User talk:Per utramque cavernam

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  1. 2012-2016 (Fsojic)
  2. 2017 (Barytonesis)
  3. 2017-2018 (Per utramque cavernam)

To worth all and sundry[edit]

Dear Per utramque cavernam, the edit made in gnawing(adjective) by 2405:205:620C:9B53:F4F9:4B76:7D6F:3132 has nothing amiss in them, rather is outstanding as a scarce register of English- and given the breadth of freedom in Wiktionary (which it itself asks us have), all kinds of edits made should be worthied. Others may lack some knowledge that one has, and if one is hindered thus for no foul writing whatsoever, then Wiktionary is but meaningless. So kindly do unwork what you have shredded.—This comment was unsigned.

There's a reason that register is scarce: no one has talked that way in hundreds of years, and anyone who does so now sounds like a silly caricature of a pompous buffoon. We don't want to teach people things that will get them laughed at for no reason. Please stop. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

FWOTD stuff[edit]

I like the new organisation scheme. There are some mistakes, but it streamlines things a bit more. I don't know how interested you are in helping out with it, but I would definitely welcome more involvement from other people. Also @Lingo Bingo Dingo, are you interested in setting up a focus week (or anything else?) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: Hi. I'm interested but I'm trying to limit the time I spend on Wiktionary, so I prefer not to get too involved right now. Per utramque cavernam 21:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah, the age-old struggle... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: I've sorted out the nominations of the remaining years according to that "ready/not ready" scheme. I think it's a start, but it probably could be improved further. How do you pick words you're going to feature? Do you (try to) do a rotation by continent? Language family? Dead languages vs. living languages? Part of speech? Per utramque cavernam 13:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I rotate according to the following scheme: national European language, minority or extinct European-area language, non-European language. It reflects our relative strengths at Wiktionary for the most part, although the second one is always the hardest, and I'd like to do more of the third one if possible. I also don't repeat any language in a month, don't feature more than one constructed language per month, and don't put similar languages (e.g. German and Middle High German) too close to one another. That's pretty much it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: I've sorted the nominations according to that three-fold scheme; I can see now that there are very few nominations for the second type indeed. I didn't know what to do with constructed languages, so I put them in a fourth category. Per utramque cavernam 19:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I generally stretch the second type, just because there's never enough to fill it unless you bend the guidelines somewhat. And if our coverage gets better, it would be appropriate to decrease the European percentage that's featured; right now, the non-European slot is almost all Asian languages, which is also a problem. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and while you're at it, please just remove the nominees that have already been set for a day. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: All right; I was wondering if maybe we should have a nominations archive similar to Wiktionary:Word of the day/Nominations/Archive 2018, but I guess it's not that important. I've thus removed as many as I could find, but it's pretty taxing to navigate between the archive pages and the nomination / focus week pages though.
On a related note, do you think we could merge the latter two (standard nominations and focus week nominations, I mean), or would it become too long? Per utramque cavernam 21:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
We kept them separate to prevent it from being too unwieldy to edit. The focus week noms also often sit around for a long time, because it can be hard to put a good focus week together. Also, I sometimes leave old focus week noms that have been set to remind me of which languages to look at to create it again (like Australian languages). On that note, it would be really helpful to identify if we have any focus weeks ready to run. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
All right, I'll leave it there then. I'm trying to sort it out a bit too.
Would you consider Wiktionary:Foreign_Word_of_the_Day/Focus_weeks#The_Middle_Ages ready, or is too Europe-centric? Per utramque cavernam 11:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge The problem I run into with focus weeks is that I don't know enough about the phonology of a sufficient number of languages. So I can't prepare a full week with a different language on each day. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo: That's why a big part of the job is pinging people to do the things you can't. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Linguistic phenomenon of the week/month[edit]

Take a look at "Words Frequently Sought" in the alt.usage.english FAQ. Equinox 15:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

BTW, regarding the red link on your user page: I suspect that it's a "negative-polarity" item, not a negative "polarity item". Equinox 20:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Equinox: I think you're right, but at the same time Wikipedia has named its article "polarity item". Maybe I shouldn't give much weight to that?
Thanks for the link by the way. I'm leaving this aside for now, as I'm focusing on my endlessly growing French list. (pretty annoying: every time I create an entry, I stumble upon another red link...) Per utramque cavernam 20:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


My understanding of the noncognate-template is that it is used to show that two items are actually unrelated etymologically despite their shape and meaning suggesting the opposite, like in кӑмпа. In ilbiz, the items are indeed related, but not cognate. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Allahverdi Verdizade: Good point. There's also {{m+}}, but it doesn't create a link to the Wikipedia article. Per utramque cavernam 11:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

something to write home about[edit]

If nothing to write home about is a negative polarity item, than so is something to write home about, anything to write home about, and others like nothing worth writing home about. Not every negative polarity item is worthy of inclusion either. I've always been a believer in trying to find the core of an idiom and use redirects from typical collocations of the core to get people to the core so they could be made to see multiple usage examples and perhaps usage notes and link to relevant WP articles. DCDuring (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@DCDuring: Yes, I agree; if I didn't categorise something to write home about, it's simply because I've missed it. But I don't know what we could use as a lemma: to write home about is a bit strange, no? worth writing home about would be a bit better already. Per utramque cavernam 07:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit troubled about the borders of membership in the category. For example, cent and farthing and sou#French have a meaning "paltry amount of money", which is often a 'negative polarity item' ("NPI"). We probably already have red cent as an NPI. Why not the others? I wonder what the name is of a category of terms that includes these and similar terms, all of which display this occasional usa as an NPI. Even the words one and, perhaps, two are used as NPIs in addition to being indicators that expressions of which they are a part are possibly NPIs. Since these uses are very common, it seems wrong to exclude the terms merely because they represent a small portion of the total use of the term (eg, one, farthing, cent). That is why an Appendix on the subject seems like a better tool than a category, especially one that doesn't have an explanation of inclusion/exclusion criteria. DCDuring (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
@DCDuring: Yes, I've also wondered about cases such as one or sou. And yes, maybe an appendix would be better suited to this than a category. But I've found that the category is a useful tool to gather the raw materials for an appendix. That's what happened with Appendix:French doublets, which is a much better way of presenting doublets than CAT:French doublets, but which would have taken a lot more time to create without the latter. Per utramque cavernam 11:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
A problem with using categories as scaffolding to build Appendices is that there never seems to be a time to remove the scaffolding. This is the case with Category:French doublets. Also, a term can have an arbitrarily large number of linguistically interesting features, many of them specific to one or a few of the definitions. How does one maintain links from the entry to all the appendices about such features, especially definition-specific ones, without obscuring the definitions? DCDuring (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

revenir à soi & descendants[edit]

Dear FX (@Per utramque cavernam).

  • 1. I have this semantic loan from revenir à soi or revenir à moi (for greek συνέρχομαι second sense. Is it of any interest to you?
  • 2. About the look of descendants: some thoughts: I've been puzzled with indent or seems as though a lang with an arrow derives from an language-not-borrowed which is just above it. What if every language had a prefix: a monospace symbol which would create equal indent-level?
  • Xxxx: word
  • Xxxx: word
    • Xxxx: word
      • Xxxx: word
  • Xxxx: word
  • Xxxx: word

I've tried with ... ellipsis at περίοδος#Descendants

... Greek: περίοδος (períodos)
Medieval Latin: periodus
German: Periode
Middle French: periode
... French: période
Middle English: periode
... English: period

Are these symbols international standards? → ← ↑ ⇒ ? But what would an ignorans understand without explanation?
→ = something went from point 1 to point 2, directly (inherit)
↷ = something hopped from point 1 and landed on point 2 (borrow)

→ Xxxx: word
↷ Xxxx: word
→ Xxxx: word
↷ Xxxx: word
↷ Xxxx: word

sarri.greek (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


Please check. I suspect this is our bad Thai IP editor using a French IP, but I'm not good enough at the languages to really patrol their edits. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Trowel in wikitionary[edit]

Thanks for your suggestionsGuglani (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Guglani: You're welcome! Per utramque cavernam 13:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@utramque:But can you explain reason of rollback . In what way creation of link in punjabi not proper.Guglani (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
You added an invalid interwiki link (these are now automatic anyway) - maybe you meant to add a translation? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Guglani: Hi again. Interwiki links such as [[pa:ਕਾਂਡੀ]] aren't meant for translations (that's what the translation table is for, which you've already used correctly), but for linking to entries bearing the exact same title in other Wiktionaries.
For example, on the trowel entry, you'd have to put [[pa:trowel]], which will link to pa:trowel (but I see that you don't have an entry for it yet); it's only on the ਕਾਂਡੀ entry that you'd put [[pa:ਕਾਂਡੀ]].
But as SemperBlotto is saying above, all this interwiki stuff is now done automatically, so you don't have to worry about it (notice that it already works at ਕਾਂਡੀ, which links to pa:ਕਾਂਡੀ without us needing to write [[pa:ਕਾਂਡੀ]] in the wikitext).
In fact, I suggest you create an entry for trowel on the Punjabi dictionary (at pa:trowel), then come back here to check. You'll be able to see a link. Per utramque cavernam 15:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
By the way, does ਕਾਂਡੀ have another sense beside "trowel"? It looks like it judging from pa:ਕਾਂਡੀ. I've readded your quotes, could you translate them? Thanks! Per utramque cavernam 16:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

bonte hond & pétomane[edit]

To clarify the revert, als doesn't introduce a simile here, but functions identically to as in known as. So literally "known as the bruised dog", not "known/famous like the bruised dog". Could you by the way take a look at the pronunciation at pétomane? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Ok, thanks for the explanation! (by the way, if you feel like adding new items to CAT:Dutch similes, be my guest).
About pétomane, I('d) pronounce it that way, but fr.wikt says it's a closed /o/ (I don't know why). In doubt, I've put both pronunciations. Per utramque cavernam 14:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:English verbs with placeholder it[edit]

Hey. I think I found another one of your projects that you started and soon forgot about and left a lot of crap to cleanup (not a criticism, I do it all the time too). Why did you create Category:English verbs with placeholder it when we had a perfectly good Category:English terms with placeholder "it"? Obviously, having both cats is ridiculous - my advice is stick to one and avoid a boring discussion about which name sounds better. --XY3999 (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@XY3999: I'm not fond of the old category, as it seems to me to gather pretty different things: impersonal verbs ({{m|en|it's raining, which, as a phrasebook entry, shouldn't even be in the main space imo), and transitive verbs with dummy pronouns (leg it, etc.). But I dunno, I wasn't too convinced by what I set off to do either. Per utramque cavernam 11:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Citations of Bibhorr formula[edit]

here a the links to the original quotes from the book: —This unsigned comment was added by Asligunda (talkcontribs).

taper le pot de[edit]

Hi there. Could you look at the anon's other French edits please. I haven't a clue. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto: Hi. There was only this one, which is all right. But this Thai IP is really problematic, and Surjection, Chuck Entz and I revert most of his contributions on sight. I think you should do the same.
Another thing: peeling the onion is given a =Verb= header, which seems wrong. Didn't you treat a similar case recently? Per utramque cavernam 14:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
My impression is of someone who loves contributing so much that they'll use any excuse to create or alter an entry, ranging from necessary fixes to adding unnecessary templates and labels or just plain making stuff up. The mixture of good, bad, and merely annoying edits in multiple languages makes them really hard for me to patrol. In the past month, a spike in similar edits from French Free SAS IPs coinciding with a lack of the Thai IP edits leads me to think they they may have been on vacation for a few weeks. At any rate, they're back now. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


Hello. Please do not revert edits unless you have a reason to do so, just like you did on the word 'letterbox'. If you have any religious beliefs or you are a race offended by this, then Wiktionary isn't the place to express so. Thank you. CrayonS (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Please try to help in the future! Thank you. CrayonS (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)