Wiktionary:Information desk/2018/July

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
discussion rooms: Tea roomEtym. scr.Info deskBeer parlourGrease pit ← June 2018 · July 2018 · August 2018 → · (current)


What does 'kloogy' mean?--J. Wiwat (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I've never seen that word, and I cannot find any uses online, even with Google. Out of context, I would guess it's a misspelling of kludgy, but it would be an odd misspelling unless based on a mispronunciation as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I've always heard kludge as rhyming with stooge, not fudge, and I've been hearing and using it for decades. When I first saw it in writing, I wondered why it was spelled that way. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Metaknowledge and Chuck Entz, I appreciate your information. However, I came across a sentence with 'kloogy translations', what sort of translation is that? Presumably, I think it suggests a negative meaning.--J. Wiwat (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
"Kludgy translations" seems to fit (saying that the translations are only kludges). - -sche (discuss) 22:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, --sche.--J. Wiwat (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Turkish pronunciation inconsistencies[edit]

These four entries transcribe doğu- four different ways:

Is each one really pronounced differently, or should they be standardized in some way? Should we have some kind of policy at Wiktionary:About Turkish on how to transcribe /ğ/? Pinging User:Djkcel as the most recently-active editor in Category:User tr-N. - -sche (discuss) 00:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The soft g of Turkish is an issue to be sure. There seems to be some confusion between broad and narrow transcriptions; the allophone that is present in this word is Ø, I believe, but the phoneme should still be represented in broad IPA. @Anylai, Atitarev, Mahagaja, Allahverdi Verdizade, LambiamΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The most accurate broad transcription in this case is /do.u.../, the narrow transcription would be /doɰu.../. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's article Voiced velar fricative, the letter ⟨ğ⟩ may have this phoneme as a non-standard realization in some Turkish dialects. The example given is ağa → [aɣa]. This was once the standard realization before the sound change that made it silent in standard Turkish pronunciation, except for lengthening the preceding vowel in some circumstances. The Wikipedia article Ğ also states this sound change is not yet complete in some Turkish dialects. I have personally never actually observed anyone using this. Turkey is large and my exposure to dialects has been limited, but you will not hear this on the radio or TV. Should we also cater for such rare, non-standard pronunciations? I don't see us doing that for other languages. The Wikipedia article Ğ further mentions that between different rounded vowels (o, u, ö, ü) it is mostly silent, but may be a bilabial glide, like doğu → [dowʊ]. If there is a glide, I think it simply represents speakers' inability to realize the hiatus in a pure, discontinuous way. Personally I don't hear it in doğu, but I do hear it in doğan → [dowan]. I also hear it in fuar (fair, exposition) → [fuwar], so I think it is just a matter of articulation that has no phonetic relationship with the unrealized ⟨ğ⟩.
What about transcribing it as /ɰ/, the voiced velar approximant? The Wikipedia article Ğ states that the ⟨ğ⟩ is “sometimes represented with /ɰ/ for convenience”. I find this a cryptic message; how is this convenient? No source that I know of states that this is an appropriate phonemic realization of the ⟨ğ⟩, even in dialects. Intervocalic, like in doğu, there is also no lengthening.
As to the ⟨o⟩ in doğu, I think it is obviously the IPA phoneme /o/. The /ɔ/ does not occur in standard Turkish. Finally, ⟨u⟩ is normally /u/, but word-final, in an open syllable, it is usually realized with the allophone /ʊ/. In conclusion, I think that in all cases doğu should be transcribed as /do.u/ (for simplicity) or [do.ʊ] (for precision). The use of /ɔ/ and lengthening are wrong, and /ɰ/ serves no useful purpose that I'm aware of (and is not accurate for the standard pronunciation).  --Lambiam 16:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I wish I could give a more helpful answer in technical terms, but in the dialect I've always used (Istanbul) the ğ is almost always silent, as in değmek (to touch). It's usually in front of a vowel to make it sound longer. In Turkish dialects from the east I've heard it pronounced as "gh" like in Arabic. Djkcel (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Question 1: Do you feel Wiktionary should list the eastern dialectal pronunciation? We could do something like "(Standard) IPA(key): [doˈʊ] / (Eastern dialects) IPA(key): [doɣˈʊ]". I do hear a nonstandard voiceless velar fricative (also used in Arabic) quite often, also in Istanbul, but only word final, as in çok → [tʃox].
Question 2: "In front of a vowel" – did you mean "in front of a consonant" (as in değmek? I assume you hear the difference between demek and değmek. What do you hear, /dejˈmec/ (which is the pronunciation now given at değmek, and which is how deymek would sound if it was a word) or /deːˈmec/, with an /e/ that is merely lengthened?  --Lambiam 21:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
1 - yes, I do think that would be helpful. the Eastern dialects (in a place like Iğdır, for example), are pretty much interchangeable with Azeri.
2 - haha yes, that would probably be the lack of technical knowledge I was talking about, sorry - following a vowel. First syllable of demek to me sounds short like deh while değmek sounds like "day" with a longer vowel. Djkcel (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Alternative forms and alternative spellings[edit]

I've created a few entries here now but I'm still confused about when to write "alternative form of" vs "alternative spelling of" vs just repeating a definition. For example, I have done the first in duodecane, the second in chicklit and in foro conscientiæ, and the latter in spermaticide; however I am not confident I have made the best choices. Could someone please explain this to me? BethNaught (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

An alternative spelling is a specific type of alternative form that differs only orthographically from the main form. When in doubt, use alternative form. As for the third option, that should be avoided, if possible. Wikis can be edited by anyone at any time, so the definition you repeat may later be completely changed, giving the impression that the entries have different meanings. Worse, one form may preserve an error that was corrected in the other, or an error may be introduced in one form and go unnoticed by those who are watching the other. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


I really feel like I should know this...but I don't, and it's always left me wondering. So, it's finally time to ask it.

Why is the French Wikipedia called natively Wikipédia? It doesn't make sense to me, because I would think a French speaker would name it "Wikipédie." I understand it's a borrowing that uses the accent (probably should be mentioned at the etymology section of that entry but it isn't), but...why did consensus come to that name over "Wikipédie"? Especially when the French Wiktionary is called Wiktionnaire... PseudoSkull (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The French-speaking Wikipedians use the name "Wikipédia" for the whole project, including the original English Wikipedia, and not specifically for the Francophone version. That is why they have separate articles for Wikipédia, corresponding to the article Wikipedia on the English-language site, and for Wikipédia en français, corresponding to the article French Wikipedia on the English Wikipedia. When the main page of the French Wikipedia was created in 2002, it used the name "Wikipedia" just like the English one (as in Bienvenue sur Wikipedia, une encyclopédie libre, gratuite, et écrite coopérativement), but soon this edit (by an anonymous IP, originating from INRIA), changed it to "Wikipédia". I don't know if this was the original move that resulted in the name becoming spelled like it is still now. In May 2014 there was an attempt to Frenchify the name of the French article Wikipédia en français by moving it to Wikipédie en français, but the move was undone 35 minutes later. The French page Wikipédia:Wikipédiste, which is not meant to be taken seriously, (re)defines wikipédien as an inhabitant of the country named Wikipédie.  --Lambiam 22:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
If an anon IP was indeed responsible for the addition of the accent, that would make quite a story. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 23:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Can this font be installed on Western Windows without any BSoD?[edit]

I want to install the Japanese font "Osaka", which is a TTC file. I have the font file, but I'm afraid from installing it 'cuz a font (Osaka–等幅) has kanji on it. Can this font be safely installed? I have the Chinese, Japanese and Korean versions of Microsoft Office IME 2010. -- 01:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You will be fine. —Suzukaze-c 23:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
The fonts included in that TTC are Osaka, Osaka–等幅 and Osaka-UI.

Пенсильва́нія (Pensylʹvánija) (the American state) Pennsylvania[edit]

Could we please add the Ukrainian word "Пенсильванія?"

Is it also possible to add the Belarusian word "Пенсільванія" for Pennsylvania, in English Wiktionary?

It's a wiki! If you know those languages, you can add it yourself. If not, you can add to WT:RE:be and WT:RE:uk respectively. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)