User talk:Stephen G. Brown

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


Gender reverts[edit]

I believe that your rollbacks of my contributions to they and two-spirit are incorrect. Timeraner (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I’m sure they are correct. Genderqueer is not in common use and not well-known. Besides that, two-spirits are not the same as gay, and a word like genderqueer does not belong there. —Stephen (Talk) 10:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Did you read what genderqueer means? Timeraner (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The definition of genderqueer has nothing to do with Native Americans, which means it isn't a synonym of two-spirit.
Desist. — [Ric Laurent] — 11:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Example sentence on two-spirit page:

2010, Walter L Williams, The Guardian, 11 Oct 2010: Instead of seeing two-spirit persons as transsexuals who try to make themselves into "the opposite sex", it is more accurate to understand them as individuals who take on a gender status that is different from both men and women.

Definition of genderqueer:

Neither exclusively man nor woman; identifying as (has a gender identity which is) outside of the gender binary; rejecting cisnormativity.

Genderqueer is an umbrella term that would include two-spirit Native Americans. I did not write genderqueer as a synonym but it needs to be "see also." Timeraner (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Genderqueer is not widely understood or used. There are important cultural and practical differences involved and two-spirits already have enough trouble in their communities by being identified by white people as gay or queer. Definitions of and assumptions about two-spirits by white people are far off the mark. The definition of genderqueer does not cover two-spirits, in spite of what some non-Native Americans may claim. I do not wish to discuss two-spirits with you; please move on to something else, preferably something you know about by personal experience. —Stephen (Talk) 11:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You are one revert away from an edit war, which will result in a block for you. —Stephen (Talk) 11:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I use "they" pronouns for my gender identity. Compromise on they for "unknown or irrelevant gender." My gender is known, it is genderqueer. Timeraner (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

We might be able to compromise on they as long as you don’t use genderqueer. Please stop trying to push that word on us. —Stephen (Talk) 12:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
It has multilingual academic support on the Wikipedia article and other language Wiktionaries. What do you suggest alternatively? Timeraner (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that you stop bothering me with genderqueer. I don’t use that word, I don’t know anybody who uses it or understands it. If you want to call yourself genderqueer, be my guest, but please stop bothering me. I am not interested in your weird word. —Stephen (Talk) 12:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
תודה על זה סטיבן. :) Myself being a nonhetero, I get tired of all these people trying so ferociously to pigeonhole themselves and demanding everyone around them respect their choices. Centering your entire identity around your sexual oddities is some kind of insanity. You gave me a little extra hope today. — [Ric Laurent] — 16:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Stephen, I am going to edit the article to say "whose gender is unknown, irrelevant, or does not fit the gender binary." Timeraner (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment "genderqueer" is actually almost as common (or as rare, if you prefer) as "two-spirit" itself, according to ngrams. I don't think it's a problem to list it in the See also section (and "genderqueer" has nothing to do with sexuality), but I'm not going to push that issue. (What I might do is make a list template that would contain a collapsed list of all the various gender-related terms, which could then be deployed to the See also sections of all of them.) - -sche (discuss) 04:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe they are uncommon/rare because they are terms coming from tiny minorities. — [Ric Laurent] — 12:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ejaculation revert[edit]

Hi Stephen, you reverted my recent edit of this article. I added a video iaw Wiktionary policy to include appropriate images within definitions to improve understanding and I subsequently amended the text to improve the definition. I understand the view that amendments on this term may be vandalism but I assure you my adds are not and are appropriate. Please advise on your reasons for the revert so I can adjust my adds accordingly. BigBearLovesPanda 22:09, 26 January 2015 ()

That video is unnecessarily graphic. Some people are offended by such videos. I know that Wikipedia often accepts videos and images of that type, but I don’t think there is any need for it here. We only provide simple definitions to words, and the definition for this is not so cryptic that film clip needs to be provided. If someone needs a more detailed explanation, they can use the link provided to go to Wikipedia. —Stephen (Talk) 23:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


Please see comment at -- 23:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Request a little help[edit]

Hi Stephen. I saw you handle quite good the arabic and french languages. Can you patrol the contributions from this IP on the fr.wiktionary. He added few arabic translations but all were revoked by a patroller... and somes of them seems to be good for me (the 1st one : اللسانيات per linguistic as exemple). So can you merged the that can be restored. Thank you. V!v£ l@ Rosière /Whisper…/ 05:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. It is difficult for me because I do not know the policies of the fr.wiktionary. Most of his entries consisted of multiple words (such entries are often considered to be SoP, « somme des parties »); most of the entries included the definite article; and some of his entries included vocalizations (vowel pointing). I don’t know if the fr.wiktionary permits such entries. Most of them would not be accepted here on the en.wiktionary. Apart from these problems, the entries are good Arabic. Depending upon your policies, they might be good entries, though perhaps with some modification. —Stephen (Talk) 06:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we don't accept locutions unless they are considered as "frozen" like bite the dust & co. But if it's standard Arabic it's a good point, then I'll try to find out if it has this "frozen" trait. Anyway thank you for your answer. V!v£ l@ Rosière /Whisper…/ 01:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
This revoke] was wrong. To make them work need to do {{trad-|ar|ذكر|ذِكْر|m}}, since French Wiktionary doesn't support delinking diacritics. Same with Persian but Persian could be without diacritics, just "ذكر". See our Arabic entry ذِكْر (ḏikr). Pls. note that diacritics are removed on the link in the English Wiktionary. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, French Wiktionary doesn't seem to support alternative views, I ended up using "ذكر" for Arabic as well, the form "ذِكْر" uses diacritics but should link to the entry without them. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@Atitarev Hi, if by "support alternative view" you mean "orthgraphic variations" yes we support it and included it on French wiktionary. But fact is we don't have any Arabic language specialist and also no discussions and no consensus about the treatment of these diacritics, so it's quite a pioneer foggy area. Thank for the help, I restore that one. EDIT : Didn't saw you've already done it. ;-) V!v£ l@ Rosière /Whisper…/ 08:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


Hi! I was just wondering about this edit to łééchąąʼí, in light of your comment on the talk page which claims that the opposite is the case. Did you find a better source on the etymology of the word? Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It is sometimes difficult to uncover the true origins of some words such as this because a lot of people today are bothered by the idea and they want to promote a more romantic explanation such as "crying horse" (łį́į́ʼ yichaʼí). In my Navajo language group, we have over 15,000 members, most of whom are fluent speakers, and I also have much better printed resources now, and after six years of studying the language and culture, I have a better grasp of the language than I did in those early days. —Stephen (Talk) 12:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for the explanation. I must admit, I'm a little disappointed that it's not because they're "shitty pets" compared to horses, but it's definitely better for Wiktionary to be right than romantic on this sort of thing. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Khmer នំបុ័ងវែង / នំប៉័ងវែង ("baguette") a word or just SOP?[edit]

Hi Stephen.

In case you hadn't notice I'm finally in Cambodia trying to learn at least a bit of Khmer.

None of the dictionaries I have or can find online have an entry for baguette though of course such bread is extremely common here. I finally found out today from a native speaker fluent in English that they call baguettes "long bread", so នំបុ័ងវែង / នំប៉័ងវែង (numbângvêng).

With your Sprachgefuhl for Khmer, would you say this qualifies as a "word" and therefore for an entry in Wiktionary? Or would you say that it's just SOP. It can be really hard to tell in monosyllabic languages and languages whose writing systems don't use spaces between words. Of course it can be hard to tell in any language. (-:

I also noted that there's three ways to write "bread" in Khmer in Unicode, due to order of and interaction between diacritics and vowel signs, and can't tell which is "correct". These two are much more common than the third way though so I didn't include that. — hippietrail (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I figured that you were in that area. That’s a good word, since it is impossible to predict or deduce. Khmer is subject to a lot of variations in writing, because the written language is so very old and pronunciations today no longer match the spellings of a 1000 years ago, and because Cambodians tend to spell things in a way that is personally logical, not necessary according to a standard the way we do in English. Also, there are often different ways of writing that achieve the same result. Add to that the fact that some of the "legs" (subscript consonants) look exactly like another "leg".
Now you’ll have to learn to read អក្សរមូល (qâksârômul) (round script), which looks so different from អក្សរឈរ (qâksârôchhrô) (standing script). —Stephen (Talk) 01:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


I made сагитировать a while ago. I wonder if you could check my edit. Thank you. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

And искриться, too. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
And I also reorganized аблактировать. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I think they look good. —Stephen (Talk) 07:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

And I also made звереть. It is sort of a very unusual Russian verb. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
And восстановить. I think I made a mistake here. --08:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Also агонизировать. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
One more: веселить. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@KoreanQuoter. Thanks for edits. I'll also check your Russian entries when I get back from my leave early in March. Thanks, Stephen! --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Pls try using {{ru-IPA}} for pronunciations in new entries. It works for most cases, you can use |phon= for irregular pronunciations. Pls note pronunciation of "восстановить": IPA(key): [vəstənɐˈvʲitʲ] (usually no gemination in this case). :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the conjugation in чтить. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to the 1st-person singular "ччу́"? I think this is a problem with one of the Lua modules, which is improperly changing чт to чч. @Atitarev created the modules, and I do not understand Lua. I think we have to wait until Atitarev can look at it. —Stephen (Talk) 08:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow, thank you. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
And I'm not sure about посчитаться. I think the meaning could be changed in the perfective form. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm also confused with this баллотироваться article. I think I made a handful of mistakes but I wouldn't know. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I think they are good now. —Stephen (Talk) 10:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Please wait when I get back go fix чтить and others. It's currently awkward with irregular desktop and Internet access. Verbs with incorrect inflections or requiring attention should be marked accordingly, anyway. Or request inflections. Pls don't leave entries with problems. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 18:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

How about замерять and вибрировать? --KoreanQuoter (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

But one question. Does говорить have to perfective verbs? Or maybe each meaning have a different perfective verb? --KoreanQuoter (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
говорить has both сказать and поговорить as perfectives. сказать is the basic perfective, but поговорить is used as well. сказать and поговорить have slightly different meanings. The prefix по- (po-) often gives a connotation of "a little", or "for a while", and it adds this to the verb поговорить. —Stephen (Talk) 11:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Please check my [1]. I think the style should be slightly different. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Sorry, I edited again. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. And I need your wise insight on these: наладить, больше не, согревать. Thank you. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
@KoreanQuoter Hi, I am back home. I'll go through your edits over the next few days, sorry for not being responsive lately (including my talk page). At first glance, I see that the entry "больше не" should be deleted, it's not an idiomatic word/expression in Russian. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure thing. I understand. I went through the process of organizing the больше entry and thought of making that entry. It was my mistake. But anyways, it's great to see you back into action. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Need to check выписывать, please, and thank you. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The very first verbal conjugation template for Sanskrit.[edit]

I made Template:sa-verb-pres yesterday. It's the very first verbal conjugation template for Sanskrit. This template only has the present tense. I based it on the famous Sanskrit textbook written by Robert P. Goldman et al. You can see the examples भवति, हन्ति, अस्ति, वदति, and भाषति, and enjoy looking at them. It's a very small template in terms of size. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. There is a problem with it. The persons were listed from 3rd down to 1st, but the pronouns were shown from 1st down to 3rd. I corrected the persons to list from 1st down to 3rd (I know that Sanskrit is often listed from 3rd to 1st, but we have been doing it from 1st to 3rd, which is more familiar to most people). However, when I looked at भवति, I see that the verbs themselves are from 3rd to 1st.
In my opinion, it is better to keep the pronouns as you have them, and change the verb forms to 1st down to 3rd.
Eventually, I hope that someone who is familiar with Sanskrit and who knows Lua programming language will be able to create Lua modules for Sanskrit verbs, as we have done for the Russian verbs. Myself, I don’t know anything about Lua programming language or how to write verb modules. —Stephen (Talk) 00:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The Russian modules were started off by me with only a basic knowledge of Russian grammar. I think if I can get a good idea of how things work and what is needed, I could make a start with the module, enough so that it's easy to extend even for someone with little experience in it. —CodeCat 00:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
CodeCat, you can use to find a verb class (for exameple, class 1) and the root (shown between { _ }). Then if you go to, you can enter the class and the root (choosing Velthuis for Romanization, or Devanagari as needed), you can see the conjugations in the tenses and moods. —Stephen (Talk) 00:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
What is mainly important for me is what information is necessary to generate a paradigm. That is, which forms or stems or other inflectional features can't always be predicted and must be entered as part of the template's parameters. —CodeCat 01:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sanskrit verbs have very many irregular conjugations. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I have no idea how to handle irregularities, except by entering the conjugations manually. —Stephen (Talk) 04:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I consulted to a person who knows about Sanskrit and I found out something important. First, Classical Sanskrit and Vedic Sanskrit are two very different "kinds of monsters". Both of them are rather grammatically different to each other. It's just that Classical Sanskrit is more of a "artificial koine" language that is influenced by Vedic Sanskrit. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Questions on Russian Grammar[edit]

I'm trying to put a Usage notes in the article, перед. I based it on a content from my Russian textbook (in Russian).

Using перед with a sense of time denotes an event that had ended immediately, while до denotes that there is a short interval between two events.

I don't think I explain it very well and I don't think I understand it quite well.I wonder if you could fix it? And while at it, I think I need some improvement from my edit. Thank you. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Extra note: перед and до are rather confusing for native Korean speakers who are learning Russian. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

When speaking about time ...
до (до момента) can mean quite a long period, whereas перед (перед моментом) means just before the very moment.
Давай встретимся до работы (let’s meet before work, which means any time between now and when we start work, and the meeting could be anywhere).
Давай встретимся перед работой (let’s meet before work, which means "just before we start work", "immediately before work", probably at the job site).
До города ещё далеко (the city is still far away, measured from here to there).
Я дошёл до перекрёстка (I reached the crossroads, going from here to there).
Перед союзом «что» ставится запятая (a comma is placed before the conjunction "что", meaning immediately before that word). —Stephen (Talk) 14:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I wonder if you could improve the перед article with a Usage note or something. It's because I found out that there are very poor explanations of articles pertaining to Russian conjugations. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I have a question. What is the difference between two conjunctions оттого что and потому что? --KoreanQuoter (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

оттого что answers the question отчего; потому что answers почему. Nevertheless, a question introduced by отчего is often answered by потому что.

почему / потому что literally means "according to what grounds? / on the grounds that"; отчего / оттого что literally means "from what cause? / due to the cause that". Occasionally one sounds better than the other, as in:
Отчего́ сего́дня так темно́?Otčegó segódnja tak temnó? ― Why is it so dark today? (from what cause?, answered with оттого что)
Отчего́ вы так бле́дны?Otčegó vy tak blédny? ― Why are you so pale? (from what cause?, answered with оттого что)
Почему́ вы говори́те э́то?Počemú vy govoríte éto? ― Why do you say this?, (on what grounds?, answered with потому что)
Почему́ он жела́ет ви́деть меня́?Počemú on želájet vídetʹ menjá? ― Why does he wish to see me?, (on what grounds?, answered with потому что)
But, generally speaking, оттого что and потому что are almost the same and quite interchangeable. However, потому что is far more commonly used. —Stephen (Talk) 13:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it ok if I can use your explanation as a usage note? --KoreanQuoter (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. —Stephen (Talk) 05:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Does French have neuter pronouns?[edit]

I’m attempting to think of some French pronouns that are strictly neuter. There are some in the Iberian languages (e.g. isto, esso, aquilo), but there’re precious few of them. The neuter gender mostly assimilated into the masculine one because of phonetic similarity (and probably not for sexist reasons, but I could be wrong). --Romanophile (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

le is a neuter object pronoun as well as a masculine one. In a construction such as this:
Si vous êtes satisfait, je le suis aussi.
...le is neuter.
ce and il can be neuter subject pronouns. When ce is a neuter subject pronoun, it governs a plural verb:
Ce sont mes CDs préférés. — They’re my favorite CDs.
Note the plural verb. Also, any adjectives or participles that refer to it are in the masculine. This is formal usage; in informal, colloquial speech, ce may take a singular verb.
Il est important de passer du temps ensemble. — It’s important to spend time together.
With neuter il, the verb it governs is singular.
In addition, ceci (this), cela (that), and ça (this/that, informal) are neuter demonstrative pronouns.
Ne fais pas cela. — Don’t do that.
Ça suffit ! — That’s enough! —Stephen (Talk) 07:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Slavic loanwords in Russian[edit]

Has Russian borrowed extensively from (modern) Slavic languages? Judging from our own categories, it doesn’t seem like it. --Romanophile (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Russian has borrowings from (or via) modern or older Polish, Ukrainian and less commonly from other languages. It's not always easy to tell, if words are borrowed from such languages as there are cognates in Russian or similar regionalism. Loanwords from Old Church Slavonic often sounds like native Russian words as well and Russian shares a lot of words with Bulgarian from Old Church Slavonic. You can see the appropriate categories but they are obviously incomplete.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
A lot of Orthodox Christian religious figures from the Slavic-speaking Balkan Peninsula moved to Russia and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth after the advance of the Ottoman Empire. Hence (Old) Church Slavonic was quite enforced in Russia. And you can look up Meletius Smotrytsky's "Slavonic Grammar with Correct Syntax" that was popular at that time. I would say that the "high-style" of Russian writing often employ (Old) Church Slavonic words. But based on my experience (my former university professor was a native Polish-speaker), East Slavic and South Slavic are more similar to each other than West Slavic. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I think User:Romanophile's question was more about loanwords. Yes, "high-level" words are often similar between Russian and Bulgarian because of the common literary past (Old Church Slavonic) but grammatically, syntactically I find West and East Slavic languages closer and hence easier to learn, understand, especially Polish and Russian. Slovenian seems the most distant. Ukrainian and Belarusian share much more common vocabulary with Polish and have much more borrowings than Russian. Nevertheless, Ukrainian and Belarusian are the closest to Russian in most aspects - grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, the way of expressing things. Overall, Slavic languages share about 60%+ common roots but pronunciation, usage, grammar make them sometimes not immediately mutually comprehensible, without some exposure. If gaps are filled in a short period, Slavic people are able to communicate with each other with various degrees of difficulty. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Learning "formal" grammar in the pre-modern past was more than learning syntax or morphology. It also included "how to use the right words" in writing in contrast to the commoners or to isolate from the commoners. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by this but (Old) Church Slavonic has affected Ukrainian and Belarusian as well. West (specifically) Polish and East Slavs had much more interaction (positive and negative) than South and East Slavs since. While Bulgarian shares a lot of formal vocabulary with Russian, it has a lot of older words, native Bulgarian words or Turkish loanwords. Plus grammar differences make Bulgarian and Russian less mutually comprehensible. Serbo-Croatian stands even further away, common Slavic roots also acquired different senses or other roots are used. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm just going through the history how some of those "fancy words", that can be easily be traced in (Old) Church Slavonic writings, are used in formal writing in Russian.--KoreanQuoter (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I see. The "fancy words" are not the core vocabulary, though, otherwise close languages would be less mutually comprehensible. Cf. Hindi and Urdu - basically the same languages but they have different literary traditions and often different "high level" languages, they prefer to borrow from. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I would arrange major Slavic languages from the Russian point of view in order of their similarity to Russian (see dialect continuum) in this order (core vocabulary): Russian - Ukrainian/Belarusian (together) - Polish - Slovak - Czech - Bulgarian - Macedonian - Serbo-Croatian - Slovene. Literary forms would make Bulgarian closer but not enough to replace closer languages. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

More requests for reviewing[edit]

Because the last topic is enormous.

[2] --Romanophile (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

[3] --Romanophile (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

[4] is this the correct translation? --Romanophile (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, como si. —Stephen (Talk) 06:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

[5], [6] are these perfect? --Romanophile (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

es:en tant que seems fine, but es:nawak should mention that it is verlan, a type of backslang (una forma de argot en la que se invierten las sílabas de las palabras, como en lunfardo). —Stephen (Talk) 05:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I altered the etymology of the latter to mention verlan. Is the Spanish grammar perfect? --Romanophile (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

[7], [8] --Romanophile (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

[9] (I’m feeling paranoid tonight). --Romanophile (talk) 04:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

[10], [11] --Romanophile (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

[12] (not sure how good your Catalan is). --Romanophile (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

[13] perfect? --Romanophile (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You’ve put "Sinónimo: en avance." Don’t you mean antónimo? —Stephen (Talk) 00:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that was a bit careless of me. I just fixed those two errors. I hope that you like this entry now! --Romanophile (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


Thank you very much Stephen for helping in the translation of EN to Latin. It is always good to know that still exists people in this world capable of helping others. I Wish you the best.

What separates good language from bad?[edit]

A few days ago, a French teacher told me that I use French better than some of his students. Tonight, a Spaniard told me that there’re native Hispanophones who write worse than I do. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talkcontribs) could probably chime in and confirm whether or not I use Portuguese better than the natives he’s seen. This got me thinking: What separates good language‐usage from the bad? Natives who use their language carelessly can probably still be comprehended by at least some people (unless I’m wrong), and if the goal of communication is to be comprehended, what use are language rules?

At the risk of sounding extreme, is there even a right way to use language? --Romanophile (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

If I may chime in, I would have to say that language is a medium, and therefore should be thought of as a tool, philosophically speaking. Tools are specialised, and thus won't be as effective for every purpose, but they can also be used in different, even counterintuitive ways, and therefore it is impossible to say that any given tool has zero utility for any given purpose. One general class of purposes for which language can be used, and one which traditional philosophers have viewed as being the primary or only true use, is communication, and in that case maxims can be constructed to describe, with minimal subjectivity, "correct" use of language. Probably the best example are the Gricean Maxims. However, language is used for a vast range of purposes other than communication, such as social bonding and defining social groups (also a good example because there is a great deal of sociolinguistic literature that describes how this is studied). The point I'm trying to make is that if you want to qualify language use and rate it according to any kind of a scale, you must separate language uses out by the purposes to which they are tied, and if you do not, you are making comparisons among things which cannot be compared unless quantified first. [Disclaimer: This is my philosophical viewpoint, and I think it is fairly mainstream, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone here disagrees with a significant part of my argument.] —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Language is complex and it includes many different registers and styles. When someone says your language is bad, it can have different meanings. Often it is a matter of being inappropriate for the intended audience. If you attend classes at Harvard University and write your class papers using spellings and grammar that is appropriate to texting, your professors would probably say that your language is bad and that you should leave school forever. But if you are texting your close friends and using language that is proper for a Harvard term paper, your friends will think you’re nuts.
Language has many more facets than just spelling and grammar. There is also taboo language, or avoidance language, and if you write or speak while breaking the cultural linguistic taboos (for example, using curse words), some people may be disgusted and declare your language to be very bad. In some cultures, if you break these language taboos, you may be sent to prison or even killed. In Spain, blasphemy was a jailable offence until Francisco Franco’s death in 1975. Until then, if you blurted out par de hostias (translation: I’ll slap you twice with the Host), you would be sent to prison. Just using the word ¡rediez! (a euphemism for ¡rediós! meant a long, hard prison term. In Mexico, these words are meaningless (blasphemy simply does not figure into Latin American cultures).
Another consideration is a person’s clarity of thought. Many people write with a kind of relaxed thinking, with blurred and ambiguous meanings, and their writing reads as if in a thick haze. A few people are able to write with great clarity of thought, and it comes through even when they write in a foreign language with numerous grammatical and stylistic mistakes. An example of this is w:Joseph Conrad (his Polish name was Józef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski).
When you study a language, you are (hopefully) learning the best and most generally appropriate words, spellings, and grammar. Native speakers know every possible range and register of their language, and often they are so inured to a certain relaxed, hazy style that they are unable to write their own language well, although they can recognize excellent writing and can read it with ease. Language is not a recent invention, it is like a living organism, and it has a symbiotic relationship with mankind. Language and developed and evolved right along with mankind, and language is as complex, emotional, spiritual, and deep as a human being. —Stephen (Talk) 02:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Matched-guise test might interest you. Also any kind of book on sociolinguistics. At my university, we used The New Sociolinguistics Reader (Coupland & Jaworski, 2009), which has quite a lot of diverse material in it on attitudes to language, etc. beyond the simple purpose of communicating. Equinox 03:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

PaulBustion87 (talkcontribs)[edit]

This guy asked me privately to review his unblock request or request an administrator to do so. Are you interested? --Romanophile (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

PaulBustion88 (talkcontribs) has made a lot of people angry and created a lot of extra work, but has not done much of anything that could be considered useful or helpful on Wiktionary. Trying to reason with him results in these huge masses of text that nobody would want to spend an afternoon reading (I assume they are explanations or defenses, but I didn’t bother to read them either). I know that he wants to help, but he is either too young or too radical and eccentric to do acceptable work, and reasoning with him does no good. Unblocking him would only cause hard feelings among the regulars here, and he would just get blocked again. I would like to help him, but he would rather argue than listen. —Stephen (Talk) 08:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess that by ‘young’ you are referring to his biological age. (I was thinking that he was maybe ∼30, but I don’t have a good reason for that.) I was pretty young and considerably troublesome when I entered the project as well, but I like to think that I’ve mostly improved since then as both an editor and a person. (I think that SemperBlotto dislikes me, though.) I myself would soften the duration to a few years, as forever is an extremely long time and he could potentially be a completely different person in ∼5 years.
I selected you because you seem like one of the most amicable chaps on the project, but I can understand that you’d prefer to stay out of any drama. I myself am, quite frankly, manipulable, so maybe my opinion isn’t worth all that much in this case. --Romanophile (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I said in my unblock appeal that I would not insist on my point of view, and if others disagreed with my changes I would let articles stay as they were. I'm not a radical, I'm a conservative politically. And I'm not as young as Romanophile, I'm 27 years old. I have the impression Romanophile is between 20 and 23 years old. You say I contributed nothing to the project, but I wrote a lot of entries that were not deleted, such as [14], [15], [16], [17], and more. --PaulBustion87 (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Romanophile, yes, biological. A lot of contributors start at an early age, and some of them have been fast learners and done excellent work. Others have been a huge drain on everyone’s time. Wonderfool started out here around the age of 20, I think (he was taking university courses). He did great work, but then he would flip out and cause everybody trouble. We gave him lots of second chances, but they always ended the same way. Finally he was blocked indefinitely. Nowadays he’s back again, but we don’t trust him very much and he can’t have admin tools anymore. He’s older now, more mature, and he has not wigged out in quite a while. Even though PaulBustion88 is blocked indefinitely, that really does not mean forever. Wonderfool has been blocked indefinitely many times, and after a few months he always returns with a new account and promises to do better. Until his current reincarnation, he did not keep his promise for long. —Stephen (Talk) 10:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
PaulBustion88, you just seem to lack common sense. It’s not enough that in future you only have to be reverted once per article. After you learn our formatting, you should not have to be reverted at all. Nobody wants the job of following you around to check your work. After a few weeks, you should be at a stage where we can trust you and not have to examine your edits. Everybody here is trying to get some work done, and nobody likes patroling inexperienced editors. It’s drudgery. The regulars such as SemperBlotto now believe that they will never be able to trust you and that they will forever be saddled with watching everything you do. —Stephen (Talk) 10:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, then I'll make sure I will not write anything that has to be reverted again. I have a feel for what would be reverted based on Equinox's criticisms of my editing.--PaulBustion87 (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you should take a break for a while to let the other editors calm down. You’ve upset them. If you made just one more edit, somebody would block you again even if the edit was completely reasonable. —Stephen (Talk) 11:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
[18], on this project I managed to make over 500 edits without being disruptive. I even asked the administrator there, Hydriz, if he felt I was being disruptive and he said no. And I did not insist on my own view of things. For example, even though I personally favor the traditional definition of rape over the politically correct version where women can rape men, when I was reverted on that entry, I did not revert back or even argue about it, [19], and in the pedophilia entry, even though I favor the medical definition of an adult who is sexually attracted to prepubescent or early pubescent children over the popular definition of an adult who is sexually attracted to or has sex with any minor, because everyone at English wiktionary had disagreed with that viewpoint, I heavily modified how I wrote the entry on simple English wiktionary so it would look more like what BoBoMisiu, Equinox, and my other critics would want, I put the popular definition in, and even made it the first definition, [20]. I did that without being told to do that by anyone on simple English wiktionary. I also corrected my mistaken edits on simple English wiktionary stating the term British Isles was obsolete after Equinox and others corrected me about that here, and reversed those edits on simple English wiktionary, again without anyone on simple English wiktionary even asking me to do that, [21], so that shows that I have become better and more neutral in my editing. PaulBustion87 (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Contributions and status on other wikis are irrelevant. They don’t mean anything at all here. You should not have to ask if you’re being disruptive. If you are being reverted, you’re not fitting in. —Stephen (Talk) 08:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, well if I agree to go by common use of words from now on, instead of my opinion, or the medical opinion, or whoever else's opinion, could I be allowed to come back? For example, with the rape entry I insisted on the historical definition of a man having sex with a non-consenting or unwilling female instead of the popular gender neutral use of the term, and with the pedophilia entry I insisted on the medical definition of adults attracted to prepubescent or early pubescent children instead of the popular definition of adults being attracted to minors, and with the British Isles entry I mistakenly said that term was obsolete based on what Irish government officials said ignoring its popular use. But I stopped insisting on those viewpoints before I got in trouble, and I will not insist on them in the future, so as long as I stop insisting on obscure use of words and accept that I have write about actual usage, not my opinion, doesn't that solve the problem? PaulBustion87 (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no central command for these things. Everybody is an independent editor. As I mentioned above, you have some regular editors upset with you. If I unblocked you, it would likely cause hard feelings among them, and any one of them will probably immediately block you again. If they don’t block you, then they will be saddled with the unpleasant task of checking your every edit for the foreseeable future.
Once you get a reputation for unacceptable entries that need repeated reverts, it is hard to move beyond that. You have a bad name and the editors who must patrol your work are not very likely to listen to promises to do better. —Stephen (Talk) 10:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Does Navajo use ethnic slurs?[edit]

I wondered this about an hour ago. Nonetheless, I’m doubtful since I figured that race is (mostly?) a European concept. I think that Native American culture is much more egalitarian, but they might still resent Europeans. --Romanophile (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Not really. They call some people by a word that can mean enemy, but its basic meaning is simply "other than Navajo." Some of the words the Navajo use for other countries and peoples would be considered slurs if we used them in English, but in Navajo they are not intended as slurs. A common word for black people, zhinii, has taken on a derogatory meaning, but that is a recent cultural borrowing from English. Binaʼadaałtsózí dineʼé, meaning Oriental, means Slant-eyed people. Binaʼadaałtzózí bikéyah (Japan) means Slant-eye country. Tsiiʼyiishbizhí Dineʼé Bikéyah (China) means Braided pigtail people’s country. However, in Navajo these are not slurs. Navajo did not even have any obscene or rude words at all until recently. Over just the past 50 years or so, obscene connotations have been adopted from English and applied to what were once innocent words.
Some ordinary words such as daaztsą́ (he/she died) may be rude and insensitive in many cases. They prefer to say that someone has walked on. It is considered to be extremely disrespectful to speak of certain things at the wrong time of year. For example, stories about coyotes can only be told during the winter. It is disrespectful and blasphemous to tell them at other times of the year. It is extremely disrespectful to point with a finger. Some natural phenomena such as rainbows can only be pointed at with the thumb. Most things may only be pointed at with the whole hand, or with with lips. —Stephen (Talk) 18:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for always being nice to me. --Romanophile (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

You’re more than welcome. Thank you for being interested in things. —Stephen (Talk) 06:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Medieval Latin[edit]

Is Mediæval Latin pretty unpopular? At least on‐line, there seems to be a bias towards Classical Latin. I would be very surprised if there were still any schools that taught it as opposed to the classical version. --Romanophile (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • <butting in> I only attempted to learn Latin in order to read medieval and early modern texts (parish registers and similar documents mostly). </butting in> SemperBlotto (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I think most students in the U.S. study Classical Latin. Serious students who go on to major in Latin will also take Medieval Latin courses, among others. It should not be difficult to find schools that offer courses in Medieval Latin. —Stephen (Talk) 11:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Would you say that that variant is stigmatized? --Romanophile (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
No, it’s not stigmatized. —Stephen (Talk) 11:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you confirm if homo is attested as a pronoun in Latin? Is it restricted to mediæval texts? --Romanophile (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It was used like a pronoun (even in Classical Latin), but I don’t think it is considered to be a pronoun. It’s like the way people use the word people as a pronoun today, but it’s really a noun. —Stephen (Talk) 11:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

venir del latín[edit]

¿Hay gente que dice que el castellano, el francés o sea lo que sea, no se derivan del idioma latino? --Romanophile (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Nunca he oído hablar de cualquier persona que lo negó. —Stephen (Talk) 14:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

French learners of Spanish[edit]

Are there any difficulties that Francophones have when they first learn Spanish? Are there sounds that they can’t pronounce, or some other difficulties? --Romanophile (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they especially have trouble with Spanish r, rr, d, and z (Castilian). The Spaniards have far more difficulty trying to pronounce the French (especially the r, ch, v, z, and many of the vowels). —Stephen (Talk) 05:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)