User talk:Carolina wren/Archive/2009/April

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


Carolina, when you requested Latin commodum, I tried to help by pointing out the Latin adjective commodus, which means comfortable. commodum means comfortable, but only in neuter, and the lemma for Latin adjectives is masculine singular. This unleashed an altercation between me and EncycloPetey, as he mentions other two meanings of commodum - 2) betimes, adverb, and 3) comfort, noun. I am curious why did you write from commodum in còmode#Etymology, when in cómodo#Etymology the source is masculine singular of the Latin adjective? Also take a look at User talk:Bogorm#Latin_requests, I would appreciate your help in determining which of these four words (three meanings for commodum and one for commodus) you have requested, as this would be crucial to determine who was right in this case. If you opt for commodum, then please explain why the difference in comparison to cómodo#Etymology. Regards The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As usual, Bogorm has missed the point. He altered the text of your request, despite the notice at the top of the page that editors should not do this. It doesn't matter which one the words you requested, as I shall be creating entries for all three if Caladon doesn't beat me to the punch. --EncycloPetey 13:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I requested commodum because that's what the Catalan sources I consulted said: "Etim.: del llatí commŏdum, mat. sign." (Etym.: from Latin commodum, same meaning); and "[1534; del ll. commŏdus, -a, -um, íd.]" (first recorded use 1534, from Lat. commŏdus, -a, -um, equal in meaning). While I was fairly certain that commodus was the lemma, note that both sources mention commodum, so I chose to make that the request. In any case, commodum is likely not the neuter nominative here, but the masculine accusative, as Catalan nouns and adjectives as often as not trace their etymology from latin accusative forms rather than nominative forms. Once the entries are in place, I'll expand the Catalan entry to point out that commodum is a form of the lemma commodus, and add any macrons if needed. (As you can see, my sources for Catalan etymology use the breves instead of the macrons.) — Carolina wren discussió 17:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not familiar enough with the peculiarities of Catalan or Spanish etymology and I admit having been influenced by the user who wrote commodus on cómodo#Etymology, but on the other hand the second of your sources quotes commodus... A am perplexed and uncertain as to whether I should admit my fault, when one source takes the same word... But an entry for neuter nominative (and acc. of course) and for masculine acc. is needed, so excuse me for editing your requæst for commodum. Henceforth I shall comment on the requæsts beneath them rather than ratiocinating which form the editor is looking for. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for the information. I will try to follow the guidelines for formatting as well as I can. --Orthologist 22:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: About Latin[edit]

Thanks. I should have taken a closer look at the given reason for deletion. --Ihope127 01:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the Tea Room[edit]

Hi, Thanks for the Tea Room link (on my user talk page). Should I maybe move the discussions that I've started on the term-in-questions' discussion pages there somehow?--Tyranny Sue 23:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You can if you wish, or you could start there fresh. — Carolina wren discussió 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


I understand your eagerness to fend off POV and the ensuing semiprotection of Macedonia, but the anon was of Greek origin and as such I am sure he knows better how to edit the Greek entry Μακεδονία. It goes without saying that in Greece Μακεδονία is never used to designate any state entity and even their æquivalent to UN FYROM, ΠΓΔΜ, is often avoided in favour of Δημοκρατία των Σκοπίων (Republic of Skopje, there is more discussion about this on Talk:Macedonia#Macedonia) and other designations with no vestige of the Macedonist claim. Thus, I consider the anon's edit to be done meetly and would like to ask if you would mind, if I reinstate his edit (removing the irredentistic definition) and if you would be willing to unprotect Μακεδονία so that Greek anons are not bereft of the possibility to edit the entry of their native language sorry, I just remarked that the semiprotection is expired. If not, I shall input Template:rfv-sense before this definition, so that the Greek editors can at least partake of a discussion at WT:RFV. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the contentious nature of the Macedonian naming dispute due to the pig-headedness on all sides, I'm not sanguine about having anons editing any of the relevant entries no matter the country of origin of the anon. In any case, {{rfv-sense}} would to my mind be the only acceptable manner of deleting a sense from any of the affected entries. Simple deletion, whether by an anon or a registered user is not.
On a side note, when it comes to Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and FYROM, it probably would be less cluttered to only provide the directly analogous form in the Translations section of each entry.
Finally, in a note completely off topic for a dictionary, given the Hellenic concerns that the name Republic of Macedonia represents an irredentist claim on all the territory ever called Macedonia, then in the interests of avoiding irredentist claims in the names of countries, shouldn't Greece be called the Republic of Athens to signify the complete abandonment of Greek irredentism? — Carolina wren discussió 19:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


Thanks, Carolina. I'll be deleting a whole series more user pages as I go.

The redirects - um - leave them for now. The Template:fi-decl-XX and similar ones need to stay, as they're used in pages. Some of the others in Wiktionary: and Appendix: do want to go, but it'll be easier to do them in bulk when finished. --KJBracey 20:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WT:PREFS for deletions.[edit]

Hello Carolina wren,
I am not sure if you are aware of the WT:PREFS page, but there is a great tool near the bottom which replaces the default text of the page delete edit summary. This is often a handy thing so that you don't end up echoing the malicious or vulgar contents of a page being deleted. If you are interested the one you want is towards the bottom and with the description Replace text in deletion log comment. Have a nice day! - [The]DaveRoss 20:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Synonyms and labelling[edit]

Thank you for the information and correcting me :) I'm still a beginner but trying to learn more and more about Wiktionary. Sincererly, Ferike333 21:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

en quad etc.[edit]


Condensing or expanding is not a property of spaces/quads, in either letterpress or digital type. In both cases they have identical fundamental properties, although they are meant for different purposes and are handled differently as part of the typographer's and typesetter's craft.

In letterpress, spaces and quads don't have any qualitative difference (I think originally than an en space on the printed page is created by placing an en quad on the typographer's stick). The narrow ones like m/3, m/4, and m/5 (along with strips of metal for thin and hair spaces), are traditionally used for spaces between words, sentences, punctuation, etc. A savvy typesetter chooses different ones to fractionally adjust spacing and justify text. In setting a condensed font, he may decide to use m/3 where he would use an en quad otherwise, but this does not make it an en space or en quad, because its width isn't one en. (Of course an en space type made of metal can't “shrink” or “grow,” and to say so in the definition is to ignore about 500 years of typesetting)

Likewise, in digital type, spacing (and kerning) is manipulated by the type designer, the typographer, or the layout program. A type designer may put a narrower space at the code point intended for an en space, or a typesetter may tighten the wordspacing of condensed text, or a layout program may automatically expand spaces for justification. These are examples of how spaces may or may not be handled, and not properties of an en space.

(Not all spaces shrink when condensed: I only have one font family on my computer that has regular and condensed faces and includes these characters, DejaVu, and the condensed spaces and quads don't shrink.)

Quads on the other hand are too wide to use in running text, and are mainly for indenting type, and aligning it by “quadding it out” against one or both margins. Either in letterpress or (when used at all) in digital type, these layout properties would remain fixed, or be adjusted by adding or subtracting whole units – they are handled differently.

The Unicode standard defines en and em spaces as identical in width and breaking properties to the quads,[1] and refers to all of these as “fixed-width.”[ But it does include both “spaces” and “quads”, and also gives the nod to distinct handling by mentioning that the em space “may scale by the condensation factor of a font.”

(I've not mentioned optically condensing text in layout or graphics software. This is not normal professional practice, and the resulting distortion isn't a characteristic of the type sort, but a graphical transformation applied to it.)

Sorry for the long reply. If you're really interested, there are some specifics about the history of spaces in quads in Unicode and TeX in an archived email thread: Difference between EM QUAD and EM SPACE. Interestingly but fortunately, it appears that the corresponding spaces and quads were included by mistake. Michael Z. 2009-04-08 22:00 z


My apologies for the poor formatting and incomplete responses on kendi today. I was in a hurry and should have just said I would respond later.

In my sample citations, I meant to say the third citation was less clear.

As for multiple spouts, it seems they are definitely around and I will add those to the kendi page for future reference. Thank you for the stimulation and interest in this topic! Wakablogger 05:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I put citations in the citations page and altered the etymology and definition. I hope this is more satisfactory and best fits the facts. The other approach would be to say that there is a separate archaeological term that allows multiple spouts, but I think that would be going too far. BTW, I found an interesting glossary for artifacts at [[2]]. Best Wakablogger 05:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/Removing vote requirements for policy changes[edit]

Just dropping a note to see if you had seen my response here, and if there was any further discussion to be had with this issue. You seemed to share some sympathy for the support position, and the vote is extremely close, and I'd hate to see it fail simply because someone lost track of it (ok, if I'm being honest, I hate to see it fail for any's my vote :-)). If you've read my comments, and are still satisfied with your position, then no response is necessary, and thanks for your time. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


oh i couldn't found it —This unsigned comment was added by Girayhan (talkcontribs) at 21:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC).


Justification is generally un-necessary (just defer like [3]). I try to avoid discussion on that page as it's really talking about people behind their backs. Conrad.Irwin 00:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)