do cleanup. This is not a vandal, this is a contributor who needs guidance on the procedure. There is absolutely nothing that was done that would be considered so severely. In fact deleting failed entries, as was clearly commented, is half of the the procedure. As you suspected, the text should also be copied over to an archive page according to the month it was listed. But if you had asked as much then you wouldn't have had to revert the change. DAVilla 17:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't archive the rfv-failure discussions to the entry talk pages because, in many cases, there was no discussion (simply a month-long blank) and no entry anymore, either. I didn't archive them to the RFV-Archive page, in turn, because there seems to be a strong sentiment that doing so leaves them on wiktionary and online for search engines to pick up, thus clouding future RFV searches. I shall, however, make a proposal on the Beer Parlour as to what to do with them... -- Beobach972 18:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, just because the titles are red does not mean the term failed RFV. See Talk:Santana wind. But no worries! DAVilla 20:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. But Santana (by itself — the word for which verification was requested) did fail (hence the redlink, even though Santana wind was spawned and passed), correct? -- Beobach972 21:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

γλαῦκ’ εἰς Ἀθήνας[edit]

If you have anything further to add to this, please feel more than welcome to do so. The only references of mine that have it simply say "coals to Newcastle", and so my definition was largely a copy of yours. Atelaes 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, as for what Part of Speech it is, I see that the POS header for coals to Newcastle is simply "Phrase"; other than that I don't know what it would be. I added the cf. to the common English phrase of similar meaning, and tried to make the definition agree with the POS (as opposed to defining the adverb like a verb). Is it an adverb or an adjective? -- Beobach972 02:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I've been having a difficult time figuring out what POS it is. At this point, I'm relatively confident that it is not, in fact, an adverb. My roommate suggested it might be an elliptical verb phrase.....which seems sensible, but I'm not sure. I don't feel confident putting it as a verb (especially because it doesn't actually include any verbs), but that may be the closest POS we've got. As for using "phrase" I thought that we weren't supposed to use that, but rather that we were supposed to go with standard headings like verb, noun, etc, depending on how it is used in a sentence. I'm rather stumped, to be honest. Atelaes 02:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


Hello, I'm sorry, I was having problems editing the page because it was long so you had already answered the request whilst I was editing. Sorry about that, thanks for fixing the word. Pistachio 02:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


You don't have admin buttons? I've nominated you, please accept. DAVilla 18:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please accept. People are already voting you in, but it will come to nothing if you don't accept the nomination :) --EncycloPetey 03:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


Why the formatting changes? It's well-established here that most foreign words should just show glosses in English, not full-sentences. Widsith 07:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I was unaware that there is a specific convention against full sentences in foreign language definitions. (I knew that we didn't put full definitions — defining definición as a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol — of course.) I don't see either noun sense or the adjective sense as being full sentences, though... for the first noun sense I just used a majuscule letter, which (counter-intuitively for me) seems to be the convention for definition lines, and for the second noun sense, I think that saying ‘(poetic) (living) body’ is very confusing (as though living were another category tag), so I inserted the article, and there's a difference between ‘especially the torso’ and just ‘torso’, thus my edit. You can revert it if you that's best, though I'd ask that you leave the article between (poetic) and (living) for clarity. Incidently, perhaps we ought to wikify living, what do you think? — Beobach972 05:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

PS- Did I get the diacritics (or lack thereof) right on the adjective sense? — Beobach972 05:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The diacritics are fine, although usually we also add a dot over the C to show that it is pronounced /tʃ/ and not /k/. So, the problem with defining e.g. chien as ‘a dog’ is that it doesn't actually mean ‘a dog’, which in French would be un chien. (In OE it's a little more complicated, because they didn't usually use an indefinite article, so in a sense lic does mean ‘a body’ as well as ‘body’ – but that's just complicating things...). That is why, because we are usually just giving a word or two as a definition, it looks better without majuscules or full stops. You will see this is the convention on most foreign language entries. If more explanatory comments are called for (which may be the case with lic, I take your point about the clarity) then of course fuller sentences may be necessary. I hope all that makes sense Widsith 09:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Diacritical marks[edit]

Hello again! I notice you've put a few Old English entries in with acute accents. We don't do that here in page titles (because they are a modern convention, and most editors prefer to use macrons anyway). See Wiktionary:About Old English for more. Ta, Widsith 10:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'm aware of the conventions now... I must have entered those a while ago. At least in the case of þéod, though, there should be a redirect (soft or hard), as the word sees use in modern English contexts with that notation. — Beobach972 05:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


I can't believe I voted support for you. What on Earth???

--Connel MacKenzie 22:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Overall, his edits there seem reasonable to me . . . what am I missing? (Sorry if I'm butting in; I came here hoping to find an explanation for your having struck your vote.) —RuakhTALK 03:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As this seems to mostly concern the entry Aryan, I've replied on the talk page where the existing discussion is. — Beobach972 21:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, let's move this to the tea room so that more editors will see it to comment on this. — Beobach972 21:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


So at long last you've been upgraded to admin. When the euphoria from your newfound near omnipotence passes, you may want to take a look at Help:Sysop tools for some pointers. Congrats! Atelaes 05:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Right now I'm pondering the !s next to some edits and trying to think whether they actually are new or not. I've deleted a few vandal-nonsense pages; I'll experiment with the other buttons soon. That help page is a big – well – help! — Beobach972 16:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you've already figured this out, I apologize for being didactic. If you haven't, those little red exclamation marks signal that a specific edit has not yet been patrolled by an admin. And yes, they are new. Every single edit that is made on Wiktionary is supposed to be patrolled by an admin. If you go to WT:PREF and check patrolling enhancements and patrol in expert mode, the whole process become a bit easier (and if you check the Lupin's popups one, you don't even have to leave the recent changes screen). The nice thing for the rest of us is that your and Ruakh's edits no longer be patrolled. Atelaes 17:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Reordering definitions[edit]

Hi, if you reorder definitions, please also have a look at the translation section and reorder them as well. Similar might be necessary with other sections (see line). H. (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work there! I didn’t trust doing that, since I’m not a native speaker, but indeed these were the things I had in mind. There might be done some more by grouping like definitions, I think. H. (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the definitions can be simplified yet, and certainly grouped, yes... actually I think line is a good project, I'll try to find quotations from literature, and dates for the ones existing, for all of the senses, and clean up the entry. Thank you for bringing the monster to RFC! — Beobach972 15:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
If you're still working on this one a month from now (say June 12th), drop me a line if you'd like help with locating literature citations. I make extensive use of Wikisource, and know how to find a good spread of early citations. However, I have a nasty time trying to find anything dated later than 1930 or so. --EncycloPetey 04:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


It was actually Frous himself who did the redirecting. We have exchanged messages about it. This redirect - as many others - is a question of taste. "-himoinen is clearly derived from "himo" just by adding the ending "-inen", and it is true - as Frous says - that one can apply the same ending into a number of Finnish nouns to create combined adjectives (often for temporary use) in a similar way as with "-himoinen". On the other hand "-himoinen" is established well enough to have its own entry in Nykysuomen sanakirja, which is considered an authoritative source for correct Finnish. I accept the redirect, though, because the two words are closely connected, and having them under same entry may provide useful information for an occasional Wiktionary user. —This unsigned comment was added by Hekaheka (talkcontribs) 06:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Template "nolang"[edit]

{{nolang}} needs to be substed to work (I don't know why) - see Samyaksambodhi‎ SemperBlotto 06:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I couldn't tell whether a bot/software would subst: it like the support vote templates or not. — Beobach972 14:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Connel MacKenzie/custom.js[edit]

Works for me, now. Cynewulf 18:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


Oh wow, finally.

Thank you, I think.

Please note that the show/hide NAV stuff is lost in MediaWiki:Monobook.js#Dynamic Navigation Bars (experimental) which is why no code needs to be loaded from custom.js. (MW:MB.js loads custom.js, not the other way around.)

--Connel MacKenzie 00:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please keep at it, and ask me questions when you need to. --Connel MacKenzie 00:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

spread like wildfire[edit]

Are you sure about this? Napalm-like incendiaries don't spread very much. On the other hand, a forest fire (the regular meaning of "wild fire") is infamous for travelling rapidly, changing direction without warning. --Connel MacKenzie 16:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going on the information given in Wikipedia (which was ‘the word "wildfire" was a synonym for Greek fire as well as a word for any furious or destructive conflagration. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the earliest known usages are specifically for lightning-caused conflagrations. The modern usage may have arisen in part from people misunderstanding the expression "spread like wildfire"’), although I now see that I probably misinterpreted that. Don't worry, I usually get more sleep (and less information from Wikipedia) than this ;p 
Checking Etymonline provides no information on the idiom, but reveals the very interesting titbit ‘Originally [used] in ref. to spreading skin diseases’. TFD suggests that it is from neither but rather from the literal meaning of ‘wild fire’, id est an uncontrolled conflagration. At this point I find your suggestion easiest to believe. I shall pursue one other idea on this, but feel free to remove/change the etymology. — Beobach972 21:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The earliest quotations I can find for ‘spread like wildfire’ are :

  • 1789: The Gentleman's Magazine
    The propaganda of the rebels spread like wildfire, and the hopes of the more daring Irish Catholics rose high. “Would that we knew if the hour of our ...
  • 1753: The Skipper thing that's happened for yachting on the Bay in a long time and one veteran sailor said, “Get an MORC station here and it will spread like wildfire.” Another fine thing came out of this meeting.

However, I can find :

  • 1715: Floyer, Edward Baynard, Psychrolousia. Or, the History of Cold Bathing: Both Ancient and Modern
    Where are [...] the Aunts that do as much for their Nieces, and make them caper and ſparkle like Wildfire?
  • 1715: Francisco de Quevedo, The Visions of Dom Francisco de Quevedo
    I ſlept very diſturbedly, and had a quick high towring Pulſe; had ſtrange Flaſhes in my Blood, like Wild-fire, which I could percieve in my Face, Neck, Breaſt, and extream Parts.

(Which isn't terribly useful. Sorry... that was just a thought I had, one that didn't work.) The earliest that I can find for ‘wildfire’ is :

  • 1622: Thomas Dekker and Philip Massinger, The Virgin Martyr
    The.     Do not blow,
    The Furnace of a wrath thrice hot already;
    Ætna is in my breſt, wildfire burns here,
    Which onely bloud muſt quench ...

Beobach972 02:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to see if quotations could date it and help, but that doesn't appear to be the case. — Beobach972 02:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I checked on some of these cites and they are turning up incorrect. I've found that you have to be careful on Google Books and other similar online libraries, because sometimes the dates listed are the first publication date of a periodical. Other times, it's human error. I looked up your cite for "The Skipper", and even Google Books dates it 1992. [1] You can tell from the text that it's definitely not from 1753 (yachting and MORC stations and all), but curiously it looks older than 1992 -- reminds me of newspaper fonts in the 60's). Anyway, there are plenty of valid cites of "spread like wildfire" earlier than 1900. [2] You still have to beware of false dates, however. It is indeed in Roget's Thesaurus of 1882 [3] listed under "expansion". -- Thisis0 18:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Formatting of quotes/example sentences.[edit]

Regarding [4]: did you read WT:ELE? Please do not undo my changes if you are not 100% sure what you are doing. I have to say I appreciate your work on the article, though.

Ok, on second view, WT:ELE is not very clear about this. It only tells about putting :* before quotations. I like it better if that is done before example sentences as well though. H. (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


You might be interested in the ‘piped link trick’: if you have a reference to another wikiproject, which you start with the usual letter, adding a pipe at the end removes that letter (and stuff between brackets and more), e.g. [[w:Pipe-trick|]] becomes Pipe-trick. Btw, I won’t be watching line that actively from now on. H. (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, neat. Thanks for the tip! — Beobach972 16:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing discussions from WT:RFV and its ilk[edit]


This is just my opinion — I haven't discussed it with other editors — but broadly speaking, I think it's better to wait a few days after posting "RFVpassed" or "RFVfailed" before removing the discussion from WT:RFV (and similarly with WT:RFD and whatnot). That way it's easier for people to object to your conclusion, if they feel the need to. (Don't worry, I haven't been wanting to object to any of your conclusions; it's just that I think people should have a chance.)

Again, that's just my opinion; feel free to disagree.

RuakhTALK 03:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me just say that, if we were only half a month of so behind, I'd definitely take your position.
Given that the page is now over half a megabyte in size, and Werdnabot's absence (although it never archived the RFV page) has shown the sorts of interesting bugs that increasing page size can cause, I've been trying to archive it as-soon-as-possible. I agree with you that any contentious discussions should be left on the page (and so apologise if I removed any!), but what I am trying to do for the most part is remove entries that clearly have three citations and have had them for quite while — my assumption being that anybody who disgreed should have voiced their concerns by now — and entries that have languished for months and still have no citations (our policy says to delete them after a month, so I believe it is inadvertently quite gracious of us that we allowed them an extra two or three or four — again, anybody who had quotations to provide should have done so by now). As I said, if we were only a bit behind, I'd take your position, but clearing the backlog is the driving force behind this. Do you have any specific qualms with this 'expedited archiving'? — Beobach972 03:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope, that makes perfect sense. Thanks for explaining. :-)   —RuakhTALK 06:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, my understanding was that the section in WT:RFV is stricken and either a comment of rfvpassed or rfvfailed are supposed to happen at (about) the same time the {{rfv}} tag is removed from the entry. The other method has been to remove the tag from the entry one week after the WT:RFV section is stricken, to allow for people to object, yet still ahve the forward and backwards link to the entry in question. --Connel MacKenzie 18:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
And how long after the striking+comment+removal-of-{{rfv}} is the discussion supposed to be removed from WT:RFV? —RuakhTALK 20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: I agree that doing them at the same time, is probably best, with this degree of backlog. --Connel MacKenzie 18:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi. I seem to have missed the discussion on this one. The verb sense (police attributing a verbal statement to a suspect) is well-known in the UK. This is from the OED -

trans. To attribute a damaging statement to (an accused or suspected person). Also const. up.

1963 Times 22 Feb. 6/5 Those chaps were about and they won't be able to verbal me. 1970 P. LAURIE Scotland Yard vi. 146 The aggravation of it. He verbals up my villain and then says he'll let him off. 1973 Courier-Mail (Brisbane) 17 Oct. 10/4 Finch has claimed that detectives ‘verballed’ himfabricated a confession to arrest him. 1981 C. ROSS Scaffold 145 ‘He's made no statement yet either.’ ‘But you verballed him?’.. The police officer said nothing.

   Hence verballing vbl. n. 

1973 Observer 11 Nov. 15/2 ‘Verballing’putting damaging remarks or ‘verbals’ into suspects' mouthshas existed as long as detectives have been dealing with criminals. 1977 ‘C. AIRD’ Parting Breath iv. 47 It wasn't, the policeman consoled himself, really and truly verballing. Verballing was putting words into a man's mouthand statement.

Am I allowed to add it? SemperBlotto 16:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Idiom redirects[edit]

Redirects are scorned on en.wiktionary, except for idiom forms. The consensus has always been to allow stub entries in place of a redirect, but idioms remain the main exception to the "no redirects" rule. --Connel MacKenzie 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but redirecting from a majuscule-initial and grammatically different form (eg A brick short -> one brick short of a full load)...? — Beobach972 18:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


What happened is that in this edit you changed top to trans-top for Pronoun/accusative, but not the mid or bottom templates. So the rest of the page was collapsed into that table. (trans-bottom closes two div tags that bottom doesn't) Fixed. Robert Ullmann 16:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello there, I just wanted to check with you that the material you removed from the article tac was intended? You didn't leave an explanation in the edit summary, and this might lead to the edit being construed as an error.--Williamsayers79 12:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes; I moved the OHG section to tag, after correcting the various links to it from the pages for the days of the German week. User:Drago had some very, ah, interesting ideas when it came to Old High German. I do apologise for not giving an explanatory edit summary (and I know you're not challenging the removal), but my OHG books say 'tag', not 'tac'. — Beobach972 04:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
That is fair enough! Regards --Williamsayers79 12:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for checking, though; especially in light of the peculiar problems we've been having with sections disappearing from the Beer Parlour and all. — Beobach972 17:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


Why did you eliminate the only Etymological and Pronunciation information from this entry? --EncycloPetey 16:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed that information because the pronunciation looked to be a simple copy-and-paste from the AHD by User:Primetime, and the etymology was a year, not an etymology. Overall, I tried to re-do the entry just in case it was one of User:Primetime's copyvios. — Beobach972 16:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
OK. --EncycloPetey 17:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I have now given it a comprehensive etymology :)  Cheers! — Beobach972 17:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Appendix MakeDoTakeHave[edit]

Nice one! Thanks. Algrif 09:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Possessive forms exclusion WT:VOTE rewritten and restarted[edit]

I have rewritten and restarted the vote, having attempted to reword the proposal to address the issues that people have raised. You may want to reread the proposal and reconsider your vote. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You suggested here that an exception in the proposal be made for the pronoun one’s. I’ve started a new section asking for reasons why such an exception ought to be made. Please give your reasons there. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy vote on brand names of products[edit]

Hi, I've started a policy vote at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-07/Brand names of products. Since you participated in the Beer Parlor discussion, you may wish to vote on the proposal. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


Seriously, I'd like to think that you just misread my comment at Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#.C3.A0_contrec.C5.93ur. But I even prefaced my comment by saying that I "don't have any personal dislike of diacritics" and that I "cringe inwardly when I see pinata or pina colada (and not piñata and piña colada)" and still you imply that I am accusing you of being in some sort of cabal. What's the point of even trying if people aren't going to read what I write, but instead are going to regurgitate the same old assumptions of bad faith? I don't care or pay attention to who stands where on the POV wars, and I wouldn't have even necessarily associated you with this type of position, but are we seriously so stuck in our factional ways that neither you nor Doremítzwr can actually deign to respond to the substance of my concerns, instead of making your rhetorical points and insinuations? Dmcdevit·t 09:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind my butting in (and I hope you don't, because I do it a lot!) — I assume Beobach972 was just being tongue-in-cheek about the cabal thing, and humor strikes me as a reasonable way to try to defuse the bad blood that's been developing between a few editors. (I think it's a doomed effort, but a laudable one nonetheless.) If you read the full sentence, then you saw where he wrote "I have no problem with it [à contrecœur] being labelled simply as an alternative spelling of a contrecoeur." Granted, this isn't fully adopting your viewpoint, but it doesn't seem to be something to get frustrated over. —RuakhTALK 23:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Just what is "[my] viewpoint"? This is exactly the problem I was disappointed about. I am frustrated over people assuming that "[my] viewpoint" is this or that, seeing the world as a battleground of competing factions and painting people into one or the other so they don't have to be reasonable and negotiate, just do battle. We're creating false dichotomies that lead nowhere, when we should be coming to agreements. I don't mind à contrecœur if it is attested. I do mind Wiktionary pushing a point of view by, due to a conscious decision by at least some editors, overinclusion of a set of rarer words and underinclusion of more common words. In this particular case, marking one as an alternative (and rare, too?) to the commoner term seems acceptable. What I'd like to do is try to fix that overall issue, but Doremítzwr at least is still actively trying to remake the English language on Wiktionary into his own. I've been around Wikipedia humor (and in the admin "cabal," too) for years now; I understand the humor and I have a thick skin anyway. It could have been mocking, or it could have been defusing, but here I am, not taking my toys and going home, bu trying to resolve an issue, so that's not the problem. Dmcdevit·t 00:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think "viewpoint" implies factions and battles; certainly I have my own viewpoints and there's no one I find I always agree with (though sometimes I do find that I don't have a viewpoint on a given topic). Your viewpoint opinion in this case seemed to be people shouldn't be creating articles like à contrecœur, aficionadi, minutiæ, cohære, and encolden until we have better of coverage of words that people are more likely to actually encounter. (By the way, while I do somewhat see why you're bothered by these entries, I also somewhat don't, at least for the ones that pass CFI. They're not particularly useful, but Doremítzwr obviously gets a kick out of writing them, and they're generally pretty interesting to read. While it was definitely a problem back when he'd insist that the normal words were inferior to the etymologically grounded ones — like when he suggested that every entry in -polises should have a usage note informing people of the joys of -poleis — he doesn't do that anymore to my knowledge. All of his recently-created entries seem fine POV-wise, even if it's a bit quirky that we have them at all.) —RuakhTALK 01:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Dmcdevit- I apologise if we've misunderstood one another. I wasn't referring to you when I spoke of the Cabal, or implying that I was in it (or that you'd said I was), I was jokingly implying that User:Doremítzwr was the member of the Diacritics Cabal, because he is stereotypically so pedantic. Personally, I don't mind pedantry, but I agree with you that he gets carried away with it (though I'd rather have to delete his bogus entries than have Wiktionary lack his useful entries). I do intend to find more quotations for the word, whenever my library's webpage comes back online. In the interim, I do think the word should be kept, as I do think it's real, but I don't mind if it's deleted, as I can simply re-create it whenever I am able to access the additional literature. Compounding any issue is that I've been quite busy lately and haven't participated in discussions beyond one-time input/commentary. I apologise for not responding to you by at least noting that I was searching for more quotations, limited by the temporary loss of library access.
There's one quotation, which I'll reference in a moment, which uses the à in the phrase as though it were the English article a (and thus uses contrecœur as an adjective meaning reluctant; the whole phrase preceding a noun), which vouches, in my opinion, for the acceptance of the phrase into English.
(By the way, you've been around Wikipedia, so you'd know of the brilliant 'A Cabal of One' stickers they have over there :-) . Think we ought to award User:Doremítzwr one? Tehehe... )
As for your concern that we might be overincluding some terms and underincluding others — frankly, I agree with you, but on the other hand, User:Doremítzwr has a very valid point that people turn to dictionaries to learn the meaning of obscure words (qualia) more often than simple ones (cow). Our under/over-inclusion problem isn't limited to English, either; our coverage of Mandarin is spotty, and we have many more German words than Hausa words, even though Mandarin is much more widely spoken, and Hausa a major African lingua franca. This is inherent in our use of volunteers; contributors will add what they want (limited further by what they know). — Beobach972 22:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Ruakh- I certainly don't mind you 'butting in'; you're consistently one of the most level-headed contributors here (and I intend no slight to User:Dmcdevit with that comment) despite all the flak you take, and your input is valued where-ever you input it. — Beobach972 22:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


A discussion is afoot at Wiktionary talk:About Ancient Greek#Mycenaean.......Greek? Redux. You have been invited because you participated in a previous discussion, I thought you might have a particular insight or interest in the discussion, or simply because I wanted to spam your page and irritate you. Check it out. Atelaes 09:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


We also have Translingual as a level 2 header, specifically for things like scientific names. That's what I had entered Tribus as. Thus we actually get two entries for most of these words if we wish. Wikispecies has more than 130K entries. I would expect that they many thousands of one-part names and that the two-part names would generate many, many more thousands of entries. We get the capitalized Translingual and the lower case Latin entry. Whether our classicists want the ones that only exist in "New Latin" is another question, I suppose. In addition we could obtain whatever vernacular names they had for whatever languages we should support (obviously English, but also the OE, ME, and the dialects and creoles derived from English). I don't know to what extent we should be spending our time on languages that have their own wiktionaries and aren't closely related to English. DCDuring TALK 00:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi there. Could you cite evidence for this attestation, or is this some "New Prussian" invention? --Ivan Štambuk 22:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The words for the familial relations, including sister, are preserved (in a corrupted form) in the Elbing Vocabulary of ca 1400. You can find an online rendering of that text here, and Kortlandt's introduction should explain the orthographies: ‘The canonical edition [of the Vocabulary] was published by Trautmann (1910, 1970). It has now been superseded by Ma^ziulis (1966, 1981)’ — and standardised. (Kortlandt also notes that, what I think may be on interest to you, being someone versed in Slavic languges, that ‘the Slavic borrowings have been discussed by Levin (1974)’.) — Beobach972 03:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, but it says swestro on that list..? ^_^ So let me get this right before discussing further - sestrā represents written form of reconstructed phonetic value of actually attested swestro? --Ivan Štambuk 03:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, not quite. First, just to be precise (although I think we're on the same page) it says Swestro on the list, not *swestro. (One can't discount the capitalisation, because the list does make distinctions between, for example, wins — LVft, wissaseydis — Dinstag, and Wundan — Wasser. However, as the German scribe clearly didn't use the standard orthography or capitalisation for the MHG/German words, one has to doubt the orthography of the listed Old Prussian words. Indeed, these vary between sources; the Vocabulary of Grunau, another scribe, gives Wunda/wunda, without the -n, for Wasser.) Thus, Swestro is the spelling of the word given in the document, and sestrā is not a reconstruction but simply, as far as I know, a standardisation. — Beobach972 04:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying that the capitalization was constrastive (phonologiacally/phonemically?), and not just a remnant of German orthographical custom that can be freely ignored? Frankly, I don't remember anywhere seeing Old Prussian words cited in capitalized form, but when I think about, I haven't paid much attention to it at all. For extinct languages the policy here so far has been to include all the attestations, regardless of how illiterate or inaccurate they might have been. There are places like ===Pronunciation=== and ====Usage notes==== sections where speculative interpretations could be made (OP has not been described by native grammarians, so everything about it today is necessarily conjectural, in the light of absence of native speakers). Discrepancies between Old Prussian vocabularies/catechisms are immense, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we must automatically abide by rules invented by linguists for purely practical purposes, such as writing *sestrā instead of actually attested forms. Lexeme *sestrā cannot pass WT:CFI, because it is not attested anywhere. OP corpus is small enough only to include attested forms.
I'll look into papers Kortlandt cites more closely later (if I can find them ^_^), but to tell you the truth - I'd much more rather see attested swestro with a note "feminine ā-stem" as Derksen et. al. put it, then any of creative "standardised" guesswork, no matter how convenient it may be. --Ivan Štambuk 05:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
With regard to capitalisation, I'm saying only that when we include the attested forms, we must consider whether or not we can discount the capitalisation of the words. I agree that it's almost certainly a carryover of the German tendency to capitalise nouns, although it presents a small quandry, because we do not actually know that it wasn't Old Prussian practice. (Removing the capitalisation is its own sort of standardisation ;-)   However, to be clear, I'd still support removing the capitalisation when we enter the attested spellings (except perhaps on proper nouns? we can figure that out later), on the model of all the words in Category:Latin language, which we standardise and certainly don't enter as attestd (so abavus, not ABAVVS / abavvs / abauus). I'm glad to see you've been entering the attested forms, by the way — I haven't bothered because the spellings were so divergent, but we really do need to, as you note. If you're wondering whether we should present the forms/spellings like swestro to the exclusion of sestrā, though, I'd make the case that we should include both. The basis for removing capitalisation (in Old Prussian and in Latin) is the same basis for standardising the spelling: that it's a norm set by the dictionaries that deal with the language. As you know, each language has its own policy, agreed upon by contributors who understand the language, that someties differs from general policy. For Latin we go so far as never to include attested spellings (like ABAVVS / abavvs / abauus, or EQVVS, etc); however, we do include equos and ecus to complement our main entry, the unattsted but dictionary-consensus, standardised equus. For Old Prussian, I'd suggest we follow the policy of putting in all of the manuscript forms (but as proper pages, as you've been doing, not just as redirects like we do for Latin), together with the standardised and used-by-the-reference-books but unattested forms (like sestrā for Old Prussian, equus for Latin). — Beobach972 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Redirects are a wrong way to handle alternative spellings. They should all be under separate ==Latin== entries and use {{alternative spelling of}}. Favoring one particular form (in this case, the customarily cited orthographical convention of the Latin dictionaries), is a way to ensure consistency when doing lookup, nothing else. eqvvs, equos etc. all merit inclusion - if they were attested, and no one can forbid you not to enter them here. equus wasn't in use in the classical period, but has plenty of attestations in Mediaeval Latin though.
Similarly for Sanskrit - substantives are lemmatized in the stem form which they appear only in vocative singular (in some declension classes which account generally < 1% - never). With numerous sandhi variants in mind, it would be insane to break 2500 year old practice and try anything else.
However, unlike Latin, Ancient Greek and Sanskrit, Old Prussian was not described by native grammarians, so any claims of underlying phonology and of orthographical conventions attested in catechisms/dictionaries (Simon Grunau didn't even know Old Prussian) on the basis of similarities with other Balto-Slavic dialects, which includes forms reconstructed by Mažiulis, is inherently conjectural. For comparison, it would be like entering Myceneaean Greek 𐀞𐀳 ‎(pa-te) as pátēr (with comparison to other Greek dialects, it is almost certainly the real phonetic output of pa-te), disregarding the fact that it was written in defective script (syllabary) which couldn't mark accents and word-final consonants (i.e. open-syllable orthography used for unknown non-IE language of Linear A).
How do you like approach used in 𐀂𐀍𐀳, 𒀀𒈾𒈾, i.e. providing the (probable) phonemic transcription within slashes in the inflection line, when it's not so obvious?. So swestro should have /sestrā/. To me this seems the best approach to accommodate the needs for languages written in defective orthographies/scripts.
IMHO there is little sense in speaking of "Old Prussian practice" because there was probably none - they were illiterate paganic peasants like the rest of Balto-Slavs, prior to Christianization. To me personally, it's completely irrelevant whether to account for capitalization or not, though I have a mild preference towards the uncapitalized forms because those are the ones mentioned in etymological dictionaries, and the ones almost anyone will first try to look up.. --Ivan Štambuk 23:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Þrymskviða pronunciation[edit]

Hi Beobach972. Thanks for adding this pronunciatory transcription to the entry for Þrymskviða. Please note my changes thereto. By the way, could you add the correct stress marks (<ˈ> as well as, optionally, <ˌ>) to the transcription please? Thanks.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for linking (and making) the corrections. I've indicated the stress, but can you see if I've done it correctly? As a rule, stress falls on the first syllable in Icelandic words, and this is no exception — but I've seen some dictionaries indicate stress by putting the mark before the syllable, and some after it. I don't add pronunciation information often enough to be familiar with which is our practice (I had to hunt to find an entry with such information to serve as a model). — Beobach972 05:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)