Wiktionary:Information desk

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from Wiktionary:ID)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Information desk

You can search in the archives of Information desk:

Welcome to the Information desk of Wiktionary, a place where users can ask questions about words and about Wiktionary, ask for help, or post miscellaneous ideas that don’t fit in any of the other rooms.

To start a new topic, clicking on the “+” tab, or click here: Start a new topic.

Sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~), code which produces your signature, followed by a UTC timestamp.

For past questions, see /Archives.

Information desk archives edit

January 2019

Images of words[edit]

Dear Editors: Would you be interested in the images of words? I am cutting up manuscripts into single words. I will have many representations of each word as my sources will come from different writers and from different time periods and styles of writing. David Kaminski (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

English, I assume? Is this a captcha project? Can you tell us more? Equinox 15:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm not interested. I already have all the pictures of words that I could ever want. DTLHS (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
No, I don't think Wiktionary is the right place for that. See Wikimedia Commons instead. KevinUp (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The project covers American handwriting--to study the styles and variations, and to aid people in reading old cursive handwriting from colonial times through the early 1900s. The variations are staggering, in my opinion. If you have pictures of single words in cursive American handwriting I would certainly appreciate access to your resources; those would be very useful to me. Please advise if you still believe this project is better for Wikimedia Commons. David Kaminski (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Rather than for entire words (except for lexical exceptions) some paleographic notes (for example to help read the original U.S. constitution) would really be useful if added to the letters of the alphabet and their surroundings in text --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I found David Kaminski's website for handwriting collections: [1] I think the present site is good enough. Images of words are not very useful, as every writer has his own style of writing. KevinUp (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm new. But I am going to risk participating anyway, just to chime in and say this: Images from actual historical script of ancient dead languages is useful. It seems to me the standard scripts used in reconstructions are different to historical ones, which seem typically more varied. So people might be interested in seeing original orthography samples. This would help people to learn to read original documents, and perhaps even suggest potential error when the writing of the original sources actually isńt very clear. Additionally, it helps people to learn to date documents by writing styles etc.

Extracting list of words from category pages[edit]

In Category:Chinese lemmas, there are almost 157,500 lemmas listed under this category. Rather than using the "next page" function, is there a way for me to obtain a list of all lemmas in a particular language? I'm making a list of Chinese, Japanese, Korean compounds (hanzi/kanji/hanja) that are not yet listed under the "compounds" section of the single-character CJKV entries. KevinUp (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no way to retrieve all of them in one go, because the wiki software itself limits how many items you can get at once. You'll need to write a program using pywikibot to retrieve a list quickly. —Rua (mew) 14:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I found the script I need to use. KevinUp (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@KevinUp: please share it --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Here it is: [2] KevinUp (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

"amagnetic" is an absolute adjective so cannot have a comparative or superlative form[edit]

I wanted to edit the entry for "amagnetic", as this is an absolute adjective, involving the absence of a physical property. (Absence is by nature total. Something cannot be more absent than something else.) However, the editing options proposed did not include the possibility of removing the comparative and superlative forms given for the word.

If absence is total by nature, we should declare the adjective absent to be not comparable. But no attainable physical property is absolute, not even absolute zero, although some properties are more absolute than others.  --Lambiam 13:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Not always true: something can be more asymmetrical than something else, for example. Equinox 19:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
In this paper we can read, “Barite was chosen for the off‐centered mass because it is almost amagnetic and heavy”, and, “Indeed, barite is not completely amagnetic, although its magnetic susceptibility value is close to zero.” I gather from this that barite is more amagnetic than, say, ferrite.  --Lambiam 13:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requested entries (French)[edit]

Why is there a list of requested entries at Wiktionary:Requested entries (French) and also 26 separate lists at Wiktionary:Requested entries (French)/a, Wiktionary:Requested entries (French)/b, Wiktionary:Requested entries (French)/c and so on? Which list are we supposed to add requested entries to? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Better to add requested entries to the main list (manual list). I think the 26 separate lists were an early attempt at alphabetizing the list of requests. It's easier to just use the main list at Wiktionary:Requested entries (French). —Stephen (Talk) 00:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Because the page would be too big otherwise. WT:REE also has some subpages. These are usually drawn from word lists. Equinox 13:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

pronunciation of "anaerobe" and many, very many, other words[edit]

I arrived here very upset and was just about to use unseemly, nay, downright profane, words. I counted patiently to one hundred and a half and now I can ask your courteously: How the fuck (oops!) does one pronounce the goddam (oops!) "anaerobe"? Or "bacteroides" for that matter? Or...

You can find pronunciations for most English words in online dictionaries. This page gives two pronunciations for anaerobe and a button by which you can listen to what I think is the most common American-English pronunciation. This page gives a pronunciation for for Bacteroides; in IPA that would be something like IPA(key): /ˌbæk.təˈrɔɪ.diːz/.  --Lambiam 19:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
When you need the pronunciation and the page does not have it, you can just mention it here and we will add it for you, as in anaerobe. —Stephen (Talk) 23:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Technical issue with Swedish noun declension templates[edit]

Hello, I don't know if this is the best place to put this, but I would like to draw attention to an issue with the templates used for Swedish declension, for example in poäng. The "sv-noun-irreg-c" template has a defined "definition" field while the "sv-infl-noun-c-er" does not, leading to only the first box showing which definitions it is showing the declensions for, while the second having a "definition=2, 3" argument that isn't used. I have no idea how to go about fixing this or who to mention this to but hopefully highlighting it here will bring it to the attention of somebody who does. 2A02:C7D:1B8:5B00:A5EC:68DF:45A3:3E98 00:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this is an issue that was at least partly caused by @Rua, who has decided not to clean up after herself (see discussion here concerning one of the other templates). Ideally, the template shouldn't have this parameter, and the format at spann is what we should switch over to. In the mean time, it's an annoying cleanup task — maybe one of our more hardworking editors like @DTLHS will want to deal with it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I think you can ask for my help without insulting other editors. And no, I really think this should be done by hand by someone who knows Swedish. DTLHS (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to be insulting, but I do find it annoying when people break things and don't care. The work doesn't really require much knowledge of Swedish. I suppose I'd better get around to doing it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested edit[edit]

Hello, please add an "(archaic)" label to verily. Source: New Oxford American Dictionary. Thank you. Opencooper (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Equinox 05:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Nearly blank page on m.wiktionary[edit]

The parsimony page does not show up properly via m.wiktionary.org. The only part that appears is the word and the header for the English section. All of the page's source is intact if I go into edit. Issue happening in Chrome and Safari on iPhone. The desktop server doesn't have this issue. Zephalis (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You have to click the header “English” to see the content. Sometimes that seems not to work (for all pages, not only parsimony). After waiting some time, it loads though, at least for me.  --Lambiam 17:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Is that something new? I'm used to it opening to English right away, now there's an extra step. Also, it no longer can be closed once opened. I don't like it. Zephalis (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Not only opening English section, even adding a page to watchlist requires an additional step now. However not every page is affected; for example, aggiuntivo is all right. It looks like something is wrong behind the scene.--3knolls (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Collapsible headings in the mobile version of the site are a MediaWiki feature, so I would guess that the problem is not in a JavaScript file here on English Wiktionary. — Eru·tuon 05:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

How to add a case variant of a Russian word so search will find it[edit]

The word влажной is one of the variants of the word влажный (damp). влажный is the "dictionary" (masculine nominative) form of the adjective, and влажной is the feminine genitive, dative, instrumental, or prepositional. Usually, when I search via the "Search Wiktionary" field for an adjective in a variant other than the dictionary form, the entry for the dictionary form comes up, which is what I want. But perhaps ten percent of the time, nothing is found, even though the dictionary form has an entry and its declension table contains the form I'm looking for. My workaround is to start erasing letters from the end until autocompletion finds the dictionary form and shows it in the prepopulated list. However, this is not entirely satisfactory. When I see an instance like this, I'd like to fix it. What do I need to do to make sure that a search for влажной finds the entry for влажный? Thanks.

--AlanUS (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@AlanUS: You mean you want to see влажной directly in the search bar, without actually making the search? There would have to be an entry for that, but nobody has created it yet. Per utramque cavernam 15:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Per_utramque_cavernam: Yes, I want to see it directly in the search bar. How would I create an entry? I've looked through the help, but the English-language help is mostly about adding English-language entries. Thanks. AlanUS (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@AlanUS: I decided to look at a pair for which both items do show up in the search bar: сладкий (dictionary form) and сладкое (neuter nominative). Based on that pair, I figured out how to create a new entry. So I guess I'm a little closer to understanding how it works, but would appreciate a link to more instructions as to which symbols are available and what they mean. Currently, I'm using guesswork (for example, guessing that the symbol for "genitive" is "gen", and trying it out). Also, how do I get Russian to appear in the list of languages on the search results for a page that doesn't exist? Currently, my list only contains English, American Sign Language, Spanish, and Swedish. I have no idea how this list got populated. AlanUS (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@AlanUS: "I decided to look at a pair [...]. Based on that pair, I figured out how to create a new entry." > that's exactly the right way to proceed. Your entry looks good, thank you! If you plan on creating more inflected forms, Template:inflection of/documentation might be of interest to you.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by "the list of languages on the search results for a page that doesn't exist". Coud you clarify what you mean by that? Per utramque cavernam 18:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Per_utramque_cavernam: Please see highlighted area of embedded screenshot.
Screenshot of Wiktionary "Create new page" page with language list expanded.png

AlanUS (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

For each of those blue buttons someone had to create a new-entry template specific to that language and to that part of speech. In order for Russian to appear on that menu, someone who knows both Russian and the technical details of such templates would have to create templates for all the parts of speech in that language. I notice that the languages in question have relatively simple inflection systems. Russian is relatively complex in that regard, so there may be subtleties and intricacies that may be hard to cover with such a simple new-entry-template system. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Why is my talk page post tagged unconstructive?[edit]

Tagalog speaker chiming in, only Cebuano people are called Bisaya, see examples below:

often it is used equivalent to a hillbilly in the US, see 29 second mark for the word used offensively


a Waray is a Visayan person but they're not called Bisaya in Tagalog but Waray, below's a Tagalog song about a Waray


the news below uses Ilonggo for Ilonggo not Bisaya


the second definition is made up, we don't call people who don't use 'po' north of Manila or south of Cebu a Bisaya

—This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 08:13, January 21, 2019‎ (UTC).

Can you indicate which edit was tagged unconstructive? You stated on the talk page of Bisaya that your post there was tagged unconstructive, but thus far the only edit to that page is your making that statement, thereby creating the page.  --Lambiam 22:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam: Abuse filter log: [3]Suzukaze-c 22:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The reason you got the message you did was at least partly because you were a new user adding links for commercial websites to a talk page. The vast majority of such cases are spambots, and most of the rest are people who don't know our rules and practices for linking to other websites, and tend to violate them. Links to YouTube are a particular focus of the abuse filters, since people are always trying to promote their own videos.
Sorry that your good-faith post triggered the abuse filters, but there's not much we can do to avoid that kind of thing without having to constantly remove lots and lots of spam from talk pages. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand. Would it have triggered the filter the same way if I used it as an outgoing link instead of the bare URL?

The Century Dictionary and Encyclopedia[edit]

I want to add an entymological definition of the word irrorate because I am working on an article on Bycombia on Wikipedia and want to link to the definition. The book is in public domain but has this note attached to it

"Public Domain or Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized: In addition to the terms for works that are in the Public Domain or in the Public Domain in the United States above, the following statement applies: The digital images and OCR of this work were produced by Google, Inc. (indicated by a watermark on each page in the PageTurner). Google requests that the images and OCR not be re-hosted, redistributed or used commercially. The images are provided for educational, scholarly, non-commercial purposes.
Note: There are no restrictions on use of text transcribed from the images, or paraphrased or translated using the images."

Can I use the definition in this book? Do I add a reference for this? I see on the irrorate page that the first definition is taken from Webster's, also in public domain, and there is a template for it. Is there a template for The Century Dictionary as well? There is an article on Wikipedia about the book. Aurornisxui (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a piece of advice: the fact that you need to link to a definition is a sign that you're doing something wrong. A taxonomic publication is aimed at taxonomists, and uses very precise, but specialized terminology. An encyclopedia is aimed at the general public, and should use terminology that the general public will understand. If you don't understand it well enough to explain without linking to definitions, how are readers supposed to understand it?
Yes, you should get your facts from the sources, but the presentation should be yours, not theirs.
Besides, the full details of the taxonomic description are of minimal interest to encyclopedia readers: this is (or was) a living organism that lives somewhere, feeds on certain things, has larvae with their own description, has other interactions with the world around it and there are many other details of interest. I realize that there's not a lot of information easily available, but going into such detail on the taxonomic description gives it undue weight and makes non-entomologists sorry they ever clicked on the link to your article. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Term for a verb, derived from an adjective, that indicates "to make (more) adjective"[edit]

Is there a term for such a verb? It should be distinguished from the related deadjectival verb that means "to become (more) adjective". In other words, these verbs are transitive. —Rua (mew) 14:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I find sentences like “In English, the causative suffix -en on an adjective yields the meaning ‘cause to become ...’, e.g. blacken, straighten.” If there is a term for verbs that mean “make (more) ⟨adjective⟩”, scholarly authors seem to be unaware of it, or studiously avoiding it.  --Lambiam 22:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I've seen them labelled "causative", but I think of that as a verb derived from another verb, not a verb derived from an adjective. —Rua (mew) 16:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Several authors call verbs like blacken and humidify causative verbs, but then they may also classify kill (“make dead”) and set (“make sit”), which are not derived from adjectives, as causative verbs. And other authors use the term for generic verbs like make and let.  --Lambiam 22:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Kroonen seems to call them "factitive". —Rua (mew) 22:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Factitive was the term that came to my mind as well and is what I'd use for the purpose you describe, but Wikipedia redirects factitive to causative so I'm not sure now if they can be differentiated. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 22:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
In Language Typology and Language Universals (2008, →ISBN) it is said that "The term factitive used to be employed in nearly the same sense as causative, particularly often to refer to causatives meaning 'make Q' ('make red', 'make angry', etc.). Nowadays it occurs rarely, except perhaps in the French and Semiticist traditions (cf., for instance, a detailed discussion of the causative/factitive distinction in Kouwenberg 1997: 237ff.), although some grammars still use it to denote denominal causatives."
In the referred-to Semiticist tradition, I find that e.g. Williams' Hebrew Syntax (2007, →ISBN) saying that "whereas 'factitive' refers to causing a state, 'causative' refers to causing an action'." (A footnote explains that most stative verbs are intransitive and that some other grammars like "IBHS and JM [...directly] define 'factitive' in terms of the Qal being intransitive", i.e. "he glorified" is given as a factitive verb because it "causes the direct object to enter the state described by that verb in the Qal, [...] 'he was glorious'".)
- -sche (discuss) 21:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Verbs that end in -ify (e.g. humidify - to make more humid) seem to qualify. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Is there a particular language that this is in reference to, that has verbs such as these? DTLHS (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm looking for a general term. —Rua (mew) 22:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Some authors use the term “causative deadjectival verb” or “deadjectival causative verb”.  --Lambiam 20:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Entries for Basque combining noun forms with variant forms before vowels[edit]

I created an entry for hara(t)- the combining form of the Basque word haragi, "meat". I think I made a mistake by listing the form this way. Should I have split it into two entries, hara-, used when the second element of the compound starts with a consonant (and which can also trigger initial consonant mutations in the second element), and harat-, used when the second element starts with a vowel?

Note: Combining forms that behave this way are very common in this language. This is the only entry I've made for a combining form that acts like this, and only two other entries link to it. I wanted to check here before I created any more. If the hara(t)- entry needs to be deleted, I'd appreciate it if an admin would do that for me. Thanks. Namnagar (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

A problem with your approach is that users searching for hara- or harat- will not find the entry. Therefore I think it is better to have two entries, one for each form – which can cross-reference each other as alternative forms, with a usage note on when which form is used. To cater for the unlikely but not impossible contingency that a user searches for hara(t)-, it may be better to make that redirect to hara- than to delete it altogether. (These are just my personal reflections as an editor, not some kind of official response.)  --Lambiam 21:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that, in line with our existing practices, they should not cross-reference each other but instead refer to the main lemma. We don't have alternative forms for non-lemmas normally. —Rua (mew) 23:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
OK. I made a new entry for the Basque combining form hara-. The two entries whose etymologies reference this combining form are harakin and harategi. If this looks OK, I'll use this as a model for other combining forms that behave this way. Thanks to DTLHS for moving my explanation to a "Usage notes" section. (I didn't make an entry for harat- because I don't know any compounds of haragi where the second element starts with a vowel or sybilant. That's certainly not true of other Basque combining forms like this, though.) Namnagar (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Haratustel?  --Lambiam 02:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know that word! OK, I'll add it. Namnagar (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Category Cleanup[edit]

The following page needs either a thorough cleanup, or a rename. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_words_not_following_the_I_before_E_except_after_C_rule In addition to many articles which are not technically 'English words,' it also includes 'Bloemfontein' which is an Afrikaans city name.

This is automatically added by Module:en-headword, but maybe it shouldn't be. "Bloemfontein" has an English entry and is therefore considered to be as English a word as any other by our criteria. DTLHS (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Poor Einstein is also in that category.  --Lambiam 00:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add the word "Meulah" as used in this site below.[edit]

Some time ago I asked for help determining the English meaning of the Hebrew term "Meulah", as used in this below site.

Meulah Factor

For the life of me I cannot work out how to add the word to the list of new English words on this site. Can anyone please renew the translation of the term (meaning), and also add the term to the English meanings, for future help.

Many thanks.....

OzSanta (Brian Christmas)

How this request came about...

You asked back in 2016, and it was explained to you. Please see the entry for the Hebrew word, מעולה. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Medieval Latin dictionary[edit]

A long time ago I had a collection of bookmarks on my harddrive to various linguistic websites, one of which was a dictionary that was about Medieval Latin and maybe written in French (or Middle French). Somebody on Wiktionary directed me to it years ago, but unfortunately I lost it due to an accident and now I have no idea what it was called.

Can somebody help me retrieve the link? @JohnC5 @Wikitiki89 — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 23:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Already answered on Discord. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
(For those who aren't on Discord, this was the answer: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/gens) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Coal not created by lack of fungi, say 4 scientists[edit]

Three years ago Stanford scientists published a paper refuting the popular idea that lack of organisms to decompose lignin was responsible for coal deposited during the Carboniferous Period. Three weeks ago I added details and reference citations at the bottom of the appropriate Talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carboniferous but I'm thinking that nobody has seen it, and may never see it, which is why I mention it here. I suspect the page should be updated to deal with the old/incorrect view and incorporate the new/corrected view but I don't have the expertise to do it. 03:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

This is Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. You could try a general discussion page on Wikipedia rather than the talk page for that specific article. Equinox 04:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
An appropriate page for flagging the issue would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology.  --Lambiam 13:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Equinox: D'oh! Thanks, I don't know how that happened. Lambiam: Thanks, I did as you suggested just now. 06:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Audio Gender[edit]

I remember seeing some words having audio for pronunciation by men and women, but have been unable to find an example to use as a basis for replication, so I was wondering, what are the standard practices when it comes to marking the gender of audio? —The Editor's Apprentice (TalkEdits) 01:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I have never noticed such a distinction being made. It would be nice I guess, but in practice we have so few people that record audio that we take what we can get. There's no need to specifically note it on an entry however. DTLHS (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with any language that has different pronunciations for the same word depending on the gender of the speaker (I'm sure there must be some, somewhere), so I don't see the point of marking gender- it's not like the mommy audios and the daddy audios are going to go off and have little baby audios... Seriously, though, it doesn't seem like a good idea. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The Japanese first-person pronoun has two pronunciations, watakushi (very formal) and watashi (rather formal). The sound difference is not as pronounced (no pun intended) as it may seem: the syllable ku is unstressed and its vowel, already rather indistinct, is unvoiced, so to Western ears the more formal version may sound like watakshi. Until a couple of decades ago, the less formal use of watashi by men would be considered feminine. But a shift has set in, in which younger men – now including the middle-aged – also started to use the watashi pronunciation in circumstances where they would have used watakushi in earlier times. Funny enough, among older women there is a contrary tendency in which they stick to watakushi in formal situations where their male age mates are moving to watashi.  --Lambiam 23:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
That's actually really interesting, thank you for saying something, I would have never known otherwise! If audio files were to exist for each of the different pronunciations spoken by their respective groups, do you think it would make sense to note that the speaker for the file is a member of that group? Conversely, if one person who was not part of all the relevant groups were to do audio pronunciation files each of the pronunciations would it male sense to note that? If notes where added, what way would it make the most sense to include the note? —The Editor's Apprentice (TalkEdits) 04:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
These are a lot of good questions that I have not thought about and have no ready answers for. In sociolinguistics several gender-related issues are studied (see e.g. on Wikipedia the articles Language and gender and Complimentary language and gender and the article section Gender and covert prestige. Gender-related differences are often subtle and may become only detectable (statistically significant) with larger sample sizes, so it may not be possible to describe them succinctly.  --Lambiam 11:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Now I really want to record a baby saying some words... :P
(Also... I guess if one considers some of the things in Category:Women's speech terms by language and their counterpart inflected/variant forms, etc in men's speech to be the same words, like ypék and nypék, they have gender-specific pronunciations...) - -sche (discuss) 04:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm odviously no expert, but I would consider those to be gender-specific words rather than gender-specific pronunciations.—The Editor's Apprentice (TalkEdits) 06:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
What about differences in phonology? diffSuzukaze-c 03:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! —The Editor's Apprentice (TalkEdits) 04:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I think this is a really interesting issue. Ideally we would tag pronunciations in whatever kind of way, it might be age, locale, gender, etc. but it opens 50 cans of worms: the whole current gender thing where people are whatever they decide to be (not perfect for linguistics where we might want to know about the shape of their vocal tract), and all the politics of whether a Serbian speaker is Croatian and god knows what. I do think this is stuff we should care about. On the other hand I suspect that when we finally make it cheap and easy to record voice samples, the early brave pioneers will be deleted in hours. Perhaps we should wait for the tech to catch up with the politics, huh. Equinox 13:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Spanish parts-of-speech[edit]

Hi, Thanks for the Bilingual Dictionaries for Offline Use!

Is there a list of what the part-of-speech tag abbreviations mean for the Spanish-English entries? Below is the set of the abbreviations.

set(['art' 'suffix' 'vi' 'affix' 'vp' 'vr' 'num' 'vt' 'interj' 'phrase' 'conj' 'adv' 'vit' 'vitr' 'vtp' 'vti' 'prop' 'pron' 'vtr' 'vtir' 'initialism' 'adj' 'prep' 'fp' 'vrt' 'acronym' 'symbol' 'abbr' 'letter' 'proverb' 'contraction' 'vir' 'mf' 'vtrp' 'determiner' 'particle' 'f' 'm' 'prefix' 'n' 'mp' 'v'])

Those dictionaries are a project by @Matthias Buchmeier rather than part of the dictionary proper. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. How do I contact him to decode the list?

Reusing audio of homophones[edit]

Currently lute has audio pronunciation files but loot does not, is it allowable to or is there policy surrounding reusing the audio file for lute on loot's page? —The Editor's Apprentice (TalkEdits) 02:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I can’t think of a rule against it, but I suggest that you then copy File:En-US pronunciation of "lute".ogg to File:En-US pronunciation of "loot".ogg (with, of course, proper acknowledgement of its provenance) and link to that copy.  --Lambiam 14:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Why do you suggest that the audio be copyed? —The Editor's Apprentice (TalkEdits) 04:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm against it. You don't know (and possibly won't even notice) if words are homophones in one dialect of English but not in another. When the word was recorded the speaker was specifically intending to produce the sounds for that word and not another. "Homophone" is an incredibly loose term. DTLHS (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I assume that TEA is competent to judge if the sound of that file presents an apt US pronunciation of lute. Moreover, I assumed that they exercised that judgement before posing this question here.  --Lambiam 00:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
"Competence" has nothing to do with it. Speakers of one dialect of a language can have sound changes that are imperceptible to other speakers. DTLHS (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Would equal IPA transcriptions be enough to justify reuse? —The Editor's Apprentice (TalkEdits) 04:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Definitely not. Two words can have the same phonemic transcriptions, but that doesn't mean they will have the same realization by two different speakers. IPA transcriptions are an abstraction. DTLHS (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not completely sure I understand what you mean by realization in this context, but I think what it means is the actual sonic audio produced by a two speaker may be subtly different, in comparision to their IPA transcriptions which are tbe same because, as you said, IPA is an abstraction and involves broad-ish categories and information loss, and because of this possible difference the audio should not be reused? —The Editor's Apprentice (TalkEdits) 04:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
That's basically my point, yes. Others may disagree. But also basically I don't think we are in such desperate need of audio that we have to reuse files on multiple pages. Others may disagree. DTLHS (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll probably record the audio at some point. —The Editor's Apprentice (TalkEdits) 05:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Where is Wiktionary stated to be descriptionist?[edit]

I often hear that people that Wiktionary is deacriptionist, but I can't seem to find the policy article that says so, can someone tell which policy does? —The Editor's Apprentice (TalkEdits) 04:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably WT:CFI. DTLHS (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't find the word descriptionist nor prescriptionist on the page. —The Editor's Apprentice (TalkEdits) 04:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
You'll have to read between the lines. Saying "We are descriptionist" is not a useful policy statement on its own. DTLHS (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, I guess the part about attestment is the most relevant. Thanks! —The Editor's Apprentice (TalkEdits) 04:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Obsolete local units[edit]

Is there any convention regarding entries such as the pair Amsterdam pound/Amsterdams pond and whether they are considered sums of parts? Local units of the type L U are basically bound to have a value somewhere around the range of U and would have been used in locale L, even though the specific quantity cannot be inferred from the name. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The obsolescence of such units should not enter into the considerations. For the nautical mile one might equally argue that it is SOP since it is a unit with a length around a mile used in a nautical context. And why should it matter that we are dealing with units? Roman numeral is SOP because it is a kind of numeral used by the Romans. The point is not that the specific quantity cannot be inferred from the name, but that the term has a specific meaning that cannot be inferred from the name. For example, I think it is defensible to include an entry biblical cubit even though we have only informed guesses about the specific quantity; nevertheless, the term has a specific meaning and is attestable.  --Lambiam 10:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Corazón / corazoncito[edit]

I left this message about the diminutive of Spanish "corazón". Regards. -- 19:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

We don't include diminutives in the headword line for Spanish, unlike Polish. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)