User talk:Widsith/archive10

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

Template talk:ang-conj[edit]

Hi Widsith,

Dunno if you're already watching this . . . your input would be welcome. Since I rarely use our Old English entries, and never contribute to them substantively, I'd like to hear from people who do.

Thanks in advance,
RuakhTALK 18:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks man, I saw the question but to be honest I'm assuming it was just a silly mistake on his part, as I think to most people it's pretty obvious it covers several rows. But anyway, the information in the template is sound – and you are much more qualified than me to decide the most effective or pleasing way for these things to be displayed! Ƿidsiþ 18:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Your Beowulf page[edit]

I'm happy to find that page, as I'm much more interested in Beowulf in the Ænglisc than in translation. Heaney's was interesting to get my hands on, but, as a hard-core language geek, I'd much prefer to read the source and get a sense for the original cadence and meanings. Your page is most welcome in this regard.  :)

I'm curious about one thing though -- you note that all eths appear as thorns. Why is that? I see both upper- and lowercase eths in the Others list below the editing textbox. Is this a technical limitation of some sort, or due to how words are collated here in Wiktionary? I'm also curious about the presentation -- why no breaks at the end of lines? Was this to conserve space? Note that this isn't intended as criticism at all, simply questions I have.  :) -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 19:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the list was generated purely as a way of checking which words were still redlinks at Wiktionary, although I haven't really kept up with it recently. So I didn't bother about line breaks or punctuation, as it's not actually supposed to be for reading. The eths/thorns thing is because originally all OE words here used thorns instead of eths, in common with most printed OE dictionaries (and as specified at WT:AANG). In practice now some pages with eths have appeared, as {{alternative form of}} entries. But if you're interested in reading Beowulf in OE, there are lots of good editions available. The Mitchell & Robinson one is particularly good. You can also get one with the Heaney translation on facing pages, which is quite nice. Ƿidsiþ 20:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Cheers, thanks! I'll look for Mitchell & Robinson; I've actually already got the facing-page Heaney edition you mention. For instant-lookup though, it's hard to beat HTML.  :) -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 20:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


This has been bothering me for some time. Surely this should be fr-4? I'd even considered changing it myself, but decided this would be unethical. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  • We had a staff dinner last week. I had an epic French fail which I am still embarrassed about. Meh, I'm keeping an eye on it. I have certain tests to meet before I think of myself as "near-native" level...hopefully once I've been here for another year or so. Thanks though! Ƿidsiþ 11:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Sheesh, if you only consider yourself an fr-3, I definitely need to downgrade some of my own Babels! —RuakhTALK 18:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • That was indeed my point. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, I changed it. Weirdly, this puts pressure on me to live up to it in real life now! Ƿidsiþ 07:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for verification#transplantar[edit]

Your input would be welcome, if you have any. —RuakhTALK 18:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

sexual abuse[edit]

If it's ok with you, I'd prefer to archive the 2010 debate and start a 'new' deletion debate for 2011. The reason being it's so far up the page, it will be hard to find. This would involve me undoing your latest edit to the 2010 debate. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Of course, fine by me. Ƿidsiþ 14:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Old French conjugations[edit]

A quick one, anything to add to any of these? They're only my user page precisely because I don't know all the conjugated forms. Some of them are pure guesses based on the modern spellings. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Hmm, let me have a look later when I have more books. Ƿidsiþ 14:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


Hi. I just deleted this ... again. I think we need to watch it. -- ALGRIF talk 16:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


Algrif nominated this for WOTD. It's a great choice IMO except that its etymology is unclear. (What language is endeveren? Does our word come from that or from Middle English endevour? Etc.) Would you mind having a look at it, please, seeing whether you can clean it up?​—msh210 (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

  • OK I've given it a going-over... Ƿidsiþ 16:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks much.​—msh210 (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


Whence did you get /ˈkɔːnɪtsɪ/? And why do you keep adding From to that etymology? — If you want to make it a pseudo-sentence, use "Formed as X + Y." or the like. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I got the pronunciation from the OED, and it's perfectly normal to use "From" and "." with etymologies of that kind. Ƿidsiþ 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to ask whence you got /ˈkɔːnɪtsi/ (which is the pronunciation you asserted)? (The OED does indeed give /ˈkɔːnɪtsɪ/.) Whether it's "perfectly normal to use 'From' and '.' with etymologies of that kind" is irrelevant — it's wrongheaded, because words with such etymologies simply are the sum of those components. I often write etymologies like "Formed as X + Y, by analogy with Z.", which doesn't make the same mistake — do you care to adopt the same practice? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
No I don't want to adopt that practice, and there's nothing incorrect about using from -- I just don't follow your reasoning there. Because something is formally equal to X and Y does not make it incorrect to say it's from X and Y. As for the pronunciation, I updated it to follow modern UK speech. (The OED are systematically doing that as well, in fact -- if you have a subscription to the online edition you can see for yourself by checking any entries from the new edition, eg normalcy, obstinacy, recalcitrancy.) Ƿidsiþ 11:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The OED has also adopted ⟨ᵻ⟩ obsolete or nonstandard characters (ᵻ), invalid IPA characters (ᵻ). How do you know that it shouldn't be */ˈkɔːnᵻtsi/ obsolete or nonstandard characters (ᵻ), invalid IPA characters (ᵻ)? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I can't see that character on my work computer, but I'm guessing it's the barred-i. Well, it should be that, by the OED's system -- the vowel there is certainly in free variation between schwa and ɪ, which is what they use it for. But I haven't been using it because so far, there seems fairly little community support for it, whereas terminal /-i/ is well established. You can use the barred-i if you want though, I think I have seen it on a few other pages here. Ƿidsiþ 15:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. I agree that there isn't much community support, but neither is there community opposition; there is, however, much community ignorance of the barred-I. I'm fine with your updating the RP pronunciations I add, just as long as they're completely and consistently done. What do you think, BTW, of maintaining both RP and contemporary UK pronunciations? IMO, there is much interest in RP as a historic standard of pronunciation. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Omitting that[edit]

I've noticed that you omit "that" in expressions where I would use it: today, in "Now I've written it down ...". Where is that omission (relative to my way) prevalent? I know it is not just your idiolect as I've heard it before. DCDuring TALK 15:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I think it's common in speech on both sides of the Atlantic...not so common in writing. I think partly this may be to do with my job (I'm a TV reporter) where I spend a lot of time writing scripts which have to sound natural when I say them out loud, so consequently I am used to instinctively writing in quite a colloquial speechy way, compared to some people, perhaps, who associate writing with a very separate way of expressing themselves. But I'm just speculating. I can see lots of relevant hits here for instance, or here for that matter, which don't seem to be confined to any particular region. Ƿidsiþ 15:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried a Google News search. The newspapers that have the collocation "now I think about it" as a parenthetical are mostly not US, AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 04:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-01/Final sections of the CFI[edit]

Just wondering whether you might want to add a note similar (or opposite) to mine for legislative intent purposes.​—msh210 (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Er...dude I have no idea what you're saying. That diff isn't even by you, and seems to have nothing to do with the vote. Ƿidsiþ 09:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It looks like he pressed v rather than Ctrl+V when trying to paste in the diff number. The edit he means is this one. —RuakhTALK 13:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Indeed!​—msh210 (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


Do you think you could contribute your expertise at [[talk:demesne]] or the etymology section of [[demesne]], please?​—msh210 (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


Thank you very much. :) I'm quite the fish out of water here! :D --Moonriddengirl 17:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


Looking at commons:File:Bayeux Tapestry WillelmDux.jpg, the Latin here for duke is DVX. It comes back to my question about vp, we want to have a Latin entry for DVX or dvx in stead of dux. Also, I've come across trouer for Old French trover as well. BTW I'm not claiming to have all the answers, especially for ancient languages like these two. --Mglovesfun (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Yeah I think it's up to experts in particular languages to decide how best that language should be treated. In OE also, we usually use W on Wiktionary instead of Ƿ even though the manuscripts use wynns. That is out of expediency and practicality when dealing with a foreign language. But English isn't a foreign language and personally I reckon we need to properly represent these older spellings for English entries. Ƿidsiþ 09:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Here, more specifically, is my point: when this was written (well, sewn) did the author want to write DUX, but to her, the capital U looks like V. So she wrote DUX but when we interpret it, it becomes DVX as to us, 900 years later, that shape is a capital vee. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Er...sort of. This situation is complicated by the fact that U doesn't exist in Classical Latin, they only had V. And they only used upper case. I'm not sure that's the most helpful way to deal with Latin on Wiktionary though. But each language will have slightly different concerns and criteria. Ƿidsiþ 13:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
        • My point is really that what we see on the page looks visually similar to DVX to someone from our century, but it's really DUX where the normal way to write a 'U' is with two straight lines which meet at a point. I'm not really bothered about what language it is. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


Am trying to add pronunciations to Old French words w:Old French does help, but just says which sounds exist, not which sounds go with which spellings. For example, I'd imagine escut is /ɛskut/ but I'm not sure, and I don't know how to check. I supposed it's mainly theoretical, anyway. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated: you have a lot of unneeded things in your signature all you need is {{Latinx|[[User:Widsith|Ƿidsiþ]]}}. If you have some ifs and switches that aren't used. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm pretty certain the last vowel is [y] – [u] was usually <ou>, just like in modern French. The first vowel may be [e] but I can never remember the rule, I'll have to work it out from the etymology when I get home. Ƿidsiþ 16:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Update: yes, it's /esˈkyt/. The prosthetic vowel before word-initial S in Latin seems actually to have started in the late Latin period, as an /i-/, i.e. a short I which (almost) always became /e/ in Old French and ended up written as <é> in modern French. Ƿidsiþ 16:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


Most English dictionaries and OnlineEtyDictionary show it as being used in Middle English. I may be a matter of dating the Middle English/EME divide. I had restored the ME template, but would defer to your judgment. DCDuring TALK 16:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


Just so you know, this template now calls on {{isValidPageName}} to make links. {{ang-decl-noun/doc}} ought to explain what this means, if it doesn't, please let me know and I will try and explain it better. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Middle French[edit]

I take your point about Middle French, really, there is no difference whatsoever between archaic Modern French and Middle French. AFAICT every Middle French entry could have a French section; apart from words/terms which are only attested once or twice. If you were to propose a merge Middle French into French, renaming {{frm}} to {{etyl:frm}} I'd support it. Note that this is the situation with Ancient Hebrew, {{hbo}} has been renamed to {{etyl:hbo}}. So there is a precedent. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Usage in a well-known work and Old English[edit]

Hello, if I may ask for your advice: what would be the immediate impact of removing "Usage in a well-known work" on the inclusion of words from Old English? Like, can it be that many Old English words attested only in Beowulf would be removed if the resulting CFI would be applied strictly? Would the concern with these words be a good reason for turning from support to oppose in the currently running vote? Right now, I am slightly perplexed. Do you think it wise to rely on future addition to CFI of a bullet that is going to include poorly-attested languages by requiring only one citation for them? Thank you for any input, and sorry for many questions. --Dan Polansky 14:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  • The answers are "yes", basically. I take the rules for ancient languages to be different from modern ones, though that isn't specified in the vote. It probably should be. Ƿidsiþ 15:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I am seriously pondering to switch away from support to abstain or oppose. The vote is unlikely to pass anyway, the way it looks now, but it seems I should not even want it to pass. The written rules of CFI do not make any exception for ancient languages. I'll sleep on it. --Dan Polansky 15:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


Just looking over my list of Anglo-Norman words used in etymologies; this etymology seems a bit confused; it seems to say that weyver comes from waiver. That seems a bit odd. Also for the verb, should the second 'definition' be a definition, it just says 'see waive'. Is there a verb waive, if so, it needs {{en-verb}}. Anyway, good news is weyver is attested as a noun on the verb (see the Anglo-Norman On-Line Hub). --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


¶ Please do not insert meaningless content on my talk page; or if you have a disagreement directed at someone, do not leave it on my discussion page. --Pilcrow 08:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Actually that was a joke. Apparently, not a very good one. Ƿidsiþ 08:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
¶ I thought I was rather certain jokes are not allowed here. --Pilcrow 08:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
What's orange and sounds like a parrot? A carrot. Ƿidsiþ 09:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
So administrators can insert content for their amusement, but regular users cannot (even if it is obviously un‐intentional). Okay then. --Pilcrow 09:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I really don't know what you're talking about. Talk pages are obviously very different from mainspace pages. It's up to you what's appropriate for your own talk page, and if you want to delete something I wrote there (which you do), then you can (and you have). Ƿidsiþ 09:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

¶ I am pretty sure I can not “delete” any one’s comments since readers can still click the ‘History’ tab and see it any time they want. Regardless, I do not want you (or anybody else) constantly bringing up my revision as an excuse not to bother talking to me. --Pilcrow 09:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no clue what we're discussing anymore. What revision? When did I bring anything up? Ƿidsiþ 09:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I suppose this revision is impossible to see? Did I just hallucinate it? ¶ I meant bringing it up in future discussion. --Pilcrow 09:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
You didn't hallucinate it, although it's possible you're hallucinating something. So basically, you don't want me to mention that revision in future? OK, I'm fine with that. To be honest, I didn't have big plans to dine out on the episode or anything. Ƿidsiþ 09:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


I think this is Wonderfool or someone else that was banned before. They seem to be creating entries in random languages, at a speed that seems unusual for a new user... —CodeCat 13:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Could well be. Ƿidsiþ 13:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


Hey, You did not even ask what I was trying to do befor you warned me. Pulse you did not even take the time to check my username out on all Wikimedia sites. That's not very fair now is it. Iamiyouareyou 14:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  • No, I see exactly what you are trying to do: you're trying to move the content from cooperative to coöperative. This is a bad idea which you are managing to do badly. In cases like this, Wiktionary lemmatises the most commonly used forms of words, which in this instance is cooperative. Furthermore you went about it by moving pages around, in the process creating nonsense entries like coöperative1 which other editors have to fix. Stop blundering around and spend some time working out how we do things here before you start breaking stuff. Ƿidsiþ 15:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Quick one[edit]

Thank you for welcoming me. Of course I would be happier as well if I could provide correct formatting. Since you were offering it and I cannot find it in the given links, could you tell me or provide me a link how to create declension tables?Dakhart 06:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

  • There's no easy way to do that, I'm afraid! Different editors have created different ones in the languages they're familiar with. If you want to start, a good way would be to copy the template used for a similar language (German, say) and adapt it. See for example Category:German declension-table templates. Ƿidsiþ 07:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others#Template:etyl:ber-tam[edit]

Your input would be welcome.

If we get rid of this, then [[Tamazight#Etymology]] will be changed to refer Berber rather than to Central Atlas Tamazight.

Thanks, —RuakhTALK
15:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


I am sorry, I fail to understand the removal of this page? I have received from the "Oxford University Press" "Oxford Dictionaries" and "Scottish Qualifications Authority" today that "physistical" is a word, please consider this and recheck with your sources. It is unlikely to appear in dictionaries for a month or so. I here by request the re submission of the word "Physistical" to Wiktionary immediately. Thank you. Sir Peter A. Bert. January 12th 2012, 19:11 GMT.


In this revision you removed the determiner section. Do you intend to make (or indeed have you already made) similar changes to other Determiner PoS sections? I was originally quite reluctant to accept the Determiner PoS for Wiktionary but became convinced by its adoption by Longmans and Cambridge. (I don't know about others.) I think we have consensus on accepting the heading. Even if there are true adjective uses, I am not at all sure that the uses in the citations you added would be considered as adjectival. DCDuring TALK 18:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

  • No that was just laziness. I don't have a problem with Determiner sections, but in this case some uses are definitely adjectival so I changed it. Alternatively I guess you could split them up into two sections, I certainly have no objection. Ƿidsiþ 19:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Glad I asked. I'm only gradually getting comfortable with the Determiner PoS, letting Brett handle them when he is available. I stumbled across this because of less and less and more and more, which seem to be determiner-like sometimes. DCDuring TALK 19:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi. Do you think this entry is sensible and accurate? Equinox 00:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


I had not realized that there were two etymologies for note and, possibly, for some of the derived terms. To me it seems as if some of the modern senses might reflect a merger of the two earlier sets of senses. Moreover, of note seems not to fit not at all well with the Latin etymology, though our definition implies that derivation. Thoughts? DCDuring TALK 16:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

beer o'clock[edit]

Thanks for adding those quotations. I'd added three initially, what was wrong with those? I thought definitions were good to include, does Wiktionary prefer uses? Is there a guideline? Fences and windows 19:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Some rhymes[edit]

What do you think of this edit? Are they all good? I can see that some might be, but some (if they are) are beyond my experience with English. If you think some of these need to be removed, then the "Rhymes" link on the entry for the corresponding word will also need to be removed. If they don't need to be removed, how can we tag the words added, since they're a bit weird and certainly don't rhyme as a group in most of the US? --EncycloPetey 17:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Bit weird. Given that the pronunciation specified is -ɑːs/ invalid IPA characters (/) and that it has to be stressed on the final syllable – no, they're not all good, but on the other hand some of the words that were already on the list are not right either, like gas for instance, which (unlike glass etc.) only ever has /-a-/ in the UK. Ƿidsiþ 17:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


Could you help with this (newly created) entry? I'm not sure whether to call it "English" or "Middle English", among other issues. --EncycloPetey 03:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I think it's OK, it's used either side of the divide, like so many spellings... I might just change it from "alternative" to "obsolete" form though. Ƿidsiþ 09:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


I'm curious about the change you made to breaks in the pronunciation. This is at odds with what I find in major pronouncing dictionaries. --EncycloPetey 01:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Oh, really? Well you can change it back if you like. It's been quite some time since I studied phonology, but I was always told to load up the onset of a syllable as much as possible. I believe this is one of those areas, though, where different authorities say different things. Wikipedia says "Most commonly, a single consonant between vowels is grouped with the following syllable (i.e. /CV.CV/)", although it goes on to say, "In English, it has been disputed whether certain consonants occurring between vowels (especially following a stressed syllable and preceding an unstressed syllable) should be grouped with the preceding or following syllable. For example, a word such as better is sometimes analyzed as /ˈbɛt.ər/ and sometimes /ˈbɛ.tər/. [which is what I prefer!] Some linguists have in fact asserted that such words are "ambisyllabic", with the consonant shared between the preceding and following syllables." Anyway, I have no strong feelings so go ahead. Ƿidsiþ 08:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I've no strong certainty myself. In Latin and most Romance languages, it's pretty easy to say that a consonant preceding a vowel strats the new syllable, but English doesn't always seem to work that way. The Cambridge Pronouncing Dictionary (the one I look to most often) follows an internally consistent system that seems to partly depend on the preceding vowel for the division of syllables. The divide certain consonant sounds differently when preceeded by /ɛ/ versus /ɪ/, for example. I haven't tried to codify their choices, but I notice these consistencies when I come across them. --EncycloPetey 03:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Many sources say that English simply doesn't have clear syllable boundaries. Other sources try different approaches to syllabification. Widsith's approach is a pretty common one, even for English. (For example, one book has “We can conclude our discussion by stating that word-internal consonants end up in onset position, unless they would form illegal syllable-initial combinations (such as *rp or *nt)”,[1] though it bears noting that by "word" it means "phonological word", not necessarily what you or I would think of as a "word", so for example, in backlash that book puts a word-break, and therefore the syllable-break, between back and lash.) Other sources start at the same place, but add more constraints beyond just forbidding "illegal syllable-initial combinations"; for example, /ɛ/ is a checked vowel, meaning that it normally has to be followed by a consonant (notwithstanding interjections like eh, meh, feh, I think we can agree that <deh> /dɛ/ would not be a normal English word; nor <deh·ible>, <deh·ity>, à la doable, deity), so some sources treat that following consonant as being part of the same syllable. The problem is that there are lots of such constraints, and some of them are contradictory; a rule that /ɛ/ be followed by a consonant in the same syllable can come at odds with a rule that /l/ be realizable as [ɫ] at the end of a syllable: how to divide fellow? It does not surprise me at all that Cambridge Pronouncing Dictionary has come up with an internally consistent system, but we may have difficulty inferring the entirety of it from scattered examples. —RuakhTALK 14:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


I'm sorry that this has taken such an extraordinarily long time to get back to you about. There is an adjective κρυπτάδιος, which means secret, clandestine. κρυπτάδια would be the neuter plural, which would mean "secret things" or some such, which is where the English word is coming from, I suspect. However, as you note, the same word (κρυπτάδια) is also the adverb form of κρυπτάδιος, but I can't really see how it would spawn an English word with that meaning. Again, sorry about the delay. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

rose#Old French[edit]

What would the IPA be here? Looking at w:Old French#Phonology, I'd go for /ˈrɔ.zə/, though I suppose /ˈrɔ.sə/ is also possible. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes I think it must be /ˈrɔ.zə/. Ƿidsiþ 08:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


done. thanks for the tip. is there a place where all the {{whatevers}} are catalogued on one page?Givemeachance 06:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

you weren't kidding. maybe i should put together one for the most common ones.Givemeachance 06:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


There’re examples of modern usage of this form here. I would altre it back but I do not want to risk getting chastised once more. --Pilcrow 19:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I think not. Most of those seem to be in foreign languages, or written by people whose first language is not English. Ƿidsiþ 06:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I do not understand how a term can be obsolete even if it is still used by ‘foreign’ English speakers, but I do not want to argue with you. --Pilcrow 06:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, because they make mistakes. Ƿidsiþ 06:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


I almost beat you to the [[Category:English words prefixed with porno-]] punch but you edit conflicted me, perhaps if the article is that new you could wait a sec or two?Acdcrocks 07:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/2011-10/Categories of names 3[edit]

Because you voted in Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Categories of names, I'm informing you of this new vote.​—msh210 (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


As the chief rewriter of the would page, would you be able to add a definition that matches this quote? --Rockpilot 21:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

    • 2011 November 5, Phil Dawkes, “QPR 2 - 3 Man City”, in BBC Sport[2]:
      It is testimony to QPR's spirit then that it was they who next found the net as Bothroyd's goalbound header from an Armand Traore cross ultimately found the net courtesy of the back of Helguson, who was on the goalline but - despite the protestations of a number of City players - not offside.
      Toure would have the decisive say though, rising high to power a header past Kenny from Aleksandar Kolarov's cross.
    • This is the ‘anterior future’ – sense 1.4. Ƿidsiþ 08:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You are the winner[edit]

Hi Widsith. You are the winner of WT:FUN and as a result I am endebted to be your slave for an hour. What would you like me to do for you, master? Your wishes are my command. --Rockpilot 09:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  • This is good news, since I am pretty bad at doing repetetive, laborious tasks on Wiktionary. I'll have a think about it and get back to you over the weekend. Thanks! Ƿidsiþ 09:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Had any thoughts? --Simplus2 15:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


Hi Ƿidsiþ--

I'm not particularly surprised that the very long explanatory quote I had put in for the science entry got quickly reverted. However, while acknowledging the page's usage notes, which is certainly helpful, do you not think that an explicit distinction between "theory" as a term of art in scientific fields, as opposed to its usual understanding in a more colloquial sense, is worth making there? This is one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted terms in the language - and not only with respect to evolution. Milkunderwood 20:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi. Not really. The distinction is already explicit -- we have two very separate senses covering the two uses. The difference is also reiterated in the Usage notes. I wanted to salvage something from your edit since it was obviously a serious attempt to add value, but in the end it was too complicated and I just reverted. The problems were mainly: you said something like, "In scientific contexts..." whereas Wiktionary policy is to do this more concisely with a {{science}} context tag at the start of the line (which you removed); the citation was way too long (if you pick out a specific short sentence, you could re-add that, or alternatively add the whole thing to the Citations:theory page); and finally your tweaks to the definition, by using italics, seemed to add nothing except a vague air of condescension. I'm also not convinced that term of art is well-known enough to be useful. I think your best bet, if you still feel Wiktionary should make more of the distinction (which I actually don't), is to work on improving the Usage Notes. Ƿidsiþ 09:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your thoughtful response. I'll mull this over some, see if I can do any better. Milkunderwood 10:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 :-) OK, I'm confused - I thought I was responding here on your page until I realized I was on my own page. So you just copied it over? Or does Wiktionary work differently from Wikipedia in this respect? (I have noticed several other differences between them - e.g., here "My watchlist" never shows all saved edits.) Milkunderwood 10:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess my first thought is that term of art is a useful phrase for people to be aware of in making important distinctions between different meanings, and after all, it is blue-linked for easy access. I was trying to somehow make it more explicit that the word theory is so widely misunderstood and misinterpreted in any scientific context. A large part of the problem is that scientists themselves use the word loosely at least as frequently as in its strict "term of art" sense. Milkunderwood 10:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Very frankly, the reason I had posted that extremely long discussion as a quote was that about a year ago or so, I saw that a very confused person had written to Scientific American to the effect that since evolution was so widely accepted among scientists, its status should be "upgraded" from being a "theory" to being a "law". The suggestion itself didn't surprise me at all, but SA printing it without comment blew me away. Then shortly afterwards, I found in New Scientist the exact same quote, attributing it to SA, again without comment - but in this case, New Scientist likes to poke deadpan fun at silly stuff.

Now if you may recall, a few years ago E O Wilson suggested that there may actually be a "law of evolution", which raised something of an uproar at the time. But what he meant had nothing to do with the confusion expressed in the assertion printed in Scientific American or New Scientist. Instead, Wilson was suggesting that evolution may be an inevitable and invariable, observable, characteristic of all life forms generally. This perfectly fits the definition of law as a term of art. He was certainly not suggesting that the theory of evolution was "proved beyond doubt" (which theory of evolution? - there are many, differing in important modes of action), and should be "upgraded" to the status of being a "law". Besides which, Wilson is well aware of Popper's principle of falsifiability.

Anyway, it was all this that I had been trying to clarify. Confusion in scientific terminology runs amok, and my feeling had been that Wiktionary might be a useful venue for trying to straighten some of this out. These terms - theory, and law, as well as hypothesis, do certainly have their loose and colloquial meanings and uses, but it seems important to distinguish these from what is denoted in their stricter senses. I sure don't know how to do it though, myself. Milkunderwood 11:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Nouns and proper nouns[edit]

Hey, I've started a discussion in the Beer Parlor. I'd really like to know the community views on this. Any additional input would be great. Thanks. – Krun 13:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)