User talk:Brett

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


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! --Connel MacKenzie 17:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


It is very unclear what you were trying to do (before I rolled back your change.) Please note that WT:ELE is very specific about the order of headings.

Breaking apart an existing POS heading into multiple headings (with no community support) is not a good idea. --Connel MacKenzie 14:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. No, it is not clear. Since when does Wiktionary use that as a POS heading? Did I miss something big? --Connel MacKenzie 15:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
This is NOT Wikipedia. --Connel MacKenzie 15:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking at the above, I cannot imagine what had set me off so vehemently. I have clicked the "(undo)" link for my wildly incorrect rollback. I'm now scratching my head, wondering what was going on...I must've mistaken you for a vandal, but why? Even after the first talk page message I should have realized I wasn't dealing with a vandal - that is just preposterous.

BrettR, I have no idea what instigated this. I am deeply sorry for the harsh words, and what must have been an inexplicable situation from your perspective. I am completely at a loss to explain the above exchange. There was a CU incident a little while before that, and apparently I was in the middle of a transwiki experimental bot-import, around that time. But nothing to merit that level of absurd run-around. --Connel MacKenzie 03:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

On a closely related note, I've replied to your question at Wiktionary talk:Entry layout explained/POS headers#English POS. --Connel MacKenzie 04:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

POS headers[edit]

You had added a number of items to the list of "Headers in use" at Wiktionary:Entry layout explained/POS headers, but the items you added are not in use here, so they should not appear on that list. The POS header list is currently descriptive of our practices to date, with only a few headers in the top portion of the list actually selected by community consensus. The remainder are items already placed on pages, but not necessarily decided upon. Proposals for new headers (not already in use) should be made in the Beer Parlour. --EncycloPetey 03:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In re coördinator[edit]

There was a discussion concerning this and related entries a long time ago, where it was decided that the diæretic spellings would be the primary ones. No blame ought to be accorded unto you, as it’s my fault for not acting upon the discussion... But anyway, just for your information. Enjoy editting Wiktionary. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 13:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the comment above is his personal POV, and does not seem to be the opinion of anyone else on Wiktionary. He has an agenda to push, and he’s pushing it on as many people as he can. --EncycloPetey 02:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
No, no. See the archived discussion. Anyway, the whole issue seems to have been resolved at Talk:coördinator. Sure I have a point of view, which I express (just like everyone else here), but I play by the rules. Care to explain what this agenda of mine is? Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

fused-head contstructions[edit]

While the grmmatical use of undead as a substantive may be a fused-head construction, you should not blank section content. Current community consensus is that grammatical use of an English word as a noun receieves a noun header and section for the entry. If you note the Noun section for undead (which I have reverted), you'll see that there is a German translation there. Without the noun section present, there would be no way to indicate the German noun for this sense of the word. --EncycloPetey 02:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that the entry should reflect the fact that undead is very frequently used as a substantivized adjective, or in fused-head constructions, or in headless NPs, whatever. However, the label "uncountable" is definitely wrong (since it is obligatorily plural in this use). Furthermore, the German translation is misleading: it should be given as something like "Untote(n)". In fact, the translation should be listed in the adjective section, because Untote(r) is an ordinary substantivized adjective in German, i.e. a full adjectival paradigm, but capitalized (see [1]). CapnPrep 19:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your analysis BrettR. At this point in time, EncycloPetey is correct about the community consensus on this topic. The "POS" headings represent the main eight parts of speech, and a very few other headings. So "used as a noun" typically merits a noun heading. Please move this conversation to the beer parlour (restated for clarity, depersonalized) as it is of general interest. I'm not sure offhand what the best correction for the situation is. --Connel MacKenzie 19:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, the community consensus mentioned is about what entries should become like, not what they are like at present. It is a relatively new decision, and as practical problems occur and are discussed (this is not the only problem from it currently being discussed) there is a possibility that the consensus will change. --Enginear 21:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please understand that while your reasoning is flattering to the Wiktionary community, it is flawed. Specifically, it is incorrect to assume that nearly all adjectives will have noun headers if that that would fit policy. Consider that it is policy for all words to have a pronunciation in IPA, but a huge percentage of entries do not. It is policy for all words to have quotations, but the vast majority do not. Wiktionary is a work in progress with much planning that has yet to be enacted, so one cannot assume that what is currently in place on a majority of articles is in accordance with desired style. Most articles are still in an incomplete state.

Please understand also that I don't mean to say that your view shouldn't be followed up with brainstorming community discussion to reconsider and possibly change current style. Quite the contrary. Your thoughts could lead to significant changes and improvements on Wiktionary, since you've obviously explored information that hasn't been thoroughly considered here before. I for one am not entirely happy with the current treatment of adjectives -- we have spent most of our effort in hammering out style of nouns and verbs. That leaves a number of other grammatical functions whose page layout could use careful reconsideration. Adjectives in particular have bothered me as I've been working to get Latin entries going. Latin adjectives typically have a substantive sense, but putting that information under a "Noun" heading implies that use has the inflection of a noun, which is incorrect. Please do pursue this topic in the Beer Parlour as Connel has suggested. The discussion may last a long time; it may be vigorous, even heated; and it may or may not lead to a workable solution right away. Regardless, I do think it would be worthwhile to have the discussion. --EncycloPetey 01:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Determiner on POS page[edit]

Brett, None of the example pages you inserted actually use the "Determiner" header. They may be determiners, but they need to have that header to be listed as examples. The reason yonder is listed is that it shows an example of the "Determiner" header in use, not because it is an example of a determiner. Remember, the Wiktionary:Entry layout explained/POS headers page describes current practice, it is not a prescription for what should or should not be done.

I have reverted your edits for now, but feel free to switch it back if some of those pages you listed should get a "Determiner" header. Why not edit some of those pages yourself? The Determiner header is considered acceptable by the community; it just hasn't been widely used because no one who beleieves in it has gotten around to making those changes. --EncycloPetey 15:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I'd open it as a brief topic in the Beer Parlour. Say "Do we accept this or not?" We have a category for Category:English determiners, and the header has been used on pages with no objection. --EncycloPetey 17:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful determiners[edit]

Dear Mr. Determiner… I disagree with your classifications of former, latter, and same as determiners. I think they are adjectives (with additional restrictions: not comparable, not predicative, etc.) They do satisfy a few of the criteria you gave in the BP for determinerhood, but I guess for me the primary necessary condition is: "If it can combine with a singular noun, then it can combine with a singular noun and form a complete noun phrase". CapnPrep 09:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:CapnPrep#Doubtful determiners)
I may be confusing what Huddleston & Pullum call determinatives (a lexical class) with determiners (a function).--BrettR 03:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(OK if we keep the discussion in one place? Unless there's some advantage to doing it the other way?) Yes, we are not using their terminology. But they don't call any of these words "determinatives" or "determiners". They say that same is an adjective or adverb (p. 545, 1138), and former and latter are attributive-only adjectives (p. 553, 556). And there's also own — not a determiner. CapnPrep 10:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I'll change those. Thanks.--BrettR 18:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

wor and Geordie[edit]

Hello BrettR, I've rolled back your edit to wor where you changed the category from category:English determiners to category:Geordie determiners. As much as I'd like Geordie, or more correctly the whole Northumbrian dialect, to be a language in its won right it is considered English and therefore its categorisation must also reflect this too.--Williamsayers79 10:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Try WT:CHU for changing username. Conrad.Irwin 11:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)



Please stop with the "Determiner" sections for now; they don't seem to have community support yet. This topic is currently being discussed at Wiktionary:Beer parlour.

RuakhTALK 01:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

OK--BrettR 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have to admit, I was a bit worried; from the fact that no one had left you a comment about this, I was worried you might be known for eating editors whole or something. I guess they were just shy. :-) —RuakhTALK 01:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

all intents and purposes[edit]

I took the liberty of putting your use of the corpera (with you signature) for to/for all intents and purposes into the talk pages for those entries, having inserted context tags. Thanks for the good facts. DCDuring TALK 16:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Audio bot[edit]

I think yes. Does Simple Wiktionary consist only of entries in English, or are other languages also included? --Derbeth talk 17:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


Please link images immediately under the language header, and not within subsections such as "Etymology" or "Pronunciation". --EncycloPetey 01:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Like this: bend#English--Brett 02:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please. --EncycloPetey 02:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, when there is a {{wikipedia}} template present, please place it ahead of the image. Some versions of IE display the page starngely if the image precedes the Wikipedia box. I'll demonstrate on mite. --EncycloPetey 02:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Same thing with a {{commons}} template?--Brett 02:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
We usually prefer a Commons link to appear down in a See also section, rather than as a floating box, but yes. --EncycloPetey 02:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
So how would you format turtle?--Brett 02:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
That;s a bit tricky. The key things to notice are the use of {{commonslite}} under the See also and the order of the WP link box and image. I've made other changes to the page structure in this case, because I always find it silly when the leading etymology section is an archaic or obsolete sense rather than the primary meaning. There's a difference of opinion among some editors whether primary sense should be first or whether senses should be listed in order according to the date of their origin in English. --EncycloPetey 02:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

grammar question[edit]

Would you be able to shed any grammar light on the classification of "Irish" in the sense mentioned at WT:TR#collective sense of Nationalities? It'd be very much appreciated. Cheers. --Bequw¢τ 01:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bequw¢τ 06:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi. If you're interested in having administrator capabilities on WT, let me know and I can set up the vote. I see you've been around for a few years on a couple of accounts and have an administrative role on one of the Wikipedias Wiktionaries (and are probably somewhat more linguistically qualified than most of us!). Equinox 20:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Here it is: Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2009-07/User:Brett_for_admin Equinox 23:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
We need you to accept. Possibly the vote can't go ahead, strictly speaking, until you accept on the above-linked page. DCDuring TALK 00:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
You should now have your new buttons. Please add an entry at Wiktionary:Administrators. SemperBlotto 07:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

most of all[edit]

Could you take a look at the entry and RfD? The entry made me wonder about a couple of things:

  1. Is this different from the generic superlative of adjective + "of all"?
  2. Is there a useful way for a dictionary to present the generic construction as an entry or part of an entry (just usage examples at all?, usage note there?, appendix on superlatives, gradable adjectives, WP article)? DCDuring TALK 00:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

such as[edit]

Is there a way to map any of the three senses of this helpfully to one or more parts of speech? DCDuring TALK 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

own as determiner[edit]

own is in Category:English determiners, but has the PoS header "Adjective". I noted that you had entered the determiner sense long ago. CGEL treats it as an adjective. Longmans DCE treat it as a determiner/pronoun. Your thoughts?

I am in the process of trying to make headers and categories match in the closed PoSs. That would make those categories a more reliable index of what we are showing users to be in those parts of speech. There were about eight entries added as a result today, mostly alternative spellings or multi-word determiners. DCDuring TALK 08:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Category removed. DCDuring TALK 14:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

not a one[edit]

No other monolingual OneLook reference has this. Some thesauruses and multi-lingual references do. This entry claims not a one is a pronoun. It is not strictly a set phrase, allowing insertion of modifiers like "solitary" and "single" and many intensifiers, without essential change of meaning. "Nary" can substitute for "not" as well. It seems to be an ellipsis of "not a one of X", where X is not necessarily a pronoun, but it a definite referent. Am I mistaken in any of this? Is there something missing?

Is there anything about it that compels us to have an entry? DCDuring TALK 14:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what you say. CGEL has the following to say, "Items traditionally analysed as pronouns but excluded from the pronoun category because they can take determiners include echo what and the pro-nominals one and other." I think that may be what we're dealing with here, but I'm not sure. Apart from the variation you note, there's also such a one and the one. It is certainly something that should be addressed, but I think the place to do so is under one.--Brett 22:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the consult. DCDuring TALK 23:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

English adjectives[edit]

Hi, Brett! A few other editors and I have been working on the Wiktionary:English adjectives page (which has tests to determine whether a word is an adjective), and recently we've considered possible additional tests. Things are still in the draft stage at the moment, but given your linguistic qualifications, I thought you might be interested in looking over the tests (ones we already have, and ones we could add, like "coerced scalarity"), and might have ideas of your own about how to improve the page and identify adjectives. - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Superficially, it seems like the predicand of absent in "Absent the upper classes, [] " is "the upper classes". (I assume that that's how the construction originated? "The upper classes absent, [] " is roughly synonymous, and there it's clear that absent is an adjective in an "ablative absolute"–like construction.) I don't doubt that absent has become a preposition, with "the upper classes" being its complement, but maybe it would be good to explicitly mention (and reject) the alternative view? —RuakhTALK 01:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


Hi Brett!

Re: my username change was made by User:Stephen G. Brown. Have a good day, Sir. -- EyjentJim (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)