Wiktionary:Tea room/2017/March

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

go

[edit]

Verb sense 7.1:

(transitive) To follow or proceed according to (a course or path).  
Let's go this way for a while.
She was going that way anyway, so she offered to show him where it was.

I disagree that these examples demonstrate transitivity. "this way" and "that way" are surely adverbial. There is also a quotation, "I wish that you would go this path up to its end", which seems less clear to me in terms of transitivity, but "go this path" is not a kind of usage that I ever hear. Opinions please. Mihia (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly doesn't feel transitive to me in those cases, but you can also say "Let's go one way, and if it takes too long, we'll go a different way coming back." Are "one way" and "a different way" adverbial in those cases? Or is "go" actually transitive when used that way? I'll leave it to the experts to decide. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't go viral, go medieval, go Hollywood, go home all examples of adverbial usage with this sense of go? DCDuring TALK 08:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Go in this case can basically mean "walk" or "travel", and you can definitely say "I wish that you would go walk this path up to its end" and it be clearly transitive. It is certainly not something you hear here in the States. It sounds UK dialectal to me Leasnam (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Passivizing doesn't seem to work: *This way was gone by many people sounds bad. Inasmuch as that's a test of transitivity, the verb isn't transitive. — Eru·tuon 21:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, as one might expect, this use of go has a parallel temporal usage: The meeting went three hours. I didn't see the corresponding temporal definition. DCDuring TALK 02:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

knob job

[edit]

Someone create that please. --2A02:2788:1004:11D6:948A:FE27:DF2A:F6D0 19:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Never thought I'd be offering expert advice...but "knob" is slang for the penis, "knob job" is fellatio. Probably more common spoken than written, and middle to low register. It can also refer to a person (as in "Joe is a real knob job") as a general insult.

I remember the term from many 80's era movies - if you need references, screenplays and movie quote sites are probably your best bet. For example: https://books.google.com/books?id=JpJ-kK1j2_MC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=movies+with+the+term+%22knob+job%22&source=bl&ots=gf7hjytiAc&sig=dwsb32uiy5jgcPqMy_MCTKevOiI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjB-9K72JDTAhWigFQKHcbECS8Q6AEIHjAB#v=onepage&q=movies%20with%20the%20term%20%22knob%20job%22&f=false http://www.quotes.net/show-quote/67272 http://www.angelfire.com/grrl/mandabear/moviequotes.html

sisu

[edit]

The English entry should apparently be deleted. I couldn't find any evidence of use in English in the 1940s or later except in explanations of the term and concept as being Finnish, never used in an English sentence as a loanword. --Espoo (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to WT:RFV. —CodeCat 22:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

excrement

[edit]

It's not archaic as far as I know. DonnanZ (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why do we have two different senses? I can't for the life of me understand the difference between them. "Excrement" just means "waste matter", AFAIK. The OED also only lists this one sense. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've always understood it to apply only to solid (fecal) waste. Note that the example for the first definition is clearly referring to mucus, which is not nowadays thought of as excrement, at least in my experience. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it was after midnight and my brain had ceased functioning. I was beginning to think humans don't produce excrement (solid waste), only animals. I think I'll add "human" to the current sense 2, and reverse the order of the senses. DonnanZ (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sexually mature

[edit]

I think it's entry-worthy, being able to reproduce. There's a couple of translations lurking in the system, and I know of more. DonnanZ (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koxinga

[edit]

Where's the stress placed? — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 00:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the penultimate. —Stephen (Talk) 09:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pollus and polus

[edit]

To confirm my correct knowledge of the vulgar meaning of Spanish "polla", I loaded the page. I read it all, and saw "pollus" in Latin. The article for "pollus" says it is an adjective, an alternate form of "polus", and gives the inflection. Trouble is, the article for "polus" only gives it as a second-declension noun, meaning "pole". So either we have something missing in "polus", or "pollus" is an unrelated word. In any case, what does "pollus" mean? And while we're at it, is "pollus" maybe a noun too, meaning "chicken" (cfr. pollo in Italian and Spanish), perhaps with "polla" as a feminine form for "hen"?

MGorrone (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you'd give links to the pages you're talking about; it makes it easier to follow your comment. The Latin word from which Spanish pollo (“chicken”) is derived is pullus (“chick, young animal”), with a "u". Lewis and Short don't list a corresponding feminine noun pulla, but I wouldn't be surprised if it existed at least in Late Latin. The Latin word polus (“pole”) has nothing to do with it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The whole issue of Spanish polla is beside the point- that's just how MGorrone stumbled upon the pollus entry. Special:WhatLinksHere/pollus consists solely of the inflected-form entries created by SemperBlottoBot from the entry, and now Requests for verification (I just posted an rfv) and this page. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Angr and @ChuckEntz to add to this matter, Glosbe (pollus and polus) gives "pollus" as "small, little" and "polus" as both "pole" and "little", and has "pollulum" = "polulum" = "a little". Latin-dictionary also gives "pollus" = "small", and has [v separate entries] for "polus, pola, polum" = "small" and "polus, poli" = "pole". "polla" is not really entirely baside the point: I also conjectured "pollo" and "polla" might stem from "pollus" and "polla" respectively, which @Angr stated to be an incorrect conjecture. That is where the conjecture that "pollus" might mean "chicken" stemmed from. MGorrone (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

air cell

[edit]

The word "contraption" seems to be misused in this definition. What word did the writer mean, though? Perhaps compaction? Equinox ◑ 01:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

contraction? DTLHS (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The definition seems to cover an instance of the use of air + cell, ie SoP. Other dictionaries do not have such a definition, but do have at least two distinct definitions that don't seem SoP to me. DCDuring TALK 14:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my proposed version of the entry. DCDuring TALK 14:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

chinese literal word-by-word translation

[edit]

HI, I think it would improve chinese entries (for example 他把刀放在桌子上) to add the literal word-by-word translation with some grammatical anotation, as can be seen in the wikipedia page for Chinese grammar:

他tā 把bǎ 盘子pánzi 打dǎ 破pò 了le。 [他把盤子打破了。]

he OBJ-plate hit-break-PF.

He hit/dropped the plate, and it broke.

(double-verb where the second verb, "break", is a suffix to the first, and indicates what happens to the object as a result of the action.)


Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting but
  1. not all of us are master grammarians,
  2. Chinese parts-of-speech can be really ambiguous, and
  3. no other language at Wiktionary does this at the moment: there is no framework.
Also potentially of note is that unlike most other languages on Wiktionary, usage examples automatically link to all the words featured.
—suzukaze (t・c) 11:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with Suzukaze. It's definitely interesting, but it's absolutely unpractical in the long run. Wiktionary is meant to be a dictionary, not a linguistics textbook. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 22:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

German Arzt and Doktor

[edit]

My German friend told me there is a difference between Arzt and Doktor (doctor) in the sense of “(medical) doctor”, in that an Arzt does not hold a postgraduate research degree, whereas a Doktor always does. In other words, someone is an Arzt when he/she has received their license to practice medicine, and the title Doktor is awarded only if someone has completed the research component on top of this. An Arzt is addressed as “Herr”, and a Doktor, “Herr Doktor”. I'm not sure whether this is true, and if so, how this may be clarified in our entries. Wyang (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is true. My GP told me not to call her Frau Doktor because she doesn't have a doctorate. However, holding a doctorate doesn't preclude you from being an Arzt, so it's more accurate to say an Arzt does not necessarily hold a postgraduate degree, not that an Arzt does not hold a postgraduate degree. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Wyang (talk) 06:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Windows

[edit]

Why did this fail our verification process? The OED has it. ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

earplug

[edit]

I think we're missing a couple of definitions maybe: earplugs for listening to mobile phones, also for listening to iPods etc. (those which can't be called headphones), not to mention those for hearing aids. These aren't ear protection devices. DonnanZ (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They would be "earphones", wouldn't they? I have never heard them called "earplugs". Mihia (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have on a number of occasions. I'd call it nonstandard, but that usage definitely exists. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was coming to that conclusion. So could sense 2 "(non-standard) an earphone" be added? DonnanZ (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic man#Etymology 3

[edit]

“Borrowing from Hebrew מן (mān, “manna”), perhaps via , appearing in Guðbrandur Þorláksson’s 1584 Bible translation.”

Perhaps via? @Krun (diff). Wyang (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks. Wyang (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "end" meaning the beginning.

[edit]

The word end seems to invariably mean a distant point in time or similar, but I wonder about it being used to indicate the current location, eg, "The phone line problem is at our end", or "The council will repair the road from our end". Sense 1 does not seem to cover it, and I think it needs more than a usage note. --Dmol (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still see "terminal" in the two examples above. Of a phoneline, the beginning is at the switching station, and the two customers are each at their own respective ends. Same for end of a road: depends on what is considered the start of the road. Leasnam (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The two ends of a cable etc. are the points where it terminates (in space): I think sense 1 covers it okay...? Equinox ◑ 00:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

two

[edit]

Is there anybody who still pronounces the w? — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 05:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do ;) Leasnam (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really?? Or are you kidding? I have never heard the "w" pronounced in "two", though I have heard it in the dialect "twa". Mihia (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think he might be referencing his affinity for Old/Middle English... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, or he could be the last descendant of English colonists on some obscure islet. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 08:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, does Treasure Island count as an obscure islet? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese

[edit]

Both of these should really only have one sense each, and one translation table too. Anyone want to take a stab? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

太君

[edit]

What does this mean in Japanese? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this is 大君 in Japanese (太 and 大 can both be pronounced tai in Japanese). – Krun (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I should have clarified, this is an unusual alternative spelling. This isn't listed in dictionaries. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

creationism

[edit]

Does it make sense to list various religions as hyponyms? DTLHS (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was added by a known bad editor (now blocked). I have removed a lot of fluff from the entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lumber

[edit]

Is Oxford correct in claiming that lumber means two different things in British and American English respectively? ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what does it say? As an American, I'm only familiar with our sense 1 of the noun. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming this is the noun that is meant. From Oxford Online:
  • 1 British: Articles of furniture or other household items that are no longer useful and inconveniently take up storage space.
[as modifier] ‘a lumber room’
  • 2 North American: Timber sawn into rough planks or otherwise partly prepared.
‘he sat at a makeshift desk of unfinished lumber’
  • Another sense which is Scottish:
Scottish informal: A person regarded as a prospective sexual partner.
‘they end the evening in a disco where they wait for a lumber’
The use of lumber meaning a pawnbroker's shop is obsolete.
DonnanZ (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this North American would only use the sense marked "North American" above. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Me, too. Never heard the others AFAICR. DCDuring TALK 19:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now labelled accordingly. DonnanZ (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

looking for a term

[edit]

"Over the past ten years, people — especially young people — have become aware of the need to change their eating habits." What is "especially young people" called in English? I mean the grammatical term for it. In Chinese it is a 插入語. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latin nouns ending in eus (Greek εύς)

[edit]

Examples:
Common nouns:

Proper nouns:

Declension:
In Greek these words belong to the third declension. In Latin they have forms of Greek's third declension and of Latin's second declension.
Using ~ here to split it up like Orph~e͡us, Orph~eī etc.

Sg.
Nom. ~e͡us [-εύς], rarely ~eus (i.e. ~ĕŭs)
Gen. ~eī, (Gram.) in poetry also ~e͡i ~eos [att. -έως, ion. -έος, ep. -ῆος & sometimes -έος]
Dat. ~eō ~ei, (Gram.) ~e͡i, ~ī [att. -εῖ, ep. -ῆϊ & sometimes -εῖ]
Acc. ~eum ~ea, rarely -ēa [att. -έᾱ, in drama rarely -έᾰ, ion. -έᾰ, ep. -ῆα & sometimes -έᾰ]
Voc. ~e͡u [-εῦ]
Abl. ~eō
Pl.
Nom. *~eī ~īs (but depending on edition) [att. -ῆς & later -εῖς, ion. -έες]
Gen. *~eōrum ~eon [?] [att. & ion. -έων, ep. -ήων]
Acc. ~eas/~eās [?] [att. -έᾱς, ion. -έᾰς, ep. -ῆας]

Notes:

  • Greek forms are from H. W. Smyth's grammar (nominative, genitive -έως, accusatives), LSJ (nominative, genitive -έως and ionic and epic genitive) and another grammar. Appendix:Ancient Greek dialectal declension#ευ-stems mentions some more forms.
  • Forms marked with (Gram.) were mentioned in grammars, but not in dictionaries.
  • nom. sg.: Dictionaries have ~eus with a mentioning of syllables or ~e͡us with a ͡  . Gaffiot has ~eūs but that's very likely an improper form of ~e͡us. Sometimes the ~eus could be unmarked in dictionaries, e.g. digitalized L&S just has "dēmogrammăteus" which could have a monoyllabic ~e͡us or di(s)syllabic ~eus.
    Dictionaries rarely mention nom. ~eus (i.e. ~ĕŭs) like Phălērĕŭs, e.g. in L&S: "Phălēreus (mostly trisyl.) [...] Scanned as a quadrisyllable: Demetrius, qui dictus est Phalereus, Phaedr. 5, 1, 1."
    In wiktionary one can't link like {{l|la|Orphe͡us}} (Orphe͡us) which is also the reason why ͡   was omitted in the examples above, though {{l|la|Orpheus|Orphe͡us}} works.
  • gen. sg.: Dictionaries often have ~eos, very rarely ~eōs. ~eos could have short vowels, or the vowel length could be unknown which was marked improperly. Sometimes the genitive is mentioned later in dictionary entries without marked vowel lengths.
    L&S and Gaffiot using breve sometimes have ~ĕos which would mean it's not ~ēos (Greek epic -ῆος).
    Grammars have ~eos and some mark it with two breves as ~ĕŏs.
  • dat. & abl. sg. in Latin form: Orpheo and Peleo are mentioned in dictionaries.
  • dat. sg. in Greek form: Dat. ~ī is said to occur in Persi ("Cic. Tusc. 5, 40, 118. Liv. 42, 25, 2. 42, 49, 7. 42, 52, 3. 43, 7, 9. 43, 8, 6. 45, 19, 5. Sens. cons. Marc. 13, 3") and in Orphi (Macrob. Sat. 5, 17, 19 in some manuscripts) besides Orphei (Verg. Ecl. 5, 57 in some manuscripts). The Latin Library has "Persei" in these places of Livius, and "Persi" in Cicero. L&S mentions Orphei too, and it has Persi (s.v. Perses, not s.v. Perseus), but not Orphi. Other dictionaries have ~ëi (with misplaced trema?) for Nēre͡us.
  • acc. sg.: Dictionaries often have ~ea which could have short vowels, or the vowel length could be unknown which was marked improperly. Sometimes the accusative is mentioned later in dictionary entries without marked vowel lengths.
    L&S using breve has Orphĕă and Orphēā, but also unmarked Capanea and Pelea. Acc. Orphēā is an error in L&S as that's the fem. abl. sg. of the adj. Orphēus in Ovid. Met. 10. 3 belonging to voce.
    In case of Īlione͡us dictionaries mention the acc. Īlionēa (source: Vergil).
    Grammars have ~ea (rarely ~ēa), sometimes marked with two breves as ~ĕă.
  • nom. pl. and acc. pl.: Dictionaries mention Phinei with acc. Phineas, but do not mark the vowel lengths of it. Maybe only the accusative is attested, so the nominative mentioned in some dictionaries could be *Phinei or more properly *Phīneī.
    The source for the acc. is Mart. 9, 25, 10 (or 9, 26, 10 in digitalized L&S which could be an OCR error).
    Some books mark the a with breve, but some others with macron.
    Another word with acc. pl. could be Sinōpe͡us of which some dictionaries mention acc. pl. Sinopeas.
    For Mylase͡us dictionaries mention the nom. pl. Mylasīs = Μυλασεῖς in Cicero, but it might depend on edition as some editions might have it in Greek letters. There might also be Alabandīs belonging to *Alabande͡us from Ἀλαβανδεύς. In Cicero it is: "[...] ut tibi nolim molestus esse. Mylasis/Mylaseis/Μυλασεῖς (Mylasii) et Alabandis/Alabandeis/Ἀλαβανδεῖς (Alabandenses) pecuniam Cluvio debent [...]" (Cicero's Epistulae ad familiares 13, 56, 1). The words depend on edition. Mylasii and Alabandenses do occur in a text from 1554. Another edition comments those forms with "e correctione non necessaria". And Mylasii could rather be Mylaseī, Mylasēnī or Mylasēnsēs anyway.
  • gen. pl.: strōmateus has stromateon. The o clearly should be long, the e most likely should be short.

Questions:

  • How should the diphthong in nom. and voc. be marked, by ͡   or by a counting of syllables? Or should it be unmarked and just be "eu̯" in the "Pronunciation" section?
  • What's the correct vowel length of the Greek forms? Well, maybe sometimes it's simply unknown...

BTW:

  • Of the above mentioned proper nouns once only Enīpeus had a Latin entry here in wiktionary. In wiktionary it was mentioned as a normal second delension noun with voc. Enīpee. But even L&S has "Ĕnīpeus (trisyl.)" and later "voc. Enīpeu". Some dictionaries do also mention gen. ~eos or acc. ~ea (short or improperly marked), but without reference, so maybe it's unattested for classical Latin.

-80.133.123.144 14:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC) till 14:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"flunk" vs. "bocciare"

[edit]

There appears to be an inconsistency between the article about Italian "bocciare", which says it means "to fail, flunk (someone)" and thus suggests the subject would be the teacher, and the translation at "flunk", which list "bocciare" as "fail" and not "deny a passing grade". I am Italian, and I never heard "bocciare" used as "He flunked math", but only as "The teacher flunked him". In fact, the sentence "He flunked math" is one I'd translate to a passive "È stato bocciato in matematica" or a pseudo-impersonal "L'han bocciato in matematica" (lit. "they flunked him in math"), and "segare" (given translation of "deny a passing grade") is, to my ears, a more colloquial and vulgar synonym of "bocciare". This says that the usage of "bocciare" as "flunk (an exam)" «appartiene o all'italiano adoperato in determinate aree geografiche o, in altri casi, a un livello popolare, forse anche trascurato, di uso della lingua» (belongs either to the Italian used in some geographical areas or, in other cases, to a popular, maybe even sloppy, of language usage». So maybe "bocciare" should be a translation of the other sense, and of this sense but marked as "regional" or the likes? Also, "trombare" as "flunk"… never heard. And I'd expect it to be an even more vulgar synonym of "segare", "bocciare", as "The teacher flunked him" = "La prof l'ha bocciato/segato/trombato". The last one feels pretty weird to my ears, and would sound like the teacher actually had intercourse with him if a complement like "all'esame", "at the exam", were not present. "Fottuto" might be less weird but still very uncommon, and it would probably be taken as the teacher either actively trying to flunk the student (e.g. by asking him about stuff not covered in the class nor in the material the student studied on -- yeah, that can happen) or involuntarily making an extremely unlucky choice of questions (e.g. asking the only thing the student didn't know that well), much like "fregato" would. Also, "cannare" is another synonym of "segare" in the above sense". Do you guys agree to this? What should we do about those translations?

MGorrone (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

surviving cohabitant

[edit]

If one of a cohabitant (unmarried) couple dies, which word should be used of the survivor? I'd guess widow or widower won't do. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "surviving cohabitant" vs. "deceased cohabitant". —Stephen (Talk) 23:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen "unmarried widow". Equinox ◑ 23:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have difficulty parsing "unmarried widow" as it seems to be either a tautology or a contradiction in terms, or possibly both simultaneously. Personally, I would probably describe such a person as "surviving boyfriend/girlfriend". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that unusual for an adjective to cancel out one of the usual assumed attributes of the noun... Equinox ◑ 13:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, I'd have difficulty understanding it. If I heard someone described as an "unmarried widow", my first thought would be that she hadn't remarried since the death of her husband. I wouldn't understand it to mean that her previous life partner, whom she wasn't married to, had died. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't regard myself as an "unmarried widower", I still wear my wedding ring. A "surviving partner" may be an option where a cohabiting couple were unmarried. DonnanZ (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Surviving partner" gets 90 times as many hits in a basic Google search as "surviving cohabitant". It would seem to me that that's the way to go. Thank you again for your contributions. In Finnish we have avioliitto (“marriage, literallly married union or union in marriage”) and avoliitto (“unmarried partnership, literally open union”). Many words with "avio-" may be changed to refer to cohabitation by changing "avio-" to "avo-", e.g. aviopuoliso (“spouse”) becomes avopuoliso (“cohabitant”). I still have one related term to which I would like to find the English equivalent. In similar manner as above, avioero (“divorce”) becomes avoero (“separation of an unmarried couple”), but what would it be in English? --Hekaheka (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One has to be careful with the term "surviving partner" though, it could also refer to a surviving business partner. "Separation of an unmarried couple" - just that I suppose, they can't be divorced as such. But married couples can also separate without being divorced. DonnanZ (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The separation of an unmarried couple is simply called a breakup. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lemon soda, lemonade

[edit]

I assume that lemon soda is a synonym of lemonade (sense 2). DonnanZ (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No confirmation or otherwise, so I'll carry on with my assumption. DonnanZ (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Donnanz: I don't about you, but for me lemonade is just lemon juice, water, and sugar (i.e. not a soda, i.e. not fizzy). --WikiTiki89 15:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Donnanz: Oh I see you were talking about sense 2. I wouldn't know if they are synonyms because I wouldn't know whether I would consider that type of lemonade a soda, because I don't really know what it is. Not all fizzy drinks are sodas. Lemon soda would be like soda (such as Fanta), but lemon flavored. Also, lemon soda to me is SOP. --WikiTiki89 15:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sense 1 of lemonade would be called a lemon drink in British English. If I go to my local shop or supermarket and buy a bottle or can of lemonade, I would get a carbonated (or fizzy) drink with a lemon flavour. The term lemon soda isn't used in British English, but I suspect it's the same as British lemonade. It may be regarded as SoP in Am. E. but it shouldn't be deleted if it has a different meaning elsewhere. DonnanZ (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikitiki89: I have added synonyms to lemonade, but these can be revised. DonnanZ (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Donnanz: Have you heard of Fanta? If you would call the lemon flavor of Fanta lemonade, then I guess that makes it relatively synonymous with lemon soda. But I've definitely had fizzy lemon drinks that I would not call soda (ironically, I would call them lemon drinks). --WikiTiki89 21:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I remember buying my first Fanta in Auckland around 1963, it was new on the market and hadn't reached my home town. But that was Fanta orange, I'll have to check to see if there's a Fanta lemon here. I'm now wondering whether lemon pop is a better word. DonnanZ (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pop is just a regional equivalent of soda. It doesn't change the meaning. --WikiTiki89 21:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fanta lemon is sold here, and that's what it says on the can, not lemonade [1]. So lemon drink it is then for fizzy lemon, how strange! DonnanZ (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What it's branded as is irrelevant. Would you call it lemonade? --WikiTiki89 18:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikitiki89: I'm in the middle of carrying out a test between Fanta lemon and R Whites lemonade. They have the same character, i.e. fizzy, and slightly different tastes, the Fanta is cloudy, and R Whites is completely clear (as traditional British carbonated lemonade always is}. So Fanta lemon has the characteristics of British lemonade, but is still different. I'm not sure whether to call it lemonade or not, a variety of lemonade perhaps? DonnanZ (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most chocolate bars (etc.) don't say "chocolate bar" on the front of the wrapper. It's common for a product's packaging to state the name and flavour without the generic descriptor. Equinox ◑ 18:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If any distinction is generally (consistently) made, it seems like a usage note explaining it might be useful. Some uses of "lemon drink" seem SOP, e.g. "Mongols enjoyed a sweetened lemon drink preserved with alcohol". I also find "There are a few different flavours: a lemonade, a lemon drink, orangeade and Selecto being the most common", where they are distinguished, alongside other books where "lemon pop" is used as a synonym of "lemonade": "'Then how about a nice glass of lemon pop?' went on Rosie, regarding Emma carefully. 'It's refreshing and yer looks ever so peaked ter me.' Without waiting for a response, Rosie uncorked a bottle of lemonade and poured a glass." "Lemon soda" is also called "sparkling lemonade" or "carbonated lemonade" (quite SOP) according to some books. One identifies a brand: "We recommend making lemonade from scratch for this drink, but you can use any good lemon soda, such as 7 Up." Another makes clear it is carbonated: "Substitute sparkling water for the water in this lemonade recipe and you have lemon soda." - -sche (discuss) 17:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See I would for example interpret that last quote as meaning "and you have [a good substitute for] lemon soda". I guess to me "soda" has to be artificially flavored and factory-produced. --WikiTiki89 18:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "soda" is usually artificially-flavoured and mass-produced, but I think that's a practical rather than a lexical restriction, like how "sneakers" are usually factory-made but you could make a pair in your home. The definition could say "usually artificially flavored", but then, some mass-produced brands might make a selling point of using real lemon. (Another method of home-producing lemon soda would be with a SodaStream.) - -sche (discuss) 20:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that if you take lemonade (by the US definition) and mix it with fizzy water, what you end up with is not soda in my idiolect. However, if you mix fizzy water with a lemon syrup, I'd be more inclined to call it soda. For another example, sparkling cider (often used as a non-alcoholic substitute for champagne), is also not soda in my idiolect. --WikiTiki89 21:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

given to

[edit]

I don't think it's right to call this an adjective. Equinox ◑ 21:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at given (adjective sense 5) there is a similar example. Also mentioned here [2] (scroll down a bit). DonnanZ (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only those, but also our entry for give has:
    14 (reflexive) To devote or apply (oneself).
    The soldiers give themselves to plunder.
    That boy is given to fits of bad temper.
    (The "reflexive" seems confusing or even wrong with respect to the second usage example.)
    But “given to”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows that some dictionaries include given to as an entry, including MWOnline and a couple of idiom dictionaries. None of them give it a PoS. We may be well advised to punt and call it a "Phrase". DCDuring TALK 22:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is changed then I guess prone to should be also. I originally created given to, and I believe I just copied the PoS from "prone to". I seem to recall that I had doubts about it at the time but I guess I took "prone to" to be the authority. Mihia (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We list bound to as a Phrase. But I can't help seeing all of these merely as SoP Adj + Preposition :\ Leasnam (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should depend on whether there is "sufficient" semantic departure of the phrase from the current definitions of the components or of the grammar (eg, complements) from expected behavior. If this is too hard, we could rely on lemmings. Other dictionaries don't include bound to, except as a phony entry (not even a redirect). One idiom dictionary includes bound to do (something). One includes prone to.
IMO, just one lemming with a real entry is sufficient reason for inclusion. DCDuring TALK 11:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

turnover

[edit]

Noun sense 1:

The act or result of overturning something; an upset.
a bad turnover in a carriage

I believe in putting most frequent / most important / most fundamental meanings first, but I have never heard of this meaning. I suggest it should have a label and/or be moved down the list, but what label? Is it archaic? Rare? Has anyone else heard of it? Mihia (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's from Webster 1913. It's dated. Today we'd talk about a crash, etc. but cars don't fall over like carriages did. Equinox ◑ 23:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have demoted that entry. Mihia (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cailín (irish)

[edit]

Good evening-

Are you sure cailín is masculine ?

--ArséniureDeGallium (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ArséniureDeGallium: Yes! Similarly to German Mädchen, the gender of the word for "girl" is determined by its suffix (in this case, -ín), not by its meaning. Nevertheless, pronouns referring back to cailín are feminine. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other cases where grammatical gender doesn't match natural gender in Irish are gasóg f (“boy scout”) and stail f (“stallion”). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aɴɢʀ - thank you very much --ArséniureDeGallium (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming changes

[edit]

There are a lot of small changes happening in the next couple of weeks, and I wanted to give you all a quick heads-up about them. Please share this information with other people/languages/projects that will be interested:

  • There's a change to how columns in reference lists are handled, at the request of the German Wikipedia. This change will improve accessibility by automatically formatting long lists of <ref>s into columns, based on each reader's screen width.
    • What you need to do: Nothing visible is happening now. I'm not sure how much this will affect the Wikitionaries. If your project uses the normal <references /> tag (or doesn't really use refs at all), then file a Phabricator task or just tell me, and I'll get your wiki on the list for the next config change. If your project uses a "reflist" template to create columns (but not if it only adds a section heading), then please consider deprecating it, or update the template to work with the new feature.
  • The label on the "Save changes" button will change on most projects tomorrow (Wednesday) to say "Publish page". This has been discussed for years, is supported by user research, and is meant to be clearer for new contributors. (Most of us who have been editing for years don't even look at the button any more, and we all already know that all of our changes can be seen by anyone on the internet, so this doesn't really affect us.)
    • If you have questions or encounter problems (e.g., a bad translation, problems fixing the documentation, etc.), then please tell me as soon as possible.
    • When we split "Save page" into "Save page" and "Save changes" last August, a couple of communities wondered whether a local label would be possible. (For example, someone at the English Wikipedia asked if different namespaces could have different labels [answer: not technically possible], and the Chinese Wikipedia has some extra language on their "Save page" button [about the importance of previewing, I think].) Whether the Legal team can agree to a change may depend upon the language/country involved, so please ask me first if you have any questions.
  • As part of the ongoing, years-long user-interface standardization project, the color and shape of the "Save changes" (or now "Publish page"), "Show preview" and "Show changes" buttons on some desktop wikitext editors will change. The buttons will be bigger and easier to find, and the "Save" button will be bright blue. (phab:T111088) Unfortunately, it is not technically possible to completely override this change and restore the appearance of the old buttons for either your account or an entire site.
  • Do you remember last April, when nobody could edit for about 30 minutes twice, because of some work that Technical Ops was doing on the servers? The same kind of planned maintenance is happening again. It's currently scheduled for Wednesday, April 19th and Wednesday, May 3rd. The time of day is unknown, but it will probably afternoon in Europe and morning in North America. This will be announced repeatedly, but please mark your calendars now.

That's everything on my mind at the moment, but I may have forgotten something. If you have questions (about this or any other WMF work), then please {{ping}} me, and I'll see what I can find out for you. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T160933
@Whatamidoing (WMF): Thanks for the update. For future reference, when technical mass updates are left at the English Wiktionary, they should be added to Wiktionary:Grease Pit. Also, to the extent we use inline references (which is infrequent), we use <references />, so I suppose en.wikt should be put on that list. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The config changes should be happening in the next few minutes. Please ping me if there are any problems (or comment at the Phabricator task, if it's urgent). Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spezialstahl

[edit]

What is "special steel"? Is it a particular alloy? DTLHS (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might deserve to be deleted. I don't know if there's an idiomatic sense in metallurgy, but otherwise it simply means "kind of steel adapted specially for a particular use". I can make the same kind of compound with most any noun: Spezialschuh (specialized shoe), Spezialseil (specialized rope), Spezialziegel (specialized brick), etc. Kolmiel (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolmiel: We have traditionally interpreted SOP only to apply to terms consisting of multiple words, so all the German compounds would not be deleted even if unidiomatic. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know that's the case for English and other languages in which closed compounds are a reasonably restricted class. I thought there was a different policy for languages like German and Dutch. In fact, the difference between English open compounds and German closed compounds is purely orthographic. So it would seem quite inconsistent to treat them differently. Kolmiel (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And then I can make additional SOP compounds with the SOP compound, e.g. Spezialstahlhersteller ("specialized steal producer"), Spezialschuhhandel ("specialized shoe business"), both of which are very attestable and could probably even meet our standards for inclusion. It would be a bottomless pit. Kolmiel (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

mannish

[edit]

It seems redundant to have all of these three senses:

  1. (more rarely) Resembling or characteristic of an adult male (as opposed to a boy).
  2. (Caribbean, Guyana) Impertinent; precocious; assertive.
  3. (African American Vernacular) precocious

Of the two citations under the Caribbean sense, "for all his mannish ways, he’s still just a little tyke" could just as easily be using the "characteristic of an adult male" sense. I suggest moving it, possibly removing "precocious" from the Caribbean sense (on the grounds that Caribbean use of the word to mean "characteristic of an adult male" is just use of that sense), and merging the AAVE sense into the "adult male" sense or into the Caribbean sense. - -sche (discuss) 05:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Caribbean sense is sourced and supported by a citation, so we should keep it. I wish we had a source or citation for the AAVE label.
Also, most OneLook references are more focused on subtle distinctions in meaning (which we combine in definition 1) according to whether the noun modified is a woman or a thing, eg, article of clothing, manner of communicating. We at least need usage examples for the two noun types. DCDuring TALK 12:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dear

[edit]

Isn't the sense "high in price, expensive" dated? --Barytonesis (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In North America, I think so, yes, but I've heard British speakers use it in that sense. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe? Maybe not? "He paid dearly for that decision" is doesn't feel dated to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience (UK), yes, a bit dated. (Figurative "dearly" may be different.) Equinox ◑ 19:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the expression "dear price" (to pay dearly = to pay a dear price). --WikiTiki89 21:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems normal to me (but I am getting on a bit). SemperBlotto (talk) 07:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds a bit dated to me, but I think it's a regional thing. There are parts of the country where it wouldn't surprise me to hear people of any age use it. Ƿidsiþ 08:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

read

[edit]

Aren't the senses 5 ("to consist of a certain text") and 6 ("Of text, etc., to be interpreted or read in a particular way.") almost identical? --Barytonesis (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're exactly the same, although they are similar. It's the difference between saying "The first part of my post reads 'I don't think they're exactly the same'" and "The first part of my post reads that I disagree with you." Then again, the difference might just be the quotation marks... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"That sentence doesn't read very well" suits #6 but not #5. Equinox ◑ 03:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a much better example, thank you. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think #5 is just a special case of #6. We should merge them. --WikiTiki89 20:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think Equinox's example is a good case for keeping them separate. Perhaps they should be made subdefinitions of a more general definition? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

motė

[edit]

Lithuanian apparently has the same word for both "mother" and "wife". How does that work? How do people not get it all mixed up? 93.136.91.29 20:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's solved by not using the word motė much at all. You normally use motina for "mother" and pati for "wife" (there's also žmona for wife, but I'm not sure if it's used much in normal speech). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In English, some family men use "mum" for both their wife and mother. Not perfectly the same thing maybe, but close. Kolmiel (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary Etymologies interface

[edit]

Etymologists may be aware of a grant building an etymology GUI, etytree, drawing on Wiktionary etyms. The grant is up for renewal and they are looking for feedback/support as announced on the mailing list. - Amgine/ t·e 20:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

regrets only

[edit]

Is this really a noun? Isn't this more of an interjection? PseudoSkull (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the emotion expressed? DCDuring TALK 10:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call it a phrase. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical compound names.

[edit]

Robert Ullmann's missing redlinks list is well populated with names of chemical compounds like barium sulfate, potassium ferrocyanide, and calcium polyphosphate. Do we intend to create these? If so, can we have a bot make them? bd2412 T 00:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We desperately need a policy on chemical names and especially formulae; this may be a good excuse to draft one that can justify semiautomated creation, should such creation be found to have consensus. Do you remember where previous discussion on this topic happened? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I recall discussing abbreviations before, but not spelled out formula names. I will search later. bd2412 T 17:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I found Talk:lithium fluoride#Discussion moved from RfD, where it appears that we decided in 2005 (although not without dissent) that names of chemicals should be included. bd2412 T 20:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should have a new discussion if the old one was more than a decade ago, especially if mass creation of new articles is being proposed... - -sche (discuss) 22:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what this is? On the merits question, I think that it would be worth having these entries. We already have many (nitrogen pentoxide, carbon diselenide, sulfer trioxide, along with more widely known names like carbon monoxide and hydrogen peroxide) and so long as a particular chemical name is attested per CFI, I see no good basis for exclusion. bd2412 T 20:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we did have blanket inclusion, I would like to see some language that prohibited people from bot creating the millions of potential entries. DTLHS (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. When I look up chemical compounds in the dictionary, I hope to see a bit more information than the surface analysis, such as what it looks like, is used for, etc., and maybe a picture (essentially a highly condensed encyclopedia entry). That would be missing in bot created entries. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are there millions, though? Actual names of chemical compounds are far less in number than mere chemical formulae. They tend to spell out the relationship between only two or three different elements. bd2412 T 20:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are millions. Think about how many ways there are to arrange three different elements. DTLHS (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely my point - it doesn't matter how many ways there are to arrange three different elements, because a dozen different arrangements of the same element, while having a dozen different formulae, will all have the same name as a chemical compound. There are about 130 chemical elements, not all of which are capable of forming compounds at all (some because they are inert, others because they are too large to create stable bonds). If we generously suppose that there are a hundred elements that can form bonds, and were to count the few dozen elements with which each of these is able to bond (because their atomic structures correspond), we would have a few thousand. Note that more complex molecules, if they are attested at all, are usually given shorter, often single word names, like sucrose or iron pyrite. bd2412 T 20:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you're not actually advocating for inclusion of all chemical compound names. DTLHS (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per my original post, I am advocating for the inclusion of the chemical compound names on Robert Ullmann's list of missing red links. bd2412 T 21:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about a bot, but the lemming principle seems to have found considerable support, and barium sulfate is in M-W[3], while calcium polyphosphate isn't there and is not in OneLook. This could give us something to start with, although it is not really based on a lexicographical principle but rather on us being an inclusion copycat. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather that we have a principle of inclusion or exclusion of chemical names, and apply it uniformly to all attested names. bd2412 T 20:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Andrew that these are not very useful unless they describe the chemical's use and characteristics in some way. Just auto-generating chemical formulae from the names (if that's even possible) seems like having those number entries for 109, 110, 111, etc. Equinox ◑ 21:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about the notion of exclusion based on absence of substantive definition, in this case some reason why one would be interested in the substance. "If you don't have anything nice [sense 4] to say about the term, don't say anything at all." (I am still struggling to provide such "nice" definitions for many taxonomic names.) DCDuring TALK 01:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To start with, any entry with no meaning that can't be derived from the name should be deletable as SOP. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning, we could easily delete at least a third of the existing entries in Category:en:Inorganic compounds. bd2412 T 03:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether we decide to include these or not (or include some subset of them), I have gathered all of Robert Ullmann's "missing" chemical compound names at User:Robert Ullmann/Missing/chemical compounds. There are about 185, and also about two dozen chemical formulae that appear in that form in the bluelinked entries. bd2412 T 02:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

haupt-

[edit]

Is this really a prefix? I always intepreted it as a compounding form of Haupt. @-sche, Kolmiel, Korn —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; not a prefix. The forms in question are compounds of Haupt. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What Angr says. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I always wonder about this. I sort of agree that it's not a prefix, but if this is so, neither are vor-, herum-, über-, etc., in my opinion. Or do I miss the difference? (At least, melde- and wegwerf- should also go, probably also küchen- although I created that myself.) Kolmiel (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the separable prefixes aren't true prefixes either, but the inseparable ones are, so ˈüberˌsetzen (“to pass over”) is a compound, while ˌüberˈsetzen (“to translate”) has a prefix. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... What makes you think that one is a prefix and the other isn't? I mean, everything that isn't a word in its own right, like zer-, that's obviously a prefix; but otherwise I don't know how we distinguish them. Kolmiel (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The stress pattern: "pass over" has the stress pattern of a compound word; "translate" doesn't. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To take a Dutch equivalent doorlopen, the stress pattern of the separable verb is indistinguishable from that of door lopen, as two separate words. In the forms where the two parts separate, they're completely indistinguishable, even in writing. They are also conceptually equivalent, and I find myself occasionally hesitating, for certain combinations of verbs and adverbs, whether to separate the two with a space or not. —CodeCat 18:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This problem also exists in German, albeit to a lesser extent than in Dutch because they don't let us separate our pronominal adverbs in writing. — @Angr: But what is the "stress pattern of a compound"? Compounds aren't necessarily stressed on the first component. Take ˌsüßˈsauer for an example. Kolmiel (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, good point. I was just remembering when I first moved to Germany I referred to Norway as Norˈwegen; the person I was talking to corrected my pronunciation to ˈNorwegen, saying, "Even though it's a place name, it still has the stress pattern of a compound". The other example that occurs to me is that the place in southeastern Niedersachsen is ˌSalzˈgitter, but a literal grid or grille made of salt would be a ˈSalzˌgitter. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes :) Well, the vast majority of compounds are definitely stressed on the first component, but exceptions exist. In longer compounds it can also vary. For example, most people including myself say ˈBlaubeerˌpfannˌkuchen, but my mother who's from Westphalia says ˌBlaubeerˈpfannˌkuchen. Kolmiel (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

incredible

[edit]

Why is this in Category:English words affected by confusion? Because some people use "incredulous" to mean incredible? Well, do they also use "incredible" to mean "incredulous" in a way that is not standard? If not, the category seems unnecessary. And more generally, it seems that whenever the category is included, a usage note should explain what the confusion is! - -sche (discuss) 22:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lacrima

[edit]

Why all the -i- reflexes in Romance? Is there a variant lacrīma attested anywhere? KarikaSlayer (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's puzzling to me. If they had developed from *lacrīma, then they would have accent on the penult, not the antepenult. But if they developed from lacrima, they would be expected to have e rather than i. Perhaps the word preserved its vowel by analogy with the Latin form. — Eru·tuon 03:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the words, except for the ones in French and Romansh and maybe some of small languages, seem to be borrowings rather than inherited terms. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the problem with listing borrowed terms alongside inherited terms. When I first started using ‘Descendants’ as a header (and I think I might have been the first to do so), it was supposed to be for words inherited into other languages. If we also list borrowings under this header (which personally I think is overwhelming – consider English words like bar or taxi), they should be clearly marked as such. Ƿidsiþ 08:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'perfume' as a word and the pronunciatioon of 'alas'

[edit]

As a non-specialist, non-native user I have to questions: 1) Shouldn't (deprecated template usage) perfume be given a separate pronunciation as a verb? According to some educatory pages, it is stressed on the final syllable. 2) What about the word 'alas'? Wiktionary gives the pronunciation /əˈlæs/, but the rhyme -ɑːs.

1) You are correct. I have added North American pronunciations with that distinction.
2) I have never heard "alas" pronounced /əˈlɑːs/, and looking at the history of the rhyme page for "-ɑːs", I see that "alas" was added once and then removed. I think a link to the rhyme page is automatically added to the main entry when someone submits a new rhyme, so it must have just been mistakenly left on the main page all this time. I will take the liberty of removing it until someone can attest that it is in fact a valid pronunciation. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Κλέαρχoς

[edit]

I don't know what this guy did, but it seems to be messing with {{grc-IPA}} in the entry, because omicron is not transcribed. --Barytonesis (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing for Κλεοφῶν (Kleophôn). --Barytonesis (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Barytonesis: They had the Latin letters K and o instead of kappa and omicron. The correct entries, Κλέαρχος (Kléarkhos) and Κλεοφῶν (Kleophôn) already existed. —JohnC5 20:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

declare war

[edit]

This term can be used figuratively, right? ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any term can be used figuratively. --WikiTiki89 12:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we include figurative uses on Wiktionary? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only if it has become lexicalized. --WikiTiki89 02:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We need to modify the entry in some way so as to indicate that it isn't always a government authority that is declaring war, at a minimum. Some other dictionaries have a non-governmental sense, so I've added one. - -sche (discuss) 01:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better now. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

round prices

[edit]
1854, Brillat-Savarin, The Physiology of Taste: Or, Transcendental Gastronomy‎[4], page 108:
Young girls often acquired a very sufficient dowry, and towns-folk who wished to eat them had to pay round prices for them.

Does this use of "round" fit into one of our existing definitions? I'm not sure what it means. DTLHS (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it does, but it means that the prices were high. I've seen it most often in "a round sum" (= "a sizeable sum"). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary.com has it (see definition 13). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

benim

[edit]

Shouldn't this be under Middle English (at least the sense used before the 16th century and the 15th century quotation)? Crom daba (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's now at RFV to see if modern citations can be found. - -sche (discuss) 04:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

get one's butt somewhere

[edit]

Admittedly, I'm not a native speaker, but I've never heard/read (deprecated template usage) this instant to mean "now". Is it common? --Barytonesis (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Mostly interchangeable with "right now" and "right this second". --WikiTiki89 15:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Now with no delay. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I like the sound of it. --Barytonesis (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

shee

[edit]

This is said to be both an obsolete spelling of she and specifically an obsolete emphatic form of she; likewise mee, etc. Is that correct? - -sche (discuss) 00:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about whether it was more common emphatically, but certainly this spelling used to be used. The OED dates it from ‘ME–17’, i.e. from the Middle English period to the 18th century (and slightly later in Irish English). Ƿidsiþ 07:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-sche -- Probably sometimes a doubled vowel letter indicated that a pronoun was not unstressed (as pronouns often are/were). Not sure if that's the same as "emphatic". AnonMoos (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sadism

[edit]

boast

[edit]

Does the fifth sense ("to possess something special") make it a synonym of sport in sense 3 ("to display; to have as a notable feature")? --Barytonesis (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's more or less a synonym; but I think "boast" usually refers to an inanimate object having something ("the new software boasts a number of cloud features") while "sport" is often a person and e.g. clothing ("he sported a bright green tie"). Equinox ◑ 16:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"srdce" is seriously screwed!

[edit]

I just stumbled upon the entry for srdce and my is it screwed! Every line has at least one Lua error (save for the titles of the sections and the table of contents), therein including the declension tables, where every cell is an error… and this across all languages! What in the world is going on there?!

MGorrone (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A temporary error in module code that is gone now. —suzukaze (t・c) 22:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

retosituo

[edit]

cheese and spaghetti in gamer slang: to add or not to add?

[edit]

I just went to the cheese and spaghetti pages, and saw that:

  1. The former has the gamer sense in the verb section, but not as a noun;
  2. The latter has perhaps a hint of the gamer sense in "Short form of spaghetti code", and no hint at the verb sense.

cheese, in gaming slang -- as I picked up from the videos of Youtube users such as carlsaga42 and ryukahr --, is an exploit to make beating a game easier than was intended. I guess this sense comes from the related verb sense of "using an exploit to beat the game easily", which is present in the Wiktionary entry and given as a derivative of cheesy (what sense? Sense 3, "cheap, of poor quality"?). What should we do about the noun sense? Should we add it under Etymology 1 as sense 14 or add a new "Etymology 5" where this noun usage is said to stem from Etymology 4 of cheese as a verb? Also, one might want to add that queso can be used as a synonym in this sense. I have a video title "koopas with a side of queso" and a vague memory of an utterance of "smell that delicious queso?" as examples for this.

As for spaghetti, as a noun it means a stupid and/or ridiculous mistake in playing a game. Many examples of this usage can be found in Youtube videos by carlsagan42, GrandPoobear, ryukahr, and more I guess but I'm not sure. The first one actually has a series about Mario64 which is referred to in the series as "Spaghetti64", because he spaghetties all over the place in that series. As a verb, it means to make such a mistake. Is this really a derivative of spaghetti code via abbreviation? In any case, maybe we should add it to the spaghetti article, either as another Etymology "By extension from an abbreviation of spaghetti code", because the inputs in a game are not really like a programming language, or as another sense after the abbreviation one. What say you guys?

MGorrone (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They should be added iff they are attestable. Please see WT:ATTEST. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For attestation, here are examples of spaghetti in the above sense. MGorrone (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And here is another example by someone else. The above was by CarlSagan42, this one is by GrandPoobear. MGorrone (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And this is an (admittedly not too clear, but whatever) example of usage of spaghetti by ryukahr, a third youtube user.
Cheese and spaghetti compilations by CarlSagan42. Featuring «Oh no no no no no I spaghettied everywhere!» around 1:04, «Oh Jesus, the spaghetti! I bonked my head!» at 1:13, «OK, stop trying to go fast, or I'll just spaghetti all over these ghosts» at 4:06, and a written «THEN CARL SPAGHETTIED FOR A LONG TIME» at 4:49-4:59 in the spaghetti compilation. MGorrone (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And here is a cheese compilation by ryukahr. Is all this stuff enough for attestation of these senses of spaghetti and cheese @Metaknowledge:? MGorrone (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. You should read WT:ATTEST, which I already linked you to. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is Poobear again, with «That was a lot of spaghetti right there» or the likes. MGorrone (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I personally wouldn't think it has much to do with 'spaghetti code', but rather with this meme which is fairly well known on 4chan, and to a degree reddit, tumblr, and FB meme pages from what I've seen. But yeah, proper attestation is going to be an issue. — Kleio (t · c) 20:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tudorbethan

[edit]
  • Since the "beth" part definitely comes (albeit indirectly) from "Elizabeth", I see it as an eponym. Chambers defines eponym as "a person, real or mythical, from whose name another name, esp a place name, is derived; the name so derived". Does any source say that an eponym can only be direct, and not indirect? Equinox ◑ 18:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PPT

[edit]

(continuing from Talk:PPT) Is PPT used in English speech to refer to PowerPoint? Or does it usually just refer to the file format? — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 16:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Justinrleung: I cited PPT in English, in two senses now: the PowerPoint software (proper noun), and a PowerPoint file (common noun). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Daniel Carrero! I'm curious as to how native speakers of English would usually read this or use this (in text and in speech). I don't hear native speakers saying /piː piː tiː/ in normal speech (unless they are referring to the file format/file extension). — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 03:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is it actually an initialism? T is not really the first letter; in fact, it's the last letter. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 03:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Equinox fixed it, apparently it's an abbreviation. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Can't be an initialism because the T doesn't stand for anything; it's just the final t from point. Presumably PowerPoint was abbreviated PPT to permit 3-letter DOS/Windows filename extensions, and then users took that as a standard abbreviation for PowerPoint in general. Equinox ◑ 19:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Equinox, thanks for the explanation! BTW, isn't {{abbreviation of}} a definition line template? Should it be used in etymologies? — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 15:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Justinrleung: About {{abbreviation of}}, {{initialism of}} and {{acronym of}}. They're formatted as definition line (non-gloss) text, italicized, yes. So, I don't like very much using them in etymologies, and I'd prefer having separate templates for etymology use. At the same time, they are already being used in etymologies so we would need to edit a lot of entries to make that separation. For the time being, I'm using them in etymologies, too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swazi and Swaziland: etymology?

[edit]

I just stumbled upon the Swazi and Swaziland entries. Swaziland is said to stem "from Swazi + -land" in its entry. Swazi has no etymology in the English section, but the French one states it comes "From Swaziland". Um, etymo-loop-ical problems? Which comes from which, and what does the "parent word" come from in turn? I looked across all linked other-language entries, and all the etymology I could see was in the Romanian article:

  1. Din limba swati siSwati. | From Swati siSwati.
  2. Origine incertă. | Uncertain origin.

So is it correct that Swaziland<Swazi<siSwati? And if so, how did the t become a z? And where does siSwati come from in the first place? Is this dictionary entry right in saying siSwati comes from the name of king Mswati?

MGorrone (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is simply that the English name comes from Zulu, rather than from Swazi itself. And yes, it's in reference to the name of a king. I'll fix the relevant entries. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Zulu name of the king, perhaps umSwazi or similar, attestable? Also, is it not more plausible that Zulu iSwazi is from Swazi liSwati? —CodeCat 18:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the name would be thus in Zulu, but I can't find any attestation. And though the Zulu name may come from the Swazi, it may also be of equal age; I think it's essentially impossible to determine that, because the sound changes would happen regardless. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to ascertain is whether the Zulu named the language/people directly after the king, whose name was in turn borrowed from his native Swazi name, or that this process happened in Swazi and the people/language names were then borrowed fully-formed into Zulu. —CodeCat 18:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I think it's impossible to determine. The names probably arose more or less simultaneously, but the phonological alteration to make words fit in has the side effect that borrowing is indistinguishable from inheritance on deeper time scales. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

منيَ minniya 'of me'

[edit]

Hi, could sb. please add when to use this form, and confirm wether such a form is the one that appears in the following poetry excerpt. Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The normal reading would be minnī (as you seem to be aware). The reading minniya wouldn't surprise me before a wasl, for example if the following word had the article, that is minniya l-[...] instead of (or alongside) minni l-[...]. In your poetic example, I'd say that it might be used for metric reasons, but this is just conjecture. I do think that you identified the word correctly. Kolmiel (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolmiel: Phonetically, /i/ may easily be turned into a semiconsonant, /y/. Yet, the opposite process occurs in the informal pausal pronunciation of مِصْرِي /miṣrī/--Backinstadiums (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the semiconsonant /j/, which is written in Arabic tanscription as "y". (Don't write /y/ because that refers to the vowel in French lune or German grün). — What you describe is a general phenomenon. Arabic /i:/ (transcribed ī) will always become /ij/ (transcribed iy) when a vowel is added. That needn't worry you. The interesting part is really the vowel "a".
Now take for example the prepositions بِ (bi) and لِ (li). With the suffix of the 1st-person singular they become بِي (bī) and لِي (lī) respectively. However, if the following word has the article there's no way to identify the suffix: قالَ لِي اَلْحَقِيقَة (qāla lī l-ḥaqīqa) would sound the same as قالَ لِلْحَقِيقَة (qāla lilḥaqīqa). Therefore it is common to use a linking "a" in the former phrase: قالَ لِيَ اَلْحَقِيقَة (qāla liya l-ḥaqīqa), meaning "he told me the truth". With مِن (min) this additional "a" isn't necessary because the forms remain distinguishable; apart from the fact that the following word in your example doesn't have the article at all. But as I said, the "a" was probably used for metrical reasons. Kolmiel (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolmiel: So when followed by article, long i loses its quantity? --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Kolmiel (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or changes to "-iya". --WikiTiki89 19:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the talk

[edit]

Should we have an entry for this? --Barytonesis (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a moment there I was afraid you were gonna give us the talk here in the Tea room. Crom daba (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I lol'd much --Barytonesis (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We could, although whether it's better at the talk with a soft-redirect (pointer) from talk or vice versa is a matter of discussion. :p The entry should possibly have both the sex-specific sense and a broader sense along the lines of "A customary uncomfortable talk by a parent to a child about a reality of life" (or whatever better wording anyone can come up with), to cover other customary talks — e.g. for many African American speakers "the talk" is the talk about racism and violence from police (although, that use is probably so widespread as to meet CFI as its own sense). - -sche (discuss) 00:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The talk is also used by the Alt-Right (eg. John Derbyshire) to refer to the talk about African Americans and how to avoid them owing to crime etc. The white version of the talk - an article on this had JD sacked from National Review. — This comment was unsigned.
What about the movie? --WikiTiki89 21:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean? --Barytonesis (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this, at talk (with a redirect at the talk to talk#the_talk) per the prevailing practice of such things being at the the-less forms. - -sche (discuss) 22:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Barytonesis (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the redirect a bit, so that it works with {{senseid}}. —CodeCat 22:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

birb

[edit]

It seems evident to me that birb mimics a common mispronunciation of bird by children. Birb is an affectionate term and has a connotation of cuteness (look at the kyute widdle birb, so precious, completely adorbs wow :3, my birb is so smol – huh, I didn't realise that smol is a loan from Torres Strait Creole apparently ...). (Compare lolspeak, which follows the same "amusing baby-talk" strategy, as childlike speech is considered appropriate to cute cats.) This may be "duh obvious" to most of you, but people who are not very Internet-culture-savvy, have never encountered the term before in context, or aren't native speakers, may not find it so obvious at all, so perhaps it should be noted in the article. Is there a standard way to indicate something like that?

(Side note: I wrote mimicks first, but then realised that this is a non-standard spelling influenced by mimicking that I accidentally produced independently.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is what you're asking for, but it seems like the most appropriate category for this word in Category:English terms by usage would be Category:English childish terms, which is added by {{lb|en|childish}}. I'm not sure if there's a category for terms derived by alteration of pronunciation in the manner of a child; there should be. — Eru·tuon 11:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cf. pasghetti, helichopper (childish nonstandard). Equinox ◑ 19:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've added it! And how would you note the affectionate part, and the connotation of cuteness? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polysemic vs Polysemous

[edit]

The pages for polysemic and polysemous don't clarify the differences between the two. Do they have distinct meanings? Are they used in different academic communities but for the same concept? Are they both identical? — This unsigned comment was added by Creidieki (talk • contribs) at 10:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

GoPro, gopro

[edit]

Has this undergone genericization? --Barytonesis (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I think it still refers to cameras made by a specific corporation. DTLHS (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would call any camera similar to the ones that corporation makes a "gopro" and I honestly wasn't aware it wasn't a generic name (I don't think I've ever seen it written in camelcase, so it never really occurred to me). I have no evidence that other people use "gopro" the same way, though. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the terms action camera and action cam (action-cam, actioncam?) used on the Internet as well, but I don't know if that warrants an entry. --Barytonesis (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hāḏā qadr ḏālika

[edit]

Hi, a succession of 3 consonants is impossible, so قدر#Etymology_2 in the first sentence must be corrected (e.g. hāḏā qadr ḏālika). --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That just means there's a missing case vowel. Since I don't know what case it's supposed to be, I won't add it. --WikiTiki89 14:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikitiki89: In a nominal sentence the predicate is always indefinite genitive (ـٍ). Incidentally, I do not know what is the lexicographic pattern followed in arabic citation forms in wiktionary --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In a nominal sentence, the predicate is normally in the nominative, not the genitive. But this could be a predicate, or an adverbial clause. I don't know. --WikiTiki89 15:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikitiki89: The adverbial accusative would be قَدَرًا, so the acc. form of the term must be ruled out. --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, because it's in the construct state. It's either قَدْرُ (qadru) or قَدْرَ (qadra). --WikiTiki89 15:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktiki is right. I'm relatively sure it should be qadru (nominative), but their doubt is understandable and I wouldn't put my hand in the fire for it either (as we say in German). Kolmiel (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

mihiştu

[edit]

Is there any way to type Akkadian mihiştu (Sumerogram gu-šum2) in cuneiform Unicode? It is the Akkadian endonym for cuneiform script (ISO 15924 xsux), meaning "cuneiform writing, cuneiform wedge." A:M M2:54 I cannot seem to find the characters in the cuneiform Unicode block unfortunately to be able to type them without needing an image file. It should look like (𒄖 -šum2): http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/psl/img/popup/Oceb.png Nicole Sharp (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Nicole Sharp: Note that that in the transcription it's supposed to be an S with dot below, not S with cedilla, and the H has a half ring below: miḫiṣtu. Also, I don't know where you got that the Sumerogram is šum2, it's SUM. Also, don't forget that this word is also just spelled syllabically as mi-ḫi-iṣ-tu(m), not only with the Sumerograms GÙ.SUM (GÙ = GU3). The syllabic spelling would be: 𒈪𒄭𒄑𒌅 (mi-ḫi-iṣ-tu), and the Sumerogram spelling 𒅗𒋧 (GÙ.SUM) (the image you link to has 𒄖𒋧 (GU.SUM); I'm not sure whether that's a valid alternative or not). --WikiTiki89 22:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much! There are at least three different Romanizations provided between the University of Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary (HTML) and the The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (PDF), cited above. I missed SUM in the Unicode block, since I was searching for the string "um2" from the PSD. Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the PSD though, there is only one Sumerogram provided for Akkadian mihiştu ("cuneiform [writing]"), which is GU-ŠUM2 (𒄖𒋧). GU3-ŠUM2 (𒅗𒋧) corresponds in the PSD instead to Akkadian šagāmu ("to echo, roar, or shout"). Nicole Sharp (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It could be that ŠUM2 is another name for SUM. As for the correct spelling, it is quite possible that both Sumerograms existed. I don't have the resources to verify them. --WikiTiki89 17:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

bitches be crazy

[edit]

How do you parse this? --Barytonesis (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Be" is used as a dialectal/slang/ungrammatical (or something like that) present tense form. --WikiTiki89 16:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so this is not an imperative? I was picturing something like "[Let them] bitches be crazy; it doesn't matter". --Barytonesis (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It theoretically could be, but without context, I would parse it the same way as Wikitiki. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add a bit, when "be" is used this way, I feel that it takes on the tenses, aspects, and moods of the simple present of active verbs (i.e. in the indicative mood, it would have a present-tense habitual aspect), rather than the stative meaning of the grammatically correct "are". --WikiTiki89 21:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As displaying habitual be (sense 20): "bitches tend to be crazy" or alternatively "bitches are wont to be crazy" if you want to be pizazzy (and a little incongruent in register). Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So "bitches are crazy" doesn't mean the same thing? Siuenti (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It still basically means the same thing, but it's not 100% equivalent in meaning. It's meaning is more like "bitches are always crazy", but with the "always" deemphasized. (I don't think this has to do with sense 20, since there it's an auxiliary verb, while here it's the main verb.) --WikiTiki89 14:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some commentators on habitual be also note that it can be used as a copula. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't even think that the habitual copula "be" is an AAVE thing. I think it is universally common in children's speech, and can be conjugated as "bes" in the third-person singular and perhaps even "beed" in the past tense. I don't know if anyone has written about this, but I think it's somehow intuitive. Just that kids learn not to use it as they get older. --WikiTiki89 14:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It means exactly the same thing, to my understanding. "Be" is used for "are" in some low-prestige forms of English. Equinox ◑ 12:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think, in AAVE at least, the copula would simply be omitted: "Bitches crazy". — Eru·tuon 20:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not if it's habitual. The origin of the phrase appears to lie in urban African American (hip-hop) culture and therefore AAVE, and habitual be is a characteristic feature of AAVE. ---Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's what Erutuon was saying, that the simple copula would be omitted, but the habitual copula would not be omitted. --WikiTiki89 17:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

لِأَنْ (liʾan)

[edit]

Hi, the entry for ل#Synonyms should redirect to لِأَنْ , yet it shows the meaning of لِأَنَّ. I'd like to know whether sb. could add لِأَنْ and wether they're the same. Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Backinstadiums Done - created a new section with the new reading لِأَنْ (liʔan). The term is in the standard Hans Wehr dictionary. Since you seem to have an ongoing interest in Arabic, I recommend getting the dictionary, so that you have to rely less on other editors and switch from request to more contribution mode. :) It doesn't mean that you're not welcome to ask questions but you will ask questions, which are less basic. Also, you need a user page with a Babel table, you have been a while with us. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wrength

[edit]

Shouldn't there be some kind of label? literary, formal, archaic or what not? --Barytonesis (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the 19th century and early 20th it may have been literarily archaic, but the 2012 usage seems to be quite jocular and facetious (maybe even re-created from scratch based on the analogy long:length::strong:strength::wrong:X)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

izkrcanje

[edit]

Is the usage example quoted from somewhere? Is the "orgasm" translation accurate? DTLHS (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's from Slovene Wikipedia article on Operation Overlord, literal translation seems alright, the "figurative" translation is clearly a joke. Crom daba (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

فوق

[edit]

Hi, regarding فوق#Etymology_1, it would improve the entry to add why فَوْق is a defective noun, as well as why مِن فَوْقُ is an irregular expression. Finally, personally I do not undertand why there're two etymologies. Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The usage note already explains everything. --WikiTiki89 20:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikitiki89: Sorry to bother you, but since prepositions generally do not affect the case of adverbs, I cannot see why مِن فَوْقُ is irregular. --Backinstadiums (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's originally a noun (like most adverbs and many prepositions). So it's at least "notable". I think it would be fine if you were to replace "irregular" with that latter adjective, if it's important to you. Kolmiel (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hypercorrect Cockney?

[edit]

So apparently "The often exaggerated addition of /h/ before words like "out" in written Cockney is a hypercorrect affectation." This means if I see some "written Cockney" and I see the word "out" and I pronounce it as "hout", I am being hypercorrect? Siuenti (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The person writing it is neutral. The Cockney's speech that they are attempting to transcribe is hypercorrect. Equinox ◑ 13:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or in other words: it has nothing to do with writing. (When writing Cockney you can write hout or out, neither of which would be hypercorrect, just different dialectal orthographies.) The hypercorrection is in the speaker, who adds the /h/ in his pronunciation of (h)out, thinking that it belongs there. Kolmiel (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is strange. I'd skipped the word "written". What's that about? Kolmiel (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is being fair to Cockneys actually, aspiration/non-aspiration might be in free variation rather than result from attempting to speak "correctly". Siuenti (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, true. But that would another question. The point is really why it says "addition of /h/ in written Cockney". That doesn't make sense. /h/ is IPA, i.e pronunciation, and pronunciations cannot be added to written text. Kolmiel (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it meant "h"? Siuenti (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. That would mean writers add h'es when they write out Cockney because they think it's more correct Cockney when it really isn't. I don't know if that would be technically true. But it would definitely be a very bad and complicated example of "hypercorrection". Kolmiel (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Something like octopi being made the plural of octopus might be a better example. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

الْعَناصِرِ الْإرْهابِيَّةِ

[edit]

Hi, regarding the sentence 'تَمَّ اعْتِقالُ عَدَدٍ مِنَ الْعَناصِرِ الْإرْهابِيَّةِ فِي الْقاهِرَةِ لَيْلَةَ الْأَمْسِ' I'd like to know whether it's o.k. to use the feminine in the phrase الْعَناصِرِ الْإرْهابِيَّةِ. Also, I cannot find it with the meaning 'terrorists'. Finally, I'd write آعْتِقالُ. Is the sentence in MSA?. Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wrote that sentence. An Arabic stylist might be able to perfect it, but it's no so bad as for you to doubt that it's even in MSA... Frankly. Now, you could have googled عناصر إرهابية yourself, and you would have seen that it's a very common journalistic expression. It's also grammatically normal because, عناصر means "elements", so it's not animated per se, even it refers to animated beings in this case. Accordingly, you could translate it literally as "terrorist elements", but that doesn't seem to be common journalistic style. Translation isn't always literal. Kolmiel (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that Backinstadiums is still just a beginner at Arabic, so his questions should be taken as confusion rather than criticism. --WikiTiki89 21:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. I may have sounded more iritated than I was. But they really could have googled it. (And then maybe they could have asked: hey, why isn't the adjective plural?) Kolmiel (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a justified question, of course. I remember that when I wrote it, I also checked the correct agreement — by googling. Kolmiel (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolmiel By the way, we should never capitalise Arabic transliterations, not for emphatic consonants or following English capitalisation rules e.g. اَلْقَاهِرَة (al-qāhira) is "al-qāhira", not "al-Qāhira". Pls follow WT:AR TR :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, I do. The question of capitalization is not mentioned on the page as far as I can see. I disagree with the standard if that's it. But I will try to respect it. (Maybe by avoiding proper nouns as much as possible ;)) Kolmiel (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But why? Do you really feel the urge to capitalise proper nouns in Arabic? Hans Wehr doesn't do that and no respectable dictionary. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I feel that not to capitalise proper nouns is against the nature in which man was created. Kolmiel (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ha-ha. A lot of cultures live without capital letters just fine. Most don't even have to worry about the distinction between common nouns and proper nouns or even assigning a permanent PoS to words. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. As a German, however, my natural disposition is to capitalize all nouns. Just proper nouns would be like a minimum for me... But actually, are you sure that Wehr doesn't do it? I mean the original German Wehr? (I'll check when I get home, which won't be until Sunday, however.) Kolmiel (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolmiel I'm sure. I've got the 4th edition and I saw 3rd edition scans. It's important that regular contributors are on the same page and follow policies. Or they can challenge the policies by agreeing on a change. If it really is an issue for you and you have some serious arguments, bring it up in BP. The majority so far, to my knowledge, agreed to not to use caps for Arabic and you can rely on automated transliteration in 95% of cases. Otherwise, your position seems a little Euro-/Anglo- or Germano-centric. I mean, I don't project Russian or English on other languages I worked with. Es gefällt mir, dass die deutschen Substantive mit Großbuchstaben geschrieben sind, aber Deutsch is eine wichtige Ausnahme, die die deutsche Sprache auch sehr interessant und verschieden von anderen Sprachen macht!--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Atitarev: Well :) I really don't think it's Euro-/Anglo-/Germano-centric. It's simply useful to mark proper nouns by means of capitalisation, even if Arabic doesn't do it. We also separate certain words with a hyphen, even though Arabic doesn't. And we write as-, at-, ar-, etc., even though Arabic doesn't. Because these things are useful. The thing about capitalising all nouns was a joke. But my honest opinion is that capitalising proper nouns would be good. It's also common to do that in transliteration in scientific literature, albeit far from universal. I do agree that following policies is the most important thing, and of course I will do that (and as I said, I always have). All fine :) Kolmiel (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for the question about the وَصْلَة (waṣla), it's frequently omitted on Wiktionary, but I don't think there's a rule against adding it, if you want to. I just did in تَمَّ (tamma). — Eru·tuon 21:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolmiel: Hi, I didn't mean to offend you. I do constantly google them (see our conversation above regaring لِأَنْ (liʾan)), yet there're no parallel corpora to see a proper translation, and I am not able to read arabic yet. Regarding my asking whether it is MSA, I thought it could be Egyptian Arabic, for most pre-al-jazeera journalistic style was so. Semantic agreement is a rough issue for some purists of the language. --Backinstadiums (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Backinstadiums: You didn't offend me. Maybe I was a bit annoyed, all right. But you did nothing "wrong". Just try to answer your questions on your own as far as you can. And when you can't, then do ask. Kolmiel (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kolmiel -- one minor issue: the English grammar term is "animate", not "animated"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning it. Kolmiel (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Atitarev I've just arrived home. And well, I just had to go and check even though you said you were sure. But... Wehr does capitalise proper nouns in the original German dictionary: Rōmā, al-Qāhira, Miṣr, etc. Mine is the 5th edition. It could be an innovation, of course, but in his preface he explains in detail certain minor changes in the transliteration system and doesn't mention capitalisation at all. Do you have your 3rd edition at home? Is it really all lowercase? Maybe the change happened in the 4th edition? Kolmiel (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I see that you have the 4th edition, not the 3rd. So is it really lowercase? We're talking about the German edition, the Arabisches Wörterbuch für die Schriftsprache der Gegenwart, right? Then it would have to be an innovation in the 5th edition. But as I said, he doesn't mention it all, while mentioning less important stuff. Kolmiel (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolmiel I'll check again when I get to the dictionary. I have just checked the scans for the 3rd edition and "miṣr" appears in lower case on page 928. Translations are in upper case, sometimes lacking transliterations but not transliterations, e.g. "al-maksīk" on page 935. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it helps but Wikipedia article about the dictionary also says "Capitalization: The transliteration uses no capitals, even for proper names.". As I said, I'll double-check. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks :) I don't mean to imply that it's extremely important or anything. Just when you said Wehr didn't have capitalisation, I was confused because I've been working with it for years, and I was pretty sure it had it. But all right. They must have changed it in the 4th or 5th edition. Kolmiel (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Atitarev What article? Kolmiel (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Atitarev All right. I googled it and found it. It's not the article about the dictionary but the transliteration. But this probably refers to the English editions. — But okay, we know that the 3rd German edition is lowercase and we know that the 5th is with capitalisation, so the only question is about the 4th one. Kolmiel (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolmiel Confirmed - 4th edition (English version) - all transliterations are lower case. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Atitarev Hey, no, wait. Why English version? I've stressed four (!) times that I'm talking about the German edition of Wehr. Have you seen any German editions? Kolmiel (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolmiel No, I always meant the English version, I have never seen the German version. Sorry if I caused the confusion. Germans must be unable to handle proper nouns in lower case letters (joke) :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Atitarev Okay... Did you ever actually read what I wrote? I mentioned that I was speaking about the German version four times! I even once spelt out the whole name of the dictionary in German. Kolmiel (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have already apologised for my inattention. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah. That's all right :) I didn't mean to offend you. It's just that I mentioned it so often, because that was really the point of the whole thing. But I've probably done something similar sometime. Bye. Kolmiel (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cornish

[edit]

Is this an alternate / nonstandard spelling of cornice? DTLHS (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obama is the 44th President?

[edit]

I believe that if someone says, today, that Obama is the 44th President of the USA, it's not exactly untrue, but it is unusual phrasing. How unexpected is it? If people see "X is the 45th Y", are they going to be almost certain that X is also the current Y? Please assume these people come from a wide range of English-speaking countries. Siuenti (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is this relevant to the dictionary? Questions like this can go in WT:ID. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The currency is suggested by "is", isn't it? For a past president, "X was the 39th Y" would seem to be the norm. - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK sorry wrong place, I'll ask there later. Ty -sche Siuenti (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My intuitions are different. If I say "X was the 39th President" it sounds like he's dead; "X is the 39th President" sounds like he's alive, even if he's no longer president. Helmut Kohl is still the 6th Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, even though we're now up to 8 Chancellors. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but when he's dead he'll still be the 6th. And Adenauer will still be the first. I would only use the present tense when it's a more abstract context, like making a list, X is the first, Y is the second, who's the third again? Otherwise I'd always use the past tense for someone who's not in office anymore. Kolmiel (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with -sche and disagree with Angr. Another example is you can't say "Obama is an African-American president", because he isn't any kind of president anymore, even though he is still African-American. --WikiTiki89 17:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Obama is an African-American president" is infelicitous since January 20, but I still can't say "Obama was an African-American president" either, because he's still alive. For me it has to be "Obama is an African-American ex-president". As for Kohl, I disagree that when he's dead he'll still be the 6th chancellor. Rather, when he's dead he will have been the 6th chancellor. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would hate to be you; I'd never be able to say anything. --WikiTiki89 18:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reminds me of Wikipedia's policy that you have to say "Dallas IS a TV show" even though it's finished now. Equinox ◑ 18:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With anything recorded in durable media, the present can make sense. If I could watch Dallas right now, then Dallas is still a TV show. --WikiTiki89 18:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can tack temporal position onto that. If Dallas IS (still) a 1970s TV show, then Obama IS (still) the 44th President. Nobody is saying he is the current one, nor that today is the 1970s. Equinox ◑ 22:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue here is a generational difference in the meaning of TV show. For older people, a TV show is only a TV show when it is first airing, and if you watch it after that it's a rerun (or a tape). While for younger people, a TV show is always a TV show for as long as it is possible to watch it (of course using the past tense is still not out of the question for a number of other reasons), whether as a rerun, or as a tape, or online. And this is only compounded by the streaming video age when most shows aren't watched as they air anymore anyway. This explains the difference between saying "Dallas is a TV show" and "Dallas was a TV show". I think everyone would agree that Lord of the Rings is a book (not was). --WikiTiki89 17:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's TV-specific. If Tolkien stops being so popular and somebody later asks me what LotR means, I think I'd say "oh, it was a fantasy book [published in such-and-such a year, etc.]", not "is". Equinox ◑ 18:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That falls under my parenthesized comment. The past tense is always possible in certain situations, the only question is whether you'd use the present in other situations. For example, "I just read LotR and it was an amazing book, so now I'll go and tell my friend that it is an amazing book." --WikiTiki89 18:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean 'if you want temporal precision, you can tack that onto "is the 44th President"' such as by saying "is the 44th and current President" ? Siuenti (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean that you can add temporal precision to "president" by saying "44th president", which tells you which one you mean, in the numerical sequence of all presidents. Equinox ◑ 00:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I think "is the President" also has a kind of temporal precision because it only applies to the current president, whereas "is the Xth president" is ambiguous as to current or not. Siuenti (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

قهاوي

[edit]

HI, shouldn't the plural of قهوة be قهاوٍ 'Arabic nouns with diptote broken plural in -in', instead of قَهَاوِي? thanks in advance --Backinstadiums (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct. It's indeed قَهاوٍ (qahāwin). Although this form is a bit unusual, because most of the time such a plural would be formed from a noun with four consonants (either with four root consonants or a prefix, such as m.). Kolmiel (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolmiel: Therefore, قهاوي is wrong, isn't it? I do not undertand how, but as I've seen its pattern in many more entries, I guess there's a 'template' to automatically insert such a form. By the way, do you know whether such a pattern exists in real Arabic words? If so, even for broken plurals? --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Since we also have قاضٍ (qāḍin) under this lemma (and not under قاضِي (qāḍī)), the same should apply here. What exactly do you mean by "whether such a pattern exists in real Arabic words?"? The pattern of this plural is faʿālil or KaKāKiK, which is the single most common plural pattern. The somewhat unusual thing is that the root, which is actually q-h-w has apparently been enhanced to q-h-w-y in the plural. I don't know another example, where that happens, but maybe there is one. Kolmiel (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Off the top of my head: لَيَالٍ (layālin), أَسَامٍ (ʔasāmin). This search also finds many more. --WikiTiki89 15:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All right. There you go. Ism is a bit peculiar because it only has two root consonants and the root is commonly enhanced to s-m-y/w, for example also in verbs. But the layla example fits perfectly. (Amazing what you find on the top of your head ;)) Kolmiel (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Backinstadiums What exactly is broken? Where do you see the form قَهَاوِي? I created the templates in question. Benwing2 (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Benwing2: those irregular plurals are جَمْعُ تَكْسِيرٍ. The fully declinable form قَهَاوِي has already been corrected; If I come across one again, I'll let you know. --Backinstadiums (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Benwing2: It has been dealt with. Kolmiel (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Backinstadiums, Kolmiel: OK, thanks. I see now what you're referring to. Those forms are added by hand, not by any template I created. Benwing2 (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

semantic notion of 'future مستقبل' : 'that which is (to be) _____'

[edit]

I'd like to add the semantic notion associated by native speakers to the term 'future مُسْتَقْبَل', which is a اِسْم الْمَفْعُول from form X اِسْتَفْعَلَ. In theory, the blank could be filled with one or more of the following 'that which is to be received/met/confronted/faced/assumed'. Feel free to add choose or add yours together with your dialect. Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'احتمل (passive) to be allowable, be possible'

[edit]

Hi, should a new entry be created for اُحْتُمِلَ as there's one for شُفِيَ ? Thanks in advance.--Backinstadiums (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ocean of work to be done with Arabic and many other languages. The entry CAN be created, even if it were not considered a lemma but a {{passive form of|اِحْتَمَلَ|lang=ar}}. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Atitarev: I'd like to know if, at least, it's possible to automatically create a category for verbs used with a different meaning in the passive. Some time ago I asked in the beer room to automatically obtain the patterns of arabic terms and so divide the different parts of speech by patterns. --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such a category cannot be created automatically, someone would have to create it manually. I'm not sure what you have in mind for a category. I don't think we have categories for words that have different senses in certain word forms. You might have a difficult time persuading the community that the category is needed. —Stephen (Talk) 10:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephen G. Brown: I think that's a fairly advantageous alternative to having an additional entry for the forms with special/different meanings, as in this case the passive, and a lexicographic one as well. --Backinstadiums (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Tea_room/2017/March&oldid=71473251"