User talk:Metaknowledge

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  1. 2012                5. 2016
  2. 2013                6. 2017
  3. 2014                7. 2018
  4. 2015                8. 2019

mbili and sufuri[edit]

Please fix. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. This is what I get for not waiting for CAT:E to update... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring?[edit]

Can you prove that I did edit warring? If not, I have to report you? Where can I do this? --Meatbowl (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I can: it's in the edit history for all to see. By the way, you should be happy I haven't reported you, because your other accounts are globally locked, and this one would be as well if I cared enough to do something about it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

lobo del mar[edit]

Hey. This should be lobo de mar. Can't move it as am a n00b. --AcpoKrane (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely real — why don't you make it an alt form? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

pontic revert[edit]

Thanks, man. I didn't even catch that distinction... I hope that you might do me a favor, though. I tried, in the reverted addition, to provide a couple of links to Wikipedia pages, as I have seen done before on Wiktionary, but I screwed them up a bit (the links worked, but left a confusing presentation on the Wiktionary page). Do you know how to correctly do that, and if so, will you give me the "short course"?

Sure. Inline Wikipedia links should use {{w}}. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I think that means inside double curly brackets, one should put "temp|w: (followed by the title of the Wikipedia page)", would that be correct?
No. It means that you should use the template {{w}} and feed the title as a parameter. For example, use {{w|Khan}} in order to generate Khan. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with that. The proper use of templates on Wiki platforms remains largely an unknown to me.


Is google books the only source you can look in? Sources of other places show the part of the chainsaw as a dawg. I see nothing in any help articles about having to use books. --Tadfafty —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Tadfafty (talkcontribs).

Well, in my last revert, I summarised the pertinent part of WT:ATTEST for you. If you can't find it in any books or other durably archived media, we're not likely to be able to include it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
How is dawg not just a different spelling of dog? Definition 9 of dog would seem to include the chainsaw-specific definition. DCDuring (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
It wasn't easy to find a citation of dog in the chainsaw-specific sense, but I have included it at definition 9 for dog. DCDuring (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

speculate and specula[edit]

Hello, Metaknowledge.

There is a matter which I would like to raise regarding the etymologies of English verbs in "-ate"; I will illustrate my thoughts about this using the verb speculate as a subject. It seems that the etymologies of these words often indicate the Latin past participle as the origin, which is a seductive thought, since the Latin p. part. of verbs is indicated by -atus (though the "-a" is part of the stem here). It seems strange to derive a verb, though, from a participle, which essentially has an adjectival function. I did a bit of speculating (sorry, but I could not refuse the pun) on this, and I think that such etymologies may be questionable. My rationale, using the subject speculate, follows: (i) "-ate" first appeared acting adjectivally in participial forms (e.g. "speculate" as a participal) adapted from the second participle of the Latin first conjugation in the late Middle English period, meaning before the end of the 15th century (see here:, (ii) later, most of these participle forms took the "-ed" suffix (e.g. "speculated" as a participle), then, (ii) from the from the 16th century onwards, "-ate", having become independently productive in verb formation ("morphologically transparent"), was used to form verbs from Latin nominal stems (e.g. "speculate" as a verb) (ibid.), (iii) "speculate" as a verb in particular (not as a participle), first entered English in the "Early Modern English" period, specifically in the 16th century (see here: › dictionary › speculate, under "Did You Know?"). Does it not seem more sensible, then, that English "speculate" particularly as a verb was formed within English in the 16th century, by suffixing an independently productive "-ate" to the base of Latin speculatio, rather than speculate being a borrowing from Latin adjective speculatus? I would tend to think that most of these English verbs in "-ate" have been derived similarly, and I would like to have your thoughts on this.

While I am at it, I would like to indicate that the etymology at specula seems to be questionable, in that it indicates a direct derivation from specio. The problem with this is that -culus/-cula was not suffixed to verbs, but rather to nouns to form diminutives thereof. I think that the etymology there should read as follows: "specula From speciēs (a seeing, a viewing, a looking) +‎ -culus (suffix forming diminutives of nouns)", what do you think?

Re -ate: I don't know if this is knowable. As for speculate in particular, Etymonline calls it a back-formation.
Re specula: Who says diminutives can't be applied directly on verbal stems? That would be an obstaculum to certain other etymologies. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
As pertains to specula, you are quite right: it is specio + -culum. Thanks for that. Concerning speculate, I think that by indicating it as a back-formation, what is meant is a back formation from English speculation, which is ultimately from speculatio through French spéculation. In such a case, it seems that English or French "speculation" rather than Latin "speculatus" should appear in the etymology. If it is determinable that "speculation" predates "speculate" in the lexicon, then I think one has the answer. That may be difficult, but the OED, to which I do not have access, may indicate the first appearances of these. I guess that I would rather think it produced within English from speculor + (16th century English) -ate as opposed to a borrowing of the participle directly from Latin. Another possibility, of course, is that English -ate was suffixed to the stem of French spéculer. It just seems strange to me that a Latin participle, which does not have a verbal function, would be borrowed directly into English as a verb, especially given the intervening French influence. Something to mull over at leisure... Take care.

Inadvertent deletion[edit]

In this edit you also deleted a contribution of mine.  --Lambiam 09:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble. I have no idea how that happened, seeing as I created a new section using the +. In the future, if someone inadvertently removes your contribution, I recommend that you simply replace it yourself. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

rape apologist[edit]

Hello Metaknowledge, you deleted rape apologist that have been created by an IP on several wikis. on the French Wiktionary, we are wondering what to do with this entry. So, could you explain a bit why you have chosen to delete it? Is there no specific meaning (i.e. it only means rape + apologist)? Or something else? Thank you in advance. Best regards. Pamputt (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I can't speak for Metaknowledge, but the entry deleted looks like a rant about attitudes the contributor doesn't like disguised as a dictionary entry. The definitions are more accusations than definitions. The first definition is almost salvageable, but the rest have the fatal flaw of defining a behavior-based term (an apologist is someone who does something) based on what the person thinks. The last definition is arguably a call for mob justice, and would be disputed by the mainstream of human rights advocates. Basically, the whole entry is an indirect way of saying "people like this are rape apologists", without saying what a rape apologist is. I would have deleted it as "no usable content given". That's even before considering whether it's sum-of-parts. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Pamputt What Chuck said, and: if defined accurately, it seems like it mostly just means "rape + apologist", as you say ("an apologist for rape"), like also google books:"lynching apologist", google books:"crime apologist", etc. That some of the Books and raw Google hits are applying "crime apologist" to criminal defence attorneys doing their duty to defend their clients, or to proponents of reforming the legal system, shows that the tendency to accuse people one doesn't like / whose position on something related to X one doesn't like of being "X apologists" extends beyond what was seen in the now-deleted entry. It also extends to other words, e.g. people can be accused of being "rape fans", "fans of rape", not to mention "supporters of lynching", etc. But I concede that "rape apologist" seems to have recently become a more common collocation than the others ("crime apologist", "rape fans", etc), and at least slightly less obviously literal than some of the others ("lynching apologists" and "supporters of lynching" might be more likely to be limited to people who explicitly defended or promoted lynching or lynchers, and "rape fans" / "fans of rape" may also be more literal), and if fr.Wiktionary is more tolerant of SOPness you might reach a different decision than en.Wiktionary probably would about whether or not to keep it. - -sche (discuss) 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

red clump -- and countability in general[edit]

My understanding is:

  • Some things can be counted: one apple, two apples; one dog, two dogs.
  • Some things are an indiscriminate mass that we don't normally count: some rice; some sugar; the data. (We can say "two sugars" if we are comparing them from a technical standpoint but it's not normal.)
  • UNRELATEDLY: there are things of which there can only be one, or there only happens to be one, such as universe or protagonist or Eiffel Tower. Let's call them "uniques".

I believe that uniques are not grammatically uncountable. If we say that "red clump" or "universe" etc. is uncountable, purely because only one exists, or because we can't find a plural attested, we are saying that it doesn't have the grammatical countability property. But that's not true. We know very well that it's a singular thing that could have a plural if we ever found a second one of those things. Equinox 03:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

A careful perusal of BGC suggests we've been saved here, and a plural is attested. But I seem to remember arguing with you about something like this before. Your examples of uniques are terrible: there are probably multiple universes if we believe modern physics, there are definitely multiple protagonists because multiple novels exist, and Eiffel Tower is a proper noun. The issue here is definitional: if we found more red stars where the red clump is, we wouldn't get a new clump, just the same clump comprising more stars. If we found a bunch of red stars clumping elsewhere, they wouldn't be at the H-R coördinates in the definition. I modified my definition to encompass any clumping of red stars, but if there hadn't been cause to do that, your edit would have been deeply misleading: implying that we can't attest something because it hasn't been written about enough, when in fact it would be a meaningless concept. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
It's very easy to test countability of uniques: for every unique X, you should be able to say "there are no other Xes." Chuck Entz (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
As Chuck's example implies, proper names can readily form plurals without any implication as to the existence of multiple referents. Ultimately, we are only concerned with the behavior or words, not with the existence of referents or even concepts. DCDuring (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Whether there are other Xes is not grammatical though, is it? Countability is a grammatical property. That's why I carefully said "there only happens to be one". You seem to be accusing me of the exact thing I was describing as a mistake to avoid. Equinox 12:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Lazuri and Georgian script[edit]


You just deleted my entry for "magurale" due to Latin alphabet. In Turkey, there is 1.6 million Laz people, approximately 300.000 of them speaks Lazuri natively and all of them uses Latin alphabet to write in Lazuri. What is your purpose for enforcing Georgian alphabet in Lazuri entries? --Magurale (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

(p.s: Lazuri and Margaluri are different languages.) --Magurale (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

There was a lot more than the script that was wrong with the entry- if I had seen it first, I probably would have deleted it as "no usable content given". I left a message on your talk page with our welcome template, so you can see what Wiktionary entries require. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Please help me[edit]

Can you help me in this matter: by preparing a Template for Telugu-English dictionary:: or suggest someone who is best suitable. I am working on an Telugu-English Dictionary (1862) by Peter Percival (1803-1882) in English Wikisource. Can someone help me and prepare a template for the Telugu dictionary entries in here. Here is its commons link: [1] Thanking you. Stephen G. Brown has helped me earlier in making the Template:R:te:CPB, which was very useful. This template may also work in similar way.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rajasekhar1961: Yes check.svg Done, see {{R:te:TED}} (and feel free to rename it). By the way, what's the deal with {{R:CPB}} and {{R:te:CPB}}? Can one of them be removed in favour of the other one? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly Thank you very much sir. I have started using the template. See this page: జ్వాల... the link is taking to the wikisource page; not to the book page. Which one is better.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@Rajasekhar1961: What do you mean by the "book page"? And could you please answer my question about CPB? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
{{R:CPB}} is taking us to the search page whereas {{R:te:CPB}} taking to the concerned page. If possible, you can combine both of them. What I mean "book page" is the page printed on the book; where the scan page (which is different) from it and does not corresponding to it.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@Rajasekhar1961: Re TED: I see; the scan page number was simply easier. Would you like me to change it to the printed page number?
Re CPB: It sounds like {{R:te:CPB}} is superior, so if you can switch over all uses of {{R:CPB}} to {{R:te:CPB}}, we can delete {{R:CPB}}. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
{{R:CPB}} requires no page number, unlike {{R:te:CPB}}, and therefore, it is much easier to use and enter. But if you want to delete {{R:CPB}}, please use the deletion process and ping me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Your block[edit]

Why did you block me? J3133 (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I blocked you from private messaging me on Discord. You are not blocked in any way on the Wiktionary Discord server nor on Wiktionary itself. Please stop wasting my time. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Of course I meant the Discord PM block, not a block on the Wiktionary or its Discord, that is obvious. As for the "wasting my time" response, if merely trying to have a discussion results in users being completely blocked, I would say it's the opposite, you are wasting the users' time by failing to discuss. J3133 (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@J3133 Meta has a history of bullying other editors. If it were up to me, they wouldn't have blocking rights on either Discord or on Wiktionary. The fact that Meta is failing to engage in productive discussion or explain their block confirms this. Purplebackpack89 15:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Purple, I have every right to block someone from DMing me off-wiki. You seem a bit confused. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

tree of life[edit]

"(religion) A term used in the Hebrew Bible that is a component of the world tree motif." Any ideas about this? Clearly a tree isn't a term, so it needs a real definition. How does it differ from the other senses? Equinox 12:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Our current senses #3 and #4 are awful, but the problem is that it's a symbol with lots of meanings in Judaism: some are mystical (like what #4 is describing), some are biblical (possibly failing WT:FICTION?), some are physical (the poles in a Torah, or a metaphor for the Torah itself). I really don't know what's attestable in English, but if you want to be thorough about it, you could replace the offending sense with several specific ones. See Etz Chaim for more. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Admin hammer[edit]

Hey MK. Can you use your good judgement to get rid of a few of the crappy entries in Category:Requests for deletion in Spanish entries? Some are very clear cases. --Alsowalks (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Nah, due process is awarded to all Spanish entries in good standing. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
It's because of my new album. I've recorded all the songs already, and am hoping to get signed. I'll give you a free CD if you come to the launch. --Alsowalks (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


Why did you revert my edit for the word nigger? —⁠This unsigned comment was added by SillySympathy3 (talkcontribs).

The definition wasn't correct. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


I really don't think my Trump edit should've been reverted. A lot of people will think about Donald Trump when they hear the word trump. Dictionaries are meant to be descriptive of how people use words.

Also, if the Churchill entry, for example, is allowed to have Winston Churchill as a definition, I don't see why the same can't apply to Trump.

Lastly, next time you're going to revert an edit of mine, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could tell me why. It's just frustrating if I have no idea why my edit got reverted. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by SillySympathy3 (talkcontribs).

I had to revert a bunch of entries because you were making a mess. In this case, I think you're right. I'll edit the entry to show you what I think a good format is for this. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think that format is better? I only see a slight difference but ultimately you're still adding a definition that includes Donald Trump like I did. SillySympathy3 (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's basically the same — my revert was in error there. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I see a lot of Wiktionary:SOP in the terms used in Trump derivatives. BoldLuis (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Single words in English cannot be SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Old English: Is hit swā[edit]


Why did you delete the entry? The phrase is an attested phrase from the period.

Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I told you why in my deletion summary. Please see WT:SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete my addition[edit]

What gives bro Joe goes (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Your definition is obviously wrong, to the degree that it doesn't even match the part of speech in your example sentence, and I doubt it exists anyway. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

There are lots of missing synonyms in the language data[edit]

I did not intend to move or merge any languages – not my business to meddle in remote fields –, but like missing words are still entered into the mainspace so those language datasets still need to be expanded with missing alternative spellings/synonyms, otherwise people do not find the language they want to add a term in and compare terms instead of by language code by plain text as at عدس‎ because they did not find the language category or language code (they can look the codes up sometimes in external sources like Wikipedia but sometimes Wiktionary has codes for elsewhere codeless languages and not everyone is that smart), so I wanted to help out and expand/add fields aliases and scripts. I informed a user that he could search at Category:Language data modules to find the language code but this cannot be said well if the used spelling of the language name cannot be found by the search box for lacking alias field. I think it would clog the Grease pit, make a mountain out of a mole hill, and double work (for somebody would have to look again whether the synonym is true, and perhaps nobody would do anything?), if every time I find one missing alternative spelling or synonym I create a new section at the Grease pit. Or should I do that? Or should we open another project page for quick fixes proposed in this matter to keep the people with template editor flag small? People would not watch it, like the module talk pages. And it’s not WT:RFM if it isn’t moving or merging, and WT:GP is filled with various and sundry technical questions, but this is a recurring issue. So what would be ideal for these data lists is if there was a system like some wikis have where changes can be made but do not go live instantly but editors make changes and the changes have to be confirmed to go live, but this isn’t here. I hate to ask, you see, and many envisaged changes are already forgotten before formally proposed. I have never seen anyone specifically proposing aliases, and for the said reasons they fit no existing section, so what is left only is to ask for template editor flag, which could be at the Grease pit because it is not a recurring technical issue but for which there is no formalized procedure either as far I remember so I – perhaps somewhat impertinently – did it in an edit summary. You may of course move this talk or ask around but I did not want to bug more readers of the Wiki-pages, wanting to keep my fingers away from all changes but the incontrovertible ones. —Why do my messages end up longer than everything anyone has written to the same page? I must be the most circumspect person ever. Fay Freak (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, last things first, I have told you for a while that you would benefit from learning concision. But to the point, it seems like you have a reasonable request for being a "template editor", so I will nominate you for that momentarily. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Question about reversion[edit]

Hey quick question, my edits on קוגל were reverted, could you please tell me why? WikiMaster111 (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I reverted it because it was wrong. I'll put it the correct etymology. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Arabic spellings[edit]

(Re ياس.) Comparing e.g. كُوْنِڠْ, we don't seem to have a dedicated template, although another possible way of doing it seems to be {{spelling of|CODE|Arabic|WORD}}, like on سارسەنبى. - -sche (discuss) 06:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@-sche: Thanks. That seems less than ideal; I think we once had something like Category:Afrikaans terms in Arabic script, and it seems like it would be useful to have that back, via a template that puts it in said category. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree it'd be useful to have a category. Ever since it was deleted, I've had a hard time finding the entries when things like this come up. For Romanian there is Category:Romanian Cyrillic spellings. For Afrikaans, I think there used to be a catch-all category, and then it got split by POS like Category:Afrikaans nouns in Arabic script. I see I deleted the latter (which was empty at the time) following this discussion, which however showed support for a catch-all/POS-agnostic category. "Afrikaans terms in Arabic script" (etc.) sounds good, but then we probably want to standardize the Romanian category's name to match. - -sche (discuss) 08:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't even know where in our infrastructure this kind of thing goes any more (assuming we want to make it {{auto cat}}able and all that). @Erutuon? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Probably the easiest way to do this would be to add the categories with Module:headword. That might have been what was done before the categories were removed. (The category pages can be generated using a new Module:category tree submodule.) But generating the lists from the dump instead might be better, to save Lua resources. — Eru·tuon 20:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
That's not really the kind of solution I'm looking for. This isn't a cleanup mission, but rather a categorisation that is helpful to me as a user, which I think we go well with a template for this situation. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

race (competition) cognate[edit]

I know that Latin rorarii is cognate with English race (in the sense of a competition). But, you reverted the edit. I know this isn’t supposed to have random cognates, but this cognate should be there in my opinion because this is not listed anywhere. Bernspeed (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

If the PIE is valid, it will be created someday. In the mean time, stop adding random cognates and making disruptive edits or you will be blocked. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Metaknowledge, I will stop doing it because I wasn't sure if it would ever be created. Thanks. :) —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Bernspeed (talkcontribs).

Admin unhammer[edit]

Hey MK. Thanks for the mass deletion of Spanish crap. While you're around and in a good mood, can I ask you to undelete the userpage of User:AcpoKrane - it's for the new album, which can probably be released now that most of the links are red. --Gorgehater (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Done, and I want to hear the album! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Here's the tracklist --Gorgehater (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  1. Buena Racha
  2. Todo Lo Demás
  3. Sonido de Bip
  4. Rayo de Sol
  5. Amar no es Amor
  6. Pelo Suelto
  7. Me Toca A Mí/Te Toca A Ti
  8. La Raza
  9. Hace Poco
  10. Con Entusiasmo
  11. Necesito una Copa
  12. Yo No He Sido

Swahili IPA[edit]

Repeating what I said on the talk page: I was under the impression that Swahili had long vowels, hence why pumbaa and pumba are spelled differently. I understood that these where allophones (like the long vowels in British English) hence why they are not on the main IPA chart on Wikipedia. However, the pronunciation pages are supposed to list the allophones as well (hence the ɱ). I haven't added the (ː) because I want to make sure that I'm not missing something. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by MToumbola (talkcontribs).

@MToumbola: Yeah, I didn't make Appendix:Swahili pronunciation, and it's basically just a copy from Wikipedia. You're right that it's not really phonemic (in the sense that it's still a sequence of vowels as far as stress etc are concerned and cannot have a minimal pair), but I like to mark it as length even in our broad transcriptions. (And on Wiktionary, we never make broad transcriptions maximally broad, e.g. the English rhotic.) So adding length to that page is a good idea. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Asante sana! I'll change the Wikipedia page to match this one. -MToumbola (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Donk revert[edit]

I added a 4th etymology for the word Donk and now I see it has been reverted. I don't understand why? Donkplanet (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Your username, combined with your disregard for our formatting and roundabout definition, made me rather suspicious. I see that this is indeed real, so I have added it back with a new definition to cover the uses I see on Google Books, many of which do not actually limit the term to Caprices and Impalas as you might wish. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I am a newcomer[edit]

Can u teach me stuff I am only 9 yrs old and want to do stuff without being blocked Darren1515 (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Darren1515: Hi Darren. What you can do for now is read Wiktionary. Editing Wiktionary is something you may be able to help with in a few years, but not yet. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks Darren1515 (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You reply so quick how many hours a day do spend on Wikipedia or wictionary (maybe I spelled that wrong) Darren1515 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Because of quarantine I couldn't meet my friends and so I did of a lot of browsing on wictionary so I when you did stuff to my admin page edit I got interested in you "meataknowledge "I spelled that wrong maybe Darren1515 (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe your reverting of my revision to the Anti-Antifa page was made in error Xecular (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[edit]

The page originally contained a statement claiming that all individuals and groups supporting Anti-Antifa are politically right-wing. This claim is made with no source and cannot be considered accurate without tangible evidence to suggest that one have a right-wing affiliation to protest the Antifa movement. For this reason, I removed these statements from the page as to uphold the standard for providing unbiased and factual information.

@Xecular: You seem to be politically motivated. The entry is correct and accords with usage; if you edit war over it, you may be blocked. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe it is politically motivated to remove serious potentially politically-charged claims which were not created with proper evidence. Being that Anti-Antifa is a term which has no inherent place in the political scale, it more seems that the claim of Anti-Antifa being a right-wing symbol is inherently politically motivated as it was made with no evidence and can be disproved through observation of the wide group of people that are seen using it on the internet. It is simply more reasonable not to allow this claim on an informational page until it can be reliably sourced instead of being based off a personal experience or belief (Since anti-Antifa itself is only related to the actions of the Antifa movement and not specifically people that fight fascism, there is nothing to suggest that the usage of this is right wing and not just holding the movement accountable for activities related to Antifa).

I'm not sure you even realise that it's a German entry, not an English one. Anyway, editing when logged out counts the same as when logged in. This is your last warning. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Too late. They did it again, so I blocked them. Both IPs were anonymous proxies, so I made it permanent. The account was created 4 minutes before the reverted edit, so I doubt they were planning anything constructive, anyway. I didn't even bother checkusering the IPs, because the behavioral evidence was more than enough. Even if it wasn't the same person, it was obviously someone acting under their direction. Apparently they thought hiding their identity with proxies would keep them from getting blocked- instead it just proved their dishonesty and bad faith. It would be nice if that would put a stop to it, but I'm sure they'll try again, or get someone else to. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Dispute over sign language transcription[edit]

Recently, you made a comment on Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits#CAVALO^LISTRA where you said that Wiktionary's sign language policy wasn't voted on. That is wrong; see Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-08/Wiktionary:About sign languages. --Numberguy6 (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I saw your ping; the talk-page notification was unnecessary. I had not known about that vote, and I now think there should be a new vote to modify it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Reference to English-language works for esperanto tenses ?[edit]

Hi, is it possible to have some of the references you used to describe esperanto tenses? I know that languages have different ways and terminologies to describe languages, but I corrected the table here bacause we recently corrected it on the French Wiktionary, as it was written "Subjonctif/Impératif".

Please ping me if you answer. :)

Thank you by advance Lepticed7 (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lepticed7: I'm not an Esperantist myself; looking around, I see "imperative", "volitive", and "jussive" all being used to describe the -u form. In general, I think that it's informative that you say "we" when referring to the change at fr.wikt (implying a mutual decision), whereas you made this change at en.wikt without any discussion and in a module that most Esperanto editors would not notice. I don't have any problem with a change, but I want to make sure our community is agreed first. I would recommend that you post in widely read forum, perhaps WT:BP, and see if people like the idea before changing the module again. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, this is strange, I didn't receive the notification. No problem with that. Before posting on the BP, I will try to find some references written in English. Thank you! Lepticed7 (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I am not a linguist, but I learned Esperanto some years ago. The "-u" is mainly used for imperative. --BoldLuis (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

What did you change?[edit]

Hi Metaknowlwdge it has to my attention that you reverted the changes i had made to the "Narutard" page and I would like to know why?

Sincerely yours Sarake Uchiha Sarake Uchiha (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You messed up the formatting and added no content, only new lines. By the way, your addition of content to Anime was completely wrong, and if you continue to make disruptive edits, you will be blocked. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually I didn't change anything on the Narutard page I pressed the edit button my mistake and I got lost in what to do it was my first day and the content of anime it isn't wrong,tell me something that I had out in which was false?

And am still new St this it's not like there is editors class Sarake Uchiha (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

If you have to ask, then you don't have the maturity to edit Wiktionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@Sarake Uchiha You seem incredibly confused. You said in your first comment that you are unaware as to why your change to "Narutard" was reverted, and even included an edit summary six words in length in that particular edit. But then you made a second comment, saying that you "didn't change anything on the Narutard page" and "pressed the edit button by mistake". I see how this could've happened legitimately, like if you somehow didn't know you could just close the tab you're currently in and when prompted by the browser, click "Leave". Going by the assumption that this is what happened, being blunt here, sorry, but such a lack of knowledge on basic browser operation is a hint that you lack experience necessary to properly edit Wiktionary (or maybe you're using a really bad/outdated browser).
Also, it seems you've reached the wrong website, anyway. Your user page states that you "chose to come to Wikipedia". You're at Wiktionary, Wikipedia's sister project that is a dictionary, and not at Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia project. Maybe try and take your edits there. But your editing habits probably wouldn't fly there either. Test edits, or unformatted, ungrammatical edits, as you have made here, are not acceptable in the mainspace of any wiki. On the subject of test edits, usually there's a sandbox for those, as we have here.
I have blocked your account here temporarily for these reasons. If you wish to come back, after the block has expired, please consider some advice from Wiktionary:Tutorial (as we do indeed have an "editors class" of sorts) before deciding to make future edits. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


Go to User talk:Equinox an read and think a bit, what ist that for a crap that you edited, so when you not a botanist, please stay away. The definition is clear, also the greek language. Gray und Lindley defined it clearly, it was later corrupted, confused. Its clear because its the contra of hysteranthous. It cant be both. And the sources that i added are (very) reputable, the original source from Gray!!, so its a no go that you ignored them. Should actually be a VM to you. Where comes he made a mistake, why he?, give source. I dont like wrong sources.--Kingbossix (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I have never met an adult German with as poor English as you have, so I am going to assume that you are either poorly educated, pretending to be German, or both. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I moved this discussion to Talk:proteranthous. There seems to have been some historical confusion about the meaning of the word. Whoever calls my editing crap can meet me in the car park and get bruised. Equinox 18:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Kamarupi Prakrit[edit]

Hello, Kamarupi Prakrit is an ancestor of Assamese, but it's not yet added as an ancestor on Wiktionary which is why the error occurred on আন. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Msasag (talkcontribs).

I don't know anything about the Prakrits, so maybe @AryamanA can help with this and add it if needed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

For the Record...[edit]

Just to avoid any appearance of hiding things from you this time, N.G. Smokingloon (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks) registers about 11 on my LW-meter- especially the sadly misplaced delusion of cleverness re: the name. The content looks like basically a continuation of his Ndołkah edits from before he got overconfident and reverted to being LW.

Of course, that's just a hunch, and I'm not going to use the checkuser tool unless it's needed to prevent bad edits. He seems to be working from a dictionary, so I'm not all that worried for the time being. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Thanks for the heads-up. Just to be clear, I don't feel like you're hiding things from me, so don't worry about it — but communication is always appreciated! I wonder if we really want to get in the habit of tolerating LW like WF, though — LW doesn't strike me as being especially linguistically knowledgeable, and we don't really have anyone with the expertise or interest/time to go through books on Western Apache and do some spot checks (unless you want to!). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


I apologize for my edit on -ception, it took a while for me to notice what I've done wrong. I realized as well that words like “have” and “capture” derives from *keh₂p-; it was pretty normal for me to see English words deriving from Latin (and Greek) but unaware of the English language's full history. -- 12:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Etymology question[edit]

Hello! I have no objection to the edit you made moving the quotation from The Matrix movie. It is just fine as it is. However, I was wondering if you could help me clarify my theoretical understanding of the use of early quotations in etymologies. On the page 風馬牛不相及风马牛不相及 (fēng mǎ niú bù xiāngjí), I provided the classical quotation from which the phrase arose. Wouldn't "red pill" by analogy also be allowed to display the quotation which popularized the phrase? That was the theoretical logic I was proceeding on when I made my edits. You made the quote a reference, saying, 'This doesn't belong in the main text of the etymology, so I've converted it to a reference. (footnote)' I have no problem with that methodology on its face. My only question is: am I not putting quotations in the etymologies of Chinese character terms? Is there a distinction? Again, this is a technical point about the theory behind the method of writing etymologies- I don't really think either page needs to be changed: both methods are good enough for me. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

(I am aware the subject matter of 'red pill' is a somewhat politically sensitive topic, but I want to try to look past that directly to this etymology question if possible.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the accepted style in Chinese etymologies is poorly executed (in multiple ways; e.g. no pinyin in the quote), but is essentially standard there. I won't try to change the Chinese entries, but that doesn't mean we should introduce that style into English, where it is not standard. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
There is Hanyu Pinyin in that quotation if you open the drop down (not that that's the language that the author of the passage used anyway- should be in Old Chinese or Middle Chinese honestly, or seperately listed under a Mandarin Chinese version of Classical Chinese). But the original or very early quote can be important to understanding a word in some cases, couldn't it? That's my feeling. The 'red pill' concept is reliant on the context of the Morpheus monologue. In Chinese characters, 紅丸 (literally 'red pill') brings to mind court intrigues of the Ming dynasty. Sorry again to discuss this word, but I want to address the theory behind including quotations in etymologies. In my opinion, the 風馬牛不相及风马牛不相及 (fēng mǎ niú bù xiāngjí) quote is absolutely needed to "get" what's happening in the word 風馬牛不相及. In Wuhan, they taught me that it literally meant "horses and cows don't interbreed", a popular misunderstanding of the literal meaning immediately rectified by reference to the quote that made it a well known phrase- it actually literally means 'the horses and cows of our two distant nations would not be able to wander close enough that they might breed', and without the quote in the etymology, the Wiktionary reader can't get a grasp on the literal meaning behind the metaphor. Similarly, dry reference to a movie and a main character are not enough, especially when the context around the word in the classic usage are what imbue the term with its meaning. This red pill example is not a scientific phrase we are track8ng down to its first usage in a journal where the context surrounding the first use is unimportant: these two terms 離不開 the context of the first usage. So I am in favor of the way the Chinese character page is formatted and think it would be good for English terms to follow suit where a term is heavily dependent on that initial context. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The terms have become divorced from their initial context (e.g. lots of people who have not seen The Matrix are using the term). We should be sparing in etymology sections, which appear so high up in the entry, and relegate deeper context to footnotes or autocollapsed boxes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The etymologization of قسورة attributed to Ibn Abbas[edit]


Regarding the definition and etymology of قسورة, so many dissimilar, and possibly contradictory, explications are attributed to Ibn Abbas. In fact, almost all of the given definitions are attributed to him. The following quotations are from Al-Tabari's exegesis:

حدثني أبو السائب، قال: ثنا حفص بن غياث، عن حجاج، عن عطاء، عن ابن عباس، في قوله: ( فَرَّتْ مِنْ قَسْوَرَةٍ ) قال: الرماة.

Here, "he" defines it as "bowmen" or "archers."

حدثني محمد بن سعد، قال: ثني أبي، قال: ثني عمي، قال: ثني أبي، عن أبيه، عن ابن عباس، ( فَرَّتْ مِنْ قَسْوَرَةٍ ) يعني: رجال القَنْص.

Here, it is said to mean "hunters."

حدثنا ابن المثنى، قال: ثنا محمد بن جعفر، قال: ثنا شعبة، وحدثنا أبو كريب، قال: ثنا وكيع، عن شعبة، عن أبي حمزة، قال: سألت ابن عباس عن القسورة، فقال: ما أعلمه بلغة أحد من العرب: الأسد، هي عصب الرجال.

حدثنا ابن المثنى، قال: ثنا عبد الصمد بن عبد الوارث، قال: سمعت أبي يحدّث، قال: ثنا داود، قال: ثني عباس بن عبد الرحمن مولى بني هاشم، قال: سئل ابن عباس عن القسورة، قال: جمع الرجال

In these, "he" defines it as "a group of men." And in the first, "he" supposedly claims that he has never heard the word being used to mean "lion."

وقال آخرون: هي أصوات الرجال. حدثنا أبو كريب، قال: ثنا ابن عيينة، عن عمرو، عن عطاء، عن ابن عباس ( فَرَّتْ مِنْ قَسْوَرَةٍ ) قال: ركز الناس أصواتهم.

Here, "he" defines it as "human noise or clamor."

دثني محمد بن خالد بن خداش، قال ثني سلم بن قتيبة، قال: ثنا حماد بن سلمة، عن عليّ بن زيد، عن يوسف بن مهران، عن ابن عباس، أنه سُئل عن قوله: ( فَرَّتْ مِنْ قَسْوَرَةٍ ) قال: هو بالعربية: الأسد، وبالفارسية: شار، وبالنبطية: أريا، وبالحبشية: قسورة.

حدثني عليّ، قال: ثنا أبو صالح، قال: ثني معاوية، عن عليّ، عن ابن عباس، قوله: ( فَرَّتْ مِنْ قَسْوَرَةٍ ) يقول: الأسد.

Only in these two does "he" define the word as "lion," and in the first, "he" etymologizes it as being of Abyssinian origin.

Therefore, I believe that the recent edits reflect some of the inconsistency of what has been attributed to Ibn Abbas regarding this word (as well as the verse in general). Roger.M.Williams (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I am now thoroughly confused. Maybe we should just leave off any mention of ibn Abbas and leave the whole thing as being a summary of ideas given mostly without etymological speculation by al-Tabari. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Very well Roger.M.Williams (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Yoruba "Partridges"[edit]

I don't know African fauna that well, but after browsing around a bit: there are true partridges (Phasianidae subfamily Perdicinae) in northern and eastern Africa, but West Africa seems to have the stone partridge (Odontophoridae, aka "New World Quails"), and various francolins. See this reference] for a good listing. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

More discussion at Talk:aparo. That book is helpful, but I may need to present a set of images to a native speaker (if I can get ahold of one). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
See this page, which has a picture on the flip side of a flash card for the word. It's hard to be sure, but It seems to be closer to the stone partridge. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
On the other hand, it might just be a generic file image of an actual partridge used by someone who doesn't care about taxonomic accuracy. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
This page mentions the Double-spurred Francolin in a very inconclusive way... Chuck Entz (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I've been reading a lot about Ifa divination today, but I didn't expect it to come up in species determination! That website led me to this book, which seems to confirm that it's correct. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
An Avibase checklist of birds of Nigeria yielded the following list of galliform birds:
Helmeted Guineafowl Numida meleagris
Black Guineafowl Agelastes niger
Crested Guineafowl Guttera pucherani
GALLIFORMES: Odontophoridae
Stone Partridge Ptilopachus petrosus
GALLIFORMES: Phasianidae
Blue Quail Synoicus adansonii
Common Quail Coturnix coturnix
Harlequin Quail Coturnix delegorguei
Double-spurred Francolin Pternistis bicalcaratus
Ahanta Francolin Pternistis ahantensis
Scaly Francolin Pternistis squamatus
Clapperton's Francolin Pternistis clappertoni
Coqui Francolin Peliperdix coqui
White-throated Francolin Peliperdix albogularis
Latham's Francolin Peliperdix lathami
I'd bet on the word being as non-specific as sparrow, partridge, grouse, hawk, etc. DCDuring (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Avibase looks to be the source of w:List of birds of Nigeria. DCDuring (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)