User talk:Equinox

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

not the sharpest tool in the shed[edit]

How is that a noun? It's interchangeable with "not very smart" or "dim", and it's only used to modify nouns. If it were a noun, it would be synonymous with "stupidity", not "stupid". Because it's a phrase, it's not really comparable and doesn't really work except predicatively, but that doesn't make it a noun. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"The sharpest tool in the shed" is certainly an NP. The applicable sense of "not" appears to be the adverb. Applying an adverb to an NP gives you an NP (like "hungry dog" becoming "surprisingly hungry dog"). Equinox 02:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
In your example, "surprisingly" is modifying "hungry", not "dog" (you can't say "*a surprisingly dog"). Likewise, "not" is modifying "the sharpest", not "tool". Chuck Entz (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Besides, this is really "not the sharpest" with "tool in the shed" tacked on in a way that doesn't diagram very well- that's part of the humor. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, roll 'em back if I'm wrong. Not sure that I agree but I can't articulately analyse and argue it right now. Equinox 03:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
It does seem to me that NOT(X) applies to all of X and I would like to see convincing proof otherwise. To take a really trivial example: if I say "Chuck Entz isn't a leopard in a zoo" then you would seem to be arguing that I'm saying you are in a zoo, merely not a leopard. Equinox 03:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
That isn't really analogous, because "not the sharpest" assumes membership in a set in order to allow comparison with the rest of the set. In fact, I think the underlying form is really something like "not the sharpest [of the] tool[s] in the shed". I'm not completely convinced this is an adjective, either- it seems like a (stative) verb phrase with the verb missing. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"named for", "named after", "from the name of"[edit]

Those searches, while they generate a lot of chaff, also find lots of things to categorize as eponyms. You may already know, since I see many are already categorized, although I've found and fixed a few that weren't. - -sche (discuss) 20:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

We do have a named-after template of some kind, don't we? That automatically adds the category. I have never used it because it's another new thing to learn, being a trickless old dog and all, but it seems the best approach. Equinox 15:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
It's {{named-after}}. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


Hey Mineral Man. What was la,ce,pr,nd,sm, supposed to be on the murataite page? --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I had a bot that picked stuff off MinDat and generated the definitions based on the chemical symbols in the formula (so if the formula was, say, H2OCl3, which I've just made up and probably isn't chemically valid, we would say "a mineral made of hydrogen, oxygen, and chlorine"). If you find errors, it means that there was a typo or weird formatting on MinDat. Equinox 02:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The definitions are terrible. I wish that you had asked someone before doing it, because MinDat has the data to make much better entries. (If you're interested in improving them by bot, though, I could help you with the definitional aspect.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 11:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I do see them as stubs, but for me it's better to have a stub entry that acknowledges "this is a word, and this is VAGUELY what it means" (i.e. it's a mineral, and not a cake, or a dog) than not to have an entry at all. I can see how that is arguable. I'm not a mineralogist and mainly went for it at the time because it seemed like a way to generate (basic) entries for a large number of missing words. So I have no further plans. If you have a specific strategy for improving the entries that can be easily automated (and of course doesn't go so far as to violate another site's copyright) then I might be able to slap it together. Equinox 11:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I did take a mineralogy class, although I have to admit that I've forgotten a great deal of it. The single most important thing you can say about a mineral (besides stating that it's a mineral, of course) is its classification. Colour is deceptive and the elements in it are not very meaningful if you don't know the structure, but knowing the Strunz classification is a big deal. For murataite, the best ultra-stubby, automated def would be (IMO): A black oxide mineral. MinDat has a field for Strunz classification, and you can also get it from 'pedia (except for the fact that lots of minerals don't have an entry over there). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 11:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Well I took the existing stuff from MinDat (with some topical ignorance) and we may be in a position to improve on that. (BTW you will see that I always included them as a reference - not primarily because of my ignorance but because I think it's very rude to take someone's information, copyright or otherwise, without mentioning.) I think MinDat is the only place we are going to obtain mineral info en masse, but I am super-focused on my existing obscure word lists: can I be a bit rude and ask you to check it out and suggest how we can go through their entries and improve ours (without ripping them off too much)? As you are aware we need some kind of blanket algorithmic rule in order to do anything useful. Equinox 11:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm too inept to do the actual bot-work, or really figure out how exactly it ought to be done. Essentially, you should take the capitalised word in the Strunz classification field at MinDat, remove the final S and then make it lowercase, and insert it inside [[]] immediately before the word "mineral" in any entry you made that hasn't been substantially edited (those entries should be easy to find, as they will be members of both Category:Requests for expansion of etymologies in English entries and Category:en:Minerals (or Category:en:Mineralogy for the ones that haven't had their context label fixed yet by WF yet). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


This might be useful for you. —Rua (mew) 23:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

ohhhh there's so much damn stufffffff OK thanks. Do you mind if I drop a question on your talk page occasionally (definitely less often than tonight though). Like I said, no goal in mind, it just seems sensible to have half a clue about Wiktionary's favourite language. If I get super lazy then tell me to RTFM. Anyway thanks for your clearly knowledgeable help. Equinox 23:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Why was Cypress just updated? MystinaRose 01:19, 3 December 2018 (EST)

Don't know. Presumably because I split the etymology. Equinox 06:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Guess our minds were in the same place at the same time MystinaRose 01:36, 3 December 2018 (EST)


I still love you, bb — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 22:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I think we all have that "abusive girl/boyfriend" who whipped our eye seven colours but we wish they were still around. Did you seriously write "lucida console" on my page. Has nothing changed since the 1990s? <MARQUEE><BLINK><FUCKYALL> Equinox 22:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
It's in my sig, apparently. The default font for Hebrew is ugh. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 00:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Check your mail, slutface. E-mail from Equinox doesn't go left to right, or right to left, it mostly goes from cradle to grave, with terrifying velocity. Equinox 00:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

plum in one's mouth[edit]

I was working on [[plum]] derived terms and noted plum-in-the-mouth. It looks to me that plum in one's mouth is entryworthy, but I'm not sure about the definition.

Also how should we show the plurals: eg. plums in their mouths/plums in our mouths/plums in your mouths? A usage note? Leave it as an exercise for the reader? DCDuring (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It's an impersonal third-person one, not a royal "one fell off one's (my) horse", so I'd go with "their" and not "our" as the plural, if there has to be one. I think it's better not to bother with one. Equinox 02:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Is this a specific (range of) UK accent(s)? Is it just a version of RP? Can it be used of any language? I am not familiar with any US usage of the term. DCDuring (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
It's a plummy accent: see the definition there. Equinox 11:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh this is funny. Norwegians and Swedes say, I think, exactly the same thing about Danes with a completely different meaning. The Danish accent is sometimes difficult for other Scandinavians to make out because it's so...slurred isn't the right word, exactly, but I think the "plum in the mouth" tells you what you need to know. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 14:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


@Equinox: since you created the article, I was wondering if this is the same as Chloropicrin? FYI here it says chlorpicrin Face-smile.svg - Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it seems so; e.g. Chemical and Biological Warfare (Croddy 2011) mentions "Chloropicrin (or Chlorpicrin)". Equinox 18:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for correcting my mistake. I totally missed that one said "art" and the other "act". AstroMark (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Bagging Hewitts and Marilyns[edit]

When I ran across this BBC news article, I discovered that there are a couple dozen different names for classes of hills and mountains among the UK hillwalking community (see w:Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles). We have an entry for the oldest, Munros, but I believe that's the only one so far.

I'm not inclined to spend more time on this, but I know you're always looking for new words, and apparently there are enough books on the subject for most or all of them to meet CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


I appreciated your addition of the adjectival sense, which you've based on the existing nominal sense. Technically, imperfect is not actually a tense, but combines tense (past) and aspect (continuing or repeating). Is it worth editing these definitions to take this into account? Aabull2016 (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Go for it. I found TAM a bit tricky to get my head around and am not an expert. Equinox 18:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


Well done, mate

On achieving 600,000 edits, I hereby award you this picture of a Fiat Multipla 600 --Mustliza (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh good, it's about time I upgraded the old Dormobile. Equinox 14:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)