User talk:Romanophile

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

digeseis[edit]

I haven't bothered to change most of these and it's not very important, but I reckon these should be marked as obsolete spellings rather than obsolete forms. Thanks for adding them, though; we're missing a fuckton of obsolete Spanish orthography (as you will have noticed). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking that that distinction was purely a matter of taste, but okay, I’ll fix them. --Romanophile (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I suppose it is, yes. You don't have to change them if you feel too lazy, it's just something to keep in mind for the future. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Secretly the government[edit]

LOL. Just to let you know, I CAN speak French. I used my purple backpack to carry around my French textbooks. Anyway, remind me to fly a drone around your backyard. Purplebackpack89 21:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, blast. Here I thought that U.S. officials couldn’t read French and that they had no sense of humour. Ah well. Better luck next time, eh? --Romanophile (contributions) 21:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Next time, you should say बैंगनी बस्ता. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 03:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

honourific[edit]

Hi! I edited honourific, which is most certainly not a "non-standard spelling"; the world is bigger than just the United States, and English comes from England! Cheers Tomalak geretkal (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Except that they use honorific in England. See Wiktionary:Tea room/2016/January‎#honourific. Both Renard Migrant and SemperBlotto are from England. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know[edit]

Hi there. We already have the more usual better the devil you know than the devil you don't know and variants. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, all right. I’ll just delemmatize my entry, then. Cheers. --Romanophile (contributions) 05:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Obsolete Romanian forms[edit]

Hope you don't mind me asking, where do you find these obsolete forms? --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Robbie SWE: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. --Romanophile (contributions) 11:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Aha, now I see! I thought you had some kind of acient Romanian dictionary :-) Keep up the good work! --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
These forms actually come from a weird era of Romanian history (mid to late 19th century) when some of the elites and scholars, having relatively recently "rediscovered" the linguistic identity of Romanian within the last century or so, went on a spree of trying to hyper-Latinize as much of the existing language as possible. This was the time when thousands of words were added from French, Italian, and literary Latin (which was okay since it was aimed at modernizing the language with more technical terms, which stuck around) but a few took it even further, and attempted to create a new orthography for much of the existing inherited Latin-based vocab. They sought to purge it of influences they deemed foreign, like some of the diphthongs like -oa-, which was attributed partly to Slavic influence, and added a final -u to masculine or neuter nouns, which normally appears only in the definite articulation or colloquial speech, or presumably in older, pre-written Romanian. The aim was to make it look somewhat like an Italian language, or perhaps to create clearer visual connections to the other Romance languages. Needless to say, this orthography never really took off as most found it a bit ridiculous. So I guess while it is fair to list and call them "obsolete" forms, it kind of implies that they were actually just older, but normal and commonly used forms of existing words at the time, which isn't precisely accurate. Like for móle listed as an obsolete variant of moale... some people might get the impression that the diphthong there arose relatively recently, in the last couple of hundred years as the shift to a Latin script happened, evolving from the earlier mole. Which isn't quite true. Yes, at some point in the deep past, such as well before the first written records of Romanian in 1521, there probably was a form like that, and also forms where the final -u was normally a part of a word (like colegu in the above example, even though coleg in particular is a learned borrowing or neologism added to the language from French in the 1800s). But the ones I'm talking about in this post are relatively modern creations, or at least modifications of existing words, that never gained much currency in common usage. Word dewd544 (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Word dewd544 Very insightful, thank you for bringing this up! I've been thinking along the same lines: how should we treat these so called "obsolete" forms considering that they were never really naturalised in the language? I'm convinced that this tendency is not exclusive for Romanian (wondering if for instance Portuguese isn't similar in this respect, thinking of actor vs. ator, where the former seems to be a revised orthographic version of the latter naturalised word). I guess for now the only place remotely close to being correct is under "Alternative forms", but maybe it's worth discussing in the Beer Parlour. On a separate note, I would really enjoy discussing the development of the Romanian language with you, because you have shown profound knowledge in the subject – I have a lot of questions of my own, so let me know if you're up for it. Keep up the good work, either way! --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Robbie SWE Sure thing. I'm not a complete expert, but I am certainly interested in the matter. But yeah, if you actually read through the old (Google Books) document linked to above, you can tell something is fishy there. There's no way the language would have naturally changed that much since the 19th century, so you can tell many of the forms there are artificial. They even modified their surnames to an extent, haha. Another question regarding how to classify these terms is whether to describe them simply as having a different, modified orthography or actually being different forms... I think they actually tried to change the pronunciation, but again few people actually attempted writing, much less speaking, that way. I, for one, am not even sure they should be included as alternative forms since it was uncommon, being restricted to a few overzealous erudites, and part of a relatively short-lived phenomenon; might be misleading to some users. And yeah, I guess Portuguese and other languages did this to an extent too, but in different ways. Normally, modern Portuguese doesn't maintain the -ct- consonant cluster, but just opts for the -t- (most of these words are still borrowings that occurred at some point in the Middle Ages or Renaissance eras, like actor/ator). Word dewd544 (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
This is why it is useful to maintain a distinction between alternative spellings and alternative forms. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

one-time-only[edit]

I see you created an entry dependent on one time only, which:

  1. Is a redlink
  2. Would probably be deleted by the SOP police if created.

Purplebackpack89 15:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The high number of hyphenated instances suggests that it might be idiomatic, and not easily replaceable or divisible. Also, I don’t believe that linking to red entries is prohibited anywhere. --Romanophile (contributions) 15:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Lexicographer's license and registration, please.
The mere number of instances is meaningless. Hyphenation of multi-part terms, especially of noun phrases used as adjectives or adverbially, is common. It is highly advisable when it helps avoid ambiguity. One would like to have a KWIC display to see how the words were used. I'd bet that "one-time-only offer" is a fairly common use of the orthography. Without the hyphens it takes a little longer to exclude other groupings of the component terms (eg, one time-only offer). DCDuring TALK 18:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Romanophile I guess it wasn't entirely clear the direction I was going. I was trying to nudge you in the direction of re-writing the definition of one-time-only in a way that doesn't link to one time only. Purplebackpack89 23:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    You mean to turn it into a worse entry? --WikiTiki89 23:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    @Wikitiki89 If one time only is deleted (and it's likely to be the way we tend to interpret it), the entry as written will be pretty bad. I do not consider a definition consisting solely of a "alternative form of REDLINK" to be a particularly effective definition. At the very least, it looks bad, and we'd be better off with no link at all, i.e. "alternative form of UNLINKED WORD OR PHRASE". Purplebackpack89 23:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    The point you're failing to grasp is that if one time only is deleted, then one-time-only should also be. Artificially changing the definition of one-time-only to something more obscure just conceals this point. --WikiTiki89 23:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    If you believe that, perhaps you should tack one-time-only on to the RfD for one time only Purplebackpack89 00:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    A form-of entry doesn't need to be RFD'd separately, but I'll humor you. --WikiTiki89 00:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

White[edit]

How the hell am I violating my ability to be able to edit things, I just feel it's best to add at least two pictures and replace the eye with an actual picture of a white person Zhyboo (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

White article[edit]

I just feel it's a little overly dramatic to protect the white page on the wiktionary, over some simple pictures and there needs to be new pics anyway. The picture of the light skinned person with blue eyes doesn't make sense to go for a white person, only for the color of the eye. But you need to be less dramatic and unlock the page. 😐 Zeedavis (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, I'm sorry I thought u were the one who locked the page, forgive me Zeedavis (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: genitori[edit]

No, sorry! Ma parlo un po' Italiano! KarikaSlayer (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: aviri[edit]

I'll probably make a dedicated template {{scn-conj-aviri}} (like {{scn-conj-èssiri}}) with all the info in it. KarikaSlayer (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

my misbehaviour[edit]

@Metaknowledge, Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, Robbie SWE, JohnC5, Xbony2, Daniel Carrero, Yurivict, JackPotte, Aryamanarora, if you received any e‐mails from me about my election, you may confirm so and paste them here. Oh, and more importantly, if you’ve had the displeasure of reading this nasty polemic by me in October of 2014, do you think that that disqualifies me? --Romanophile (contributions) 22:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

(replied to on vote page) -Xbony2 (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I haven’t gotten any email or off-Wiktionary communication from Romanophile regarding his nomination for adminship. As for the polemic, I feel that being able to recognise a concern troll is a good skill for an admin to have. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I have received no email from Romanophile whatsoever. To the polemic, I would say that it was ill-advised and should not be repeated. In an unrelated point, I am pleased that Dan is not trying to use his usual line of reasoning to try to undermine how admin votes work. —JohnC5 00:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
No email whatsoever. I have read the polemic before, and while it was a bit rash, I can somewhat sympathize with you. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 01:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
No e-mail for me either. No, I don't think that message disqualifies you. It is old history IMO. If, for the sake of argument, we say that you should be disqualified from adminship because of that message, when does that stop? It's been 1 year and a half already. Would you be qualified again in 2 years? 3 years? Well, just my opinion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I haven't received an e-mail either and I fail to see how it's a crime to send an e-mail saying "hey, in case you're interested, feel free to participate". Romanian Wikipedia does it all the time – and believe you me, it doesn't affect consensus because everybody tends to disagree with each other anyway. This argument is much ado about nothing. Back to the polemic, let bygones be bygones (and so on, and so on...) – maturity comes with experience and opening an old can of worms doesn't make me reconsider my vote. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Just saying Hi[edit]

Hi Seth, It's good to see another young Wiktionarian here. —This unsigned comment was added by Amin wordie (talkcontribs).

Folk linguistics[edit]

Recently, I’ve come across something similar to what you mentioned in SGB’s talkpage. I am taking an English Literature major in college, and one of my professors claimed that Germanic languages come from Classical Latin (as opposed to Romance languages, which come from Vulgar Latin).

Now, that’s an understandable mistake to make, since Germanic languages (especially English, which she doesn’t speak well) have loads of loanwords directly from CL. But the sad thing came afterwards, when she mentioned that she has a degree in linguistics. Probably in an unscientific field, like sociolinguistics. Kind of made me lose my faith in the course. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

e-mail[edit]

I successfully received your e-mail that was unrelated to Wiktionary and was about Speed Racer and I replied to it, too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Latin[edit]

Why when we define forms, do we not put the definition directly on their page for example

Adjective[edit]

apta

  1. suitable, adapted
  2. ready
  3. apt, proper
  4. tied, attached (to)
  5. dependent (on)


  1. nominative feminine singular of aptus
  2. nominative neuter plural of aptus
  3. accusative neuter plural of aptus
  4. vocative feminine singular of aptus
  5. vocative neuter plural of aptus
@72.45.49.62: no, because somebody decided that the masculine adjectives (when existent) should be lemma. I don’t know why, but frankly I’d be surprised if misogyny were never once a factor (Rome was indisputably patriarchal). Having an inflected form contain the same information would create extra work because then info from one place would have to be pasted there as well. If the form had unique senses, that would be another matter. --Romanophile (contributions) 17:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Lua error in Module:parameters at line 103: The parameter "<span style" is not used by this template. would it be possible to petition wiktionary for a system to automatically copy the definitions to the forms? I'm primarily thinking from a user's perspective, sometimes when interent is slow it can be difficult to get to the actual definition of the word I'm looking for.
@72.45.49.62: you could try asking on the Beer Parlour: [8]. Whether you’ll have any success, I can’t say. --Romanophile (contributions) 18:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Appendix:Latin third declension[edit]

Do you mind checking these edits? Not really sure they're correct. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

My knowledge of Latin is not at an expert level, and I think that locative nouns became rare after Old Latin mutated. @I'm so meta even this acronym, Kc kennylau, Metaknowledge, do you have any comments? --Romanophile (contributions) 08:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Didn't he just substitute all the locative forms with accusatives? Dead wrong, I reckon. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I always hate checking edits to those appendices, because it's so hard to see what's changed in the diffs alone. But I reverted the whole bunch anyway, because I found one mistake and to me, that makes me lose any trust at all in the anon. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you anyway! --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

the -ilk rhymes[edit]

Hi. Are you sure about nonsilk, nonmilk, soymilk? I don't think the stress is on the final syllable. Equinox 11:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I’m not sure. I assumed because the root words are silk and milk. I find stress to be an extremely subtle feature anyway. --Romanophile (contributions) 11:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Admin[edit]

Romanophile, your vote has passed, you are an Admin. Please add your name to WT:Admin. Also, see Help:Sysop tools. —Stephen (Talk) 08:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Congrats. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Aren’t you located in Greenwich Mean Time? In Wiktionary:Administrators you wrote "UTC-6 (GMT)". UTC -6 (Coordinated Universal Time minus 6 hours) means Central Standard Time (Central USA, that is). You probably meant UTC/UTC+1 (GMT/BST), —Stephen (Talk) 01:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
No, I think he lives in Texas! Equinox 01:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I came by to say congratulations on your adminship! Philmonte101 (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. I don’t know where I got the idea that he lived in England. —Stephen (Talk) 10:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Reykjavík School of Singing[edit]

It looks like we deleted the same page simultaneously. XD --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2016-08/User:Dan Polansky for admin[edit]

Hi. I came to let you know about this admin vote for Dan Polansky that's going on. Because of our similarities in opinion, I just thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to chip in to the discussion. Thanks. :) Philmonte101 (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Philmonte101: thanks. I think that a victory would only further discourage me from contributing, but fortunately for me, I can recognise how good life is without this project. --Romanophile (contributions) 17:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
As mentioned by Dan Polansky here, I don't think Philmonte101 should have called Romanophile based on that reason.
Wikipedia has a rule, explained at Wikipedia:Canvassing, that does not apply to Wiktionary but I believe that makes sense: "don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions". Sometimes I get a little frustrated when I create a vote and someone that I have seen supporting my idea in discussions does not show up in the vote. But if I start calling supporters individually, it would compromise the normal consensus-making process. If a vote has low attendance or it is not clear if it will reach a consensus, I prefer creating a post in the BP calling everyone at once. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Votes can be overturned in future. I think it's tacky to go hunting for supporters but I don't see why it's illegitimate. If we banned it on here, people would just do it on Skype or Kik or whatever the kids use these days. Equinox 02:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
(Or IRC!) For the record, in Wikipedia:Canvassing, Wikipedia explicitly bans going hunting for supporters in secret using tools like these. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Might be a good rule. Maybe we need yet another vote, to bring that over here. haha. Sorry Romanophile I will get off your page now ;( Equinox 02:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Portuguese verb inflection template[edit]

Romanophile, can you help me with this template

  • preterite indicative third-person (nós) of ir

Which wrongly produces

  • preterite indicative third-person (nós) of ir

instead of the correct

  • third-person singular (ele and ela, also used with você and others) preterite indicative of ir

Sharkb (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2016‎ (UTC)

@Sharkb There's an extra parameter in your example. Use {{pt-verb-form-of|ir|pti|3|s}}. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV Thank you for your response, but the template is used in the exact same way, look at foi - the template parameters are the same as you (and me) specified, but it still produces a "nós" description instead of the correct one. Sharkb (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
@Sharkb missed one. Thanks for bringing this to someone’s attention, by the way. Cheers. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

That IP[edit]

Hey Romanophile, congrats on passing your RfA here. I just wanted to let you know that I mass-reverted the contributions of the vandal here, but pages he created still exist. Not sure if you've found this yet, but Special:Nuke can very quickly clean those up.

Regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Though, some of his contributions seem to be fine. I typically just mass rollback since it denies them the recognition of seeing their work stay, but if some contributions are good and you feel they're worth keeping, let me know. I'd be glad to go back through them and undo the appropriate reverts. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Old Spanish[edit]

Romanophile, I don't know whether you are aware of it, but in w:Cantar de Mio Cid#Sample text, there is an excerpt from the Song of My Cid in Old Spanish, with translations into Modern Spanish and English. The reading of the fragment can be heard in Old Spanish here. —Stephen (Talk) 04:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

remember[edit]

that we are supposed to be documenting how language is used, and not how it would ideally be used in a perfect society. I assume all these phrases where you have robotically replaced "man" with "woman" are actually in use, right? And if they are rare or nonstandard, you are marking them as rare or nonstandard? Wikt is not your political soapbox. Equinox 00:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Equinox: hey, do me a favour and quit messaging me. :^) — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 00:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Equinox what's wrong with replacing "man" with "woman"? Sounds quite sexist . . . . . . . Mirrorbird (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Equinox is not being sexist; what he says is the truth. If a phrase is not being used, whether or not it's sexist that it isn't, it shouldn't be here. Perhaps someone should go and check to make sure that all these entries are attested. If "woman about town" is not attested, for example, it shouldn't be here, even though "man about town" is attested and it's sexist how it's "man" and not "woman". PseudoSkull (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: I do look up the terms before I enter them. That’s why I don’t enter things like crossbowwoman, for example. If he can’t find the results that I find, it’s probably because Google Books is poorly programmed. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 09:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)