User talk:Rasmusklump

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 6 months ago by Atitarev in topic Neuter animate nouns
Jump to navigation Jump to search



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

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

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

  • Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
  • If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

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!

Your edits


Hi, thanks for your edits on Serbo-Croatian entries.

I must ask you to

  • read the WT:ELE page on how entries are formatted. Many of your edits have headers in the wrong place
  • use the "preview" button to see how the entries will look like. You have occasional typos in your edits.

It's OK to make an error now and then, but right now you're making too much of them. Cheers --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the page! *CLAP*

What I am not sure: What is the difference bew´tween Derived terms/Descendants and Related terms/ See also ?

Derived terms are in the same language/Descendants are in different languages (only the Etymology and Descendants sections normally refer to other languages- everything linked to in all the other sections is assumed to be in the same language as the entry). Related terms are etymologically related/See also can be anything. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Good that we have that cleared up :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
One more thing: use the ====Related terms==== section for etymologically related words (i.e. words from the same root), like those you've added here. The ===See also=== header should be avoided because it's too generic and thus meaningless. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thaks so far. Hope my lates entries are better
BTW I am learning Serbo-Croatian for my next holidays (Plural!). Some Ethymologian knowledge (izumjeti < um, smociti < mokr-, plakati < CS:plakat) from Wiktopnary helps me, sometimes I have to figure it out and want to leave it somewhere here for the next one like me.

Using material from books


Hi. If you use material from books, be careful about copyrights. Thanks. Equinox 01:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the warning. If I use the info without quoting but with source, what could I make wrong? (Real question, no rhetorical one)
The additions I make are what is or could be a help to me to memorize the word



You need to be much more careful in your editing. Please see the current state of the entry for how I fixed what you added. You spelt 'Etymology' wrong and put it in the wrong place per WT:ELE. Also, because Serbo-Croatian is written in two scripts, the etymological information should be added to the Cyrillic form as well (as I have done). Please take more care when editing in future. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I see, normally I make the mistakes in "Ethymoloy"  :)

Adding the cyrillic forms may be difficult, I tried via Wikipedia to get thre right spell for Smiley, but I didnt find it, only that an ikavian form (?) and an english form is possible.

Cyrillic forms only need to be added when they exist. In any case, please use the preview function much more, read WT:ELE, and be careful in general. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
No content should be added below the interwiki links. You clearly have not read WT:ELE; please do so now. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I did, although 10 pages at once (while similar trying to memorize vocabulary) are a little complicated. I also go repeatedly to the history pages to see my errors. The Entry at "socks", I think you reder on it, had been a proposal I had some questions to an admin (so I logged out, working on it unnamed si somebody would come and have an eye on it).

After one question is soluted another two Is it helpful to provide the users entries that help to memorize Vocabulary? I use it to ease my learning at the moment. Normally it is said somwhere in these lines so only make entries if they are proven by 3 places. What if one source is Ikipedia? Is it trusty enough for all 3? I already have made one entry not because of this rule the last day. Thank you for comig back again.

btw: I have moved your words to the right place.

Wikipedia is not a trusted source that can count for anything here; if you want to know more about that, read WT:CFI. I understand that you are doing this for your own learning, but we are creating a dictionary for everybody in the process, and your edits must therefore follow the rules we have set up to make it an optimal dictionary. Currently, other editors have to spend time fixing your edits, and if you refuse to take more care it your editing, this will quickly become tiring. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Ok. But please note for saving my honest I have asked because I read these lines and not the
chnges are helping me; I only tried to tell others what was helpful to me after finding out :)
thanks for your time.

Some words to My edits and my contributions


At the moments I am editing much ethymo ... sorry etymology. I am learning Croatian and the Czech and other European languages are a help to me.

I am always thankful for corrections and notices.

Please note that sometimes I need 1 - 2 minutes to see myself my mistakes, sometimes I have to Jump to Wikipedia and another word in another language to be sure the writing, meaning and spelling is correct. (Not always it is easy to save my half-work it by Prewview so if you see something I may have made wring 1 minute ago I may come back in another minute for perfection.



Greetings, FYI, Related terms heading is only for etymologically related terms. It confuses a lot of new contributors. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. May it also be from other languages?
Tip: Type --~~~~ into the wikitext to enter your signature.
No, Related terms are only within a single language. When the relation is across languages, these are cognates and are customarily entered into etymology section. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
On the same subject, teletina and piletina are not related terms of svinjetina: they are not etymologically related. Are you sure you want to work on Serbo-Croatian entries? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
I think that they are related: From svinja comes svinjetina, from tele comes teletina, from pile comes piletina, from govedo comes govedina. Parallels for learning intelligent. They are made the same way and should be mentioned, I think. Don't you? Rasmusklump (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Then you would have to say that redness, blueness and cleverness are all related because of the common suffix -ness. That is not strong enough etymological relationship for Related terms. In general, if the only thing a set of terms has in common is suffix, then Related terms is a poor heading for the relationship. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Are you sure you want to work on Serbo-Croatian entries?
Yes, I still would want to and I regulary check my entries if an admin has corrected something I made wrong ... like writing "Related Words" instead of "Related Terms". I try to add only links I would have found helpful.

FYI, Related words is a non-standard heading. The standard heading is Related terms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Serbo-Croatian pretek as derived from tek


From what I can see, pretek is not derived from tek. Per, pretek means "ono što je preteklo, čega ima više nego je potrebno", which seems to have nothing to do with tek. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I understand. I thought pretek would mean something like "more than your hunger/appetite needs", in other languages this connection exists (see German "zum Halse raushängen").
That's why you need to be very careful when contributing in a language for which you have very little knowledge, extensively checking with applicable sources. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

dugačak - kratak


How is kratak related to dugačak? diff --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is it better now?
Yes, thanks. Now you only need to turn the numbered lists to bullet lists in Antonyms and Related terms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Reply



Sk is not the domain of a Serbo-Croatian speaking country. You should be much more careful especially since you don't speak the language well. You are mixing Slovak with sh. Watch out in the future for such and similar mistakes! And do sign your posts, please! Best, --biblbroksдискашн 14:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

After making a crossord puzzle in SK and having been to Bratisava I wouldn't tell SK (neither SLO) to the Serbocroatian languges, it seems to me that I have set an sk instead of sh ... Thanks for the Info. Other question: Shouldnt the pages Nijemac and Njemica linked too each other?
By the way; Could you please add somehow nhegov and njezin to the Inflection table of 3rd-person pronouns at on? Thanks



You are making many formatting mistakes. Please don't; look at how entries should be formatted by reading WT:ELE and looking at existing entries. —CodeCat 19:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Headword line templates


These are not optional. Please make sure every entry you create uses {{head}} or a language specific template. DTLHS (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Also, {{t+}} and {{t}} are only for translations. Do not use them in etymology sections. DTLHS (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply



As for "Compare Czech kola", there is not reason to do so. kola is either a drink from English or an inflected form. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Hello Dan, I have filled in the right link. Rasmusklump (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

How do you know it should be o- +‎ kolo? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
In My Book (Český etymologický slovník) the entry reads "okolo přisl., okolí, okolní. Viz ↑o a ↑ kolo." (page 425)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

tenisové hřiště


Ah, my apologies, let me restore that. I saw it as # tenisové hřiště rather than as a quote.

Restored. - Amgine/ t·e 22:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks :)

kde se nachází, Telephonbuch


Can you clean these entries up please? —Rua (mew) 18:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I can't delete entries, if you think the pages doesn't make sense, the deletion can be asked for. Rasmusklump (talk)
I have made the entry Telephonbuch so that at Telefonbuch there is no more dead link Rasmusklump (talk)
I have made some changes, hope it is better this way. I also need a help: nachází shows an error after CodeCat altered the page.



Greetings, you have entered sorojenec as Slovak, but it was in fact Slovene. When working on languages you do not know, you have to be very careful, and double check with sources.

Some sources:

Furthermote, it would be helpful if, before saving an entry, you would use the preview function and carefully check whether you have the categories right since you seem to be making mistakes there.

Thank you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello again. Concerning the categories: I usually do not add categories. Do you have an example where the categories where wrong?
They were wrong in this revision, e.g. Czech lemmas for what you entered as a Slovak entry; this was caused by the use of {{cs-noun|g=m}}, which generates the categories. By checking categories, you may see whether you have used the right template. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Some mistakes relating to Czech

  • In živit, "čím se živite?" would have to be "živíte", with acute i. Whether the item should be there in the first place is not clear either.
in most cases the terms are sortet aphabetically, so I put it at the first place
  • In živit, "život" (entered by you) is an unlikely etymology; živý is much more likely. Rejzek 2001 does not have živit so I cannot check.
The original word is životъ, and životъ is a noun
  • In strecha (diff), a Czech tongue twister does not belong there since strecha is Slovak; furthermore, I don't think tongue twisters make for good example sentences.
my language teachers always used them
  • In pracovat, you have removed Derived terms, delegating them to práce, counter to usual practice.
  • In ničit, you entered "z- +‎ nič" as an etymology, which is obviously wrong and should be z- + ničit; nič is not even a Czech lemma, merely an imperative of ničit.
I didn't work at ničit, my name isn't there
  • In diff, you referenced Wikipedia in the edit summary, but you should never make entries based only on Wikipedia since it is considered an unreliable source.
  • In vadí, you did not use # to start a definition line, and you placed the entry to category for lemmas.
  • In jazyk, you placed synonyms under Derived terms, counter to WT:EL.
  • In tak dlouho se chodí se džbánem pro vodu, až se ucho utrhne, you have entered the jug goes to the well until it breaks as a link and you created that entry, but that does not seem to be an English proverb.
  • In rohlík, you placed the etymology above the level 2 heading for Czech.
  • In květák, you placed to etymology "kvet", which is Slovak, not Czech.
  • In přesně, you placed "příště přijď přesně" as a us ex, which does not sound native to me, and has less than 200 Google hits on the whole of web.
a translation of a native speaker. I will find the source if you want translates "arrivare puntuale" as "přijít přesně (včas)", přesně as Synonym for včas.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Now you wrote inside my post, making it harder to see who wrote what. I prefer that, next time around, you write below my post rather than in the middle. I will respond to your responses in the following:
1) As for živit and "The original word is životъ, and životъ is a noun": Original word of what? *životъ is most likely from a verb. živit is most likely from živý or žít; žít is unlikely to be from *životъ. Rejzek 2001 states that *životъ is from *živъ. Thus, a more probable derivation is *živъ --> živý --> živit or there is a precursor of živit derived from *živъ. Compare to křivý -> křivit; notice that "živit" basically means "keep živý". What source did you use, if any?
2) As for tongue twisters and "my language teachers always used them": Our readers will not be able to see the meaning of a word in a tongue twister. Tongue twisters are an interesting curiosity but not good example sentences. A language teacher may mention a tongue twister to spice the teaching a bit, but for teaching the language and the use of the word, the utility is zero.
3) As for "ničit": my mistake, the erroneous etymology was in zničit, not ničit.
4) As for the alleged English proverb, we only accept evidence in use, not mentions in dictionaries. The reference you provided does not count for the English Wiktionary; it is "A Dictionary of American Proverbs". I placed the jug goes to the well until it breaks to WT:RFV, and I believe it will fail. The use vs. mention thing is in WT:ATTEST, and in WT:CFI#Conveying meaning.
5) "příště přijď přesně" and The reference does not contain the exact phrase "příště přijď přesně", I told you it sounds non-native to me (I am a Czech native speaker, but only a single person), and I showed you the phrase is low-frequency. Furthermore, we do not know who created the slovnik seznam entry and google:"přijít přesně" does not find all that many hits. The full quote from the slovnik is 'puntuale: arrivare puntuale → přijít přesně (včas)', and it looks like the translation was made to match the Italian original rather than be fully idiomatic; "přijít včas" looks much better - google:"přijít včas", google books:"přijít včas".
Please, do not write in the middle of my post any more.
--Dan Polansky (talk)
1) says, životъ is a noun. That is the Info of Wiktionary.
4) Would "the pitcher goes to the well until it breaks" better? I tried to connect the Czech proverb and the German.
5) At the moment I am learning via "50 languages". Are the phrases from not so good as I thought?
— This unsigned comment was added by Rasmusklump (talkcontribs).
1) Sure, *životъ is a noun, just like život. My point is that živit is not derived from *životъ.
4) google books:"the pitcher goes to the well until it breaks" does not look promising either; mentions are there, but not uses.
5) Some of the Czech phrases from, published Goethe Verlag GmbH, sound unnatural to me, even ridiculous. Like, who would say "Příště si vezmi deštník!"? Perhaps a German? Or "Navrhuji, abychom se setkali / setkaly o víkendu.", that sounds very formal, not something someone would really say. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
6) (new item) In the jug goes to the well until it breaks, you have entered "jeder Krug geht zum Brunnen, bis er bricht", but google books:"jeder Krug geht zum Brunnen, bis er bricht" suggests this particular wording is not used, finding 1 hit in total. The German proverb is google books:"der Krug geht so lange zum Brunnen, bis er bricht", also present in de:der Krug geht so lange zum Brunnen, bis er bricht. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the link. I created,_that_it_is_broken_at_last, the words are taken from there. Would this be OK? Then the other page may be deleted Rasmusklump (talk) 08:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
So which three of the quotations found in google books:"the pitcher goes so often to the well, that it is broken at last" do you think are uses rather than mere mentions? (On a minor point, there should be no comma before "that".) --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
the pitcher goes so often to the well, that it is broken at last and der Krug geht so lange zum Brunnen, bis er bricht are taken from the German wiktionary. Including the comma. So these sentences should be wiktionary-able. --Rasmusklump (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
The German Wiktionary is wrong to include the comma in the English phrase. The comma should not be there per modern English punctuation; and the lack of comma is corroborated by the google books:"the pitcher goes so often to the well, that it is broken at last" search and what it actually finds.
der Krug geht so lange zum Brunnen, bis er bricht is likely includable, e.g. 'Eine Woche später, Juni 1601 »Ich sage dir, der Krug geht so lange zum Brunnen, bis er bricht«, meinte Arcangela'. The English phrase is likely not includable, as far as I can see. Since, which three of the quotations found in google books:"the pitcher goes so often to the well, that it is broken at last" do you think are uses rather than mere mentions? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Note that German Wiktionary has different criteria for inclusion; en wikt ones are at WT:CFI. From what I recall, German Wiktionary allows referencing and thus mentions whereas en wikt CFI requires evidence of actual use to convey meaning. I like the en wikt approach since references are all too often wrong. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
  1. Thanks. In Understand, I should have changed the sh to cs. Bone only one remark: I have changed the sh-endings to the cs-endings and that if the sh would be changed to cs the links would have directed to the czech section. (I just made a trial by not-savibg-preview)

Mistakes relating to Czech 2


Russian edits



Russian have been relatively high quality, so when you edit Russian entries, could you use proper templates and use accents, please (if you're not sure don't add any accents)? This diff is quite poor. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

to look completely baffled


This entry is an error, right? That's definitely not okay as an entry title. Equinox 22:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

  1. It is not the best entry, I admit. Would to look like a dying duck in a thunderstorm a better entry?
We don't start entries with to, and I have my doubts about including look. Even "completely baffled" is questionable, since there should be synonyms that aren't sum-of-parts. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Is look like a duck in a thunderstorm better? I want to connect the croatian proverb (a calf in front of the coloured door) and the german proverb (an ox in front of the hill). BTW: May I ask for deleting the pages Böhmische and Böhmische Dörfer? By Mistake I have written Böhmische instead of böhmische.

besser einen Spatz an der Hand als eine Taube auf dem Dach


I have deleted this entry because it is clear that almost nobody uses it. It doesn't even get a single hit on Google! You need to stop creating entries that are unattested and therefore inappropriate for the dictionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ok, the proverb REALLY used is Lieber eine Stumme im Bett als eine Taube auf dem Dach. But I thought THIS was not appropriate for this dictionary.
More variations: " Ist eine Taube auf dem Dach nicht besser als eine Stumme am Telefon?" - "Lieber eine hörende Frau am Herd als eine Taube auf dem Dach."
We have all kinds of shocking and sexual words and phrases on the dictionary; the problem is that you added one that isn't actually used. lieber eine Stumme im Bett als eine Taube auf dem Dach would be an acceptable entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Is it better now?

Anywhere that isn't the definition line should use {{l}} to link to an indivudual word, unless another template is better, but not raw links, e.g. here. Vininn126 (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC) Hi, where exctly did you find this error, so that I can understand better. And whitch "1" do you mean?Reply

Also make sure to put FOUR -'s between L2's, like I did here. Vininn126 (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Neuter animate nouns



Neuter nouns have less commonly animate but not as uncommon as you think: чадо, чудовище, дитя, etc. are also among them. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply