User talk:Pinkfud

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

For 2004-2005 entries, see User_talk:Pinkfud/Archive 2004-2005.

Notice: Taking another "leave of absence"[edit]

I am preempting the long and rather useless discussion below so I can write the following message. Please don't bother leaving any more responses here, as it may be a long time before I come back to read them.

I left this site in early 2005 and didn't return until this month. I'm now leaving again, for the same reason. The purpose of this message is to explain that reason.

I see the Wikimedia Projects as having the potential to be the greatest repository of human knowledge ever created - The Great Library of Alexandria carried to it's ultimate expression. I envision a final creation that will take any word or term, in any language, and, through links, provide the viewer with the sum total of knowledge on that subject - from a definition, to pictures, to a full explanation, and including links to any external resources that can't be included within the project itself. One place with all knowledge, continually updated, and all at the click of a mouse. Impossibly lofty goal? No. You have the tools, the minds, and the manpower to make it happen. But you still lack one essential ingredient: the goal itself.

Right now, this place is reminiscent of a huge ant colony. Collectively, the ants manage to build an impressive edifice, a nest that looks like there was planning and engineering involved. But if you look closer, you can see that each ant is only working in what I would call "semi-organized chaos". Any given sand grain, for example, might be moved a hundred times before it finally comes to rest somewhere in the nest.

It's inevitable that any human endeavor of this magnitude and complexity must also undergo a period of semi-organized chaos. But given that humans ought to be somewhat more intelligent than ants, one would expect this state to slowly resolve into a sense of coordinated purpose. In the nearly four years I've been absent, it looks like Wiktionary has still not even begun that journey, and I simply find that unbearable. I cannot even get across the simple (English Comp 101) difference between a referenced paraphrase and a cited quotation.

You have in your hands the ability to explain the cosmos, to unify gobal thinking, perhaps even to bring about world peace through enhanced understanding, but all you care about is the part of speech taken by "sploot" and how "sploot" could be used in a sentence. It's a verb: I sploot, you sploot, he sploots. What's to prevent me from claiming an archaic usage and "proving" it by citing a supposed example from some Medieval manuscript so rare that I'm sure no one can find a copy? Not much, because your reference and citation standards are just way too low. Sadly, as long as that continues to be the case, your credibility tends to follow the same curve. Two words: Academic Integrity. It's everything, or everything else is nothing. -- Pinkfud 20:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


incompetence[edit]

Just a note that you removed the "Translations" header in your reversion. It's been restored, and it's not an uncommon thing for such a mistake to happen, so don't take it as a sign of your own...... Just thought you should be made aware. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC) ...and yes, I also think they were right.

Noted, thanks. Pinkfud 07:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

יהי[edit]

Hi,

Your pronunciation for יהי and the "normally used as will be" both seem wrong. May I ask where you got them from?

Thanks,
RuakhTALK 16:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to argue very much, as my "command" of the language is poor and limited to Biblical Hebrew as used in Torah. However, the online dictionary at http://www.milon.co.il/ also gives "will be" as the primary definition. As that site is in Israel, I tend to trust it. But as I said on the article's talk page, it does need improvement - so go ahead! -- Pinkfud 19:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, having read your user page, I would very much like the entries here to reflect pronunciation as heard in modern Israel. So by all means, please redo that. -- Pinkfud 19:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I'll look into this further. I'm only familiar with it as a jussive/subjunctive (like, third-person imperative), as in Genesis "y'hi or!" ("let there be light!"), with the corresponding future indicative being "yihye" (יהיה). But the jussive/subjunctive has never been very prominent in Hebrew — it only survives in a few irregular verbs, with the future indicative being used for other verbs — so it wouldn't totally shock me if "y'hi" and "yihye" have been somewhat interchangeable in certain forms of Hebrew. Thanks! —RuakhTALK 20:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

magniferous[edit]

Y'know, that's what I thought it ought to mean.  :-) I couldn't find any clear support for that sense, though, so I ended up creating the entry with only the "splendiferous" and "manganiferous" senses. (I'm not a geologist, so I had to tease out various cases where "magniferous" and "manganiferous" were used in reference to the same things, such as the Indian hematites and an iron-ore deposit in North Carolina. On the other hand, despite a great deal of floundering about, I couldn't find any cases where "magniferous" and "magnesiferous" were clearly being used in the same sense.) Even in the case of limestone, there seem to be an abundance of both "magnesian" and "manganiferous" dolomites.... Anyway, since you're clearly acquainted with the field, would you possibly be able to find a citation that shows "magniferous" being used in unambiguous reference to magnesium? It would balance the entry nicely... I have been unable to find anything that quite fits the bill. Cheers, -- Visviva 05:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I can, though the term is somewhat obsolete in American usage. I believe the Aussies still use it though. I'll look. -- Pinkfud 05:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Holy cow, what a hassle! Every paper either (1) assumes you know what it is, (2) is a pay-to-view article, or (3) is an advertisement for magniferous industrial alloys. Best I've been able to do is 2 papers, one from Geology and the other from Metallurgy. Both have only rather useless abstracts available online, but should be findable somewhere, perhaps in a university library collection. I'll post the cites. -- Pinkfud 06:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your trouble. Don't go to too much trouble; I'm sure a suitable cite will find its way to the entry eventually. Best, -- Visviva 06:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I pose as the geologist around here, so it's incumbent upon me to support my statements! :)

-- Pinkfud 06:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

brachyura[edit]

By all means, go ahead and zap it from the list. Items appearing in that list are usually picked by just one person, who added it there because it's linked or requested somewhere and who isn't familiar enough with the item to create it himself. So, as a rsult, there are items from time to time that just don't deserve an entry. Capitalization is a frequent problem, since some people generate "wanted word" lists and standardize the entire list to lower case. --EncycloPetey 21:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Now I know, I won't mess it up again :-) -- Pinkfud 21:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

anthus[edit]

The proper noun is Translingual (not English) and is spelled with a capital letter. As such, it should be on a separate page for Anthus. (see Lepidozia for an example of a genus page). --EncycloPetey 00:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I added the {{also}} link to anthus, and aded the {{infl}} template. The page I pointed you too probably should have had the {{infl}} template, but apparently I forgot to include it. --EncycloPetey 01:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have a bit to learn yet it seems. I'm a fount of odd information, but haven't mastered properly posting it. I'll get there. -- Pinkfud 01:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

{{he-noun}}[edit]

You may find using this template easier than trying to manually format the inflection line of hebrew noun entries. Conrad.Irwin 02:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. -- Pinkfud 02:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

nominaal[edit]

Ok, so my Dutch morphology isn't really up to speed, but I'm rather confused as to how nominaal can be a form of rate (I'm not finding a Dutch section at rate either). Is this a tense of the Dutch word for rate? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably you're right, and it's simply "rated". I'm afraid I didn't check that as well as I should have. I'll fix it. -- Pinkfud 01:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you're right. I completely botched that by finding only the reference to "rate of exchange" and then misreading even that. Sorry. -- Pinkfud 01:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Makes much more sense now. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

-fication[edit]

Your definition is of a verb (e.g. -ficate), but -fication is used to form nouns that describe the action of such a verb. SemperBlotto 11:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations:classical hadrodynamics[edit]

Hi there. Your citation doesn't mention the term being cited. It needs to - in order to show how the term is used. See Citations:hydrogen as a reasonable example. SemperBlotto 18:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought just showing the external source was enough. That's usually the case in scientific papers. -- Pinkfud 18:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, done for those articles. BTW, you should cite your hadrodynamics article as well. Obscure scientific topics are the kind of thing that demand evidence, and are generally the only things I try to provide citations for. Also, I'm not totally happy with those Citations:hydrogen examples. A formal citation should include the names of the authors, their affiliations (University of FooFoo, etc.), the title of the paper, and the publication info. Some of that is inadequately presented in the hydrogen example. -- Pinkfud 18:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I'm trying to say is, in scientific circles, we very much embrace the sentiment so aptly expressed by RTFA. We don't commonly include a quotation showing usage from the article, we expect the reader to check that for himself. I submit that there are distinct degrees of citation correctness. If you're citing a slang term, it's probably enough just to give an example usage. If you're talking about the Cheshire Cat, mentioning Alice in Wonderland is probably enough. But for citing scientific topics, the standard is much stricter, and really ought to be followed. -- Pinkfud 19:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Semper, are you reading this? Another reason why usages are not quoted from citations in scientific articles is that it's far too easy to quote something out of context, thus giving a false impression of the original authors' viewpoint. The classic example of this is the quote attributed to Albert Einstein: "God does not play dice with the universe". Einstein's actual wording was "I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice", but the quote in any case is widely misused. Einstein had realized that one consequence of General Relativity was the phenomenon we now call "quantum entanglement". He hoped to be proven wrong on that point, as it leads to a universe where things can happen in total disregard of established physical laws. That doesn't much bother us these days, but Einstein was convinced that nature hides its secrets, but never by deception - all things must be explainable when the underlying principles are understood. -- Pinkfud 23:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Pinkfud, we're not trying to show authors' viewpoints, we're trying to show how a word is used. If it's obvious from context that a given sentence is completely sarcastic, an ironic description of someone else's viewpoint — too bad, don't care. Or, for a real example, one editor here doesn't put quotation marks around quotations pulled from dialogue; he attributes characters' utterances directly to the author, because the author is the real person who's actually using the word, whether or not (s)he would use it outside of dialogue. Incidentally, your citation is not a use, but rather a mention. (See use-mention distinction.) We greatly prefer citations of use. —RuakhTALK 02:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
On that issue, I will have to call strong disagreement. When you're speaking of scientific topics, especially obscure ones, showing how the term is used by quoting from a cite is not only useless, it may also be a copyvio. As it happens, I have a few papers to my own (real name) credit. If I were to find one cited here as a reference, I would be pleased. But if it also included a direct quote like those in the Hydrogen citations, someone would be getting an angry take-down letter from me. You may cite my published work as a reference all you like, you may paraphrase me, but you may not take my direct wording into your own context without first asking my permission. I want to know whether your context agrees with mine, or whether you'll use my remark about straight lines on the surface of the Earth as proof that I think the world is flat!
Admittedly, you aren't likely to get many complaints. Science today is a publish-or-perish environment. Many otherwise great scientists crank out papers for the sole purpose of adding to their publication list, and they don't give a rat's arse what use, if any, is ever made of them. They consider the "need" to publish nothing more than a nuisance. I, however, am fortunate enough not to be in that category. If I publish, it's because I had something to say - and I do care what use is made of it. Now I ask you, of what possible value is it to know how the term "quantum hadrodynamics" is used in a sentence? If you have any understanding of the science, you know how it's used, and if you don't have that understanding, it's no more valuable than explaining how "bug snot" might be used. Especially since any attempt to show usage would necessarily involve more terms which wouldn't understand. For this kind of topic, the only valid use of citations is to provide the reader with verification - another "authority" who can corroborate your article. And that means the formal citation method is needed - so the reader can actually find and read the cited article. -- Pinkfud 04:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you're failing to distinguish between a dictionary and a scientific paper. We have very different aims and present different types of information here than a typical scientific paper does. How a term is used is everything in a dictionary; much less so for a scientific paper. For a descriptive dictionary (like Wiktionary), a person's qualifications are totally and utterly irrelevant. Any native speaker is equally qualified. Additionally, your claim about copyright infringement is laughable. No court would convict a dictionary of copyright infringement for quoting a few sentences in a dictionary context. Your experience in scientific publishing is appreciated here, but please don't assume that the same rules and merits apply here, as they don't. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
No court would? May I cite:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Research Integrity
§ 50.104 (a) (7): In addition to sanctions that the (affected) institution may decide to impose, the Department also may impose sanctions of its own upon investigators or institutions based upon authorities it possesses or may possess, if such action seem appropriate.
Sanctions imposed have included numerous cases of dismissals, revocation of grants, and payments of restitution. One case involved a Nobel Laureate who, because of his great esteem at his institution, went unpunished - but lost some of that esteem anyway.
So what are the violations? Well, one of them is (to cite another source):
Scott Van Bramer (Guidelines for students, can be quoted because it was released for distribution)
Department of Chemistry
Widener University
August 13, 1996
(1) "it is unacceptable to copy something out of a book, newspaper, journal or any other printed source. The most blatant example of this is to directly copy something word for word. It does not matter if it is only a phrase." (There are specific exceptions for usages in footnotes and citations, but the exceptions are strict, requiring that no misrepresentation of the source occurs).
Van Bramer also writes that a primary purpose of references and citations is to provide the reader with a validation system, by which the reader may verify the truth of the statements made. Did you know that wetlands, normally considered wonderful for the environment and prime candidates for protection, emit 150 million tons of methane each year into the atmosphere? Since methane is 12 to 26 times more powerful (depending on which authority you believe) a greenhouse gas than CO2, this seems rather nonsensical, doesn't it? Yet it's true, and I can cite it: Bunce, N. Environmental Chemistry (Winnipeg: Wuerz, 1994, p. 18)
But my point here is NOT the legality, and never was. My point is that your citation system needs to reflect the gravity of the subject. Simply showing how the word is used in a sentence is fine for pineapples, pigs, and yes, even protons. But it falls flat for subjects like the one at hand. I defy you to use "quantum hadrodynamics" in a sentence that describes the phrase without using other phrases that would, in turn, have to be similarly used. And even if you can, what exactly would be gained? Anyone who looks that up here only wants to know what the phrase means - and if he does want to know more, then he must go grab the cited paper and RTFA! -- Pinkfud 08:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
And here's yet one more thing: Your usage-only system lends itself very well to subtle vandalism! Consider this (BOGUS) citation:
Physics Today, Volume 61, Number 12, December, 2008, Page 8
"The Hale Telescope has now measured the red shift of a cloud of dark matter within the Milky Way Galaxy"
The page in question says nothing of the sort - though what it does say is interesting within this very context. Thing is, how many people will check that reference? Most would accept it as true because this prestigious journal says so! It would be easy, even trivial, for a vandal to introduce subtle lies into these usage citations, and those lies might well go undetected for years! Again, unproven quotations for any purpose - just not a good idea! -- Pinkfud 09:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding the point about how the term is used in a sentence. Questions addressed by quotations and other example sentences include:
  • Is it a singular count noun ("apple"), a plural count noun ("apples"), a singular non-count noun ("soap"), a plural non-count noun ("pants"), a singular proper noun ("Manhattan"), or a plural proper noun ("Maldives")?
  • What sorts of articles and determiners can it take? ("A quantum hadrodynamics"? "The quantum hadrodynamics"? "Much (of) quantum hadrodynamics"?)
  • Do authors use it on its own, or do they generally define it on first use?
  • Do authors use it as a normal expression, or do they use hedging terms? ("This is a question of quantum hadrodynamics" vs. "This is a question of what we might call 'quantum hadrodynamics'." vs "This is a question of what some have called 'quantum hadrodynamics'.")
  • Is it found in formal registers, or only in informal ones? (And vice versa.)
  • Do humans study quantum hadrodynamics, practice it, or both?
For these purposes, it's fine if the sentence contains other terms that the reader won't understand, as long as there are enough "normal" words in the sentence that the reader can see what's going on linguistically. This information is essential, in that if it's not essential — if a phrase means exactly what you'd expect and is used exactly how you'd expect — then we shouldn't have an entry at all. We're a dictionary, not a journal of quantum hadrodynamics.
RuakhTALK 03:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Then, in that case, why cite anyone else's work at all? If the sole and only purpose is to show how the phrase is used in a sentence, why can't I simply write Quantum and classical hadrodynamics are relatively new scientific fields that have to do with the actions of subatomic particles? (Of course, then it isn't a cite at all - but that seems to be what you're all wanting). This would avoid altogether the need to find an external source, to have any sort of accuracy, or indeed to do anything more than write fiction. Might as well give the task to those vandals I mentioned - it would keep them busy! -- Pinkfud 03:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, citations from fiction are perfectly welcome. Heck, entire fictional words are welcome; check out our entries for unicorn, adamantium, Northwest Passage, and vomitorium (sense 2).
And yeah, example sentences are also good. But citations are important; they help to ensure that we're describing the word as it really is used, not as we think it's used (or as we think it should be used).
By "any sort of accuracy", you seem to mean "any sort of accuracy that a physics journal would care about". We don't care about that. We care about the sort of accuracy that a dictionary would care about, which is to say, linguistic and lexicographic accuracy. (Granted, the two kinds of accuracy overlap somewhat — our citations should be formatted in a way that makes clear where they come from — but also differ in many ways. For example, in a physics journal, if you cite an English translation of a German journal article, you care primarily about the article's German author and date of German writing. Here, we care more about the article's English translator and date of English translation, since it's the translator who's actually using the English word.)
RuakhTALK 04:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
(Sigh). No, you are still completely missing the point. "Any sort of accuracy" means accuracy the quoted author would accept, both in wording and context. Let's try this again. This time, I'll make two BAD citations from a hypothetical source.
Case (A): My cite: "If A equals B, then B equals C"
The author said: "If A equals B, then B would equal C. Since it can be shown that B does not equal C.."
By leaving out "would", I've reversed the meaning of the "if-then" sentence. This is an example of misquoting - I've left something critical out of the original author's wording.
Case (B): My cite: "If A equals B, then B equals C"
The author said: "Let's assume a condition. If A equals B, then B equals C. Since we can show that B does not equal C..."
In this case, I've accurately quoted his words, but I've done so out of context - again reversing the meaning.
Both cases are examples of misrepresentation. Furthermore, it remains misrepresentation regardless of the context (dictionary or anything else), and regardless of whether or not it was intentional. Of course, if it WAS intentional, then it's also academic or professional misconduct. (That's a nice way of saying fraud). Now, if I am the author whose work was misused, I can certainly demand removal of the citation. I might also demand a retraction - an apology. But most importantly, if I can show both that the infraction was intentional and that some harm, however slight, resulted to my reputation, credibility, etc., then I damn sure can file suit against someone.
I said before, there ARE degrees of formality in citing methods. I now add the corollary: There are NO degrees of accuracy in this context. Accuracy is all-or-nothing, digital 1 or 0, Boolean True or False. If there is so much as a misplaced comma, so much as a hint that the author meant his phrase in a different context, the citation is bad. Period. False, wrong, unethical, unacceptable.
Also, you keep saying "Wiktionary is just a dictionary". I say, Wiktionary is "just" a dictionary the way Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia is "just" an encyclopedia. You are the only dictionary in the world that aspires to include all words, however obscure, in all languages. That alone makes you more than "just" a dictionary. On top of that, Wiktionary is fast becoming (if it isn't already) the largest dictionary the world has ever seen. Like it or not, believe it or not, you are destined either to be the world's primary lexical authority - or the world's biggest subject of academic scorn. This damnable citation issue could well be the deciding factor. I say, cite "pig" as you please, but cite "magnetosphere" according to a higher standard. One size does not fit all. -- Pinkfud 09:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
No one here has said that Wiktionary is just a dictionary. We've said that it is a dictionary, and that it's not a physics journal. How would you feel about a paper in a physics journal that didn't quote a source extensively, but rather just summarized and paraphrased some relevant points, thereby retaining all the physics accuracy while sacrificing all the linguistics accuracy? I'm guessing you'd be pretty O.K. with that? Well, that's how I feel about a dictionary that doesn't quote a primary source extensively, but rather just took the exact wording of a few sentences, thereby retaining all the linguistics accuracy while potentially sacrificing all the physics accuracy. I'm guessing we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this, but suffice it to say that you don't have to add quotations if you don't want to, but that if you do want to, then you do have to include the actual quotations, not just the metadata. —RuakhTALK 01:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
You would be guessing pretty wrong. I would be livid about it. Completely unacceptable. Of course, such a piece of misconduct would never pass peer-review anyway, so it's unlikely to happen. -- Pinkfud 01:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand. You seem to have ruled out both (1) direct quotation and (2) taking information without direct quotation. I therefore conclude that physics papers aren't supposed to refer to each other? Thanks for letting me know. Next time I see a paper with a list of references at the end, I'll be sure to send an angry letter to its authors. —RuakhTALK 22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Ruakh, I'm beginning to think you're purposely trying to goad me. How can I possibly make it any more clear? If you quote another author, then you must quote both his exact wording and his exact meaning/context. This is so strictly followed that it is not even good form to "correct" an obvious typo in the original text. If the original said woble when it should have been wobble, you must quote it as woble - though you can add (sic) if it bothers you. Why? Because you cannot know where that "error" crept in. Was it in the original manuscript, or did the printer's typesetter do it? If the original author used the word that way, then it passed peer review, and you cannot assume it's an error. Perhaps there's a special meaning within his field - you just don't know.
Now, it's a different story if you don't quote, but paraphrase within the body of your text. You can say, for example: "Barnes et. al. [1] found no significant difference in (value A) between the two study groups". Now the wording is clearly yours, and it's fine - as long as the reference doesn't contradict your conclusion. But if you say "Barnes et. al. [1] said "Group A and Group B had statistically identical results for (value A)", then that's a quote and it had better be dead accurate, both in wording and context. (If, for example, the preceding sentence said "Except for Subgroup X", then you're still misrepresenting the citation). It is for exactly this reason that scientific papers rarely DO quote each other. The normal method is to paraphrase, linking in the reference, and DO NOT add any direct quote in or following said reference. The reader is expected to read the other work for himself so he can verify, to his own satisfaction, the accuracy of the paraphrase. -- Pinkfud 05:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
What? What? I just asked specifically about summarizing and paraphrasing from a source rather than quoting from it, and you said that you would be livid, that it was completely unacceptable misconduct; and now you say that it is fine to paraphrase, and that that's actually normal practice. And you imagine that I'm trying to goad you? How could I possibly goad you, when you're such a moving target that I can't possibly predict how you might feel about a given thing? —RuakhTALK 16:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

supernus[edit]

The "Derived terms" section is reserved for items in the same language as the entry. Of the items you have listed, none qualify as Latin. The entry is also missing much of its basic formatting, such as the inflection lines. I am also curious what source you found that called this word an adverb. It is not. It is also not a noun. --EncycloPetey 20:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have revised and corrected the entry. It is generally frowned upon to create entries in languages you do not know yourself. --EncycloPetey 20:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Citation: Meinecke, Bruno, PhD, University of Michigan, 1960: Third Year Latin, Revision of Kelsey's Cicero, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., page 199. Adverbial usage: Modifies "to be" (above), "to go" (over, as in "over the shield"), "to move" (upwards), etc. As a noun, an object or person that occupies a high place, either physically or socially, often with a titular connotation. In Roman military usage, it could refer (perhaps as jargon) to the accomplishment of thrusting one's sword or lance over the opponent's shield - a "supernus", similar to a thrust or parry in fencing usage. (Won't argue about the derived terms). -- Pinkfud 21:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
For the noun sense, that's what grammarians term "substantive" use of an adjective. It happens in English as "Blessed are the meek" in which "meek" implies "meek people". For English, entries we tend to create a new POS section for these. In LAtin, such substantive use sometimes gets a separate noun section in Latin, when the definition differs or is restricted as compared to the adjective. However, it usually just receives a definition under the adjective section marked {{context|substantive}}, since it still has the full adjectival inflection possible, variable gender, etc. It's like what we do for attributive use of English nouns.
For the adverbial sense, it looks as though Meinecke may be noting usage with various copulae, but I'd need to see the quotations he used as examples. Cicero was pretty careful and even strict in his application of Latin grammar, so I'd be surprised to see him use an adjective in a truly adverbial sense. It might be that Meinecke is equating the adjective and associated adverb supernē, which is what Lewis & Short do in their entries. In L&S, adverbs are usually listed under the related adjective headword, rather than given a separate headword. There has been more than one shift in thinking about the separation of parts of speech in Classical Latin (Classical grammarians did not recognize the adjective as separate from the noun, for example). A number of Latin dictionaries reflect this in idiosyncratic presentation of their material. --EncycloPetey 22:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, that's a good and useful explanation. My knowledge of Latin comes from 4 years in high school, over 40 years ago, so I can hardly claim any fluency after all this time. If I recall correctly, Virgil also used the "over-the-shield" sense at least once, but I have no desire to dig through his epic work to find it. I'll just defer to you instead. -- Pinkfud 23:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Latin Wikisource has the complete Aeneid, and it's possible to search using the "advanced search" feature on google, restricting the domain to la.wikisource, org. I don't find supernus, though I found some uses of super that might fit what you're describing. The problem with doing electronic searches of Latin is allowing enough search flexibility to accomodate inflectional endings, without allowing so much flexibility that you get related words from the same root. --EncycloPetey 23:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility occurs to me about the "adverbial" use of supernus. It's possible that it's being used with a substantive infinitive form of the verb. That is, if Meinecke means specifically that the infinitive is modified when he noted "to go", "to move", etc., then there are grammatical constructions where the infinitive is treated as if it were a noun, and so could be modified by an adjective. --EncycloPetey 04:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

ore[edit]

The entry could use another eye. The contributor has made a too-long rambling etymology. Personally I think the entry needs to reflect both a "correct" economic geology sense and the fuzzier common use, but only the economics of it is in my purview. DCDuring TALK 15:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)