User talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV

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

Archives:

"Tu" as nonstandard second person pronoun[edit]

I noticed that you've changed my edit of the "tu" pronoun. I am Brazilian, born in São Paulo and living in Porto Alegre, and feel that simply describing the pronoun as "archaic, poetic or regional" does not fully cover the range of uses the pronoun can have. The closest to a nationwide "General Brazilian Accent" we have is Carioca, since soap operas, films, music and TV show made in Rio are so popular everywhere in the country and it is very much the default accent for foreigners learning Brazilian Portuguese. The point is: people from Rio do employ "tu" quite often in their informal speech, albeit with nonstandard third person verbs, as I showed in the linguistic research I attached to the usage notes. Since I find it rather odd to define Carioca as a regional accent, I decided to edit the article to include "tu" as a possible nonstandard second person pronoun in very informal settings. —This unsigned comment was added by Phastolph (talkcontribs).

When you add a label to a definition, the label applies to that definition alone. It’s the use of tu with third-person verbs that is non-standard, not tu itself.
Now, about your claim that Carioca can be treated as equivalent to General Brazilian, sorry, but that is unacceptable. You can consistently tell that a person is from Rio when they speak Carioca; no one uses Carioca when trying to avoid regional Portuguese in the same way that people use RP or General American. If, when describing “General Brazilian” (which is an abstraction, and not at all a monolithic lect), our goal is to avoid characteristics that are generally considered markers of a regional variety (such as the use of postalveolar coda sibilants or approximant coda rhotics), then words featuring characteristics associated with Carioca must be indicated as such. Not doing so would be tantamount to fooling our users. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

sìpri[edit]

Hallo, Ungoliant. Please, can you delete this page sìpri, that is wrong in the accent over that ì?! Thank you. In the meanwhile, I'll rewrite the right page without accent. Thank you, --Glo (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

pronunciations[edit]

hello, is it illegal to copypaste ipa pronunciations from other dictionaries. thank you. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:219E:66C4:EF6D:97FA 15:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I’m not familiar with American copyright law. Our transcription standards are unique enough that there aren’t going to be many cases where you can copy IPA pronunciations en masse without adaptations anyway. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

jullie[edit]

Hi, Ungoliant. I won't get into a reversion war with you. However, I would like to point out that the collocations "subjective pronoun" and "objective pronoun" are not standard English. The terms employed in the context of grammatical analysis are "subject pronoun" and "object pronoun". You may wish to reformulate my "second-person plural object (pronoun)" etc., but I believe that using "subjective" (which in English means "relating to personal feelings, tastes, or opinions") in relation to grammatical case muddies the waters unnecessarily. -- Picapica (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Picapica: (Sorry for butting in) see sense 7 at subjective. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 20:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

No need to apologize, Aryamanarora. But in a way you said it yourself: that meaning is sense number seven! I've been learning and teaching languages for nearly seventy years and never yet encountered "subjective" or "objective" pronouns in anything I've read or heard.

See https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=subject+pronoun%2Csubjective+pronoun&year_start=1900&year_end=2000&corpus=18&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Csubject%20pronoun%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Csubjective%20pronoun%3B%2Cc0

-- Picapica (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Picapica, OK, I apologise. I will revert myself. — Ungoliant (falai) 10:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Ungoliant; that is very decent of you. (BTW, I've also converted another instance of subjective/objective on that page, which I missed first time round.) -- Picapica (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Shun[edit]

@Ungoliant (falai) Thank you for bothering to thank me: I check each fresh etymology revision once or twice each day from Monday to Saturday. Etymologies are largely conjecture, as you would know, unless the time line of the first evidence of each cognate can be ascertained. For example, if none of the Germanic dialect cognates for oat could be traced back before the fifth century, it would be most likely that a PG reconstruction would be applicable, but not so if they could be traced back to primitive sources around 3,000 years ago; nor indeed from after the ninth century, when they could well have been borrowed from Old English, seeing that there is a Scots Gaelic form "ad" that implies 'corn' which is clearly not borrowed, and may be cognate with Welsh and Breton "id". It would help if new editors took into consideration that certain words in Old English are in fact a hybrid of contemporary and older forms. Kind regards. Andrew (talk)

Testing the hiding of synonyms, antonyms, etc.[edit]

Add the following line to your custom Javascript pages:

importScript("User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV/synshide.js");

and report problems here. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The space between a definition line with hidden nyms and the one below is a bit bigger than between two regular definition lines. This is due to the margin of the element that contains all nym lines. I can’t think of a non-convoluted way to solve this without having a single button to toggle all of a definition’s nyms. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I think having a single button to expand everything is easier for the user. Perhaps quotations can be included in it as well, but I'm not sure. —Rua (mew) 20:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I’ve just made a major change to the code. Now there is a single toggle link for all nyms per definition, and the margin issue is apparently fixed. Please let me know if you come across any bug, and feel free to fork or meddle with the code (especially if you can optimise it). — Ungoliant (falai) 18:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Portuguese compounds[edit]

Hello. This discussion (a shame so few people took part in it) led me to create CAT:Portuguese verb–noun compounds and put an item in it; thought I'd let you know. Three questions:

  • would you have preferred an hyphen instead of the en dash?
  • would you have preferred "compound words" instead of "compounds"?
  • would it bother you to find sacarrolhas (infinitive+noun, if I'm not mistaken) alongside porta-aviões (3rd person+noun)? Personally, I don't like the idea of having French faire-part alongside couvre-chef, since they seem typologically different to me, but I haven't found how to discriminate.

An idea I've just had: {{af}} would be cleverer if, when we add the pos parameters, it could compute the right subcat and add it automatically, instead of adding the mother cat Compound words by language. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I’ll add some entries.
  • No preference on hyphen vs. en dash.
  • Compound is better, since it is shorter. Due to the poor way our categories are displayed, it is better to have shorter cat names when possible.
  • Sacarrolhas is not infinitive + noun, but saca + rolhas. The double R is an orthographic artifice.
Ungoliant (falai) 18:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, thanks, and thanks. Another question: how would you translate French window in Portuguese? I can find porta-janela in Collins, porta de janela in fr.wikt. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
The usual name where I live is janela francesa, or janela de varanda if it leads to a balcony. Porta-janela (which is a noun-noun compound) is well attested, though. Porta de janela apparently doesn’t meet the CFI. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I see, thanks. Yes, I chose this example to show that it can be useful to distinguish compounds by the POS of their components (admittedly, there shouldn't be many cases of conflation... porta/porte might even be the only one).
Crap, I've found this: Category:Spanish verb plus plural noun compounds. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

User:DTLHS/ptwikisource[edit]

There's some crap in here, but it looks like a good source overall. For a more curated list of literary Portuguese redlinks/orangelinks, my User:Metaknowledge/Português still exists. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Unsurprisingly, most of the Wikisource redlinks are obsolete spellings, even Old Portuguese in some cases, so definitely not high priority, but it’s worth going through anyway. I really need to focus on your list and Requested Entries first, but unfortunately I haven’t had time to do much heavy lifting with Portuguese lately; I mainly use WT at work, and the short time between tasks I spend patrolling the recent changes. — Ungoliant (falai) 11:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I understand; your focus on work is commendable. I edit as a form of procrastination, mostly. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I feel ya. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
SOML... --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Pssst, Ungoliant[edit]

Merry Christmas! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Hey, you too! (or was it happy Hannukah?) Incidentally, is the hometown-dialect challenge still up? — Ungoliant (falai) 21:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, it was a happy Chanukah when it happened. As for the hometown dialect challenge, I gave up on that when I realised how similar it is to GA and how limited my skills at transcribing subtle variations in vowels are. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, while I'm here, it would be great if you could do your mass page protection for FWOTDs for 2018. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done (I think) — Ungoliant (falai) 20:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

tronco[edit]

A couple of etymological dictionaries say that the Portuguese word tronco could also mean prison, jail or dungeon or something. Could you verify that? (See also this old dictionary.) Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that’s correct. It is a synechdoche of another sense of tronco that is more closely connected to the primary sense of tree trunk: an upright trunk or pole in prisons or plantations to which prisoners or slaves were tied and flogged. — Ungoliant (falai) 11:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added "prison, jail" as a sense, but I can't tell if it needs any labels. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow...[edit]

Did someone seriously copy the entire transcript of The Bee Movie onto Talk:Wikipedia? That's some really intense vandalism. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I didn’t realise that was the actual script. I better hide that edit for copyright violation. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The Bee Movie vandal is a regular. I tried to block them with an abuse filter but perhaps they have found a way around. Equinox 18:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Something You Might Find Useful[edit]

I've created a filter that tags edits by certain Thai IP ranges to entries without a Thai section or Thai translations with "-th". As you know, the vast majority of recent edits like that are either useless or wrong, so I figured I would make it easier to spot the pattern at a glance. Feel free to add any Thai IP ranges that I missed. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Chuck. I’ll keep my eyes open. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

دعای ربانی - a favour[edit]

Please could you do me a favour and delete this entry and hide the original entry I made? I made a really bad mistake. Then I will re-create it. Thank you. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It's gone already- phew :D Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Was it really that bad? Anyway, you can thank User:AryamanA for that.
Incidentally, you can replace the content of an entry you create with {{delete|created in error}} and someone will delete it sooner or later. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, yes it was very offensive so it needed to go quickly. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: I saw the page history, I think you did the right thing by getting it deleted. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 17:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I think this is one of the worst things, or maybe the worst, thing I have ever done. I feel really terrible about it. I'm very sorry for any offence caused. I can't feel the end of my hands very well because of the cold and it makes typing slow so I usually copy and paste from an existing entry. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: Don't worry about it, I think it was deleted in time. We all make mistakes :) —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 19:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
And if I understood it correctly, it wasn’t something anyone here would give a second thought about. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Another favour[edit]

Hello, please could you hide this revision [1] of my user page, please? Someone is using it as a reference when they shouldn't, really, that is why I deleted it from my page. Thank you in advance. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary I’ve hidden 4 revisions with apparently the same information. Please let me know if I got it right. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: Yes, well spotted. Thank you, it is very helpful. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Module:parameters[edit]

Can you explain why you keep removing this from Module:pt-noun? You keep coming up with some story about genders but this has nothing to do with that. —Rua (mew) 21:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Lol. Nice try. Before your edits, the module produces correct information; after your edits, it produces wrong information. Please stop vandalising the module. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to add the parameters thingy, as long as you do it in a way that doesn’t fuck the display and categorisation of genders up. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
So then stop removing it. —Rua (mew) 21:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
For the love of god, read the bit after the comma. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
It's not that hard for you to make BOTH your edit and mine. Why do you have to keep reverting mine? Pride issues? —Rua (mew) 21:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Then what the hell are you waiting for? — Ungoliant (falai) 21:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Goodness, you are such a child. —Rua (mew) 21:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
You can throw a thousand of these insults every day, Rua, as long as you stop vandalising the Portuguese headwords. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

também[edit]

Eu desconfio que está faltando mais um significado em também. Ver exemplo:

Pessoa 1: Matemática não serve pra nada!
Pessoa 2: Também não é assim... Matemática tem muitos usos importantes.

O que você acha? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Daniel Carrero, é mesmo. Não me vem um significado específico pra esse uso, nem consigo pensar num bom equivalente em inglês. Outra coisa é que eu só lembro de ter ouvido isso seguido de não.
O que você acha de “used with negative clauses as a response to a declaration that is considered exaggerated”? Isso descreve a impressão que eu tenho desse também. — Ungoliant (falai) 11:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

-eta[edit]

Hey. Can you please give a couple of examples of the use of the Portuguese suffix -eta? - Your buddy WF

WF is not Ungoliant's buddy, as far as I know. This is getting annoying. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge What is getting annoying? -WF
Pretending to be WF. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, so I shall cease to do so. --Pas un coiffeur (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I don’t know if the second definition should exist. The only word with that sense, as far as I’m aware, is perneta (lame/one-legged person), which is an extension of the word using the first sense of the suffix (i.e. perneta (small leg)).
I’ll see if I can find some more examples. If I can’t, I’ll RFV it. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

rapaz[edit]

Hi. Is the /h/ at the end of /ʀəˈpajh/ a mistake? --WikiTiki89 22:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The whole thing was a mess and I’ve changed it to our transcription scheme given Appendix:Portuguese pronunciation; some of them could be readded as narrow transcriptions if anyone cares.
Some dialect have debuccalisation of coda /s/, but not any that is standard enough to justify adding it under {{a|Brazil}} (although such debuccalisation before voiced consonants, especially /m/, is slowly creeping into standard speech). — Ungoliant (falai) 12:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. Do you think it comes from Spanish influence? --WikiTiki89 16:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I don’t think so. It occurs far from regions where BP speakers are in contact with /s/-debuccalising Spanish speakers. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Uma pergunta da tua idioma[edit]

Hey, is the first-person singular present indicative of "conseguir" "eu consigo" or "eu consego?" Obrigado pela tua resposta do futuro. --Fluorinated (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

And, oh my, I forgot this; What is your opinion on this page? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sniperar --Fluorinated (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fluorinated, e aí véio. É sempre eu consigo.
Não parece que existe evidência da existência de sniperar conforme os nossos critérios de inclusão. Eu vou tentar encontrar umas citações, mas se não achar eu vou abrir um Request for Verification. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

vinho a martelo[edit]

Is this idiomatic? (I spotted it while trying to see if Portuguese ever used cor de cão que foge, and finding a blog with some speculation about the etymology, although nothing we couldn't already have guessed: that the existence of the same phrase in other languages but with different animals speaks against the idea that it was originally a reference to a specific asinine color.) The first Google Books result offers a definition: "A popular expressão vinho a martelo é usada para classificar um tipo de vinho que foi falsificado, adulterado ou mesmo aldrabado." - -sche (discuss) 16:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Added. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Cheetos[edit]

Taking away an s for no reason? Singular is Cheetos. There’s no apostrophe. Please explain. Cody Purvis (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

If you doubt an entry, tag it with Template:RFV and put the parameter "|lang=en", then start a topic about it at WT:RFV; please do not edit the entry to say something strange. However, Cheeto is definitely attested in its singular form. I can't imagine saying "I gave a dog a Cheetos" anyway; it would be "a Cheeto". PseudoSkull (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@Cody Purvis, that’s all true, but Cheeto as a singular exists and meets our criteria for inclusion. Editing our definition to display wrong information won’t change that. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The officials Cheetos account on Twitter entry from 2011 even backs up saying Cheeto is NOT the singular. So just because someone "can't imagine saying" or calls it "wrong information" just means they haven't done the homework others have. HeatherLaney (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@HeatherLaney Twitter is not an acceptable reference here at Wiktionary, especially not in comparison to durably archived sources, such as Usenet. That "homework" doesn't matter; the mere fact that there is such an abundance of durably archived sources using Cheeto in the singular means that the word can be included here. Now...it is possible that the singular form could be considered nonstandard, but I very highly doubt that. Even if nonstandard, it would still be kept; however, sources do not indicate it is nonstandard. You could make a case about this at Wiktionary:Tea room, but other experienced editors here will say mostly the same thing I am, with some added individual comments of course. Bottom line: you're not going to get the Cheeto entry deleted. If you're trying to do that, stop trying. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@HeatherLaney Cheetos can post a thousand tweets, but that won’t make the evidence of Cheeto used as a singular disappear. Talk about doing your homework! Either you didn’t bother doing a quick Google Books search or you didn’t bother reading the inclusion criteria I mentioned above.
The most drastic thing we could do is adding nonstandard or prescribed as a label, or usage notes to that effect (assuming that’s accurate, anyway), but we won’t remove a term just because some company doesn’t like it. I’ll add that Adobe has published that to photoshop is wrong and should’t be used. So, do you think we should delete this widespread verb because of that? Or, doing the equivalent of what you did to the definition of Cheeto, change it from “To digitally edit [] ” to “Not to digitally edit [] ”?
If you want to pursue this further, I’ll join PseudoSkull in advising you to bring it up at the WT:TR (or the WT:BP if you want to have a broader discussion about the inclusion of controversial terms). — Ungoliant (falai) 15:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

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

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Happy Easter[edit]

I wish to you and all users of Wiktionary Happy Easter.

Leonard Joseph Raymond (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

E uma feliz Páscoa para você também! — Ungoliant (falai) 23:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the uncitable regionalisms...[edit]

Is Twitter a viable source? It's not super convenient because you have to archive it yourself, but advanced search works pretty well for finding stuff in specific languages. I found a few funny ones for carçudão:

Gormflaith (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gormflaith Now, that’s interesting. I wonder if it’s possible to find out which state or city these people are from. (PS: yep, all from Paraná)
As for using Twitter to attest Wiktionary entries, I’m afraid it is not acceptable at all. As a general guideline, only stuff published in a physical format (books, magazines, newspapers, journals, etc.) and Usenet (not Google Groups! Even though Google’s search engine doesn’t separate its results). The status of digital publications is ambiguous: sometimes they are tolerated, other times they aren’t. Websites are definitely not accepted, even if they have been archived in archive.org or similar services. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Oops. I've only been active on here for less than a year, so I'm not 100% on all the policies yet. I've got a list of American and internet slang that I'm trying to attest; I guess I'll have to figure out how to search Usenet. Sidenote: unless my reading comprehension has gone to shit I feel like WT:ATTEST might not be explicit enough in not allowing websites... – Gormflaith (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
You can use https://groups.google.com to search Usenet. Every hit shows the name of the group where it was posted next to the post’s title. Usenet groups are those that begin with alt., rec., comp., humanities., misc., news., sci., soc. or talk.. Other hits are Google Groups or Usenet-like newsgroups that are not archived the same way as Usenet. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Some uncitable American slang is authoritatively recorded in Dictionary of American Regional English. We haven't determined that inclusion there is sufficient for inclusion here. DCDuring (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

quem não tem cabeça, tem perna[edit]

We have an almost identical saying in French: quand on n’a pas de tête on a des jambes (fr), quand on n’a pas de tête il faut avoir des jambes (fr). It's not really part of my idiolect and I'm not sure of its meaning(s) though. The one I've heard once was: "an absent-minded/forgetful person must be ready to walk a lot" (in order to retrieve things). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That’s interesting. Do you happen to know where this saying is used? Near the border with Italy, perhaps? — Ungoliant (falai) 17:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I heard it in Brussels, so I guess it's used in Belgium too; what I meant is that it seems rare, at least to me. But this thread says it's "popular" (and glosses it the same way I did here), and this one that it's "often heard". This dictionary gives some English translations, but I don't know what they're worth.
Also, I see some evidence for cabeça que não tem juízo, ... . Is that a thing? (edit: sorry, it must be the lyrics of some song :p) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Re cabeça que [] : It’s a thing. Unfortunately, it seems that there is no one form that meets the CFI.
Re Italy: I have reason to believe this proverb is a Venetism, like so many other local terms. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

mengao[edit]

This is about Flamengo, right? An entry, pretty please? --Cien pies 6 (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

That’s Mengão. What’s the policy on team nicknames? — Ungoliant (falai) 12:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
They're fine. Check out Oranje, Bleuets, Young Lions, Cobblers, Juve and Barça. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Lee Whitlow...on the word advertise/etymologically[edit]

I looked at the edit under my name, and apparently what I had written did not carry across. I had written two short paragraphs pertaining to origin, but this was my first time to add to a definition. Sorry about the glitch, I must have made a mistake in the process. :-) Lee Whitlow (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget that this is a dictionary and has a very specific format. Mentioning "paragraphs" in the context of an entry isn't a good sign, to start with. Having seen a version that was logged by an abuse filter that your edit set off, I would say that it was more than two short paragraphs, and it definitely didn't belong at the top of the page, where you put it. There's nothing wrong with your essay- it just doesn't belong in a dictionary entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Lee Whitlow, sorry about that; I should have given an explanation. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hallo, please delete this page, now replaced by this one[edit]

In fact, there were too consonants before, while in the right page, there is an euphonic vowel "e" which separate them :-) , thank you, --Glo (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneUngoliant (falai) 17:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Pedido[edit]

Há dois anos, eu fiz à administração um pedido que foi ignorado; ninguém comentou. Estava olhando minhas contribuições antigas e reencontrei isso. Se possível, gostaria que desse uma olhada nessa minha sugestão. - Alumnum (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alumnum. Mandei um ping pras pessoas envolvidas na págino. Não que isso garanta que elas comentem.
Vou deixar uma dica: algo que eu recomendo pra todo mundo é colocar esses rule-sets no teu CSS privado. Eu vejo essa página mais como uma demonstração, porque nunca na vida que vai existir uma seleção de bandeiras que agrade todo mundo. — Ungoliant (falai) 10:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Pedido[edit]

Favor apagar essa página. Digitei errado e acabei criando sem querer. - Alumnum (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneUngoliant (falai) 16:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

bolita[edit]

It's perhaps a weird question, but does bolita ever mean "small (ingestible) parcel containing recreational drugs" in Portuguese or Spanish? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo, there are many instances of bolitas of drugs in Spanish, including in reference to ingested parcels ([2]), although it doesn’t seem that it is a distinct sense from “small ball”. The only evidence of a similar sense in Portuguese is this, but the passage with the word looks like it was translated from Spanish. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. It looks like the Dutch bolletje is influenced by Spanish in this case then.
Do you know a Portuguese counterpart for trefu by the way? The final vowel makes me slightly sceptical of a direct borrowing from Hebrew. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
There are none that I could find. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo: We currently have 544 Sranan Tongo lemmas, and none of them have a final /f/. I expect that means that the final vowel was inserted for phonotactic reasons. A direct borrowing from Hebrew still seems to me somewhat less likely than one mediated by Ladino, but w:lad:Kashrut gives "trefá" and merely says that it is Hebrew, not giving any indication of use in running Ladino text. This book sources the word to "Ladino/Hebrew". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts, folks. Yes, your conjecture is correct, @Metaknowledge; traditionally Sranan didn't allow any /f/ in codas. And final vowels were often adopted quite faithfully, which is especially true for nouns ending on /a/ (compare). On top of that, stress is normally preserved as well. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Alt form confusion[edit]

Can you help me understand the relationship between rádon, radão, radónio, and radônio? Which would you consider the main lemma? Ultimateria (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Before I answer this question (which is much more complicated than it may seem), you should know that I make a distinction between alternative forms and alternative spellings.
  • The de facto relationship between radónio and radônio is that the latter is used in Brazil and the former in all other Portuguese-speaking countries. As you probably know, this type of alternation, along with ⟨é⟩ ↔ ⟨ê⟩, is one of the most common alternations between European and Brazilian Portuguese. It is not immediately obvious whether it should be considered a difference in form or a difference in spelling, since the different spelling represents a distinct pronunciation. I prefer considering them alternative spellings, since all EP speakers I’ve asked told me that they use they would employ their usual pronunciation when reading something written in BP (one of them mentioned given names as an exception).
  • I would consider rádon and radão alternative forms of one another. However, I wonder if they have different etymologies, one being a loanword from English and the other from French. If that is the case, then using {{synonym of}} or separate entries is also reasonable.
  • Another attested spelling/form, radon, is either an alternative spelling of rádon or a distinct adaptation of the French word. My money is on alternative spelling.
  • An uncommon Brazilian spelling/form, radom, is clearly an alternative spelling of rádon.
  • The relationship between {rádon, radão, radon, radom} and {radónio, radônio} is probably better labelled as synonyms, given the extra content morpheme. Personally, I also consider alternative form adequate.
  • My personal criterion for choosing lemmas is that the most common form should be picked (most common in recent decades, and with form understood as a set of one or more spellings), and out of its possible spellings, excluding those that are not standard in the modern language, the one whose entry was created first should be the lemma. So, between {rádon, radon, radom}, {radão} and {radónio, radônio}, I would pick {radónio, radônio} and then radônio since it was created first.
  • Thus, the relationship between each spelling and radônio would be as follows. Note the existence of something comparable to the diamond problem.
    • radónio → (European orthography) alt spelling
    • radãosynonym of , or an independent entry
    • rádonsynonym of, or alt form of radão
    • radonsynonym of, or alt form of radão, or alt spelling of rádon
    • radom → (Brazil, uncommon) synonym of, or alt form of radão, or alt spelling of rádon
Ungoliant (falai) 04:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)