User talk:Surjection/archive/2019-2

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Some topics originally started in 2020 have been moved here.

fixen

The changes for the Dutch lemma on this page had been sourced. Why did you revert them? Ok if I revert them back to the sourced version? Dutch fiksen and fixen, while being homophones and doublettes, do not have the same meaning, i.e. they are not alternative spellings. This is not uncommon in Dutch, e.g., kruid-kruit and nog-noch are other examples. Morgengave (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do inline links to other external dictionaries like that, especially on the definition lines. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 13:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So your objection is to the links? Ok, I'll restore the content and remove the links. Morgengave (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hermo

Is this the children's card game snap (where you call out when there are matching cards)? The snap entry says so, but there's no explanation at hermo. Equinox ◑ 18:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory Internet search seems to suggest so, but I'd never heard of the English nor the Finnish term before. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 19:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a real Finnish word for the card game then could we add it? nag nag.... Equinox ◑ 22:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

cat

While Proto-Germanic *kattuz is the general consensus and therefore applicable to the main entry, the sources had not realised at the times when their edits were published that "cat" and its analogous spellings were in fact from substrate forms of Uralic origin. It must be realised that derivative etymologies from source dictionaries for entries are only as accurate as the source etymologies themselves; but this would be obvious to you! Kind regards. Andrew H. Gray 10:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Andrew

What I meant is that cat coming from *kattuz makes a lot more sense than the Old English term being directly borrowed from an Afro-Asiatic language. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 11:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite true. Andrew H. Gray 10:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)Andrew talk

Rollback of translation request

I think that this was intended as a new request for a translation to Hindi. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard practice to undo or rollback any requests not made correctly. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 09:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

perustapaus

What's a basic case? --Mélange a trois (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A case that isn't that unusual. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 22:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's clear. Is it a (grammar) thing? --Mélange a trois (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it doesn't refer to nominatives nor portfolios. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 22:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic Roots

Please don't spread wrong study about Holy Arabic language.if you don't have real knowledge then don't share it publicly.its not a real Roots of Arabic language.understan? Thanks Wakeel Ahmad znjry (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are referring to. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 11:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quicksand

Why did you revert the capitalization error that I fixed on quicksand?--Wiki Contributor 2.4 (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an error. German always capitalizes nouns. There may not be an entry for it now, but that's only way you could possibly spell it in German. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of edit to "vinous"

I'm afraid Aabull2016 did it again: [1]. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

vara-

This has had a module error since you switched to the new template. I suspect this is supposed to have |norhymes=, but I've left it alone in case you needed to deal with some kind of bug (I'm not sure if rhymes are at all useful for a prefix, but I'll leave that to you). At any rate, I'd appreciate it you would fix this: it's depressing enough having 10 entries with intractable out-of-memory errors to stare at without adding a preventable one. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it was a simple bug regarding the fact that it tried to add an empty rhyme, because since it was a prefix, it extracted the last component as an empty string and then tried to find the rhyme for that. I added more checks to prevent that. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 06:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Surjection/archive/2019-2,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wiktionary and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Where may I find templates for creating new articles? — This unsigned comment was added by ПростаРечь (talk • contribs) at 13:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 14:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Surjection/archive/2019-2,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that.

I'm not sure how that ended up on the main Tea Room page. At first I thought that I must have put it there by mistake, but then I noticed that it was on the September's Tea Room page as well.

Odd. Tharthan (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

jKr.

Hey SJ. What part of speech would jKr. be? --Vealhurl (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adverbial phrase probably, same as AD which en.wikt calls an "adverb". — surjection ⟨?⟩ 10:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback on step-aunt page

Can I ask why my edit was undone? The third definition of step-aunt is incorrect. It says that a step-aunt is the wife of a person's parent's brother from a second or later marriage (half-brother); this is wrong because a half-uncle's wife is simply an aunt. Only the wife of a stepuncle (person's parent's stepbrother) would be a step-aunt. I have tried explaining this to the last admin (Robbie) who undid my edit but he responded very rudely to me. — This unsigned comment was added by 212.250.82.211 (talk).

Again, no matter how many times you try, nobody here is obligated to follow your definitions of terms for family relations, and if you choose to spread your edits any further, I will start blocking you on sight. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 15:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

Hey. Plz undelete my userpage. Thx --Vealhurl (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, although I won't restore it if it gets deleted again. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 10:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

kasvatustiede

Hey Sergei (just kidding... phonetics...) can you just check the recent changes to kasvatustiede? Thanks. Equinox ◑ 22:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian translation

Dear Surjection, this rollback is ok, but Hungarian translation is missing:

azonnali (hu) Sóti Gy. Szótértő (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The translation lines shouldn't have newlines in them (but every language should be on their own line). Try using the translation adder on the bottom right corner on the translation table to avoid having to deal with the correct formatting. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 10:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

tietty

Is is really that adverb has declension as adj or it's wrong?) Miroslavbel (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't have that, no. I guess somebody added that heading in the wrong place. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 15:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Sorry for stupid question and thank you for correction. I just had some doubts about this. My Finnish level is very low. Miroslavbel (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a stupid question by any means, I would say. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 22:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish saa is also an "interested page". Especially pronunciation. Thank you for correction. Miroslavbel (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and a favour

Would you be so kind to long-term soft protect my user talk page, also if you could please revdel that LTA edit. This LTA loves to use urls of diffs to further vandalise and abuse, and deleting them is a good means to slow that type of vandalism. Thanks for your consideration. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did both. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 10:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

used to

Hello. You reverted my changes to used to:

Reverted edits by 81.109.108.218. If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page.

What was your problem with my changes? 81.109.108.218 01:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because your changes don't make it match with the linked sources, for one. Indeed, "did not used to" is very much correct as a somewhat rare example. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 06:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that "did not used to" is correct. Rare and non-standard, maybe. Anyway, I was just trying to make the second and third usage notes consistent with the first, which says: "With did as an auxiliary verb (as in the negative and interrogative), use to is considered standard, especially in American English." 81.109.108.218 14:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"rare and non-standard" is somewhat doubtful, as it seems it's widely used, and since this is a descriptive dictionary, something is only wrong when a majority of speakers think it's wrong. The two usage notes are meant to be mostly contrastive (although perhaps the latter could still include the "did not use to" and such forms as an example of the former). — surjection ⟨?⟩ 16:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest abuse filter

44 + 109 = duplication. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; I didn't notice the existing filter. It however seems that 44 is too lax, so I'll modify it accordingly and get rid of 109. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 22:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Puta evidence in discussion

Evidence is found in discussion. I gave book title, author, and page. What right do you have to reject evidence for nothing?

Montchevalier (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you provided evidence that the Arabic word exists, but that is not the same as evidence that it is related to the Spanish word, which you seem to insist because they "sound similar". — surjection ⟨?⟩ 08:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, I provided evidence for its comparative relationship. Which is why I used two books, from which detailed relationships between Andalusian Arabic and Old Castilian. The pages dictate exactly the words used and how they were transferred into another language. You can't keep doing this censorship crap when it suits you guys. You all asked for evidence of the word, and its connection, and I got it. This is how you people behave? Don't you have a sense of professionalism at all?

Montchevalier (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the first reference you gave, and it doesn't mention puta anywhere on that page, so not exactly supporting your theory. If you're trying to misrepresent or falsify sources, that is not going to work. And again, you should be discussing this at WT:ES, not here, and certainly not edit warring over it in the entry. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 08:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The second source does not mention puta either. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 13:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit

Hi ... Thanks for reverting my edit to vasty. I thought that what I edited was just a heading for the quotations. I was wrong. My bad. --24.140.78.34 20:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

tradwife

Why did you revert my edit to https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=tradwife? The application of the 'white supremacist' tag was clearly biased. 77.66.23.105 14:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously question that the term is mainly used in alt-right (~= white supremacist) circles? — surjection ⟨?⟩ 15:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. https://twitter.com/darlingacademy/status/1199280442291175426 77.66.23.105 10:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An isolated counterexample that isn't even durably archived doesn't mean much. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 13:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Edit

Hello, a significant portion of French speakers - including the entire country of Belgium - don't pronounce it /kɥi/ but /ci/. Why did you revert my edits? 2A01:E35:2E36:FBD0:8D02:88D0:6BC:33A7 08:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia seems to say that in Belgian French, IPA(key): /kɥi/ becomes IPA(key): /kwi/. That's not the main reason though - one of the pronunciations you gave was redundant to what the {{fr-IPA}} template already gave, and the second pronunciation should be formatted correctly, more like this:
* {{fr-IPA|écuilatéral}}
* {{a|Belgium}} {{fr-IPA|écouilatéral}}
or
* {{fr-IPA|écuilatéral}}
* {{a|Belgium}} {{IPA|fr|/ekwilateʁal/}}
Instead of putting the IPA as-is after the template. Further, if there are accents with /c/ (which I don't deny), you can use the latter syntax to add those. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 10:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raccoon map

Would you please let me put my map back on the raccoon page? The main distinguishing characteristic of my map is the way it is centered, not just the lack of borders. I centered it around North America because the raccoon is native to North America, thus it makes sense to have it like that. Also, File:Common_Raccoon_range.png doesn't include the entire distribution, so that's another reason to change it. Borders are imaginary (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no reason to center it on North America just because it is native to that region, and the better standard (and the standard so far) is that maps should be consistent. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 10:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I won't bother changing it then, but the truth is that the standard is very Eurocentric. Borders are imaginary (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't deny that, but it is still the standard. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 08:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry for voting and creating the article in the wrong name space when I wasn't supposed to. We all make mistakes; I guess I have a lot to learn. - User:GTContributor

asentamaton

I have no clue how to fix this. Please take a look. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possessive forms for nominals

Thank you for adding the possessive forms to the declension tables of Finnish nouns. However, I don't think the possessive forms exist for adjectives. Whenever an adjective is generally also used as noun, we tend to have a separate noun-section for it, see eg rakas, punainen. Listing the possessive forms under the declension table of adjectives is therefore, in my opinion, unnecessary and even misleading. I would like to suggest that you change the Module:fi-nominals thus that the possessive forms only appear under nouns. The lines defining the declension tables for adjectives have the parameter pos=adj which might be used to differentiate the treatment of nouns and adjectives also in this respect. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't entirely correct, since for instance, ikäinen is an adjective ("of one's age"), and ikäiseni is a real possessive form ("of my age"). There is already a note in the possessive table that concerns the use of possessive forms with adjectives. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 10:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How many adjectives are there? I noticed the note, but if 999 cases of one thousand are exceptions, wouldn't it be better to change the rule? It is true that there is this group of ikäinen, painoinen, pituinen, kokoinen, kaltainen + few others, but wouldn't it be better to make it the other way round? I mean that adjectives as a rule would not display the possessive forms but with a parameter poss=1 you could make them visible where needed. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's also all agent participles and the fact that any adjective can be used as a noun (although most never are) in which case they can also receive a possessive suffix, particularly for comparative and superlative forms. I've definitely heard nuorempani (“my young(er) (child(ren))”), but also nopeansa (“his/her/their fast (one)”) and so on. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 15:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the same subject, it's hänen mielestään, not hänen mielestä. And the verb forms section needs an example of each form. Yuhani (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't use mielestään with nouns (such as names), though. Which verb forms section are you referring to, exactly? — surjection ⟨?⟩ 19:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I should have said I'm talking about the appendix page. Yuhani (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did some changes to that appendix page now which would hopefully address those issues. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 19:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Surjection/archive/2019-2&oldid=60151758"