User talk:Romanophile

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
First persona : User:Pilcrow

User_talk:Pilcrow/archive


WARNING: side‐effects of reading this archive include
dizziness, vomiting, nausea, diarrhœa, and may complicate pregnancy.
Keep out of reach of children.

Second persona: User:Æ&Œ

User_talk:Æ&Œ/archive
Current: User:Romanophile

User_talk:Romanophile/archive

Welcome to the discussion page of Romanophile. You may also refer to me as ‘Seth,’ my real name.

a small request: huwoman (~human)[edit]

Hello. [1], [2], [3]. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam I did it first. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Judeo-French entries[edit]

I noticed you added a few entries in Judeo-French. I think this is a bad idea without at least having some access to actual texts in the language, beyond just glosses and glossaries, and verifying that the word you're adding actually appears in the text. Do you know of anywhere online that we can access Judeo-French manuscripts? --WikiTiki89 15:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you think that the Handbook isn't reliable enough of a source? Considering how hard it is to read some of the manuscripts, it might be more reliable to work with peer-reviewed transcriptions. Does the Handbook have transcriptions of texts? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Right, I forgot that the Handbook transcribes a few excerpts. But still, what I'm saying is we should limit ourselves to adding words that we actually see appear in those excerpts, and again excluding the glosses (5.1) and glossaries (5.2). --WikiTiki89 21:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
No, I don’t know if there is an online depository of Judeo‐French texts, but the source that I gave does have some snapshots of the manuscripts. Many of the manuscripts seem to derive from Der altfranzösische Fiebertraktat Fevres, though I am unsure if there is a (legal) way to access that resource online. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 21:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
All I meant was, I think we should only be adding words that we've seen appear in the texts (whether manuscripts or transcriptions, including the transcriptions in your source), rather than in the glosses or glossaries, or those mentioned in the body of the article in your source. --WikiTiki89 21:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
You mean something like nonfictional examples? There are some featured in that book, but I have to admit that some of the entries that I already submitted may lack corresponding examples. I was working under the assumption that while mentions don’t count for popular and vivid languages, they’re acceptable for ones that went extinct. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 07:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't get what you mean by nonfictional. Mentions are only acceptable after editors who work with the language have agreed on a set of acceptable sources for mentions, and scholarly works don't count for that anyway. But also, if we treat Judeo-French as part of Old French, then I would say it's better not to add the Judeo-French spellings of words only attested as mentions, after all their equivalents are already present in the Latin spelling. I do realize that you've already added words that don't follow that, and that is why I brought this up. --WikiTiki89 15:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by both of you. Wikitiki, can you please give a specific example of a Judeo-French entry that you think should not exist? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: It's not that I don't think they should exist, but I don't think they should have been created without verification. For example, משכן, and probably most of the other ones that Romanophile created. --WikiTiki89 18:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
How is that entry not verified? It has a link to the Handbook wherein the spelling and meaning are confirmed, and a quotation transcribed from a manuscript by Pflaum (1933) including the word is given. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Well for one thing, it's a romanized transcription, not simply a transcription, making it not clear what the original spelling is. (I was also going to say that unless someone here has access to "Pflaum 1933", we don't even know which text it is from, but it turns out "Pflaum 1933" is available online.) --WikiTiki89 19:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
The handbook gives the Hebrew transcription for the word in question, making it quite clear what the original spelling is. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm opposed to. We should see the word in its original context in the original script. --WikiTiki89 20:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
That standard is not usually applied, and although it is obviously preferable, it may not actually be possible in some instances. I don't agree that it is necessary, in any case, and I don't know of any consensus to that effect either. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that then we are just starting to add words in a language, we should go for the verifiable ones first. Once we've got those down, we'll have an editor or editors who have built up some familiarity with the language and can go add the words that are not as easily verifiable. There are a couple passages quoted in full in the Handbook in the original script. Let's start with the words that appear in those. What we don't need is editors with very little familiarity with the language simply copying words from other sources. --WikiTiki89 21:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Spanish plural forms[edit]

Hey. You don't need to make the Spanish plural forms. NadandoBot (talkcontribs) does that every so often, and is 10,000 faster than anyone else. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

  • PS, I've noticed you're not swearing or getting stroppy so much these days. That's fucking great for you. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)