Wiktionary:Information desk

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, 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 newcomers 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.

July 2016

Offline mobile Wiktionary client[edit]

WiktionaryMobile seems dead as a doornail. Not sure that it ever supported offline access anyway. I'm starting a React Native project. If anyone knows of an existing project of this sort, lemme know so I can stop trying to write it.

This app is really good but only supports several languages. --Dixtosa (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is pronunciation of "discharge" hidden?[edit]

Why is the pronunciation in the discharge entry hidden? Is this normal? --Greek Fellows (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not usual. DCDuring did that back in 2008, thus. I don’t know why he did it. I don’t see a reason for it. —Stephen (Talk) 14:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Probably because there are a lot of lines so it takes a while to read down to the definition, which is the most useful part. Equinox 14:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
As there was an audio file present, which suits most normal users, I demoted the 6 line IPA, useless for normal users. I think that registered users can set such a thing to be open by default in CSS or JS, though I am not the one to do it. DCDuring TALK 15:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Except that the audio file is valid only for the noun, not the verb. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


Hey. It'd be cool to know the symbols of this logo. Could someone make a list of them here, or perhaps put them in a better place? --Turnedlessef (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

They are: , , , λ, W, ش, Ж, , ש. Wyang (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I wonder why there are so many /ʃ/-like sounds in this set. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The Semitic ones, at least, are related. —CodeCat 22:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I know; but in addition to the Arabic and Hebrew, the katakana represents /ʃi/, the Devanagari represents /ɕ/, and the Cyrillic represents /ʒ/ (or /ʃ/ word-finally). I feel like this can't be a coincidence. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The Cyrillic letter for /ʃ/ is actually related to the Semitic ones, so it's strange that they didn't pick it instead. —CodeCat 22:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The letters are from the "tiles" logo that User:Smurrayinchester designed. Maybe they remember why they chose them. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
It was a long time ago (and in all honesty I've come to hate that logo. I was horribly naïve when I designed it - I was for instance blissfully unaware that shi is considered unlucky in Japanese). By and large I selected letters from translations of Wiktionary - original plan was to just take the first letter for Wiktionary in each alphabet, but in both Cyrillic and Greek that was В/Β which is aesthetically unpleasing. So we have lambda from λεξικό (side note - I really should have used capital Λ), श from शब्दकोश. I probably picked because that's a character from 위키낱말사전 and it means word. The is a nice one - first character in 维基词典, has a /w/ sound, and it also means "net" or "connect". I haven't a clue where Ж, ش or ש came from. I might have taken them from transliterations of "Wiktionary" (I think the list I was working from was a mess, and mixed transliterations and translations together) - I took the first letter that followed the "Wiki" part, mistakenly believing that meant "dictionary". Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm guessing Ж, ش and ש were chosen for their visual similarity to W. --WikiTiki89 15:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

disambiguating a translation gloss[edit]

In checking out my guess about the meaning and ancestry of Spanish ahumar, I saw that the English gloss for the reconstructed Vulgar Latin etymon, affumo, was very misleading:

*affūmō ‎(present infinitive *affūmāre); first conjugation
  1. (Vulgar Latin) I smoke.

Of course, in English by far the commonest meaning of to smoke refers to tobacco or other burning material:

  1. (transitive) To inhale and exhale the smoke from a burning cigarette, cigar, pipe, etc.
  2. (intransitive) To inhale and exhale tobacco smoke.

and I smoke is normally meant and understood as meaning "I habitually inhale and exhale tobacco smoke" (or, these days, the vapor of e-cigs, which are now being mentioned on NO SMOKING signs).

I don't edit Wiktionary much, and I didn't know how to fix this problem, and a search for things like "ambiguous definition" didn't pan out. Fortunately, I found a model in ahumar. Would someone more experienced than I please check Reconstruction:Latin/affumo to make sure I've done it properly? Thank you.

To discuss... mmm, is there an interwiki version of Wiktionary {{ping}} or Wikipedia Template:ping? I log in to WP every day and see any notifications to wikipedia:User:thnidu, but I don't know how to forward such from Wikt to WP. --Thnidu (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove the spine of[edit]

Came up while proof reading something. I feel like there ought to be an English word for this, but I can't find one. Expinate/exspinate, despine and unspine all looks plausible but come up as red links. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

"exspinate" and "unspine" aren't attestable, "despine" exists but is used to refer to removing the spines of plants. spinalize means to surgically separate the spine from the brain. DTLHS (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
And of course there's debone but that's not specific to the spine. DTLHS (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
And vertebrectomy for removal of a single vertebra. DTLHS (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
"spinectomy" gets a few hits. DTLHS (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Removing the spine of a book is (more or less) unbinding, since it's what holds the pages together... Equinox 23:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The closest I can come up with is pith. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Colons in Wikipaedia Double Bracket Link Syntax[edit]

What is the difference between [[w:XYZ]] and [[:w:XYZ]]? I am finding the latter in about 3% of the cases where I would expect the former (37 times in Ancient Greek), and while it seems to have the same effect, I am unsure that it doesn't have a different intent. An example of the latter is: [[:w:Bauer lexicon|Bauer lexicon]] in Αἴγυπτος; normally one sees: [[w:Bauer lexicon|Bauer lexicon]] , as in μάγος. My understanding, from Help:Interwiki_linking, is that this syntax is used for inter-Wiktionary links; I cannot find an explanation of a use for Wikipaedia links. Thanks, Isomorphyc (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

In the case of Wikipedia links, I don’t think it makes any difference. In some other cases, such as Category:Spanish language, and es:solo, the initial colon forces the link to appear inline (in the text), rather than in the left margin (link to wiktionaries in other languages) or at the foot of the page (normal place for categories). —Stephen (Talk) 10:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

How many exact entries?[edit]

This has probably been asked before, but I can't find the question in the FAQ. I know that the main page says the amount of actual pages, but is there a way to see how many entries there are (as in, total amount of L2s)? Philmonte101 (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

WT:STATSΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Special link syntax[edit]

Not exactly new but I've always wondered about this. Is there a concise list of all the special link syntax Wiktionary has? There seems to be a lot of magic syntax like {{l|en|calumny}} (calumny) that Wikipedia doesn't have. I'm not looking for a tutorial, just an overview/appendix if one exists. Thanks! Wing gundam (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It's basically just {{m|en|calumny}} and {{l|en|calumny}}. The former is used in running text, the latter in lists. You can look at the documentation of these templates for details about all the features they support. --WikiTiki89 17:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Also {{t|xx|foobar}} for translation tables. Many other templates build upon the basic linking capabilities of {{l}} and {{m}}, such as {{cog}} and {{der}}. —CodeCat 17:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Using the most common definitions first[edit]

Recenty while perusing the page for STD, I found a lesser-used meaning of the word being put in as definition 1. Why don't we sort word definitions by common usage not history of use? Also, why are there usage parentheses used beside the term even tho its main definition is the same in both the serious field of pathology and common speaking? —This unsigned comment was added by Zontas (talkcontribs) at 19:04, 18 July 2016.

There is an unsolved argument here on Wiktionary on whether we should order definitions chronologically or by frequency. Since there is no consensus, it's up to the editors. However, that also means that you can't go around enforcing your own point of view on existing entries. --WikiTiki89 19:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I would be in favor of ordering by frequency except that it's essentially impossible to quantify objectively. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

How to handle terms derived from non-lemma forms?[edit]

Occasionally you come across terms derived from a non-lemma form, often a participle. How should such cases be handled? Should we list such derivations at the lemma entry or at the non-lemma that the term actually derived from? What should the etymology of the derived term say? For example, waterafstotend is derived from afstotend, which is the present participle of afstoten. —CodeCat 00:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the etymology should definitely list the form the word is actually derived from. Whether it should also list the lemma is open to debate, but I think that's the best solution as well. What I've done before as well is written something like "from such-and-such, a whatever-form of such-and-such a lemma, [which is] from...." I think that is ideal, except when the lemma has a separate etymology from the form in question. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
And where should it be listed as a derived term, on afstotend or afstoten? —CodeCat 01:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
off-topic: there's a module error in afstoten - -sche (discuss) 03:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I would think derived terms could just go at the lemma, unless they have different etymologies. I wouldn't protest against doing it the other way, however. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Participles behave like lemmas in a lot of ways, including being fully inflectable in a lot of languages. I wouldn't object to afstotend having a ====Derived terms==== section simply because it's a participle. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I usually list it in both places (lemma and non-lemma) under derived terms. --Panda10 (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Etymologies for non-lemma forms[edit]

Now, for English, for example, I've seen etymologies for some of the more irregular inflections of verbs or nouns, etc. But, is it against the rules or something to add:


From {{suffix|watchlist|s|lang=en}}

at watchlists? Or is it just technically allowed and no one actually takes the time to do it? (not asking just about English, but for all languages with non-lemma forms) Philmonte101 (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I think non-lemmas should not have etymologies, even if irregular. The irregularity should be explained on the lemma page, where all the inflections are listed. —CodeCat 13:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I have little opinion on whether etymologies should or shouldn't be in entries for inflected forms. However, is there a rule somewhere that says that non-lemmas can't have etymologies? Philmonte101 (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Not a hard-and-fast rule, but having etymologies for predicable inflectional forms is generally nothing but clutter- especially since it populates affix categories that are best not used for this (for -s it would be the equivalent of "English third-person singular verbs and some possessive or plural nouns", and for other present-tense forms you only have the lack of an affix). It's been debated already whether having an etymology for a suppletive form that has a different etymology from the lemma is a good idea, with some opposed. What you're asking about would probably be universally disliked, with only the difficulty of formulating and voting on a rule against it being the only reason there isn't one (that and the assumption that people should have the sense not to do it, rule or not). Chuck Entz (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


Predestination is taken over by religion? why not cause and effect being the same? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 22:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC).

It mostly comes up in a religious context. Do you have some citations that show it in other contexts? DCDuring TALK 09:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Category:English phrasal verbs with particle (in)[edit]

turn in is not in the list. i think it should be added —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

It's there on page 2 - click "next 200 pages". Keith the Koala (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Names of TV series or video games other brand names or other trademarked pop culture elements[edit]

Why is it that CFI doesn't allow just regular TV series to be added. I found three book citations that attest Duckman, the television series (not the surname), in Books. I found independent citations as well, i.e. books that are not about Duckman, although CFI still somehow doesn't allow an entry for this...

But seriously, why? I mean, they're still proper nouns, and many actually have 3 durably archived book sources (I mean a lot of them). Why can they not have definitions here? Philmonte101 (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not what a dictionary is traditionally for. Wikipedia can "define" such things far better. They are not general terms but specific things. How could you define it apart from just "a TV show" or whatever? Equinox 22:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Wiktionary does more than define terms. It gives etymologies, pronunciations, and so on. For this reason I think that brands should be included. —CodeCat 22:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
@ User:Equinox "not general terms but specific things" is like the definition of a proper noun. We have countries, cities, names of people and animals, etc. The TV series and video game series and such would obviously need to be mentioned in three citable sources that weren't just about the subject or from the creator of the subject, but they are still technically proper nouns just like Denmark or Winesburg. I'm sure Winesburg, Ohio, as a book, would be notable if these were the guidelines, since it's mentioned in many works of literature and journals, at it is a classic novel. Philmonte101 (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed with User:CodeCat. But I'm just wondering, what is the current motive for WT:BRAND or you know, for other trademarks, such as Transformers (the toyline), Naruto (the anime), Halo (the video game series), Duckman (a TV show and comic series), etc.? Philmonte101 (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
"All words in all languages" - what could be simpler. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I asked this, because I wanted to see what was up with that. Perhaps, now that I see that there are both a good share of people who believe that brand names and trademark names don't belong, and some who believe that they do belong, perhaps it is a good idea to create a vote about this? Philmonte101 (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Family-spoken and family-invented constructed languages[edit]

I know it isn't common. But is there a term for constructed languages that are part of a family tradition and specific to one family? I'm in one of these families and I'm trying to figure out what to really call it. We call it a familispro, but that just literally means "family language".

Okay so and if there's not a term for it, do you guys know any other examples of this sort of rare thing? I'm sure it happens far more in Europe than it does here in the US, since that continent is very multilingual. I think I've heard Esperanto is more commonly spoken in Europe than any other continent, but that's unrelated. Philmonte101 (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I would just call it a family language, unless you really want to emphasize the fact that it is constructed. --WikiTiki89 14:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

grammar question[edit]

Are both these two sentences grammatically correct? Or only one?

1) If we stay at home, it is comfortable and there is no need to spend money. 2) If we stay at home, it will be comfortable and there is no need to spend money.

Can anyone help? ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Both are grammatical, but I would suggest "Staying at home would be comfortable and there would be no need to spend money", which avoids the tense issue altogether. At any rate, it's hypothetical, so you should use a subjunctive construction with "would". Chuck Entz (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I disagree, the first one sounds wrong to me. The second one would also be better if you change the tense of the second verb: “If we stay at home, it will be more comfortable and there will be no need to spend money.” You could also use "would" instead of "will". --WikiTiki89 15:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I now realize that the first sentence would sound right to me if you were talking about a repetitive past action, rather than planning a single future action. --WikiTiki89 15:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Both syntactically sound. I think they are both generally acceptable too; despite Chuck's comment, you don't have to use the subjunctive just because something is hypothetical ("if it rains tomorrow, we will get wet"). #2 sounds slightly odder to me because of the mixture of tenses ("it will" but "there is"). Equinox 15:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Inflections in example sentences[edit]

I've been searching around Wiktionary for a while and cannot really find a definite answer to whether example sentences of a word are allowed to use an inflected form of that word instead. I've seen this in several entries, but instinctively I would think that the example sentence should use the exact form of the word when possible. Is there a definite policy to this? AtalinaDove (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, example sentences should be able to use any form of the word. We typically don't add example sentences to non-lemmas. It would be too much work, and users should be able to see how a word is inflected without having to visit each inflected page. DTLHS (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding languages[edit]

How can I add codes for new languages onto Wiktionary as so that I can create entries for that language (such as Kalasha)? Lincoln1001 (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Always check our List of languages and our Language treatment page first, since we've spent a lot of time and effort over the past decade on language codes, and there's usually a reason if we don't have a specific code. In this case, though, we do have one: Kalasha is "kls". Chuck Entz (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but is there a template to use to create Kalasha entries (like Template:en) as there is for English? Lincoln1001 (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
What kind of template do you mean? There is no Template:en. —CodeCat 14:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
A language code is all that is needed to create the entry (i.e. templates are convenient, but not necessary). For the header, if that's what you are talking about, just write {{head|kls|[part of speech]}}. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, how can I get this format {{index/English|count=271073|date=2012-Apr-28}} for the Kalasha Index page (and other formats used on other language index pages)? Lincoln1001 (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you mean how to get the word count (271073)? I think you need to ask for the most recent XML dump (such as 2016-Aug-08 XML dump), but I don’t know where to ask for that. Someone here will know. Or if you mean how to format such a page, just click on {{index/English}}, then in the nav bar in the left margin, choose "What links here" to see the pages that use that template. For example, Index:English/e. Then you can examine the page to see how it is formatted. —Stephen (Talk) 11:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Translation of Russian sentence[edit]

"Вес проводников приблизительно 50 тонн." in the context of this Russian text. Specifically, I am interested in exactly what it is that weighs 50 tons. Is it all of the conductors for the 450km transmission line? What hangs between two adjoining towers? Something else? DCDuring TALK 21:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly - this is the total weight of all the conducting material (wires) hanging throughout the length of the transmission line. There's a great site called Russian Language Stack Exchange, by the way, it is a question that migth have been okay there. Cheers, ---CopperKettle (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Languages "relevant to you" gadget, get rid of it once and for all?[edit]

I don't really like this very much at all. I always liked to go to popular entries/articles on wikis and scroll down the language list just for fun. I love the interwiki function, and I love how I can immediately see all the languages at once in alphabetical order. It is just one of those weird things I like to do in my spare time.

In all seriousness, now for my question. Is there a way I can internationalize in my preferences that I do not want the new relevant to you languages gadget? I find it really annoying how whenever I go to a new wiki it has that gadget. On my account, I'd like it to burn with fire! Thanks for the help. Philmonte101 (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You can disable it under Preferences, Appearance, Languages. You might have to do this separately on every wiki you use. Equinox 00:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@User:Equinox Sorry for not clarifying, but that's what I have been doing. I was just wondering if there was a way to disable it on all wikis at once? Philmonte101 (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Doubtful. I see some dreary discussions at [1], [2]. Equinox 00:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm in the same boat. It would be nice to get an answer to this. --WikiTiki89 00:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@ User:Wikitiki89 and anyone else who would like to know, I've finally figured out a way to fix this. Look through the second link Equinox sent off in his comment. There are lines of code you can enter into meta's global.js that will internationalize all your preference settings not to use a CLL. I did it myself. See my code at meta:User:Philmonte101/global.js. Philmonte101 (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

English yet[edit]

What does the word "yet" mean in this case? "Do you forgive me?" "I yet forgive you."

Speaker is from the UK. Does that mean she has forgiven me, or that she hasn't? I can't tell. @User:Equinox, User:DTLHS, or anybody else know this? Philmonte101 (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

  • By itself, it means that she forgives you even though your behaviour was unforgivable. With the addition of "don't" (I don't yet forgive you) it means that forgiveness is a future possibility. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Should this sense be added? I see a "despite" sense like what you said as a conjunction, but in this case it is being used as an adverb. Philmonte101 (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • In which case it could mean the same as "I am yet to forgive you". (but don't hold your breath) SemperBlotto (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
It sounds at least archaic and possibly unacceptable. There is one G.Books hit for "I yet forgive you" and it is from 1878: "although you have crushed and wounded my feelings, and deeply wronged and humiliated me, ... I yet forgive you": this is what Blotto suggested, and here you could replace "yet" with "still". Equinox 08:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Can it be used this way? "I know that penguins have wings, but I yet find it odd that they cannot fly." Philmonte101 (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
That sounds very strange. You'd use "yet" instead of "but": "I know that penguins have wings, yet I find it odd...". Equinox 16:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I was referring to yet being used as a replacement of the word "still". Maybe it was a bad example, but I took the made-up sentence "I know that penguins have wings, but I still find it odd that they cannot fly." Philmonte101 (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Headstone translation needed[edit]

This stone is in our family plot but we do not know who it might be. I would like to know what it says and what language it is in. Here is what is on the stone: IT NY AZ URBAN IF TOROS IS TVAN ET 16. MEG. HALT 1904 11 ?/6 N.BE.PO. No one in the family knows anything about this grave. Thank you!

@Panda10 You have the writing all messed up, but it’s Hungarian. It’s a man named "István Toros". Meghalt means he died. 1904 11 ?/6 appears to be a date, something like Nov. 6, 1904. —Stephen (Talk) 11:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown The question was asked by someone else, not me. I think the full sentence is this:
  • Itt nyugszik az Úrban ifjabb Toros István, élt 16 évet, meghalt 1904 11 ?/6-n, béke poraira.
  • It(t) ny(ugszik) az Úrban if(jabb) Toros István ET(élt) 16. (évet) meghalt 1904 11 ?/6-n BE(béke) PO(raira)
English translation: Here lies in the Lord István Toros Jr. He lived 16 years, died on ?/6-11-1904. Rest in peace. --Panda10 (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Indexes vs. all lemmas[edit]

Is there anything which would appear in an index which wouldn't appear in the all lemmas category? I know in theory there is a category for non-lemma terms, but I don't even know what goes there. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Inflected and other (morphologically/phonologically) predictable forms are non-lemmas. Crom daba (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I think of lemmas as the terms that would appear in a regular (paper) dictionary, except for irregular inflections such as better. —CodeCat 12:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Requesting some information ( Please move if appropriate)[edit]


Over on Latin Wikisource I was transcribing thiss:la:Pagina:Faoistin naoṁ-Ṗadraig (1906).djvu/54 andnoted that a number of words have 'u' subst for 'v'. I suspect this is a printers convention, but was asking here for a clarification. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  • See Wiktionary:About Latin for our preferences ("u" for vowel usage, "v" for consonant usage) - but not everyone agrees with that convention. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Makes me wonder why /ekwus/ is ⟨equus⟩ here and not ⟨eqvus⟩. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Followup to the former.[edit]

I was also slowly transcribing the latin portion here s:la:Pagina:Ruffhead - The Statutes at Large, 1763.djvu/48 and was using a Latin spelling dictionary that was available for Firefox.

However, there seem to be some more obscure words it didn't recognise and some which seem to be corruptions or coinings(/) of the Medieval period. (In particular ae->e seems to have occurred more than once.).

From the single page I was working on, I put a page in my userspace User:ShakespeareFan00/Latin_terms_in_Ruffhead which as I do more transcription pages, I intend to add to. The assistance of other Wiktionary contributors in confirming the words would be appreciated, not least as I am having to determine if it s,f, or long s in some places in the scan. :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Anatomy vs. Zootomy Context Labels[edit]

When describing the anatomy of animals, what is the preferred label to put before a definition? For instance, I labelled one definition "zootomy" at auge, but I'm not sure if "anatomy" or perhaps a more specific label is better. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer to do away with the "Zootomy" label. It's a very rare word, and frankly there's so much overlap between human and nonhuman anatomy that it seems like kind of a pointless distinction for us to be making. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Not a common word. Gives me nightmares about Webster 1913 and diaeresis. Equinox 13:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright. I just wasn't sure if we wanted to make a distinction between human and nonhuman anatomy for categorization purposes. I've changed the label at auge. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)