User talk:MedK1

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Portuguese misspellings

Hi, I notice you created a bunch of entries for Portuguese misspellings like algorítimo. Are these spellings common? In general I think we should avoid having entries for misspellings unless they're really common. Also you should use {{head|pt|misspelling}} rather than using a template like {{pt-noun}}, so that these misspellings don't get categorized in categories like Category:Portuguese nouns and Category:Portuguese lemmas. Benwing2 (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I consider them to be fairly common in relation to the proper spellings for each word. The misspelling you cited, for example, has its own entry in what's essentially Portuguese Urban Dictionary and receives quite a few hits on Google; it's comparable to "defiantly" for "definitely" imo. I've personally seen mecher a lot online; it's highly likely more common than cú. Lastly, I don't think I've ever actually seen hortifrúti (the term's correct spelling); even supermarkets tend to write it without the accent -- the misspelling is super common. About the template usage, I apologize for that; shouldn't happen again. MedK1 (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

fagote

How is the o of the Portuguese word fagote pronounced, is it open (ó) or closed (ô)? Rodrigo5260 (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Brazilian bassoon players pronounce it with an open O from what I've seen, just like in European Portuguese. Sorry I took so long to reply. MedK1 (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Template:pt-pre-reform

This has a ParserFunction error on the template page. I think you'll need to give it dummy sample parameters using a combination of <noinclude></noinclude> <includeonly></includeonly>, since the template name isn't proper Portuguese of any era. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

OGP and Galician

Hi. I agree that now that we have decided an end date for Old Galician-Portuguese, Galician quotes of that period (90% added and translated by me) can usually safely be moved to OGP. But please, don't remove historical or etymological information from the Galician entries (many readers won't go necessarily to the Old Galician-Portuguese entry for that info) nor the references, since they are there for the same historical and etymological reasons that the French entries reference the https://www.cnrtl.fr/portail/ as historical and etymological reference of the French language, covering all of its periods.

I like to express also that I feel like if the work I've put in Galician entries is being both redirected and disrespected with theses deletions (example: achaiar), and my language deprived.

@Sarilho1 @Stríðsdrengur @Benwing2 @Nicodene @Chernorizets Froaringus (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

According to you, https://www.cnrtl.fr/portail/ covers all periods. That makes it usable for both the modern language and the earlier forms. From what I was able to look, though, the same cannot be said for DDGM and CX, they're explicitly about the medieval forms and only cover the medieval period. As such, they shouldn't be resources for the modern period as they're separated from it.

Readers that don't go to the OGP entry probably aren't interested in the Middle Ages, and they might feel misled if they click a reference only to see barely understandable results (note that the average reader might also be unfamiliar with OGP) from the 13th century pop up, so while keeping the resources in the modern pages might get more people to click them, that doesn't necessarily mean you'll get more satisfied people out of it. Also, people who come to the OGP entries from Portuguese (as opposed to from Galician) won't ever come into contact with CX and DDGM as they'll be in the Galician page/header instead. The average citation from the 14th century is far more pertinent to somebody interested in OGP than to your average modern Galician/Fala/Portuguese speaker...

Sorry you felt disrespected, Froaringus. Your work is great — especially understanding those old texts; in my case, I have to read them like three times and then still be unable to translate it due to one single word not making too much sense — and I really just want it to be organized under what I feel is the right L2. I think it'd make sense to keep, say, references to "achã-" in the "achaar" page and to "acha-" in the "achãar" page, for example. That'd be cool. MedK1 (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with more references in OGP entries, or with moving quotations G -> OGP: I have problems with etymological and historical data and references being stripped from Galician entries. Should English entries being stripped of their rich and profound etymological and historical sections (and references), cutting them in Middle English?

Finally: the DDLG + DDGM were made as the foundation of the historical dictionary of the Galician language, and the CX as a multilanguage corpus which complemented the TILG. All together are the Galician equivalent of the https://www.cnrtl.fr/portail/. Froaringus (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean, if there's a source that only covers words during the Middle English period, I don't see why they should be in the modern English L2 header at all. It is because the languages have such a rich story that they get more than one L2 header according to the period; it's an easy way to access different parts in the timeline. The references aren't being "striped", they're being moved along with the quotations. There are plenty of nice references for both OGP and Galician, and I really think splitting them cleanly does less harm than good.

Putting OGP references in modern-day pages can be especially misleading in cases where there was semantic shift. If the word's used currently with a meaning and with some other meaning in the Middle Ages, the older meaning would rightfully not be mentioned at all in the modern-day entry, and a reader would surely get the wrong idea if they did go and read CX/DDGM. I don't think I did anything to DDLG, because it does have info on modern-day Galician too. If it's got info on both, there's no reason to make them exclusive to only one of the involved L2s (that's why I set TLPGP as a Portuguese template as well). All these entries might be related to the same TILG and all, but they're handled through different templates. Wouldn't that make them separate for the purposes of Wiktionary?

...Actually, that actually gives me an idea. Maybe if all the TILG resources were done with one single template covering one single * item? Like, Tesouro Informatizado da Lingua Galega ([link1 Corpo Xelmírez] · [link2 Dicionario de Dicionarios da Lingua Galega] · ... · ...). Put it in both ROA-OPT and GL pages with {{R:roa-opt:Something}} as its name and it should be a win-win. Dunno how it'd handle differences in lemmas between OGP and G, but yeah.

I believe it's worth noting that afaik Middle English and modern English are treated as separate languages; the actual relationship is handled in the etymology section through {{inh}} templates (rather than {{bor}}) and shared references are only shared if there's actual overlap. MedK1 (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Froaringus sorry to hear that you feel like you hard work is being disrespected - I wasn't aware of all that editing going on between Galician and OGP. It would be helpful if you could list some example entries which you believe were edited poorly.

Since your specific example was Galician achaiar, I did notice two things:

• a massive edit from an IP with no edit summary - that's not great IMO, we can't read people's minds about what they're planning to do, so edit summaries are important
• you had provided two references supporting the OGP version of the word. In the entry for OGP achãar, only one of those two is present, so the "move" of information from the Galician to the OGP entry lost information.

IMO, whoever is doing these quotation, reference, etc moves needs to be more careful, and more transparent by using well-written edit messages. Chernorizets (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Chernorizets: The other reference had no tilde in it so I left it at achaar. Above, I suggested keeping both references in both pages even though they're not exactly spelt the same. No information was lost at all, but I'm gonna endeavor to make sure it doesn't appear that way in the future.

And yeah, I didn't mean to make Froaringus feel disrespected at all — We'd talked before about setting a division between OGP and G/P and I was just making sure that texts falling far before that line were lemmatized with an OGP L2 header and organizing the references so that exclusively medieval references were at the medieval header.

I'm using a normal IP account for mobile edits as I keep getting logged out over and over, but I'm User:MedK1. 2804:1B0:1900:E91A:D4AA:F5EB:3499:2286 20:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

pronunciation of solto as short past participle

The current module claims that solto past participle of soltar is 'sôlto' in Portugal but 'sólto' in Brazil. I have a hard time believing this, but I'd like to get verification from a native speaker because I don't know of any Internet-available source that consistently gives Brazilian pronunciations, only Portugal ones. Benwing2 (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The past participle is "ô". "Solto" as in the 1st person singular present is "ó" though! MedK1 (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding missing pages with quotations prior to 1500 to User:MedK1/list/OldGPNeedsLemma

Hello. I'm here to ask if I could edit your subpage to add some missing pages with quotations prior to 1500. It's yours so I thought it would be better to ask you before changing anything. Amanyn (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course, go ahead! MedK1 (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Amanyn (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Reutilising this topic so your talk page doesn't get too messy. Could you check the OGP entry I created earlier today avoo? I want to know if you think it is good before creating any more. Amanyn (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for talking to me about it — It looks great imo! The only area for improvement I noticed was that there's a template for Universo Cantigas terms in {{R:roa-opt:UC}}, but other than that, A+! MedK1 (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm still working on adding a quotation but I don't have much experience with them. Amanyn (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

dissentir

Does the reintegrational Galician entry dissentir and any improvements? -- Apisite (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of Reintegrationism, does Galician have cultivación with the forms cultivaçom, cultivação? --Apisite (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, at the Estraviz website, what is meant by "gz." in entries such as "dissensão (-om, gz.)" there? --Apisite (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all thanks so much for making the page! It's pretty much perfect! The only thing I noticed in dissentir were the conjugations; "dissentir", since it comes from sentir, is conjugated much the same irregular way — I've tweaked it on the page myself for reference! Citations are great whenever possible, too.

About cultivaçom, absolutely! It can be found in the exact forms you mentioned in the website, too.

The "gz." means "Galiza". Unlike the -ão forms, which are common in Portuguese-speaking places, the gz. forms are pretty much exclusive to Galicia. That's what the label is marking.

Let me know if you ever have any other questions! MedK1 (talk)

So the acronym "br." means Brazilian or anything else? --Apisite (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, so it does mean Brazilian after all. --Apisite (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

perfil

What is the plural for of the term perfil in Galician?

What about the reintegrational norm? -- Apisite (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Apisite: It's "perfís", the page is correct. It'd be "perfis" without the accent for the reintegrationist form. MedK1 (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

xurdir

What is the reintegrational conjugation of the verb xurdir in Galician? -- Apisite (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)