User talk:Kwamikagami

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

If I do not respond here, you might want to try at Wikipedia.


Please read the documentation for Template:also (the replacement for Template:see. These are not used to link synonyms; they are for linking identically spelled words that differ only in capitalization, diacritics, spacing, or hyphenation. You would do well to learn a little about Wiktionary formatting standards before you continue to alter pages. --EncycloPetey 20:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The primary formatting article is WT:ELE (Entry layout explained). It can be difficult to interpret at times, so I would also direct you to the model pages listen and parrot, where many particular points of format are visible to help intepret Wiktionary standards. For more complex layout and page format, pages like amo or por may be helpful, though proper format for all sections is not guarranteed for longer pages such as those. --EncycloPetey 21:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That, at least, is helpful. Kwamikagami 22:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


Hi, if you use {{rare}} at the start of the definition, then it will both format and categorise correctly. Conrad.Irwin 22:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Kwamikagami 22:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome template[edit]

Better late than never. Conrad.Irwin 22:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary!

If you have edited Wikipedia, you probably already know some basics, but Wiktionary does have a few conventions of its own. Please take a moment to learn our basics before jumping in.

First, all articles should be in our standard format, even if they are not yet complete. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with it. You can use one of our pre-defined article templates by typing the name of a non-existent article into the search box and hitting 'Go'. You can link Wikipedia pages, including your user page, using [[w:pagename]], {{pedia}}, or {{wikipedia}}.

Notice that article titles are case-sensitive and are not capitalized unless, like proper nouns, they are ordinarily capitalized (Poland or January). Also, take a moment to familiarize yourself with our criteria for inclusion, since Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. Don't go looking for a Village pump – we have a Beer parlour. Note that while Wikipedia likes redirects, Wiktionary deletes most redirects (especially spelling variations), in favor of short entries. Please do not copy entries here from Wikipedia if they are in wikipedia:Category:Copy to Wiktionary; they are moved by bot, and will appear presently in the Transwiki: namespace.

A further major caveat is that a "Citation" on Wiktionary is synonymous with a "Quotation", we use these primary sources to construct dictionary definitions from evidence of the word being used. "References" (aka "Citations" on Wikipedia) are used predominantly for verifying Etymologies and usage notes, not the definitions themselves. This is partly to avoid copyright violation, and partly to ensure that we don't fall into the trap of adding "list words", or words that while often defined are never used in practice.

Note for experienced Wikipedians:
Wiktionary is run in a very different manner from Wikipedia and you will have a better experience if you do not assume the two are similar in culture. Please remember that despite your experience on Wikipedia, that experience may not always be applicable here. While you do not need to be an expert, or anything close to one, to contribute, please be as respectful of local policies and community practices as you can. Be aware that well-meaning Wikipedians have unfortunately found themselves blocked in the past for perceived disruption due to misunderstandings. To prevent a similar outcome, remember the maxim: be bold, but don't be reckless!
Having said that, we welcome Wikipedians, who have useful skills and experience to offer. The following are a couple of the most jarring differences between our projects that Wikipedians may want to learn up front, so things go smoothly for everyone. Changing policy pages on Wiktionary is very strongly discouraged. If you think something needs changing, please discuss it at the beer parlour, after which we may formally vote on the issue. You should also note that Wiktionary has very different user-space policies, we are here to build a dictionary and your user-page exists only to facilitate that. In particular we have voted to explicitly ban all userboxes with the exception of {{Babel}}; please do not create or use them.

We hope you enjoy editing Wiktionary and being a Wiktionarian. Conrad.Irwin 22:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


When you reach a stopping point on editing (for the day or for a few hours), please drop me a note. I'd be happy to make some comments about format, but don't want to make those while you're still actively editing, as you may figure some of the issues out yourself. I also don't want to cause an edit conflict, since it looks as though some of your edits involve considerable material, and I know it can be irritating to be warned of an edit conflict under such circumstances. --EncycloPetey 22:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize for abusing you on your Wikipedia page. Kwamikagami 23:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
To rudely intrude, you can use {{quote-book}} to format quotations from books correctly. Conrad.Irwin 23:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure thing. ('Rude'?) EP, I guess I will be editing a little longer. Kwamikagami 23:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Fine, just repost to me when you've reached a stopping point you're satisfied with. New editors need time to experiment. --EncycloPetey 23:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that's one major task out of the way. Conrad.Irwin 00:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll begin by noting the "most major" points of page format, and let you get a feel for handling them yourself, rather than do the editing for you. For minor or advanced technical points, I might do them myself and post a diff link.

  1. Section order - WT:ELE sets out the overall order for major sections on a page. The key section order issue on this page is that Pronunication precedes Etymology, when it should be the other way round. This is easily fixed.
  2. Synonyms - even though it may mean repetition of items, Synonyms should always be listed as a subheader under the particular part of speech for which they are synonyms, with all synonyms identified as to the particular sense to which they apply, using the {{sense}} template. Example for the Noun section:
    The second line above would only be included if "American" is actually used to mean "a house designed by Frank Lloyd Wright". I expect that US American was never used to mean such a thing, which illustrates why we don't just have a large and unorganized Synonyms section; not all synonyms apply to all definitions and senses.
  3. Translations - Like Synonyms, these are always placed indented as a subheader under a particular part of speech. Each definition gets its own collapsible Translations box, even if the content ends up being repeated. You can see a model of this format at parrot, where each definition has its own translation box, and some words are in fact repeated. Note also the last collapsible box on that page is a "trans-see" box, because one of the definitions is identical in meaning to another word, where the Translations can be all placed. Within a single page, however, duplication of translations can and does happen.

That should be enough to start with. --EncycloPetey 01:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Will get to it later today. Since you objected to placing an example which illustrated two uses of the word under both definitions, I thought duplicating translations might also be a problem. Kwamikagami 01:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
That's a different situation. A quote should only be used to support one definition. If it supports more than one definition, then that's taken as evidence that the two definitions are actually part of a single definition. I assumed that your definitions were correctly distinct, as they do not seem to me to duplicate meaning. --EncycloPetey 01:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
One quotation with two tokens of the word, one as an adjective and one as a noun. AFAIK, Wiktionary guidelines require us to treat those as two different definitions. Kwamikagami 06:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Done. I have a "see below" placeholder where you removed the repeated citation. Kwamikagami 07:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


Hey, thanks for expanding this entry. A quick note about etymologies: We like to wikify our etyma, as we have some people who specialize in dead languages, and sometimes create entries for them (as I have done for one of this entry's etyma). There are a million other little formatting details, but I don't want to bog you down right away, so I'll leave it at that for now (unless of course, you'd like a bit of advanced reading, which can be found at {{term}} and {{etyl}}, or just take a look at some of the formatting I've done), so I'll nag you about them next time you write an etymology. Any questions, feel free to ask, and thanks again. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And here I thought I didn't have to bother with that anymore!
BTW, the way you've used the IPA with Αὐσονία, you're claiming that σον is a closed syllable, and that the stressed syllable starts with a vowel. When I saw it, I heard a glottal stop in my head. The stress mark comes at the start of the syllable: [aɸsoˈnia]. Also, diphthongs are normally marked with a non-syllabicity mark, [aʊ̯soníaː]. The tie bar you used is normally used for affricates like [t͡s] (it makes no difference whether it ties above or below), though what you have will be understood. Kwamikagami 09:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see it's the template that's screwed up with the diphthongs. It also links to the English IPA chart, which won't be of any help for letters like [ɸ]. Kwamikagami 09:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
To begin with, the stress marker is a shortcoming of the template, which we have been aware of for some time. As the template is currently set up, there is, unfortunately, no way around it. I have been thinking about a more robust format for it, but that will be a ways off yet. I will look into the bit about the non-syllabicity mark. The issue with {{IPA}} is one which is being currently discussed, and should be fixed (in one way or another) very shortly. Thanks for your critique. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad it's just a programming bug.
As for the diphthongs, it wouldn't make much difference with [a͜ʊ]. However, [i͜u] would be ambiguous: there's no way to tell whether that's supposed to be a rising diphthong, [i̯u], or a falling diphthong, [iu̯]. Kwamikagami 09:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)



Please be a bit less bold in reverting other editors' changes. So far, the only editors to [[Usonian]] have been you, a bot, and three admins; and while the bot and admins certainly don't know everything, a lot of our changes are for good reasons that have community consensus behind them. For example, by and large we consider it a good thing for senses to have transparent example sentences; some quotations can serve this purpose, but most can't, either because they include unusual words (note: even slightly-less-common words are bad), or because they require the reader to infer a lot of context (or conversely, because we supply that context, making the quotations much longer).

(Personally, I basically never add example sentences, for roughly the same reasons that you gave, but I'd never remove another editor's example sentence without good reason.)

RuakhTALK 22:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but the examples were simply bad. Two actually misrepresented the way the word is used.
  • Why "surprisingly ordinary"? Does Usonia, New York, have the reputation of being a cult, that its inhabitants being "ordinary" would be a surprise? Perhaps so, but it's not supported by the refs.
  • "Usonian architecture is not perfect, but it is more than good enough."--whose opinion is that? Who are we deciding it's good enough for?
  • "There is a tendency among Usonian politicians to say what they think people want to hear."--what, other politicians don't? Is this really a case where we need to distinguish Usonians from other Americans? because that's generally the only time that the label "Usonian" is used.
  • "In a Usonian world we would never be in debt." Where does that come from? None of the refs say anything that I can see about Usonian America being debt-free. It seems to be confusing "Usonian" for "utopian"; one of the refs even says that Usonia is a practical rather than utopian concept.
The examples read like a middle-school homework assignment. They do not illuminate the word; if you remove "Usonian" or replace it with some generic term they work just as well, and so are completely useless as illustrative material. I have simplified some of my replacement quotes a bit, so that they better stand on their own, but agree that my first example is not very good. However, at least it shows how the word has actually been used. Kwamikagami 23:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The examples were made up and intended to be as simple as possible, I tend to find that the quotes in real use are too complicated to get the correct meaning across. By deliberately writing relatively generic sentences people can work out how the word corresponds to other words they may know already - though I agree writing too generic examples is bad. I know many others disagree with me on this, so I don't really mind. Conrad.Irwin 20:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, my first replacement example is too complicated, so you definitely have a point, though I think the other real-use replacements work pretty well. The problem I had was that this word carries rather strong connotations that aren't easy to capture in a definition or made-up illustration. It's not as easy as a common or generic word like tree or tweny-six. Kwamikagami 21:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
All the more reason to craft the best illustration we can; if you think it's hard to capture the connotations in made-up examples, then it seems basically hopeless to wait for a quotation that captures it for us (keeping in mind that the goal of quoted authors isn't to illustrate the word, but rather to say whatever it is they're trying to say). Of course, I'm speaking abstractly here; if you find such a quotation, then that's that, but I suspect that you're simply accepting a lower level of illustrativeness from a quotation than we could get from a well-crafted example.
More generally, rather than removing flawed information (such as an example sentence), it's generally better (when possible) to improve it, or replace it with better information.
RuakhTALK 22:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
But that's exactly what I did: I replaced made-up examples which either didn't illustrate the word well, or actually mis-illustrated it, with real-world examples. The only problem was that one of my replacements requires more context than we'd like. The problem with making stuff up is that we're making it up. That's not lexicography, it's fiction. Or in Wikipedia speak, OR.
There's an entire field of bizarre pseudo-scientific linguistics in the US (thankfully not everywhere) that relies on made-up examples for "data". They don't use real data, because it's too confusing, and what they end up with is garbage. There's a similar problem with dictionaries: Well-crafted examples would be fine if somehow we could ensure that they were all well crafted, but a glance through any published dictionary that follows this method quickly shows that much of what results is garbage. It's no easier for lexicographers to make up sentences to illustrate words than it is for linguists to make up sentences to test whether a construction is grammatical. That's why the OED decided to restrict itself to real data in 1870, and why remains the greatest dictionary in the world. Kwamikagami 22:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
That's a very strange comparison; the problem with using made-up examples for "data" is that it's a closed loop, which basically guarantees that Gresham's Law and GIGO will take effect. We don't have this problem: we use actual quotations for our data — under sense lines, in #Quotations sections, and on Citations: pages — and our example sentences are basically an extension of our definitions. Personally, I, like you, prefer quotations to example sentences, and I basically never add them myself (except in usage notes, where it's even more painful to add quotations than to add example sentences), but there's community consensus that example sentences are important as well, and a lot of the feedback we receive at Wiktionary:Feedback seems to suggest that our readers agree (though I'm not sure about that last one; it's possible that when our readers ask for examples, they'd be just as happy with what we call "quotations" as what we call "example sentences"). —RuakhTALK 02:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Usonian etymology[edit]

Hi, you removed all mention of "United States of Northern Independent America" from Usonia and Usonian, was this for a good reason? I feel it just as likely a possible etymology as Usona + ia, and given the much more clear view James Law would have had on events than the Harvard art review 60 years later, I am more inclined to trust it. Conrad.Irwin 20:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's still there in the quotes at Usonia, and I explain why I toned it down on that talk page. Basically, this looks like a fake folk etymology, and not just Harvard but no-one else picked up on it. (You can force an ad hoc "independent" into Usonia if you take the entire thing to be an acronym, but "Northern Independent America" isn't an English phrase that you'd make an acronym from.) Law notes the parallel between Usonia and Caledonia, so there's that as well. Kwamikagami 21:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
What you say makes sense. I apologise for not checking the other talk page, I assumed you'd have commented on Talk:Usonian with the rest of that discussion. Just to be nit-picky, is the Independent italicized in the original? It would change the emphasis of the text considerably if so - but I have to fight with google books to see any of it so have no idea. Conrad.Irwin 22:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's in the original, showing the difference between USONA and USONIA as an acronym. Kwamikagami 22:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Conrad.Irwin 22:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


An etymology section is always for information about the page name, not about other items. So, the information you added about the origin of the "pound sign" belongs at #, not at octothorpe. --EncycloPetey 23:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Check it out: That's the Wiktionary main page, so I wasn't able to place the info there. Kwamikagami 01:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Then point this out in the WT:GP and ask for a solution to the technical problem. The information should not be dumped into an inappropriate location. --EncycloPetey 02:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
It also shouldn't just be deleted. The symbol is illustrated in that article, so it is at present the best second choice. Kwamikagami 02:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't. The page is about the word, not the symbol. We don't deliberately put information into incorrect places, ever. It just happens that the word can be depicted with the symbol. The two have entirely separate etymologies. I found the page for the pound sign, but I can't cfreate a text link to it. Insert a blank space then the pound sign into the URL as if you were typing the page name in by hand. --EncycloPetey 02:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for that, but if we can't link to it, and can't edit it to add any information, it doesn't do us much good. Kwamikagami 02:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we could have a subsection of octothorpe related to the symbol with a note explaining that there can't be a separate entry due to technical limitations. Not ideal, but it would be better than nothing. Nadando 02:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Another possibility would be to use the double-width Chinese glyphs #:;<=>[]_{|}. already has an article; maybe we could coopt that. But maybe better to wait until GP gets back to us. Kwamikagami 02:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


I understand the edit you made, but I question the plural as being "oes". I've never seen the plural as anything but "o's". --EncycloPetey 17:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

O's is the plural of the letter, like b's or c's; oes is the plural of the name, like bees or cees. Granted, it's not very common to spell out letter names. The quote from Tennyson should cover it, as that's what the OED uses to illustrate it. It is rare though, so perhaps we should mark it as such.
Under the heading "oes", OED has a redirect: the plural of O, or an obsolete form of ooze. Kwamikagami 19:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


Using redirects here is really not the best solution. We generally frown on redirects here, and for good reason. The problem is that, while a redirect would work perfectly if we only had Esperanto, we cover all languages, and chances are that some language has a genuine infix -in-. Thus, might I suggest an alternative approach? Perhaps a simple morphological definition could suffice, such as "-ino when preceding a consonant" or something like that. Now, I know nothing about Esperanto, so I'm not sure what -in- really means in it, but a redirect is really not the best route. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It should go under -ino; that's what we do with all other Esperanto words. (The final -o shows it's a noun, and it's customary to enter nouns in a dictionary with that final -o intact.) Maybe we could just have an Esperanto heading with a 'see -ino' tag? Kwamikagami 02:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. Eventually, someone with a morphological penchant might come in and do something more intense, but your suggestion is probably the best route for now. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Nominal suffix, etc.[edit]

Please do not introduce new "Parts of speech" headers. Wiktionary uses "Suffix", without specifying the nature of the suffix. If specification is needed, please do so on the inflection line with a {{context}} tag. --EncycloPetey 19:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

But it isn't an inflection. The part of speech is inherent in the suffix despite inflection, and a handful of suffixes have more than one part of speech, neither of which can be derived from the other.
The {{sense}} tag seems to be appropriate. How is -ant- now? Kwamikagami 19:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It is badly and incorrectly formatted. I told you how to correctly format it, but instead you have used an inappropriate tag. The {{sense}} tag is used only in "-onym" sections to pair listed words with the related sense. When did I say anything about inflections? --EncycloPetey 19:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
You said to use it "on the inflection line". I made the silly assumption that had something to do with inflections. And I "had" to use an inappropriate tag? Didn't I ask you about it to make sure it was okay?
How's that now? Kwamikagami 19:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Soory, I misspoke, then, and didn't realize it. The {{context}} tag should be on the definition line, which you seem to have figured out on the second go, despite my mistake. I'm going to make a couple of minor style edits and add the (mandatory) inflection line. You should be able then to follow the same basic format on other pages, as needed. --EncycloPetey 19:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


Please do not alter definitions to support your own arguments, especially when doing so introduces errors. By your defintion, a person who photocopies a page from a book is guilty of plagiarism. --EncycloPetey 18:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make false accusations. (I suppose I should write the OED and have them change their definition because it supports my argument.) The old definition was faulty: plagiarism does not require any overt claim, and you could only misread my correction by being obtuse. I see that Ruakh corrected you on your revert. Kwamikagami 23:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Please don't try to drag me in on your side. My edits were in no way a comment on EP's revert (except in that his comment here drew my attention to our definitions for that term). I happen to think you're both behaving like jerks, and I now regret having commented in his defense at Wiktionary talk:English Phonemic Representation. I wish y'all would move your conversation off-wiki, say into e-mail or something, so the rest of us can pretend Wiktionary is an adult enterprise. —RuakhTALK 00:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
My apologies, Ruakh. I won't make any further comments on the topic. Kwamikagami 00:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


I just wanted to note that glottalic and glottalized are distinct term in linguistics, and "glottalization" refers only to glottalized consonants. Glottalic consonants like ejectives and ingressives include full closure of the glottis and a movement of the larynx producing a different form of airstream, whereas glottalized consonant (including, in the more extreme cases, glottal stops) are still produced by pulmonic airstream (indeed, it is not possible to make a glottalic sound if the glottis is not completely closed).

It is oddly frequent in science for a noun or adjective to be created before the matching verb, or an adjective+verb compound before the adjective is used in other construction. I strongly suspect glottalize should be defined in term of glottalization, not the other way around...

Hum. Sorry, my thougts went a bit out of control. I think my point is basically that ejective and ingressive sounds are not glottalized, and "glottalization" is not derived from "glottalic." Circeus 04:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen "glottalized" used for ejective and implosive sounds as well, so that it's sometimes impossible to tell what it's supposed to mean. (For example, in the inventory of a language, they'll list glottalized /k'/ alongside glottalized /m'/.) But that may well be considered substandard. Kwamikagami 06:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
However, the word we are trying to define at the moment is glottalization, not "glottalized". As far as I can tell "glottalization" is pretty well covered by the two definition as is (I don't think I've seen it applied to transformation into a glottalic consonant, but sense 2 could be easily extended). Adding adjectival senses to glottalized is what you'd be interested in. Also I'm curious to see some examples of glottalic consonant called glottalized. Most likely these are ambiguities in transcription: IIRC it is common to transcribed glottalization with the ejective mark (alternatively, there might be an added subtlety I'm not seeing, it sounds from a quick look that only consonants other than stop can really be glottalized). But it's late and I need to go sleep. Circeus 06:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! (for suppletion)[edit]

Thanks so much the thoughtful reply and refs regarding suppletion! (Now to set up categories so the lay may more easily find their way…)

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure! That's useful info for me too. kwami 15:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

US Americans et al[edit]

I don't know what the outcome of the RfD under our current rules will be. One thing I am reasonably sure of: Citations pages will not be deleted if they have good content. Another realistic possibility: Our rules change. Implication: Having each of the terms with all the citations you have collected in a Citations page may provide the base for a future entry even if the entry is deemed to fail. In addition, someone looking for the term may find the citations through the search box (although the search by default does not cover Citations, which default may also change). In the meantime, I was trying to sort the quotes onto Citations pages for the exact spellings and format using our templates. I had butchered at least one quote and not yet gotten back to repair the damage I caused. DCDuring TALK 13:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning that up. I know it was a mess! kwami 14:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

on whether and where "r" is pronounced[edit]

Please read the article w:Rhotic and non-rhotic accents on Wikipedia before making any more incorrect edits to the pronunciations of English words ending in "r". — hippietrail 05:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm following Wiktionary pronunciation guidelines as they have stood for half a year. I'll review the Wikipedia article you suggested to make sure it does not contain factual errors, but I suspect it will support my edits as it stands. Please read it more carefully: bar is /ˈbɑɹ/ in both GA and RP. (It may be /ˈbɑː/ in Oz, but that's another issue—I haven't been changing Aussie pronunciations.) The fact that the phonetic realization in RP depends on whether there is a following vowel has no bearing on the underlying phonemic structure, which is what is indicated by the slashes. In other words, [ˈbɑ(ɹ)] with brackets would be correct for RP, but */ˈbɑ(ɹ)/ with slashes is not.
There is, of course, a phonemic difference in bark, where GA has an /r/ but RP does not. But I haven't been changing those words either. kwami 06:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
British and Australian pronunciations differ mostly in vowel quality. Neither pronounce word-final r and both British and Australian dictionaries do not indicate a pronounced word-final r. What they do have is "Linking r" which is considered correct, and "intrusive r" which is considered incorrect. See w: Linking and intrusive R.
Much thought thought went into the current system which has been in place much longer than half a year. The parenthesized final r indicates both that some accents pronounce it and some don't, and that for for those which generally don't they do when the word is followed by one beginning with a vowel sound. So it can be "optional" in two ways.
Also for American pronunciation if not all rhotic accents there are "r-coloured" symbols used in IPA such as ɚ and ɝ which are often used instead of a full r symbol. — hippietrail 06:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
But that's still factually incorrect. First of all, if we're going to cover "some accents do and some don't", then wouldn't it be incorrect to label the result RP? Secondly, what you're describing for both RP and GA is phonetic, not phonemic. If you consider linking r to be part of RP, then bar is /ˈbɑɹ/, not */ˈbɑ(ɹ)/—what you call "optional" is allophonic, not phonemic optionality. If you consider intrusive r to be part of RP, then you could argue idea is phonemically /aɪˈdiːəɹ/ in RP, so that if we write /ˈbɑ(ɹ)/ for bar (to cover both those who maintain there is an /ɹ/ and those who don't) we'd need to write /aɪˈdiːə(ɹ)/ for idea as well.
It could well be that some pronunciations are mislabeled RP. I've always said that our pronunciation sections are in the worst shape of all our sections. So such errors could be interpreted two ways: a) the transcription is wrong but the regional label is right or b) the transcription is right but the regional label is wrong. Generally like most dictionaries we avoid technical terms like phonetic, phonemic, allophonic from section headings because they are unfamiliar to most dictionary users. We aim to have pronunciation guides as pragmatic and useful as those in major dictionaries, whether those would be considered exactly "phonemic" or not to a linguist might be going too far.
Intrusive r is part of British and Australian English but probably not part of RP. As it's considered incorrect we do not put it in our pronunciations. Linking r is considered correct in RP but most modern British and Australian dictionaries do not indicate it. It being indicated is a Wiktionary improvement. I have seen it used in some dictionaries for foreign learners of English, perhaps COBUILD dictionaries. Most British and Australian dictionaries will list /aɪˈdiːə/ and /ˈbɑː/. I am not aware of any monolingual English dictionary which use the upside-down r at all. — hippietrail 07:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be great if we would write "(r)" to cover both rhotic and non-rhotic dialects. We could do the same with the /j/ in new, and abolish the dichotomy between RP and GA. But that's not how "(r)" is being used on Wiktionary. kwami 07:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Years ago it was my intention to use both (r) and (j) for exactly these reasons but due to many confusions and many opinions on pronunciation here on the English Wiktionary over the years the (j) didn't catch on but the (r) did. I hope with work and effort we can someday have decent pronunciation sections but we're not there yet. Constructive discussion I welcome very much. — hippietrail 07:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I was involved in developing the integrated "IPA for English" key used for English pronunciations on Wikipedia, which isn't perfect but does a decent job of covering both RP and GA (but not Scottish). However, I had some nasty run-ins (there and here) with a prolific Wiktionary editor who was adamant that it not be used because it uses slashes but is not phonemic: that transcriptions must be dialect-specific. He is, of course, correct about it not being exactly phonemic, but I thought utility more important than theoretical fidelity. I wonder, though, about the chances of getting something similar adopted here, where he is much more involved, even though similar objections can be made about the "(r)" convention. Anyway, in the WP system we don't use parentheses; I objected to them because I thought them distracting and difficult to read in running text. But Wiktionary would not have that problem, since the IPA is set off in its own section. It's a fairly simple matter to compromise on the vowels; it might be better to go with "/əʊ/" than "/oʊ/", since that would allow "/ə(ʊ)/". (We went with "/oʊ/" because it contained orthographic o, which makes it more accessible to the newbie. Same reason for choosing "/r/" over "/ɹ/".)
I always prefer /əʊ/ just because more dictionaries use it and the more phonetically accurate the symbols, the more people expect the symbols should be exact. I think the major Australian dictionary, the Macquarie uses /oʊ/ as is used for American pronunciations. Not that any American dictionary I'm aware of uses IPA though. Another difference is that in American pronunciations the focus is on vowel quality and quantity is omitted. British and Australian dictionaries go in for the length mark : even if they don't use the RP-style diphthong symbols. No two dictionary publishers use the exact same system. You probably know this but it's a surprise to many who believe that since IPA is supposed to be able to represent all languages that it is always used in the same way and that only one way is correct for a given language or dialect. I used to maintain a page comparing how IPA was used in various dictionaries. I'll see if I can find it for you. — hippietrail 09:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that s.t. comes up with sourcing on WP when s.o. objects to us converting the transcription to our conventions. The dict. comparison might be interesting: I've seen some (Ladefoged covers some of the issues), but being Usonian have seen more AHD-type systems. kwami 10:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be nice to have a consistent system here: either use "r" or "ɹ", etc. And I think it would be nice to have a pan-dialectal system. Does AWB function on Wiktionary? One argument for keeping "ɹ" would be that it would be much simpler for a bot to identify IPA entries for later automated adjustments, than if we used "r". kwami 08:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Personally I don't like "ɹ" because English dictionaries don't use it, but I generally lose such arguments here. We mostly seem to go with it now though I have seen at least 4 symbols used for "r" in English here! I am personally in favour of adopting a pan-English scheme and only separating UK and US when the differences are not systematic. But again other contributors here might feel strongly against this view.
I've heard of AWB but I'm not sure if it runs here. I'm not aware of any bots which manipulate pronunciation sections here. — hippietrail 09:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

-vir- et al.[edit]

As far as I can see, these aren't suffixes, they're infixes. I'm not sure there is a [[Category:English infixes]] yet, but there is one for Esperanto and Ido, which use them enormously. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, some examples would help to clarify this issue. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Esperanto does not have infixes. If that category is still being used, we need to fix it.
Esperanto has inflecting suffixes. However, in a few cases, such as -aĉ-, the affix inherits the part-of-speech inflection of the base word. You might argue that these few cases (also -et- and -eg-) are infixes. However, I'd like to see that argued in print somewhere. kwami
An infix is placed within a stem. That is not the case here. The double hyphen merely indicates that a following suffix is mandatory, though perhaps that's not WT convention? (In linguistic glossing, at least in the Leipzig conventions, infixes are marked with angle brackets: <bloody>, not double hyphens.)
I've only added 'derived forms' that have WT entries, because otherwise there are hundreds of them. -lim- and -tum- have examples. kwami 20:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Butting in: We've had warm discussions on this. I think interfix is the word. We don't have a heading for these in WT:ELE. If we have enough legitimate cases, then we can legitimize the heading. They get put on a headings cleanup list along with typos etc, but there is little danger that anyone will "correct" the heading. The following-"-" convention you suggest is what I would have expected, though it is not policy. The other "fixes" with leading and trailing hyphens that I know about are -fucking-, -bloody-, -i-, and -o-. I think the group of them need to be in a hidden category. What would be a good name for the category? Category:English interfixes is a subcategory of Category:Interfixes by language. Would the chem/bio ones need Category:Translingual interfixes? DCDuring TALK 20:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
In a minute or two I'll have this question posted in the Tea Room. You might want to join in there. kwami 20:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Etymology 2 sections of -i- and -o-[edit]

If this and this are suffixes, then those entries need to be listed at -i and -o, respectively. Please more your information to the correct place and revert your own revisions to -i- and -o-.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"-o" and "-i" would imply that these occur at the ends of words, which they do not. "-o-" and "-i-" show that something else follows. Or is that not WT convention?
I suppose that we could classify them as interfixes, though that's not what the USAN guidelines call them. Anyway, the problem is what we call them, not IMO where we put them. kwami 20:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
If you could add some derived terms, I’d be better able to judge the morphology. Either way, however, they need to be headed by Interfix headers if they are to remain at their present locations.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Some derived terms are mentioned above. Meanwhile there's a discussion going on in the Tea Room. kwami 21:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


Please review Wiktionary:Entry_layout_explained#Translations, especially the Translation dos and don'ts. The "don'ts" include: "Do not give translations back into English of idiomatic translations", which is a specialized case of the unwritten policy of not giving translations back into English within the Translations section. When the translation does not exactly match the meaning of the English word it is used to translate, that information should be given on the entry for the translation, as it is not about the English entry. --EncycloPetey 04:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. kwami 11:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


Sorry, but your way of doing the IPA for edzino is wrong. edzino has three syllables, I know my IPA very well and I know that the thing goes after the d. Furthermore, I added a hyphenation which your previous edit did not have. Therefore, your undoing of my edit is wrong because my edit was right. Razorflame 03:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No, your edit was wrong because you syllabified incorrectly. Dz is an affricate in Eo: e-dzi-no, at least according to Kaloscay & Waringhien's Plena analiza gramatiko de Esperanto §22. kwami 09:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that is where you are wrong. Several other sources of mine confirm that there is no such dz affricate in Esperanto. Furthermore, don't say that I don't know Esperanto when I am an eo-2 editor. You are the one that doesn't know the language. Thanks, Razorflame 19:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Then please give those sources. Kaloscay & Waringhien are generally considered authoritative. kwami 20:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
w:Esperanto phonology, for one, doesn't list the dz affricate anywhere on the page, and that page was made using most of the most used sources. You will see that that page does not list a dz affricate anywhere, and that the sources don't either. Razorflame 21:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
You're using WP as a source? Well, besides the fact that I'm the one who wrote that article, it does say precisely that:
Although it does not occur initially, the sequence dz is pronounced as a cluster if not as an affricate, as in edzo [e.dzo] "a husband" with an open first syllable [e], not as *[ed.zo].
The reason I used the wording "as a cluster if not as an affricate" is because my sources didn't actually use the term "affricate", though from the context there's little doubt in my mind that's what they meant. But in either case, it speaks to precisely the example we're debating here. kwami 21:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Very well. That's all you had to do to show me that I was wrong. Sure, people can be wrong sometimes. Hopefully you harbor no hard feelings towards me :) Thank you for explaining it and showing me the example. Cheers, Razorflame 21:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
No, of course not! We're all here for the same thing. I guess I just expected the word of Kaloscay & Waringhien to be good enough, and for all I knew, you had a more recent source which explicitly explained why they were wrong. (That happens too: K&W have been criticized for an overly complex analysis of the vowels, for example, which other E-ists has said reflects their native languages more than it does Eo.) kwami 21:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This is Therequiembellishere[edit]

Hey, this is User:Therequiembellishere. Er, I'm still blocked. 21:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

IPA question[edit]

Would you happen to know how to do multi word Esperanto IPA? I would be very grateful if you would teach me how to do multi word Esperanto IPA :) Thanks, Razorflame 03:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. Could you give me an example? kwami 06:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
bruna nano, for example. Razorflame 06:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, you can separate it into words, which is technically incorrect but quite common (for any language, I don't mean for Eo), or you can run it all together, which reflects speech but is difficult to read. So */ˈbruna ˈnano/ invalid IPA characters (/) or /ˈbrunaˈnano/. But */ˌbrunaˈnano/ invalid IPA characters (/) would be incorrect, because Eo does not have a phonemic distinction between primary and secondary stress. (Neither does English, for that matter, at least according to Ladefoged, but English 2ary stress is conventional with the IPA the way separating words is conventional.) AFAIK syllabicity isn't phonemic, but you'll sometimes see that too: */ˈˈ invalid IPA characters (/). (I wonder though if the difference between naŭa and nava might be /ˈnav.a/ vs. /ˈ, in which case syllabicity is phonemic, but that's getting a bit speculative and I'm sure wouldn't be acceptable on WT.) I've starred the technically-incorrect-but-commonly.accepted conventions; but if you want to be a stickler, it's /ˈbrunaˈnano/. kwami 06:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for the help. Cheers, Razorflame 20:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I happened across your userpage by complete accdient; FWIW, there are no official rules about stress (secondary or otherwise) in unstressed (non-penultimate) syllables in Esperanto, as per this page out of PMEG. Jesus H. Lincoln 08:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


Is there any particular or special way that the IPA for voiceless h in the IPA for Esperanto words is done? Thanks, Razorflame 20:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, an example would be helpful. I say that because it should just be /h/, and wonder why you'd ask. kwami 21:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
herbo is the word that I was thinking of. I was just wondering if there was any special way of writing the silent h, is all. Razorflame 21:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
No, just /'herbo/. kwami 21:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I just wanted to make sure. Cheers, Razorflame 21:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Na'vi templates[edit]

When you have some time you might want to take a look at the Na'vi templates for dictionary entries that I came up with: {{NaviHW}}, {{NaviSE}}, {{NaviSA}}. I wrote a bit of documentation and some examples on how they might be used on each template's talk page. If you feel like some things are missing or should be done differently, please add a comment to Appendix talk:Na'vi#Templates. Sebastiantalk 23:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

edzo and edzino[edit]

  • Sigh*...I really wish that we had gotten over these things...anyways, edzino is just edzo with the -in- suffix added to it. edz-o+ino=edzino. Therefore, since edzino is just edzo+a suffix, it is a derived term of edzo, and edzino would be a related term of edzo. Razorflame 05:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Gotten over what? Making corrections?
It is edzo that is edzino with the -ino suffix removed, and so a derivative of edzino. There are two words in Eo which are inherently feminine, with a derived masculine: edzino and fraŭlino. In each case, the -ino derives from the parent language, in which the masculine does not exist (there is, for example, no German word like "fraŭl" that means bachelor; the closest is Frau "woman"); the masculine of each is an internal derivation within Esperanto. However, the -ino suffix removed from these two words to derive the masculine is in turn added to hundreds of other words to derive the feminine. So yes, in most words the feminine is a derivative of the masculine, but these two are exceptions. kwami 08:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I meant gotten over fighting >_>. Anyways, ok, your explanation helps to explain it. Cheers, Razorflame 08:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know we were fighting. I saw what I thought was an error and I corrected it. I'm not used to discussing it first; for one thing, I never know how long it will take someone to respond, and if I waited for them, I'd lose track of half the edits. I don't make that many edits on Wiktionary, but I do make thousands on Wikipedia. It's so much easier to just fix them. In my mind, that has nothing to do with respect or disrespect or anything personal. And all I said in the edit summary was "no, it's the derived term". There is nothing disparaging or insulting in that as far as I can see; I certainly didn't intend anything like that. kwami 08:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Nah, we aren't fighting. I was just wondering why you undid my edit. That was all. You explained why and now we can move on with our lives :) Razorflame 08:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


Why is what you changed the pronunciation to the right way to do the IPA for it instead of what I wrote? When I looked on the English Wikipedia article, I thought that I remember reading that the IPA was written like a w....I could be wrong, though. If I am, why am I wrong? Thanks, Razorflame 08:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just getting to that as a PS above :)
The Plena analiza gramatiko says that aŭ, eŭ should be considered /au̯, eu̯/, not */aw, ew/. Not necessarily a big deal, until people start arguing whether the letter ŭ is a consonant or a vowel. (In the opinion of the PAG, aŭ, eŭ are diphthongs, and ŭ is not normally to be considered a consonant /w/.) Actually, in their take, the letter j has two uses, as a consonant (e.g. in jes) and as part of a diphthong (e.g. in -aj, -oj, -uj, -ej). The transcribe the first as /jes/, and the latter as /ai̯, oi̯, ui̯, ei̯/. Because j works either way, as consonant or vowel (diphthong), that isn't normally a problem, but there have been fights over ŭ.
Anyway, I'd better check the WP article to see if someone has "corrected" it over there. —Okay, looks like it's been stable for quite a while. kwami 08:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm..I've been using aw for quite some time now (since early to mid December of last year, at the very least), so there will be many entries that will need to be fixed for'll be a big timetaker to go through all my contribs until that date and fix the ones that I see...ugh...not looking forward to it. Razorflame 08:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm halfway through the nouns, so it's not too bad. I'll take care of it.
Along with the confusion over whether ŭ is a C or V is how to syllabify it in derived words. In words like naŭa, it's naŭ·a rather than *na·ŭa. But so far I haven't seen any of them syllabified.
(For a better example, consider kontraŭulo, which I just checked. Everyone agrees, I think, that there is no *ŭu- is Eo, so that cannot be *kon·tra·ŭu·lo. It must, therefore, be kon·traŭ·u·lo.)
Ah! I see that's the way you have it at naŭedro. Perfect.
I couple errors, though. I don't know if you put these in or s.o. else:
neŭ·trono : tr, kr, pr, sr, kl, pl, sl, etc. go with the following syllable.
psikologio: the stress is on the gi, not the lo.
pseŭdo-: the p is pronounced.
kwami 08:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I know that the g is the one stressed in psikologio. That was probably one of my earlier ones. Furthermore, I don't see how the p could be pronounced. Is the word pronounced like Pseudo, or like it is in English, seudo? It would make more sense for it to be pronounced like in English, but maybe that isn't the case...Razorflame 09:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
It's /ps/. If the letter is there, it's pronounced. The only exceptions are things like "kz", which a lot of people pronounce as /gz/, and "ŭato", which a lot of people refuse to accept as legitimate Eo, and pronounce as "vato" (or because they're Russian or German and can't say "ŭato"!) "Ps" is really no harder to say that "ks" or "c". kwami 09:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


I noticed that you made some changes to the {{NaviHW}} template, with an additional parameter "sn=". What are you trying to implement? Maybe I can help. Sebastiantalk 21:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just reverted. I didn't realize how many subtemplates there were. I was trying to restore Frommer's preferred orthography, say with tsun (cun) as the header. I doubt it can be automated, so I was thinking of just adding another parameter and doing it manually.
Oh, and I left a note on the appendix talk page about other subtypes of verbs. kwami 22:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll look into adding the "sn" parameter (what does "sn" stand for)? But didn't Frommer mention at one point that he'd like to avoid the non-movie script orthography in the future, in order to avoid the confusion that this might cause? I'm not sure where I read it, maybe I'm just misinterpreting things. Anyway, I'll add the "sn" parameter, we can then later decide whether we want to use it. Sebastiantalk 22:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
"scientific" orthography. His term. We could just have "alt" - I have a feeling we're going to get some alt spellings due to nasal assimilation to: zenke but kangkem, and that would allow all of them.
F would prefer we use the c, g orthog. But he's been using ts, ng for practical reasons. However, in a dict. we need both, because people will use both, and therefore come across both and need to look them up. kwami 22:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Got it! But we should be careful: "sn" and "alt" are two different things. "sn" would be the exact word as it appears as headword but in the scientific transcription, whereas "alt" could be any alternative spelling (such as due to assimilation) appearing in addition to the scientific orthography of the headword. Sebastiantalk 22:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
We could have two, then: c, ts vs other alt. spellings. (Esp. if both occur, as possibly in kangkem, kankem, kagkem.) Also, there are adjectives that don't take 'a'. That could be set up the way you did for nominal plurals, maybe. Predictable, but we might want to be explicit, since beginners will be using this too. kwami 23:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. I see your point with words that have both a separate scientific orthography and "regular" alternative spellings: it wouldn't make much sense to include all possible combinations. So, how should we best deal with that? Have only one parameter "alt" for everything, or have "sn" and "alt", but use the latter only for transcribing in script orthography, i.e., for "normal" alternative spellings we'd use "ts" and "ng" exclusively?
How should we handle adjectives in general? I still tend to think of "a..." and "...a" not as adjective markers (not in the sense of "tì" or "nì") but as the special application of the subordinator/relativizer particle "a" which attaches to the words (in written Na'vi). But you're right, we could as well include both forms of the adjective as well. How would that look like? "'ewan (a'ewan, 'ewana)", but "apxa (apxa, apxa)"? Also, since numbers take the attributive "a" too, should we include all three forms for numbers as well? Sebastiantalk 00:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The reason I'd like to include all forms is to allow search. Especially beginners might forget lenition and the like, so IMO it's best to include such forms. Case forms on the nouns probably aren't needed, since they're at the ends of the words, though I think I'd like to add them for the PNs. Plurals prob'ly aren't needed, since they're so common. (But notice that Wiktionary includes all forms, even regular ones, and even gives them separate pages. I suppose the idea is that there's no lack of space.) I agree that the attributive marker is just a cliticized sbrd, written together when it modifies only a single word. But it is written as a single word, and since it occurs at the beginning, and is not nearly so salient or as common as the plural, IMO we should include those forms too, for searchability if nothing else. And yes, I'd throw numbers in there, or at least the numerals.
Yes, the way you have the adj entries looks good, though I wouldn't want the parentheses in boldface. We could automate it, to be manually overridden in cases like apxa or lefpom. kwami 00:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, sounds reasonable, and I think you've finally convinced me that it is a Good Thing to include all forms. :)
I'll work on the adjectives (with partial automation) tomorrow, it's about time I get some sleep now (living in UTC+1). Sebastiantalk 00:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
That does leave out the verbs. I think we could manually add stem-changing verb forms like poltxe and seiyi, since we'd need to list what each of them is. kwami 00:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


I did some work on the "adj" category implementation. The idea is that the {{NaviHW}} template has 1 to 3 arguments: the first is the adjective in its regular form, second and third are pre- and post-attributive forms. The latter two can be left empty/undefined, in which case their values default to "adjective-a" and "a-adjective", respectively (without the hyphen, of course).

I'm now thinking about how to best represent them in the dictionary. I tend to not use the way we had them originally since we already use parentheses for scientific orthography: "sìltsan (sìlcan) (asìltsan, sìltsana) /sɪl.ˈtsan/" looks kind of cluttered. Instead, I propose to append the attributive forms to the entry, just like we do with dual/trial/plural forms of nouns. The example might then look like: "sìltsan (sìlcan) /sɪl.ˈtsan/, attr. sìltsana X asìltsan".

What do you think? We can play around with that some more until we are satisfied. I've not yet enabled the adjective category in the main template. Sebastiantalk 15:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, similarly, we might also want to move the infix-marked versions of verbs further to the right, maybe like this: "kenong (kenog) /ˈkɛ.noŋ/, inf. k·en·ong" This would make the way headwords look like more consistent: we'd always have headword (with optional scientific orthography in parentheses), followed by the IPA transcription, followed by anything else that might be necessary and which depends on the word category: dual/trial/plural for nouns, infixes for verbs, attributive forms for adjectives, etc. Sebastiantalk 16:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes, and yes, looks good! Only two changes I'd make: replace the "X" with N. to match what we have for POS of nouns,
"sìltsan (sìlcan) /sɪl.ˈtsan/, attr. sìltsana N. asìltsan".
and spell out infix : I read "inf." as "infinitive". kwami 20:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
It's done! Another thing I noticed is that the word category (n., v., adj., num., etc.) ends up far to the right now for a lot of entries: it comes only after the dual/trial/plural forms, infix-marked verb, attr. forms, etc. I'm thinking of moving it more to the left. Which one would you prefer? Right now, we're using (1).
  1. sìltsan (sìlcan) /sɪl.ˈtsan/, attr. sìltsana N. asìltsan adj.
  2. sìltsan (sìlcan) /sɪl.ˈtsan/ adj., attr. sìltsana N. asìltsan
  3. sìltsan (sìlcan) adj. /sɪl.ˈtsan/, attr. sìltsana N. asìltsan
  4. sìltsan adj. (sìlcan) /sɪl.ˈtsan/, attr. sìltsana N. asìltsan
  5. adj. sìltsan (sìlcan) /sɪl.ˈtsan/, attr. sìltsana N. asìltsan
(3) and (4) would be identical for words without separate scientific transcription. I wouldn't want to use (5). Sebastiantalk 21:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I like (3). The two orthographies belong together, but it's nice to separate them visually from the IPA better than what the slashes accomplish. It can look awfully cluttered otherwise, depending on your fonts. In my browser, the IPA is a larger font size than the header, which really makes it hard to scan. The small caps of the POS make a nice visual break in (3). kwami 22:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking too. (2) would probably have also worked since technically header and IPA belong together, but I agree with the "separator aspect" of the small caps POS. I changed the template accordingly. Sebastiantalk 23:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! kwami 00:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Na'vi names[edit]

Hi I see you are the most frequent contributor of the Na'vi lexicon. I also see that the list includes many untranslated names. However there are several from the games et al which aren't included. I tried to add 3-4 of them, however it's a tedious task for me to edit such a large page and also since I am not familiar with the ipa alphabet. Would you be willing to add some yourself? There is a list in the Avatar wiki (under category:na'vi). 13:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Unfortunately, several of those names are not Na'vi. Either the Tipani speak a different language, or someone made an error, or, as in the Survival Guide, s.o. who didn't know what they were doing made them up. IMO they aren't reliable enough to include here.
The same goes with other words: Meresh'ti cau'pla (supposedly the banshee catcher) is not Na'vi and does not mean "nothing to see", despite what the Survival Guide says.
Eventually we'll remove anything from the game that's in this dictionary unless it can be confirmed. kwami 21:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh that's a pity. I think they deserve at least a mention in an Appendix, or be tagged as dialectal? And that's why some words are khaki?
Anyway these are some names that don't violate Na'vi rules in case you are interested: Akwey, Amanti, Ateyo, Hukato, Lungoray, Marali, Ninat, Raltaw. Hope I was of some help! 23:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
You have! I wasn't aware of some of these. Some might be from Cameron, in which case Frommer might just tweak them to make them fit Na'vi: Beyral, for instance, is Peyral. So some of these might be good names; hopefully we can confirm from Frommer which they are, in which case they'll be added. But the SG has also made up stuff that neither Frommer nor Cameron knew anything about, like the banshee catcher. kwami 08:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Rhymes pages[edit]

n.b. : whatever page you were copying format from contains an error. Both one and two syllables should be indented as levels under "Rhymes". The format you've been pasting in has two syllables as a subheader under one. --EncycloPetey 23:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ach! Thanks for catching that! kwami 23:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. kwami 23:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Another bit of information. When the Rhymes were originally conceived and set up, the person who did so deliberately omitted non-lemmata (-ed verb forms, plurals, etc.). Now, this was before we began seriously creating such entries on Wiktionary, and I'm not sure anyone has given serious thought to whether we want to modify that original decision. I'm not particularly attached to either option (inclusion or exclusion of such forms). However, if you've an interest in working seriously on our Rhymes pages, then you might put that thought into the Beer Parlour and then a vote, to see what people think. If we do choose to include such forms, it would provide a lot of work for someone to update those pages, and they really need some kind of face lift anyway. --EncycloPetey 23:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm only interested in refractionary rhymes, or obscure rhymes that people might think are refractionary, but I'll bring it up. kwami 23:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
As I say, this practice was set in place by the project's original creator, and most editors here have never touched a Rhymes page. I mention it mostly because there are many Rhymes pages that have a comment hidden in them asking editors to exclude such words. --EncycloPetey 00:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I can certainly see excluding such words from a list if we can sum them up by saying "also rhyme with plurals/3sg.pres of X". Asked at the beer garden about other cases. kwami 00:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

multiple IPA renderings[edit]

As with {{rhymes}}, the {{IPA}} template accepts piping to separate mutliple transcriptions. --EncycloPetey 23:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, must've forgotten. I've used it elsewhere. kwami 23:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving pages[edit]

When removing content from a page to be added to a different page, please either delete the section entirely and use {{also}}, or convert using {{alternative form of}} (diff). Nadando 23:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. kwami 23:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Neither of those is really appropriate. Is there a template like 'root of'? kwami 23:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. Could you explain the difference between -er- and -ero? Nadando 23:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
-er- is the root of -ero. We normally list Esperanto words in their inflected form, not by their bare root. 'Father', for example, is listed as patro, not patr-. But some dictionaries, esp. old ones (say, ca. 1910) list bare roots, so it's not unreasonable to have cross refs. kwami 23:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I guess you could have something like {{eo-root of}} for these, which would output: Root of xxx. Would you like me to create it? Nadando 23:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Sure. Thanks. kwami 23:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Splitting Na'vi[edit]

Apparently, you were the most active contributor of Appendix:Na'vi, but has not been editing that page for some months. I suggest splitting Na'vi words from that appendix into various pages, like how it's done at Appendix:Klingon. --Daniel. 21:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Our appendix is out of date, and some of the words are spurious. kwami 23:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see exactly how your reply fits into my question. Are you suggesting Appendix:Na'vi to be updated and cleaned up in the future? --Daniel. 01:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Given that it's outdated, I don't see much point in splitting it up. You could update it using Wikibooks, which should at least be accurate if no longer complete. kwami 21:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

RP / GA split for ă and ăr[edit]

Re this, how would you split them? At the very least, RP and GA have different /r/s. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You got the ă's reversed, but the distinction is minor, and if we don't make it in the entries, what's it doing in the key? The key is supposed to explain the dictionary entries, nothing more.
The ăr's aren't appreciably different. You gave a different GA r here than elsewhere, which is incorrect, and the r does not drop from RP. Again, it should reflect the entries. If a reader comes to the key to understand a transcription, but the key describes some different convention, then it's useless for our purposes. kwami 22:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Our key does not reflect well what symbols we use; it's in dire need of being updated. This particular edit of mine derives from the discussion at User talk:Stephen G. Brown#borachio.23Pronunciation. I was first informed of the /ɹ//ɻ/ distinction by Ƿidsiþ, and it was first enforced for intercrural (sorry, but I couldn't find a link to the discussion itself). If any of that convinces you to make some appropriate changes, then that's all for the better; otherwise, the links are FYI. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Such distinctions are dialect-specific and utterly irrelevant for a phonemic transcription. They don't belong in a dictionary: when no distinction is made, the convention is to use the most familiar or typographically simple letter, which in this case is /r/. /ɻ/ is retrogressive, being even worse than /ɹ/. Here on wiktionary we have an idiotic mishmash of different systems which are not internally consistent nor consistent with the keys which are supposed to explain them. Since we can't even get our act together and correct the tens of thousands of improperly transcribed entries we do have, why in the world would we want to add yet more meaningless noise? kwami 23:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
That convention only makes sense for a monolingual dictionary. We can't adopt the same convention for this omnilingual dictionary because distinctions will probably exist between /r/, /ɹ/, and /ɻ/ within some languages, and they will most certainly exist between languages. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
But we note that the language is English, so that's irrelevant. And again, this varies between English dialects, so it's not even accurate for English. The problem is that we provide a key but then don't stick to it, so the reader has to second-guess the editor. Not a good situation for a reference work. kwami 00:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The use of ⟨ɹ⟩ was decided upon for RP a while ago (I think it was by a vote), so the key should be amended to reflect that convention used for our entries, rather than vice versâ. I don't know what the official status of ⟨ɻ⟩ is. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, if a certain convention has been decided on, we should update keys and entries to match, and stick to it until we decide as a group otherwise. But if we're going to use the WP keys, then we should follow their conventions. Also, someone needs to go through all the entries. kwami 20:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, {{enPR}} (without a language parameter) links to Wiktionary:English pronunciation key, and not to Wikipedia. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


Salam. Mən və User:Vugar 1981 və digər bəzi iş yoldaşlarımız eyni IP-dən istifadə edirik. EnVikidə Vugar 1981-nin bloklanması nəticəsində bizim IP-də bloklanmışdır. Sizdən blokun götürülməsini xahiş edirəm. Və yaxud da mənə Ipblock-exempt istifadəçi hüququ verməyinizi xahiş edirəm. Təşəkkürlər! Hörmətlə, Cekli829 08:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow! That's the first time I've ever gotten a letter in Azeri. Give me a minute and I'll look into this. kwami 11:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


We use the hyphen here to represent the erm, hyphen. AFAIK we don't use the en dash at all. Perhaps in titles that actually use a dash. But we definitely use the hyphen to represent the hyphen. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we do. Or are you trying to say that we substitute hyphens in words that use dashes? I wasn't aware of such a convention. It would seem odd, in a dictionary, to purposefully mispunctuate things!
The pages you moved take an en dash in sources which use en dashes, such as the Cambridge Language Surveys. kwami 21:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry what? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Language families whose names combine two independent elements take an en dash in the punctuation of the Cambridge Language Surveys and other series with similar punctuation conventions. They distinguish such compounds from more tightly bound compounds which take hyphens. For example, the (imaginary) South–Central Laka languages would be composed of the South Laka languages and the Central Laka languages (as opposed, say, to a third group, the North Laka languages), whereas the South-Central Laka languages would simply be those Laka languages of the south-central region. In The Languages of the Andes, which I happen to have handy, they dash Bora–Huitotoan, Guaycurú–Charruan, Jebero–Jivaroan, Ge–Pano–Carib, Andean–Equatorial, Huitoto–Bora–Záparo, and Colombian–Venezuelan border, but not things like Macro-Chibchan, Proto-Quechuan, or Meso-America (macro-, proto-, and meso- are not independent entities).
(My hyphenated examples all involved prefixes, but that's not the motivating factor. Kingdom of Austria-Hungary (one entity) vs. Austria–Hungary border (two entities). kwami 00:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The Cambridge Language Surveys have no relevance here. I don't understand why we should use an en dash for a hyphen. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the real point (I was a bit tired last night when I posted that) is not that such changes should not be made, but that such changes should be discussed before any other action is taken. FWIW, different authorities disagree with each other, so quoting just one authority is usually misleading. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Fine by me. As it is, we at least have a redirect, so it really doesn't matter which we choose. kwami 11:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi kwami. You might want to take another look at the image you've put at dekstruma, because the rotation in it is counterclockwise. --JorisvS 20:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It's the international definition of clockwise. Reta vortaro covers this. For a clock, you need to think of the arrow as pointing into the clock face, in the direction you are facing. The term 'clockwise' can be ambiguous, as it depends on one's orientation, much as left & right banks of a river, or east & west winds are ambiguous. kwami 21:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
AFAIK the international definition of clockwise, and the only logical one, is '(in) the direction an analog clock moves', which is the direction counter to the one indicated by the right-hand rule. So if dekstruma is "supposed to be" the right-hand-rule direction, then the meaning given on its page is currently wrong (and many people would confuse it). --JorisvS 09:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
But it is in the direction the clock moves. Or it can be, depending on how you view the clock. A clock can be said to move in either a right-handed or a left-handed direction, so by your definition either direction can be said to be either clockwise or counterclockwise. The right-hand-rule in the only unambiguous definition. kwami 06:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The direction most people will give when asked to say what clockwise is is counter to the direction indicated by the right-hand rule (they would point their thumb out of the wall or screen and then find that that is counterclockwise). While I would have no problem with dekstruma being in the direction of the right-hand rule (in fact, I'd like that), that's not what this is about, just clarity to our users and reflecting actual usage. I suspect that because of the connection between "clockwise" and 'dekstruma' and what I've said above, one could find many instances where dekstruma is used when meaning 'counter to the right-hand-rule direction'. --JorisvS 18:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've made it two definitions, which is what ReVo does. kwami 18:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, much better. Though, it could still confuse people, so maybe a usage note is in order? --JorisvS 19:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


diff How is oranĝokolora an "international spelling"? A quick google search shows 250 times as many hits for oranĝkolora, and it's also the spelling used in Vikipedio, as well as appearing in apparently all Esperanto dictionaries, whereas most of the google hits for "oranĝokolora" seem to have come from the Wiktionary entry... --Yair rand 01:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Oranĝkolora violates Zamenhofian phonotactics. Ĝk is not a permitted consonant sequence, because it would be pronounced ĉk by Slavs and Germans (among others), though I suppose Esperanto is not really as immutable as its promoters claim. If you don't mind it being "oranĉkolora", then I suppose it doesn't matter. kwami 06:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, regardless of how it may be pronounced by certain people, it seems clear that the most common spelling is oranĝkolora. Would you mind if I moved the page back? --Yair rand 06:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. It just belies the claim that Esperanto follows the rules that Zamenhof set out for it. If we can change the rules of grammar here, why not change it for gender as well, and make patro 'parent' and use patriĉo for 'father'? The reason people give for disallowing that is that we supposedly cannot change the grammar of the language, but then they go and change the grammar with un-Zamenhofian oranĝkolora and longtempe. kwami 06:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps. I don't know all that much about the issue. I've moved the entry back to oranĝkolora. Thanks for your help. (On an unrelated note: You may want to put a Babel box on your user page.) --Yair rand 07:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
As this page from PMEG shows (as well as roots like tvalet/o, kvitanc/o and ekzamen/o), mixed-voice consonant clusters do *not* violate any specific rule, and are pronounced as written (with the possible exception of -kz-, which some pronounce /gz/). Additionally, as this page shows, there are no rules about stress in unstressed (non-penultimate) syllables; thus, entires such as oranĝkolora which you have marked with two IPA primary stress marks are incorrect. I've taken the liberty of going ahead and cleaning up/correcting the entry at hand to conform with PMEG and Esperanto standards of usage. Jesus H. Lincoln 08:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
/v/ does not behave like an obstruent in Esperanto. It can be thought of as covering both [v] and [w], which is an inheritence of Slavic, where it also does not follow voicing assimilation rules. That is, /v/ is excluded from the rule, as I believe I have spelled out.
Given the ambiguous nature of /v/, /kz/ is the only real exception, and as you've noted, many people treat it as /gz/. Zamenhof himself almost certainly did, as /kz/ is not possible in his native languages.
You are correct about Eo not having official rules for placement of a 2nd (not 2ary) stress. However, that does not mean there is no such thing. Zamenhof's poetry indicates that every other syllable was stressed, and that's established, customary usage, even if there is no official dictat. The uncertainty comes in with compounds: Do elements of a compound retain their original stress, or do they lose it? Here people disagree. In the case of oranĝkolora, however, the two schools of accentuation match, so there's no question that the second stress goes on the ranĝ. kwami 01:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


We don't do them much. See Wiktionary:Redirections. SemperBlotto 16:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of etym edits at head[edit]

Heya Kwami --

I'm curious about your revert of my etym edit at head ( ). Your edit comment only stated "no such thing", but I'm not really sure what you're referring to. I assume you mean the Sanskrit कपालः (kapāla, cup, bowl, skull)? We don't have an entry for that yet, certainly, but the HI entry at कपाल (kapāl) refers to the Sanskrit as the source, and both Daijirin and Shogakukan refer to the Sanskrit as the source for JA かわら (, ), albeit with romanized spelling of the Sanskrit as kapāla. There are also a few online mentions of the JA etym, such as [1] (though not CFI-worthy) or [2] (though this only states that the derivation of JA kawara is from Sanskrit, without stating which particular Sanskrit term).

Meanwhile, this online SA dictionary entry shows a meaning of "skull-bone" for the SA term कपाल (kapāla), and this page on the same site gives a meaning of "cup" for the same term, and this page on the same site shows a meaning of "bowl" for the related SA term कपालक (kapālaka). This site (does not allow direct linking, you'll have to input the search terms yourself0 gives a similar result for skull, but not for cup or bowl. This site gives a meaning of skull for कपालः (kapālaH) (with the double-dot used to distinguish from कपाल (kapāla, forehead)). This site gives a romanization of kap&asharp;la (presumably intended to be kapâla as an encoding cludge for kapāla) for a Sanskrit term meaning, variously, "dish, mendicant's bowl; plate; lid; potsherd; egg-shell; skull".

Or did your "no such thing" comment refer to something other than the Sanskrit? -- Curious, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you were doing. Generally the term "cognate" excludes loans. For instance, you wouldn't use the word "castle" in demonstrating the relationship between English and Latin—I thought you were claiming that Japanese was related to English! Maybe you could revert me, and add "borrowed into Japanese as ..."? kwami (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Aha, and doh, please forgive that lacuna in my understanding. I'll add the "borrowed into" then to make that clear. I certainly don't intend to claim that English and Japanese are related as languages! o_O Rather, that the English word "head" is related to the Japanese word "かわら". That's an important distinction, and one that I didn't realize I was clouding. I'll make the fix. Thanks! -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Someone had to point it out to me when I made the same mistake. kwami (talk) 05:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

rebbetzin etymology[edit]

I have reverted your reversion — I don't know what you mean by "rs.", so I have no idea where you're coming from. I'd like a source, however, because your etymology is somewhat ridiculous and seems pretty unlikely. At the very least, it's a bit strange that two suffixes would be stacked, and extremely strange that the second one would be from German. Maybe you meant Middle High German instead? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It was from a Yiddish scholar, I'll have to look it up. Yes, it is odd two suffixes would be stacked, which is why I thought it worth adding the etymology. "Rs" means "restore", since you deleted info without explanation. (I'm restoring it again, BTW.) kwami (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
You haven't responded to my concerns. I have changed the German to Yiddish, as that's a common mistake/misunderstanding and it's the best I can do operating under the assumption that your etymology is correct. We still need a reference. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Since it was email, I'll leave out the name, but the exchange went like this:

Q: I was wondering if anyone there knew the etymology of "rebbetzin", specifically the -tz-. One person I know suggested it's the Russian feminine, as in "tsaritsa", which would mean that Russian feminine -itsa and German feminine -in were both suffixed to a Hebrew root. Any ideas?
A: Yes, that is exactly right. It's a Hebrew word with 2 feminine suffixes attached to it.
Q: The two affixes derive from Russian and German?
A: Not necessarily Russian, but some Slavic language - probably Ukrainian or Belarussian.

As for Yiddish vs German, Yiddish is German, so I'm not sure how much that matters. She only objected to calling the first Russian, but the exchange was brief. kwami (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

"Yiddish is German" - ouch, way to hit a language where it hurts ;)
This is, well, a bit sub-par as far as references go, but I guess it's good enough. I'd still like a published source if possible. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know of a published source, which is why I emailed the U. Would be better of course.
"German" isn't really a language at all, but a family of languages. There's greater difference between some of the German "dialects" than there is between some of them and Yiddish. Less comprehensibility, anyway. Yiddish seems like a rather specialized register within that continuum. kwami (talk) 06:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, but here, German means {{de}} and that means Standard High German. I don't know how much you know about Yiddish, but besides having a different script and a lot of separate vocabulary, Yiddish has a grammar that is closer in some ways to Dutch than to Standard High German. Nouns, for example, do not decline and conjugation is quite simplified as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose saying -in is German suggests that it's a borrowing rather than native. Your version is better. kwami (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

WT:RFV#be, ce, ĉa, etc. (EO "alternative letter names")[edit]

Notifying you of this RFV since you created many or all of these entries. --Yair rand (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

IPA phonetic transcription for Japanese[edit]

Heya Kwamikagami --

I saw some of your recent pronunciation edits. I was curious about your change of the rhotic to [ɽ], such as in this change to the じょんがら entry. To my ear, the Japanese rhotic changes depending on the following vowel: [ɺ̠a̠], [ɾi], [ɾ̠ɯᵝ], [ɺ̠e̞], [ɺ̠o̞]. I note that the w:Alveolar lateral flap article even uses ラーメン as an example of [ɺ̠a̠]. I've changed that back for the time being at じょんがら. If you have any strong objections to this, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could state your case for [ɽ].

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It's closest to [ɽ] before /a/. It's certainly not [ɺ], at least not normally. I'll remove the example from WP - that's an error. But since there is no way of accurately writing Japanese r in IPA, I suppose it doesn't matter all that much. kwami (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe that's a dialect- or geographically dependent issue, then? Listening closely to the audio samples at w:Alveolar lateral flap and w:Retroflex flap, the former is what I'm used to hearing in words like ラーメン, 来日, etc., and even when followed by /o/ as in 廊下 or 炉辺. But then my bias is experience in the Tōhoku and Kantō regions, starting in Iwate Prefecture and moving southwest to Tokyo, and older folks in Iwate have (perhaps "had" by now) a markedly more "L"-like pronunciation for all of the らりるれろ sounds. I have no experience living further southwest than Tokyo, and I haven't spent any appreciable time around Kansai speakers, but the stereotypical trilled accents sported in Kansai speech in the media makes me wonder if the harder flap might be more common there. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I spent more time in Kansai. You don't hear trills, not in normal speech, but it's a central flap before /i/, and most lateral before /o/. I've heard that description formally, too, so I think it must be more than just Kansai. I didn't notice a difference in Tōhoku, but I wasn't listening for one either.
Neither of the sound samples sound all that close to me. It's interesting reading the IPA Handbook struggling with Japanese. They use ⟨ɽ⟩ for 'a 25-year-old student [in Tokyo] whose speech is typical of speakers of his age group with this background'. They describe it as 'postalveolar in place rather than retroflex ... Initially and after /ɴ/, it is typically an affricate with short friction, [d̠ɺ̝̆].' (Looks like a postalveolar [d] with superscript ⟨ɺ⟩ with breve and up-tack, but my copy's a bit blurred. Can't say I've ever noticed such a sound.) 'A postalveolar [l̠] is not unusual in all positions. Approximant [ɹ] may occasionally occur in some environments.' kwami (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Etymology at 海豚#Japanese[edit]

Do you have any bibliographical info for the Murayama reference you added here? If so, it'd be great if you could add a <ref> tag. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Added a 2ary ref that also gives a 2nd possible source, per Vovin. kwami (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Etym for [edit]

The given etym for roughly makes sense, but for one wrinkle -- the given source describes this character as entering the Chinese lexicon roughly 4,000 years ago, but Old Persian is only dated to 2,600 years ago. Any ideas how to resolve this? Is there an earlier ancestor of Old Persian that could be listed instead, that would fit the dates? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll let Mair speak for himself in the comments to that post, on that very question. I don't know anything other than what I read there. kwami (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

law of the tongue[edit]

Are you really saying that orcas are inviting people on whale hunts? Can orcas make implicit agreements with people? Even if they could, would it be to invite people on whale hunts? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, yes, and yes, though it was a hundred years ago. Added a link to the talk page. kwami (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)