User talk:MirekDve

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


Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

  • How to edit a page 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.
  • Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! L☺g☺maniac 02:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Czech entries[edit]

Hi and thanks for your contributions but could you please look through some of the entries you have made and fix them like this? Thanks. 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Mirek2 (talkcontribs) under the new name MirekDve (talkcontribs), please consider using {{cs-reflexive|i}}[1]. --Dan Polansky 13:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was looking for that and couldn't find it. --MirekDve 13:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Etymology headings: when there is only one etymology, there is only a level-3 header "Etymology" rather than "Etymology 1", and the following part-of-speech (slovní druh) heading is of level-3 rather than level-4. See existing Czech entries as a model, existing English entries as a model, and WT:ELE.

Sorry, a slight editing mistake. By the way, should words featuring a different imperfective/perfective counterpart be presented under the same or under different etymologies? --MirekDve 13:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Babel: if I am correct in my estimation that you are a native Czech speaker, would you consider putting a Babel box to your user page? Like {{Babel|cs|en-2}}, or something, depending on other languages that you speak. --Dan Polansky 13:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your latest entries are missing a ==language== section. SemperBlotto 17:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. --MirekDve 17:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Suffix -ačka[edit]

I do not know whether the apparent suffix "-ačka" as shown in "prodavačka" is a genuine suffix. It depends on how we morphologically analyze the term "prodavačka" and its likes into elements. I would analyze "prodavačka" into "prodavač" + "ka", and that again into "prodávat" - "at" + "ač" + "ka"; thus "-ka" would be a suffix attached not only to "prodavač" but also to "učitel" and "nosič", instead of seeing suffixes "-ačka", "-elka", "-ička" and the like.

But I do not know these things; I am just superficially observing. --Dan Polansky 14:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm also not quite sure about this suffix. You may be right, but there are instances where there is no masculine equivalent: šlehačka, plácačka, babička, kabelka (kabel has a completely different meaning), kalkulačka, and the like...
On the topic of suffixes, I'm wondering how to present derivetional and inflectional suffixes -- I'm assuming that separately, as two different suffixes? --MirekDve 13:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
There are as yet no inflectional suffixes for Czech in Wiktionary, and I don't see a point in creating entries for them. All the entries in Category:Czech suffixes are derivational suffixes, meaning those that are used to create new words--lexemes--rather than those used to create inflected forms of one word. --Dan Polansky 09:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


Do you have any evidence to support the reordering? DCDuring TALK 17:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, one's obsolete and the other is archaic... --MirekDve 17:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
This is an area of lack of consensus. If we were solely a historical dictionary (OED) the order would probably be by order of sense development. If we really cared about all the other users we would go in the frequency direction. The entries can be more readable (vs. scannable) in the historical order. This just goes to show that it isn't really possibleeasy to be all things to all people. DCDuring TALK 18:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The spelling of the obsolete term and the old spelling of the archaic term, as presented in the example, is different from the current one, so there is higher probability one would look for that under "undirtake". In any case, if one checks other dictionaries, the archaic and obsolete terms are listed at the bottom if at all. I understand that Wiktionary is a conglomeration of all possible dictionaries, but a historical dictionary is, in my own experience, used much less than a commonplace English dictionary. --MirekDve 18:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't even noticed that, nor that the source of the citations might be considered Middle English (pre-1500 by some reckonings). My own preference would be strict separation by exact spelling (after adjustment for ligatures etc). There isn't full consensus on either of those points either.
My own focus at the moment is on coming up with ways to improve the quality of the English definitions, which often bear the marks of their origins in Webster's 1913 dictionary (copyright expired). In any event, happy editing. Let me know if I can help in some way. DCDuring TALK 19:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

kočkodan - etymology[edit]

Hi, the etymology that you have added to "kočkodan"--"German „Meerkatze“ (sea cat), which comes from the Indian marcata (monkey). [1]--" is contradicted by the etymology given by Jiří Rejzek in his etymological dictionary; Rejzek traces the term to Polish, which he further traces as possibly coming from Romanian. The source you have given for the etymology is a web site of a Zoo, not a lexicographical or scholarly work. It seems to me that either the etymology that you have given is validated from multiple scholarly sources, or it should better be removed. --Dan Polansky 09:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm... I'm assuming Rejzek's etymology is more accurate, but I really have no idea which etymology is the correct one. Thanks for catching that. Do you think maybe presenting two different possible etymologies could be better than presenting none? And, me not having access to Rejzek's etymological dictionary, could you maybe add that etymology, or, if you really don't think it's a good idea to present two possibilities, delete the current one? --MirekDve 16:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I propose to remove the etymology from the zoo article altogether; the zoo article is not the kind of source one would use for an etymology, and it does not source its etymology claim.
I have so far avoided adding etymologies to Czech entries, as I am not yet perfectly clear about how to avoid copyvio while doing that.
If you prefer that I delete the zoo etymology from kočkodan rather than that you do it yourself, I can do it. --Dan Polansky 21:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

sebereflexe and autoreflexe[edit]

You have translated "sebereflexe" and "autoreflexe" as "self-consciousness". That seems doubtful to me, but what do I know. In what sense are you translating these words? What example sentences are there in which "sebereflexe" would be translated into English as "self-consciousness"? What do the words "sebereflexe" and "autoreflexe" mean; what are their definitions? --Dan Polansky 09:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, that seems to be the most correct translation. I added a link to the Czech Wikipedia article on the subject for clarification (that article also uses the self-consciousness translation, by the way). Autoreflexe seems to have the exact same meaning as sebereflexe (sebe- and auto- are both referring to the same thing), at least according to [[2]]. --MirekDve 16:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, but what are the definitions of the terms?
What example sentences or quotations are using the terms "sebereflexe" and "autoreflexe"? Quotations are the empirical input material for research of semantics.
How do you know that it is the most correct translation?
I am asking because I do not understand with confidence the terms "sebereflexe" and "autoreflexe"; when pressed, I could only provide a speculative estimation of what the two terms could mean.
The definition given at seems rather unhelpful; what in the world is "vcítění se do sebe sama" or "východisko formování vlastní osobnosti"? Are "vcítění se do sebe sama" and "východisko formování vlastní osobnosti" presented as synonymous specifications?
The definition given at Wikipedia--"sebereflexe--akt vědomí, jehož tématem či intencí je toto vědomí samo"--is to me incomprehensible psycho-gibberish. --Dan Polansky 21:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Etymology and aspect[edit]

Above, you have asked: "Sorry, a slight editing mistake. By the way, should words featuring a different imperfective/perfective counterpart be presented under the same or under different etymologies?"

Unfortunately, I don't understand what you ask. Can you give an example, and elucidate a bit? --Dan Polansky 11:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Take the entry prát as an example: should the two meanings be combined under one etymology, even though their perfective counterparts (vyprat and poprat) are different? Or what should be done with such terms? Should the perfective counterparts be moved from the noun header and put next to the definitions? --MirekDve 21:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so you ask whether the sense "prát--to wash, to launder" should be under the same etymology as "prát--to fight". I don't know that, as I don't know the etymologies. But the fact that the prefix-made perfectives of the senses differ does not alone suffice for the conclusion that the etymologies are different. So I would place the two senses under the same etymology by default, until proved otherwise.
The prefix-derived terms can be safely placed into the Related terms or Derived terms section. --Dan Polansky 21:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks. --MirekDve 21:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Compound words[edit]

I have noticed you are entering multi-word terms as compounds, like in "funkční skupina". This runs contrary to the current practice of including ony closed compounds in the category for compounds, such as "kočkodan".

Space-containing compounds such as "černá díra" are called open compounds. The closed compounds are called in Czech "složenina", while the open compounds are called "sousloví".

For a bullet-listed outline of the subject, you can see User:Dan_Polansky#Compounds.

At some point, the category for compounds may be extended to include open compounds, but that would make the category much less useful. Closed compounds are a more surprising feature of a language than open compounds. "černá díra", an open compound, behaves grammatically much like a non-compound such as "zelená tužka": the adjective gets declined. By constrast, in "kočkodan" and "černokněžník", the first part of the compound is not inflected with the word: "vidím černokněžníka" instead of "vidím černéhokněžníka". --Dan Polansky 12:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have misunderstood the meaning of compound and blend (the Wiktionary:Etymology#Compound article makes it sound like compounds are two-word terms, sousloví, and blends are one-word terms formed out of two). Could you explain the difference between the two?
If I now understand correctly, the real difference is that: blends don't necessarily include two roots, but rather take random parts of two words and put them together; compounds seem to include two whole roots, whether in one single word or in two. Are my assumptions correct? --MirekDve 16:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
By way of example:
  • closed compound: blacksmith; cukrovar; barvoslepý
  • open compound: black hole; černá díra
  • blend: smoke + fog → smog; cyborg; motor + hotel → motel
--Dan Polansky 20:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I still don't understand, though, why the article I mentioned above (Wiktionary:Etymology#Compound) lists only open compounds as examples -- are those an exception or some strange special case of closed compounds by some definition? Also, what template should I use for open compounds? Should it be just "[[term A]]+[[term B]]", without using any template? Should I not put anything under etymology and just put the two terms under the "Related terms" section?
You're perfectly right that Wiktionary:Etymology is out of sync with what I was saying.
For open compounds such as "černá díra", one option is avoid entering etymology altogether, as it is obvious. Another option is to write {{term|černá}} + {{term|díra}}.
This issue still lacks a full consensus and will surely appear in Beer Parlour again at some point. Until then, I would recommend you just avoid adding etymologies for open compounds, as their etymologies are almost pointless anyway.
The part terms can be linked in the inflection line, so they do not need to be added anywhere, neither to etymology nor to RT:
{{cs-noun|g=f|sg=[[černý|černá]] [[díra]]}}
--Dan Polansky 21:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
This is how I format open compounds. --Dan Polansky 22:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
A general remark: when you are unsure about anything, and do not want to deal in-depth with an issue, just look around, find model entries, and follow their model. That way, you are sure than you are proceding no worse than everyone else. Put differently, follow common practice as shown in the actual entries in Wiktionary. When you think that the common practice is worthy of improvement, you may deviate from it, or bring a proposal to Beer Parlour or, if it concerns only Czech entries, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. For a newbie, it may be advisable that you follow the common practice for a while even if you don't quite agree with it, and start changing it only after some time in Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky 22:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Formatting - sense[edit]

I have made this edit, using {{sense}}. Are there any entries in which you have seen people use "sense:" without a template in Wiktionary? --Dan Polansky 09:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Order of headings[edit]

Hello again, another reminder of mine: the section "Related terms" comes after the section "Synonyms", per WT:ELE[3]. Not a big deal, but I thought I'd let you know, so you can create perfectly formatted entries from the start. --Dan Polansky 11:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Imperfective-only entries[edit]

Many verb entries are better entered as imperfective-only, as is the case with "shromažďovat", which I have now defined only as an imperfective of "shromáždit"[4][5]. This leads to avoiding redundant repetition of English translations at "shromažďovat" and "shromáždit". This approach works for not every pair of perfective and imperfective, but it works for many such pairs.

Examples of imperfective-only entries: zhasínat, vypínat, usínat, vyhledávat, vychutnávat, vstávat, zhoršovat.

Example of pointless repetition, which I have forgotten to format: vrazit, vrážet; zmenšit, zmenšovat. As you can see in the entries, they contain the same information.

--Dan Polansky 21:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


From what I can see so far, the hypothetical term *vyhnutelný is not citable in durably archived sourced, as is required by CFI. The term sounds odd to my ear, and is rarely used if at all, while its apparent antonym "nevyhnutelný" is a common term.

The search that I have used google books:"vyhnutelný" returns occurrences of "nevyhnutelný" split by a newline into "ne-" and "vyhnutelný". --Dan Polansky 08:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've found several instances of the word on Wikibooks, both archived and new (although my search was for "vyhnutelné"):
I realize the term is a lot less used than 'nevyhnutelný', but I really think that it exists nonetheless. --MirekDve 14:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks; attested. I could have found it myself if I had used your searches; I am sorry. In any case, the term should be tagged as rare. --Dan Polansky 20:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Compounds and RT[edit]

You have added "pivo" and "vařit" as related terms to "pivovar". That looks odd to me: these are the terms from which the term "pivovar" is derived by compounding, so I would expect to see them in the etymology section rather than in the Related terms section.

I would place {{compound|pivo|vařit|lang=cs}} to the etymology section of "pivovar" instead of placing "pivo" and "vařit" to the related terms section.

Other cases include "kávovar", to which I would place {{compound|káva|vařit|lang=cs}}, and "větroplach" with {{compound|vítr|plašit|lang=cs}}.

What is a bit suspect about my proposal is that the compound "kávovar" is probably derived from the stems of "káva" and "vařit" rather than directly from the terms, meaning from "káv-" (also in "kávovina") and "var-" or "vař-" (also in "varný" and "vařečka"). I have no idea how to markup that, and I think that what I proposed is a good-enough markup for the time being, until someone comes up with an objection or a better proposal.

English entries do not flex ot tweak the constituent terms before compounding them: "headache" = "head" + "ache"; they do not place the constituent terms such as "head" and "ache" to the Related terms section. German entries are also of not much help, although they do flex the constituents a bit. I know of no other model in Wiktionary to follow. --Dan Polansky 21:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

-ismus and -izmus[edit]

In the pair "liberalismus" and "liberalizmus", it is "liberalizmus" that is a secondary spelling, not "liberalismus". So "liberalismus" should have a full entry. The same is true for "komunismus" and "komunizmus".

It follows from the higher commonality of the "ismus" forms, confirmed by Google searches. Also, the "ismus" forms are endorsed by the "Pilip dodatek" (Pilip amendment?) as preferred, while the "izmus" forms are tolerated - cs:S:Pilipův dodatek.

Put differently, both the Google research in actual usage and the in-principle-prescriptive official recommendation agree in preferring "-ismus" to "-izmus". --Dan Polansky 07:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, and it does make the most sense (since related words are based on the root with "-ismus").
However, I'm sensing that this kind of duplication of definitions is as unnecessary as with imperfecctive/perfective couples: Should I edit the entries ending in "-izmus" to point to the "-ismus" entries, or should I keep the duplicates? —This unsigned comment was added by MirekDve (talkcontribs).
I think keeping the duplicates is okay. I am equally okay with setting the "-izmus" entries as mere alternative-form-of or alternative-spelling-of entries. While the "-izmus" entries are less common, many of them are less common by a rather narrow margin. The main point is that the "-ismus" entries should not be mere alternative-form-of entries. --Dan Polansky 12:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


What makes you think "meaningless" is a more accurate translation of "bezvýznamný" than "unimportant" and "insignificant"? --Dan Polansky 12:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  • The word has both the exact same meaning and etymology. "Bez-" is identical to "-less", "meaning" to "význam". As meaningless is a synonym of unimportant and insignificant, it should be appropriate to use either one, and since meaningless has similar etymology, it seems a more fitting choice. —This unsigned comment was added by MirekDve (talkcontribs).
Etymological and morphological correspondence has nothing to do with semantic accuracy. Those English terms should be listed as translations of a Czech term that would be most useful in its translation, and that most unambiguously capture the intended meaning, regardless of their morphological or etymological correspondence to the translated Czech term.
The term "meaningless" cannot be used to translate "bezvýznamný člověk", while "insignificant person" is a valid translation. --Dan Polansky 15:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Where to find lists of Czech words[edit]

Hi there. Where can I find lists of Czech words with their English counterparts or dictionaries of Czech words with English counterparts? I would appreciate it to help me work on another site that I work on. Thanks, Razorflame 19:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmph... probably can't help you there (if you mean something along the lines of a simple two-column dictionary). Try someone else: either at the Community Portal or perhaps another individual: Dan Polansky helped me a lot.
P. S. If it helps, here is the index of all Czech words in Wiktionary. --MirekDve 20:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the Index. Dan Polansky won't help me because of differences between us, so I guess that I will just have to rely on the Index. Razorflame 21:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)