User talk:EncycloPetey: difference between revisions

Archives
Dec 2005 – Apr 2006 May 2006 – Sep 2006 Oct 2006 – Dec 2006 Jan 2007 – Jun 2007 Jul 2007 – Dec 2007 Jan 2008 – Jun 2008 July 2008 - Dec 2008

You may interested in Wiktionary_talk:About_Hebrew#present_tense_verbs.2C_and_.22actor.22_nouns.—msh210℠ 20:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've given what little input I can offer. --EncycloPetey 21:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

1. If you have time please check WT:RFV#Nkinora as the discussion there seems to have died.
2. I believe that some time ago I stumbled upon Medellia's talk page where I saw you telling him/her that there was a bot for creating Latin form of entries. Is this true? 50 Xylophone Players talk 22:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Happy new year!

1. That particular discussion starts up every few months, then dies again. It would be useful if someone took on the issue as advocate and gathered all the previous BP, RFV, and RFD discussions on the issue into a single location (via linking and summary). I expect the discussion will start again sometime around April or May, as it always does. I have too much on my plate to pursue the issue right now.
2. Yes, I have FitBot for creating those, but haven't been running it lately. --EncycloPetey 22:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

1. Are you saying it would be good if someone put all those discussions in one place?
2. This FitBot of yours, does it not create noun form of entries? Also another question about it which I have after reading its user page: Does it work by uploading "prewritten" entries as opposed to making them itself when you run it? 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

1. Yes, especially if a concise summary of points can be generated as well.
2. FitBot can add noun and adjective forms, but I have been adding primarily verbs and participles. I've held off on nouns inpart because the declension tables need revision. FitBot uses prewritten data created from a template rather than generating them itself dynamically. --EncycloPetey 19:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm... I may go "discussion hunting" sometime soon but definitely not right away as I am far too busy at the moment (particularly in real life). 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I've been wondering for a while why most of the translations of Latin verbs are English non-lemma forms (I go, I fall down, etc.), instead of "to" infinitives (to go, to fall down etc.). I do know that the Latin lemma form for verbs is the first-person singular (active indicative present), thus, literally meaning "I am/want/go/etc.", but shouldn't the translation always be the English lemma form because the Latin word is a lemma form? -- Frous 17:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The translation should tell the meaning of the word, which is a first-person form. The link will go to the lemma in most cases, regardless of the preceding pronoun. For example: (deprecated template usage) eō translates as "I go", where "I" is necessary for the translation, but go is the linked lemma form. So, the lemma is usually linked anyway. If we said that (deprecated template usage) eō meant "to go" instead of "I go", we would be providing false and misleading information. If we used your infinitive translation approach, then someone translating cogito ergo sum would translate it as "to think therefore to be", which is wrong. And besdies, "to go" is not a lemma form; the English lemma is simply go. --EncycloPetey 19:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

During the process of my exhaustive attesting of (deprecated template usage) deus ex machina and its relations, I found that a respectable number of authors write the word as (deprecated template usage) deus ex machinâ (i.e., with a circumflex), both in singular use and in plural use (though not, obviously, in the plurals ending in (deprecated template usage) machinis); however, I’ve yet to find anyone who writes (deprecated template usage) deus ex mâchinâ, (deprecated template usage) diî ex mâchinis, &c. Præsumably, they do this to mark (deprecated template usage) machinâ as an ablative singular, distinct in inflexion from the nominative or vocative singular (deprecated template usage) māchina; I suppose this is useful to remind one that its plural is (deprecated template usage) machinis and not (deprecated template usage) machinae, but since it’s only the author who would need to remember this so as to pluralise it correctly, the circumflex seems a bit pointless. So I was wondering: did Latin, in its long history, ever use circumflexes to mark long vowels in real text (i.e., not in learning textbooks), even if just in those few cases where a word’s different cases are only distinguished by vowel length (such as the first declension’s nominative/vocative and ablative singulars, and the fourth declension’s nominative/vocative singular and plural)? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Latin never used circumflexes, and neither have its lexicographers to my knowledge. It's certainly not done in dictionaries or texts of the past two centuries, and Starnes Renaissance Dictionaries (which surveys the development of Latin dictionaries over several centuries) shows no indication of this either. You may be looking at a French influence. If you are looking at electronic sources, it is also possible that the circumflex was substituted (either deliberately or accidentally) because the macron-bearing vowels are not available in standard font sets. --EncycloPetey 19:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Our users just need a way to get from close stool to close-stool. You seem just to have summarily eliminated that possibility. Thanks, 24.29.238.60 20:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Did you bother to read the policy page I pointed you to? --EncycloPetey 20:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can you kindly moderate your tone? That type of tone seems to be a problem at Wiktionary. I never use it, myself. 24.29.238.60 20:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

You just used self-assured smugness as a tone. Is that an improvement, then? You jumped to complain to me after I had given you a rationale and linked explanation. And you did not read the document or answer my question. --EncycloPetey 20:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the corrections. Can you see if the new syntax used in ferrocarril pass the bot check? El imp 21:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please check this again; I posted a question for you. 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Sorry about the formatting errors, I was ignorant of those rules, I'll keep them in mind in future. I'll go through my entries and edit the 'related terms'. As for the template, it looks just about perfect for everything except possibly the occasions when a plural of a noun (i.e. Saeson) has a distinct meaning from a singular noun, however, this is probably easy to work around. What about verb templates? Welsh is mainly very regular, so as far as the template is concerned, you'd probably just need a field for the root. YngNghymru 21:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. It gives all the information I'd expect to find in a Welsh dictionary (apart from possibly a conjugation table in a more complicated dictionary, like the Latin entries here). :) YngNghymru 21:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ahh, adjectives. Well, that I can think of, adjectives can have up to 5 different forms in Welsh, 4 of which are optional: the basic form, the plural form (most adjectives don't, but some do), the equative form (adjectives with 1 or 2 syllables), the comparative form (adjectives with 1 or 2 syllables) and the superlative form (adjectives with 1 or 2 syllables). The last 4, for adjectives longer than two syllables, are achieved with words like 'more' in English.

An example of an adjective with all 5 forms is glas (blue): Glas, gleision (plu.), glased (equative), glasach (comparative), glasaf (superlative).

An example of an adjective with no plural form is hapus. Hapus, hapus (plu.), hapused (equative), hapusach (comparative), hapusaf (superlative).

An example of an adjective with only the base form is gogleddol. Gogleddol, gogleddol (plu.), cyn ogleddol (equative), mwy gogleddol (comparative), mwyaf gogleddol (superlative). (edit: I stupidly said 'mwyaf gogleddaf' rather than mwyaf gogleddol) Admittedly, you're not likely to say 'more Northern', but it was the first 3+ syllable adjective I came across in the category ;)

Not that I can think of. There may be one or two with specific forms but they're archaic. However, adjectives following a feminine noun do take the soft mutation... but whether we want to add that, I don't know (it would add a potential three extra categories to any adjective). However, if we're simply providing boxes for people to type into, similar to the current non-language specific inflection template, then adding these might be a good idea. YngNghymru 22:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ah! Melyn. That slipped my mind completely - that is one of a few cases where the feminine is applied mostly constantly. There might be a case for adding a feminine form box then. YngNghymru 16:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The awkwardness of initial consonant mutations. Yes, I did mean that it was cyn ogleddol - cyn causes a soft mutation. The awkwardness of the equative in Welsh is that there are a few words that mean 'as' in 'as big'. Cyn is the only one I know of that you use with the equative ending - apart from a few select adjectives, technically speaking the equative is always cyn (soft mutated adjective with equative ending if one or two syllables). The equative with the ending is quite formal and literary, seen in unaffected, informal speech only generally in set phrases. YngNghymru 18:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The plural of ffrengig is ffrengig, as you've already got. There's no specific plural form for it. :) YngNghymru 19:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've taken a look at the template in action. In almost all senses it seems to me to be perfect, apart from just one thing - do you have the possibility for irregular adjectives? Some have slight sound changes (galed for example becomes galetach, galetaf, galeted), whilst others, like da, have completely irregular forms. I see you've put the option for plural in there, is there a similar one for comparative forms? It was stupid of me not to mention this before, but I thought you were just making a template like the welsh noun one, with boxes into which you could enter words for each form. YngNghymru 19:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Edit: I've checked out gogleddol and you have, brilliant :)

The forms for da are da (base form), gwell (comparative), gorau (superlative) and cystal (equative). By the way, did you include a box for feminine form? Not that it really matters if you did, since even if we can't find some other way around the problem, I think such adjectives are rare enough that a non-lang-specific inflection template can be warranted? YngNghymru 20:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

There's no specific plural form for da, either. It tends to be more things like colours (for some reason) and 'grammatical' adjectives like 'this'. YngNghymru 20:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I mean that the plural form is identical. Sorry I wasn't more specific there. It's the same for the majority of adjectives, but a significant (if small) minority have distinct plural forms. YngNghymru 20:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Note: D'oh. When I typed galed, I meant caled (I have a tendency to apply the soft mutation at apparent random when I haven't slept in a while). So when you put that in the example you'll probably want to write the base form rather than the mutated/feminine/following yn form.

Very nice! I'll start converting adjectives. Oh, by the way, I've noticed the welsh noun template doesn't work for uncountable nouns or plural noun forms - it always requires you to specify a plural. Whilst plural noun forms don't need to be listed except in one or two cases where the plural has a specifically different extra meaning from the singular, there are quite a lot of uncountable nouns. I've hunted around for a Welsh uncountable noun template, but can't find one - have I just missed it?

I mean nouns like 'time' (as in the concept of time rather than 'three times'), 'hair' (as in the hair on your head - hairs plural is instantly interpreted in English as three single hairs), abstract nouns etc. Welsh is a lot better for this sort of thing because it has separate words for a lot of these concepts, i.e. gwallt/blewyn.

Ah. It might be a good idea to add a feminine category, if you're going to have to completely change it. Though I don't know. Should, say, female headteacher (prifathrawes) be a completely different entry to male headteacher (prifathro), linked through the 'related words' section? Or better, we could have three fields, the plural, the gender, and the feminine/masculine (depending on the word) form, all of them acting as links to made or as-yet-unmade entries, just like the mutation/adjective tables do now. That way we could have an entry for each whilst still having reference to it in the main entry. Of course this all depends on whether you a) think it's worth putting feminine/masculine forms of a noun (which, of course, only some nouns have) in the inflection line. And whether it's possible to put something in one field (masculine/feminine) based on what another field was (gender). Just something to think about. YngNghymru 21:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

If that's all right, I think it'd be a good idea. But it'd have to be an optional column, since only a few nouns have feminine/masculine versions. YngNghymru 21:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay! It's not really necessary, anyway. YngNghymru 21:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Brilliant. At the moment, because the alternate forms generally have their own comparative etc forms, I've been creating separate entries and referring to them in the definition as 'masculine form of' and 'feminine form of' with a link to the other entry. I've also been putting Lua error in Module:links/templates at line 56: Parameter 1 is required. and Template:f after adjectives, which wasn't working too well. Thanks :) By the way, do you think we should delete from the talk page some of the things we've completed? It's getting a bit crowded ;) YngNghymru 22:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ah. Archive you say? That sounds far more sensible. Anyway. The other template you're unlikely to see in any other non-celtic language is a preposition template. I don't know if you knew Welsh prepositions were inflected for person? It can be a bit of a problem. I don't know whether this would fall under the inflection line (like this: dros (drosta i, drostat ti, drosto fo, drosti hi, droston ni, drostoch chi, drostyn nhw) or somewhere else, I'm not sure. YngNghymru 22:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay. There're four different types (not officially speaking, as far as I know - this is just based on patterns that I've personally learnt) of Welsh preposition. There're -a prepositions and -o prepositions (which're both modified regularly), mixed prepositions (which work in the same way as -a prepositions and -o prepositions but are irregular) and compound prepositions (which are similar to english compound prepositions). There are also some prepositions which are not inflected at all.

-a prepositions follow the pattern -a i, -at ti, -i hi, -o fo, -on ni -och chi, -yn nhw. These are suffixed to a kind of 'stem' form, sometimes different from the preposition you see with nouns, sometimes not. For example, 'am' (about) is formed: amdana i, amdanat ti, amdano fo, amdani hi, amdanon ni, amdanoch chi, amdanyn nhw. As you can see, the 'stem' here is amdan-. -o prepositions follow a practically identical pattern: -o i, ot ti, o fo, i hi, -on ni -och chi, -yn nhw. For example, 'drwy' (through) is formed drwyddo i, drwyddot ti, drwyddo fo, drwyddi hi, drwyddon ni, drwyddoch chi, drwyddyn nhw. Some of these prepositions (like 'dros') can go either way.

'mixed' prepositions are those like i, which goes i mi, i ti, iddi hi, iddo fo, i ni, i chi, iddyn nhw. These are 'irregular' prepositions.

Compound prepositions are an actual preposition combined with a noun (as in English). For example, 'in front of' is o flaen, something like 'of front', 'from front'. Compound prepositions use possessives: o fy mlaen (fi), o dy flaen (di), o'i flaen (o), o'i blaen (hi), o ein blaen (ni), o'ch blaen (chi), o'u blaen (nhw).

Finally there are a couple of prepositions that have no inflected forms. An example is mewn, the word for 'in' used with indefinite nouns (for obvious reasons). Phew. That was long! Hope it helps a bit. YngNghymru 22:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm rather lost as to how this happened, but this language template was incorrectly created. I'm fixing it, but it's linked to in User:EncycloPetey/Languages, and I guess I felt a bit squeamish about editing your page. However, I suggest that you do so, as I'm going to fix it once I fix the entries which link to it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nice catch, but the template was created correctly and is listed correctly on my Languages page. It went wrong with this edit. Prior to that, it was the correct language. The problem stems from the fact that WM (in their ongoing ISO folly) assigned the code for the Alemmanic Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey 18:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

There are three things that I come across that I would like to ask you about:

1. I presume this entry, abbreviātiō, should be deleted since it contains macrons in the headword?
2. Why is daemon classed as an I-stem noun when it doesn't follow the parasyllabic or consonant stem rules stated on the wikipedia declension article? Am I missing something here? Some dictionaries say that there's a macron on the "o" - daemōn, daemōnis - but the entry doesn't show this. I looked at the Latin wiktionary and it appeared as though they don't classify it as I-stem and they add a macron on the "o". Also related to this page [1]; nox is mentioned twice when the examples show it to mean feles. I came across more nouns that I was unsure about which I changed to the ordinary 3rd declension template: abactor and libīdinōsitās. Please can you explain any errors I have made here.
3. With these two verbs ending in -esco, celebrescō and tenebrescō, it seems that the last two principle parts are missing. Which conjugation table is chosen for these? I am guessing that the definition of these verbs have something to do with becoming into something else. I found one source that tried to explain the relationship between verb's in Vulgar Latin ending in -esco and Romance verbs, but it didn't really help that much.

Thanks in advance. Caladon 18:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

1. I have deleted this page.
2. The I-stem situation here is messy with many errors. You seem to have located several of them. I have been concentrating on verb and verb template cleanup more than noun cleanup, but there are still a lot of corrections to be made to older entries for Latin nouns.
3. We do not yet have verb templates equipped to handle inchoate verbs ending in -esco. I do not have a good source to draw on for these verbs, or I would have tried to set up templates by now. It is possible that such verbs are defective and may never have full tables, but most Latin works I have don't explicitly deal with these verbs.

--EncycloPetey 18:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can you move this page autoritas to auctoritas because I think it's a misspelling. Caladon 08:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

When a word derives from a perfect passive participle, should you put it in the descendants section of the main verb entry or the perfect passive participle page, especially if it's the case of an adjective? Also with the verb cōnstruō, I was unsure which source was correct in terms of the macrons. Is there a macron on the u in cōnstrūxī and cōnstrūctum? If there is then struō and destruō need to be updated. Caladon 06:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

It depends. If the descendant word is a verb derived through a Latin participle, I'll list it under the Latin verb lemma. If the descendant word is an adjective derived through a Latin participle, I'll list it under the Latin participle. It's a little arbitrary, but it matches the POS of the entries, which seems as good a guide as any.

No, there should be no macron over the "u" in cōnstruxī. --EncycloPetey 06:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to bother you further but I have two other questions for you:

1. Should entries with "J" alternatives be created with the alternative spelling layout or should they be left as a red link and all the etymological sections corrected so that they link properly to the correct headword? For example I noticed iūs has an entry for the J form on jūs, so should the entries be created for entries like abjudico in respect to abiudico?
2. Is there any guide on adding the IPA for Latin words or should that be left to you? And the same for the requested entries; should these be left for you? Caladon 22:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Currently, we do not create any "J" entries for Latin. They can optionally be listed in an Alternative forms section, but should not be linked, since they don't get entries. The J-spellings of Latin words that do have entries are very old additions to Wiktionary, and were mostly created by one user (who made many errors, and was likely the alias of a now-banned user). There is no guide for IPA in Latin. I've had to piece together (from multiple sources) enough information over the last three years just to do it myself with any degree of confidence. I'd recommend holding off on doing Latin IPA for now.

As for the Requested entries, I'd say that you seem to have a good grasp of Latin and of our formatting conventions. You also know how to set up an entry with more than just the minimal content, so feel free to add whatever you feel comfortable doing. The Latin requests list has become more active lately, and help would be appreciated. I am spending a lot of my time updating the template call on Spanish verb entries, assisting with Catalan and Occitan cleanup, and also adding a milestone of English literature to WikiSource, so my Latin work on Wiktionary this month has been reduced accordingly. --EncycloPetey 22:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The {{sense}} tag seems to be appropriate. How is -ant- now? Kwamikagami 19:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Already answered on your talk p[age. --EncycloPetey 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

May I ask why you changed this to simply "Yupek"? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think that was the result of a lengthy conversation with Stephen G. Brown. --EncycloPetey 08:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see. I shall take it up with him then. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Here is the relevant conversation (last section on the page). --EncycloPetey 08:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that. I didn't realise I was doing it. I know the guidelines, and correct them in entries I come across. Guess that makes me a hypocrite. I'll remember in future. YngNghymru 20:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I still didn't have read messages obviously from you. Note that you have acted in a very impolite way, by reverting my additions, and then incorporating them as yours. El imp 21:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I reverted, but mistakenly so, since I didn't realize you had a long string of edits. Reversion undoes to the last verion not by that editor, which I sometimes forget or don't realize. I don't understand what you mean by "I still didn't have read messages obviously from you." --EncycloPetey 21:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

In reply to your first message: "The definition lacked the context tag" There is not a precise context tag, systematics is wrong. You can archive your labels, they don't impress me. I'm going to read your next reply. El imp 21:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

You should stop editing until we end talk. El imp 21:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

and 3. You should stop looking server to to spy what I'm doing, and concretely you should not reply to me in your talk page. I'm conscious this edit could delete something you have put here. El imp 21:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The tag "systematics" is correct. That is my field of study. Also, I am not "spying" on you. Everything done on Wiktionary is public. Finally, I replied on your talk page, and copied my reply here for completeness. Please refrain from making ugly accusations. --EncycloPetey 21:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

You should stop answering me here. I'm not so noob I'm not know how talk at wikis works. If I'm being slow is because I've more dificulties talking to you in English. El imp 21:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

It seems you are only interested in being angry and not in discussing the page. So, I have nothing more to say. --EncycloPetey 21:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but it's a redirect to philistine, so adding to the latter {{also|Philistine}} serves no purpose... --Duncan 02:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Bold enough for you? :-P -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yep. --EncycloPetey 03:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't want to make mistakes, so... linfocita and linfocito have the same plural but only one is written. I don't now what to do with plurals of different word with the same meaning. And also, with "a" is slightly more used, also by Wikipedia. Can you explain me what to do in this case? Thanks. --Pharamp 20:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've made some edits to (deprecated template usage) linfocito and (deprecated template usage) linfocita to indicate this. --EncycloPetey 20:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're quick. :) And you're right, it should be the lowercase /x/. (In my defence, it's been a while since I learned to use SAMPA. :P)

thank you for quick editing. I really want to know your and other wikipedians motivation to work on wikipedia without any duty.

Partly because we enjoy it, and partly because it assists other people who use the site. But please note that here we are Wiktionarians. Wikipedians edit on Wikipedia, and this is Wiktionary, a separate project. --EncycloPetey 21:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I said I'd ask you this since you have a good level of Latin. I was playing the game Tales of Symphonia for Gamecube ealier today (or rather yesterday I suppose ;) ) and noticed one of the bosses has two attacks that sound Latin. The first is Leonazium and the second is Agarazium. Do they mean anything? Are they perhaps compounded words? 50 Xylophone Players talk 01:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

They don't mean anything to me, nor can I find a possible quick meaning. They may be only Latinoid, as the only on-line information about the name I could find also came to this conclusion. (Ohhh, magúfa!) --EncycloPetey 01:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Huh...? magúfa? *look of interest* what language is that? I'm thinking it's Spanish but if you ask me it could probably get away with being thought Hungarian (I say this merely from all the Hungarian I have seen here). Judging by your usage of it I'd say it's something like 糞.50 Xylophone Players talk 02:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, it's Simlish and is used in a moment of understanding another person. --EncycloPetey 02:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can you create a "Relativity" subcategory under Physics?

I would classify relativity as its own subfield of physics, though it is just one theory, there is a very large amount of specific nomenclature & jargon stemming from it, as there are a large number of phenomena involving either high speeds, gravity, or spacetime. The main idea is having a separate category to describe the many terms associated with the extremes of classical mechanics, phenomena outside of both Newton's & Schroedinger's domains. The closest non-theory-specific terms I can think of would be gravitational physics (which would exclude special relativity) or spacetime physics. Cosmology would be a good subcategory to add, though it also is its own field, and an interdisciplinary one at that, taking ideas from relativity, astronomy, particle physics, nuclear physics, etc. and applying them to describe the universe (& universes) as a whole. Also, can you rename "Elementary particles" to "Particle physics"? "Elementary particles" is very misleading and also incorrect, last time I checked hadrons were hardly elementary. Zhividya 05:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

for some reason, the entry I made for "Wigner's friend" was saved as "Wigner&"; could you rename that? thanks, Zhividya 05:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I didn't format the translations in detail. Is there any reason you reverted the addition of a correct definition? —Michael Z. 2009-01-10 06:41 z

Subsenses may be controversial, and we can controvert about the format if you like, but incorrect definitions are just wrong. How about restoring my edit? —Michael Z. 2009-01-10 06:47 z

You know, I put some work into getting that definition right, and the translations, and I was kind of proud of the result. And then it was late and I was too tired to make the fiddley translation boxes so I just left that for later or for someone else. Reverting all of that over a trivial issue of layout is not only making the content of the entry significantly worse, but it feels like a poke in the eye.

I don't care about the credit. Like any other revert, you just type “reverting” in the edit summary and my original addition is still credited in the article history. —Michael Z. 2009-01-10 07:07 z

Sorry for yelling then; I promise I'm not holding a grudge. But I had to let you know that I think you didn't keep your eye on the ball when you deleted content over a point of form. But I'm not the only one losing the edit, am I? It's still the case that the entry is poorer because you removed content, in the hopes that I would come back and do it again the way you'd prefer; you're favouring form over content. I hope you'll rethink this policy, because it's not the best one for the project.

Regarding reverts—it may not help you keep from being yelled at in the future—but anyone who makes a contribution should understand that it could be removed and restored a thousand times, obliterated by successive edits, or just removed permanently, long after they're gone. Whatever edits are made, they will retain their right under Wiktionary:Copyright to have their contribution acknowledged by the inclusion of the article history. If they think any future edit can infringe on this right, they are mistaken. —Michael Z. 2009-01-10 20:01 z

I have found that when I make the format corrections, I have to make them over and over, because the same mistakes pop up again and again from the same user. When I allow the user to correct their own mistakes (as I tried to do in this case), the user usually learns something useful and produces better product in future. There is no one magical method for operating on Wiktionary that will guarantee the best results. --EncycloPetey 20:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and removing the etymology I subsequently added was a mistake, too. —Michael Z. 2009-01-10 20:12 z

I removed it because you repeatedly insisted that I revert instead of making even a slight effort yourself. you knew that reverting would do this because I told you repeatedly that it would. Please go away. --EncycloPetey 20:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm… It seems that you’re right. However, I take it that you agree that *(deprecated template usage) prefices is hypercorrect and needs to be labelled as such, yes? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's hypercorrect, just formed by analogy with indices. It does carry a bit of snootiness, but I wouldn't call it hypercorrect. --EncycloPetey 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

It’s the misapplication of an otherwise valid rule for plural-formation — the very definition of hypercorrection. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I was making a joke that the term hypercorrect does not carry the meaning one expects it to from the components. --EncycloPetey 07:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I assume the adjective is back-formed from the noun (deprecated template usage) hypercorrection, which makes more sense, being as it carries the idea of “‘correcting’ too much”. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

When you added this Czech translation [2], you marked it as "masculine". I didn't think Czech adjectives had an inherent gender. When you mark the gender of a word inside the {{t}} template, you are saying that it has only that gender, which is why we don't usually mark the gender of adjectives (because their gender can vary). --EncycloPetey 19:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I thought it important to tell the user to which of the genders the form applies to (most Czech adjectives indeed have gender-dependent suffixes, though a not-insignificant minority ends the same regardless of gender), so that the user is not mislead by being at en-wikt and supposing that if no gender is given the same form applies to all. Or do you mean that it should be done like "{{t-|cs|sykavý}} {{m}}", as inserting the gender in the template categorizes it wrongly or something like that? --Duncan 02:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I tried doing it without the gender yesterday, but it felt like just taking the easy way out, and seeing that Tbot is obviously set to change the [[...]] {{m}} format to {{...|m}} one [3], I continue as I used to - I really believe that it's miles more probable that a user will mistakenly take a masculine untagged form for belonging to all three genders than mistakenly thinking that a masculine-tagged adjective has no feminine and neuter forms. --Duncan 18:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't exactly know what a lemma is. The most usual form is for Czech adjectives to end with -ý, -á and -é respectively, thus sykavý, sykavá and sykavé. If lemma is sykavý, because it's the form traditionally preferred as a headword in Czech dictionaries, I'm ready to give in, but if lemma is sykav which means nothing at all...? Or can all three be called lemmas? --Duncan 20:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

All right, in that case the masculine form of a Czech adjective is by all means its en-wikt lemma, so I'm giving in; of course I don't see any reason why Czech translations should have a special format. (And after all it's ooh so much less typing for me ;-)). --Duncan 20:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

ty for correcting them. --PlantOFact 04:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

What should the inflection line template look like for this Spanish noun? RAE says it's a 'nombre ambiguo', but is that the same as having both genders? Nadando 00:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

From what I know, yes. The word is used in both genders, with some people preferring one gender or the other. The Latin root (deprecated template usage) mare is neuter, a gender nearly absent in modern Spanish, and this may be a contributing cause to the ambiguity. --EncycloPetey 00:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Which categories are being used? I used existing entries as a guide to what to do, but that apparently led to me using the wrong ones earlier on the nouns, and now I want to flesh out some of the entries for some Catalan verbs. Carolina wren 00:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Take for example agrair, it has a table of conjugations, which are mostly redlinks. I plan on making them bluelinks with entries similar to those of cantat and canta. Carolina wren 01:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

  We normally use a bot to do that. We have one bot that adds Spanish conjugated verb forms, and I run another one that does Latin and Galician. I'd therefore suggest that your time could be better spent on projects that can't be automated. However, if you wish to pursue this, you could speak to User:Matthias Buchmeier, who runs the Spanish bot that I mentioned. --EncycloPetey 02:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

you posted me the notwikipedia.

Please note that "Related terms" refers only to terms with an etymological relation to the word, not to terms with some topical connection.

I wanted to clarify that Linux and Lamp are based on and realted to GNU in etymological. The basis of Linux is GNU/Linux. --James Michael DuPont 13:27, 18 January 2009 (CET)

Hi, am I right in supposing that Translations of the week are no longer an active part of the project, having stopped being updated some time in 2008, so that I was right removing this tag? --Duncan 17:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is no longer an active project. --EncycloPetey 21:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have automation set up to do cases where there are more than a few; I was just checking a list from Ateleas (see my talk page), f you identify others that can be done add comments there. I ran this once before, and I add to the list each time, so they get fixed when they re-appear (as they will) Robert Ullmann 23:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

You forgot the sentence beforehand. The entire paragraph reads: "The normalcy debate of the 1920s is now long gone, and normalcy is now more normal than normality to describe the way things usually are or the way we think they ought to be. After Harding, however, politicians have been less eager to use the word in their slogans, perhaps because Harding's normalcy led to the Teapot Dome scandal, perhaps because normalcy is hard to determine in our Multicultural (1941) world. http://www.answers.com/normalcy

So what if politicians are afraid to use it? The teapot dome scandal hasn't prevented regular Americans from using it. Besides my edit didn't even say that normalcy is used more than normality even though that's what Answers.com says.

Then please notice the ending date on that quote, which is 1941, when the statement was published. It bears not at all to modern word frequency. --EncycloPetey 07:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Got any evidence that proves the source wrong? You are putting original research onto an article. You are abusing your admin powers.

Huh? I didn't put anything into the article; I reverted your erroneous additions. That's ad hominem and now false accusations. Please do not post to my talk page again. --EncycloPetey 07:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

You haven't shown me anywhere how my edit was erroneous. I added: "Normalcy is commonly used in American English. It is very rarely used in the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand however. It is frequent in India." How is that factually wrong?

You haven't read (or understood). This is not Wikipedia. We require support for the new information, not support for the original version that was replaced. You want to make a change, then back it up. Note that a 1941 source will not justify a statement about current usage. Please post your justification for your edit to the Tea Room when your block expires, and not to my talk page. --EncycloPetey 07:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The proliferation and modern acceptance of the word is discussed at [4]. Surely that is a reference which satisfies the proposed changes. (Previous experience tells me I shouldn't criticize any admin action on wikt, but I believe that gaming 3RR is a universal faux pas) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why? Why can Wikipedians not restrain themselves, and not post to the proper discussion forum, when pointed to post there instead of on a personal user page? And, no, Wiktionary has no 3RR; Wiktionary has discussions in public fora to resolve disagreements of this sort. I have indicated this and the proper forum above. No, the citation doesn't support the proposed change. It says that normalcy was rarer for most of the word's history, and that dictionaries now include it with no usage note. The writer concludes from this that the word is fully accepted, but noted that it is omitted from one usage guide and railed against in another. There is nothing at all in that source about the word being "commonly used", which is what the proposed change would have the article say. --EncycloPetey 18:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

You have a very selective way of interpreting commentary. "For most of its history normalcy has been less common than normality. It was rare throughout the nineteenth century and, despite a Harding-induced flurry of usage in the '20s, was rare during the '30s, but appears to have become common after World War II."...A number of prominent recent usage books accept it as standard...Bryan Garner, who is generally conservative, still rails against it in his recent Dictionary of Modern American Usage, but he appears to be in a minority." As I see it, the burden of proof is on you to show that Random House's Word Maven is incorrect, not simply substitute your opinion for hers. To push the point further, you have shown no indication of doing any research to figure out which version is correct.

Why can we not "restrain" ourselves? I don't know. Maybe because I thought that all WMF projects are collaborative and all editorial decisions open to criticism. That's why the 3RR link I provided, if you did not notice, links to a policy page hosted right here, on Wiktionary. So, um, if 3RR doesn't exist, maybe someone should just delete it, eh?

If you could kindly hold back the indignation, I will be glad to keep my comments confined to whatever forum you deem appropriate. Regards, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

You have again posted here. I'll state it a third (and final) time: User talk pages are not the place to resolve these issues. Also, if you look at the 3RR page, you'll see a big banner at the top that says "This page is no longer active. This idea was rejected and is not policy on Wiktionary". --EncycloPetey 22:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, I stand corrected about 3RR. Please provide a link to the appropriate place to resolve this issue, I am still a newbie here and I cannot read minds. Thanks, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Tea Room is where discussions concerning etymologies, word usage, and subtleties of definitions are held. --EncycloPetey 22:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

For the sake of clarity, I wanted to let you know that I've reverted your edit to this page. While the translation is largely literal, it is also a translation into a citable English-language proverb which I have just added. Thank you for your attention, but I believe the matter is resolved elsewise now. —Leftmostcat 07:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I saw the edits and understood. A related question is now on your talk page. --EncycloPetey 07:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

ETYMO:MOSTppl dontcare,sowi'vit 1.?? Prk utlams jrarqía, --EncycloPetey 11:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymology: most people don't care [ insert: though I do]. So why have it in the first place[Clarification: instead of behind the concerning meaning section]??

Could you now please provide me with a transcript, read written-out version of your three-word reply, if I may ask so? If you care about etymology, then why ask this question? (And thank you for providing a legible version of your question. I could not determine before what the full question was intended to be, and so had to guess.) My reply is "Porqué utilizamos jerarquía. This is (rough) Spanish for "Because we use a hierarchy." The reply was intended to show you how opaque your garbled comments were to most of us. You knew what they said because you wrote them. Most of us had to guess imperfectly at what you intended to communicate. Further, many of our editors do not speak English as their primary language, and those that do come from many countries and regioins where pronunciation often differs considerably. This makes non-English versions of text much harder for most people to decipher. --EncycloPetey 08:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope it is okay to move the pertaining section over here [though I wouldn't know how to do it properly.], as I thought it being awkward to have a further reply on the general feedback page. So I guessed right! Smiley -- I thought you meant hierarchy [in ordering the meanings by origin, right?] but was in the dark about the previous two words. Thanks for writing it out! smiley Please allow me to further clarify:

I'll start with what I think is something very important: I didn't originally mention me personally liking etymology, in order to keep it short and also because I would have expected a reaction as yours, though I think it's good you put it down. Perhaps I'm a bit different from how discussions in general go, in that I not always stress what I like, but what I think most people would like, especially concerning say group projects.

Okay I tried to reply in a logical and flowing way, though I now have to go back to hierarchy. I did realize the meaning sections are organized by Word origin as that's rather common and to me that makes sense. I guess most dictionaries do that, and even so myself I might also [like in "what quite a few people in general do"] go for black/white representations when annoyed, mad, not having time, or just tired, I do not think completely everything is wrong with dictionaries I ever used. My point is that in my experience most people for some reason don't like etymology; believe it or not, the reference dictionary in Flanders, the "Dikke" [Brabantian for thick/fat, but you might know that anyway, going by your Babel] "Van Daele" [Flemish family name, meaning of/from the Dale] refused despite many requests over the years[some people obviously like etymology] to carry etymology of words, disappointing my curiosity already as a kid and not quite helping me gettin' started with other languages.

But what can one say, for example in Taiwan when trying to do what I think is right, and thus trying to tell local people about learning-strategies, including how one can use etymology learning words and remembering them--especially concerning the latter point, I will get a rather negative reaction like "do I have to learn etymology?" Sure, the Taiwanese educational system relies heavily on learning facts, and it must seem like an additional burden to them, which I can understand, and not everybody is prepared to try to learn as many and various things as I do, which might explain one factor behind the aversion I seemed and seem to notice in most people regarding etymology. Also having gone through other people's comments on the general feedback page, quite a few times I noticed people writing that wictionary is to complicated [entry-wise, I can put my finger on something, but that's another can of worms, which I perhaps will leave closed for now, out of concern for the length and readability of this reply], one factor in which may be more specialistic information standing as it were in front of what they are after, the definition. [for me, especially as the text doesn't go around the content box, many things in front of/above the definition, especially when I just want to have a quick look, make me have to move the cursor and click down, which, You guessed it, make my hands hurt --sad smiley]

So summarizing: now being able to dictate, I mentioned the fact that I like etymology to highlight my personal preference, which is likely in line with the one of quite a few editors here regarding etymology. But in the light of most non-specialist people seeming to prefer otherwise, my suggestion would have been to perhaps put the etymology at the end of each section as a kind of a compromise, a bit similar to what I was trying to say about the rhymes section. I have tried to imagine how that would look [not sure], technically, I think it'd be feasible. But then again, I do not expect every my suggestion to be taken on boardspace [already because I'm not always right], especially in an un-changed way, an exchange about them would be nice though Smiley!

Okay, let me edit the above first. Otherwise I will start worrying that my computer might freeze in the mean, so me losing the above, prospect of which in its own right already making my arms tense up, and thus hurt [it's I didn't quite finish what I meant to say --not that I always have 2 smiley -- but unless I figure out to temporarily save the talk page edits, wanting to respect the guideline about not changing already saved and hence the displayed comments, I see no other solution for now. Thanks again for what I hold to be a very constructive reply, thank you!!--219.69.81.128 08:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so the past participle right here is incorrect, too? (Since the "-io" nouns are derived from the past participle stems.) -- 88.112.34.29 01:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Edited. -- 88.112.34.29 01:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, good catch. --EncycloPetey 01:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for the stimulating discussion about urban Indian. I have an unrelated question.

I'm going to have a son in a few months. While sifting through a list of 3-syllable name possibilities for the boy, I came across an odd one of Gaelic origin: Cionnfhaoladh. Guess how it's pronounced? Kenallee or Kenneally. Notwithstanding that I can't bring myself to give my kid such a flummoxing name (entertaining as it might be), I thought I'd make it a Wiktionary entry, seeing that many entries for given names and surnames exist here.

The trouble is, while I can find several references to it online, the only "archival quality" reference that explains it (besides ancient documents that don't explain it at all) is another dictionary, Dictionary of American Family Names by Oxford University Press.

Is it acceptable for a dictionary to cite another dictionary? Or would this entry be too obscure to bother with? Please reply here; I'm watching your talk page. Anachronist 01:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Given names and surnames have been a thorny issue on Wiktionary. The problem is that most names books are copied from other names books, and most are full of invented names and erroneous information. What I suggest is that you use the "Dictionary notes" section. You can see an example of it in use on the entry for tió de Nadal (although it's being used to indicate absence in those cases). This will allow you to point out that it's included in a particular name dictionary.

I do find that MacLysaght's The Surnames of Ireland has a listing for Kinneally, also as Gaelic Ó Cinnfhaolaidh, which is a "clan affiliation" name meaning "male descendant of Cinnfhaoladh". The spelling is slightly different, but it's probably the same name. The name Cinnfhaoladh" may be a given name from an ancestor, or it may be a byname from an ancestor. The Irish created affiliation names both ways. --EncycloPetey 01:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the suggestion. -Anachronist 20:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Definitions of Yale surely belong in a dictionary don't they?

I don't see what your problem is.

Yale is 3 things to my knowledge:

A University A lock company An English School

Are you suggesting that there are not definitions of the word?

Perhaps you need to look the definition for 'definition' up in the dictionary. Oh wait, I'll do it for you: "the act of defining or making definite, distinct, or clear."

So When I see the word 'Yale' on a lock box, perhaps people wont get confused with the university...

Please read our policy for inclusion of items as entries (WT:CFI). We have have strict requirements for including the names of company and brand names, and in most cases they are not included. --EncycloPetey 14:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Mr. EncycloPetey, you have recently said to me that you were suspect on the dutch and italian translations I had added in the literacy entry. I have confirmed that those translations were correct and I would like to ask you not to erase them anymore.

Thanks; I knew something was wrong but then I couldn't figure out what to do with the alt. spellings, since they normally come before the etymologies. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2009-01-26 01:24 z

Mr. EncycloPetey, may I know why you reverted my proper edit to the above template? Can you please explain me how is someone supposed to find the word jocus in the category:Latin nouns, or the word japonicus in category:Latin adjectives, or yet the word jam in category:Latin adverbs without the pair Jj in this template??
It seems you simply reverted my edit without even reading what I had written in the template's talk page. Please reconsider. Capmo 05:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Since EP does not appear to be in at the moment, may I suggest reading WT:AL. It may shed some light on things. Keep in mind that there are a great many Latin entries which do not yet conform to our policies, a fact which EP is constantly working on. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link, Atelæs, but after reading the policy I still can't understand the logic behind this hybrid standard for Latin:

1. "...the spelling Juppiter never occurred in [Classical] Latin, so it should not appear as a separate entry in Wiktionary."
2. "Even though the spelling equus never occurred in Classical Latin, it is the preferred form for Wiktionary..." (??)

Even if you are going to stick to this somewhat anachronistic standard, there are still many words starting with Jj in enwikt, so why not let them be easily found through this template until all of them are renamed? Just my opinion. Capmo 02:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've responded at my talkpage.—msh210℠ 23:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

dear PT, [I cannot get my speech recognition to type/display your wiki media alias, sorry for that shies smiley-- and the software is playing up right now, so please bear with me...

The above are two verbs in widespread use in the South Brabantian area[between Antwerp and Brussels; I haven't found a map yet to see the exact location of "South Brabantian." language --wise] I grew up, meaning respectively"play ( in sports)/work really poorly" and "move in an annoying way", like said to children, in that case to stop doing so, or as said of the TV when the latter 's images are overstimulating one's brain.

I guess there will be no entries yet for them in wictionary; would it pay off entering them?

Thank you for all the comments and remarks sent to one of my IP addresses my Internet provider gives me; I do not know whether you replyd to my last comments as I get a bit confused by ol thies IPs semi colon;so I tried an account again.

I also lost track of the questions about English words I originally put on the general feedback page, of whitch I told you it was okay to move them to a more proper place; I checked the tea room, but didn't see them -- did you just revert them, or did I somehow overlook something?

thanks in advance! Sven 70--史凡 04:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Requests for new entries are not put in the Tea Room, they are put on Wiktionary:Requested entries:English, which is where I moved your requests. --EncycloPetey 17:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I checked and noticed that the second word is listed as a Dutch translation for abound, in which sens indeed I have heard it being in use when I worked in Utrecht. the meanings I mentioned are spoken, the first word might be conceived as Iye dialect, in the way I mean, I've never seen it in print, but I wouldn't see a reason why the language I grew up with shouldn't beconserved and put down in writing for posterity

[not that it is a dead language, it is just because of what I see as misconceived language politics, namely "weall band together under the banner of 'Dutch' so we become a more 'important' language , even featuring in the top 20 of languages , arranged by the criterion 'spoken by so many million people"

I think be in importens of a language lies in that it is/has been used as a vehicle for communication, and that the numbers not really matter for the language status [of course, this is a relative argument, like that picture changes wen talking about English as the I guess de facto world language, and which version of it to take as the needed "world standard." I reckon];

As Belgium for most of its history has been ruled by people from abroad, and even after independence in 1830 in landers was ruled by French spoken upper-class [that is why people like Walschap are so important in my view, though I'm not aware of the complete history behind it]; al things, which in general do not tend to lead to a high self-esteem as a people. [The Dutch have less of a problem with that lol]

That is why I feel pretty strongly about the above matter; I noticed that for example for example, Limburg ish features, which is good [Sso I can learn about it, as I would not understand the "pure" local dialect over there, and the same goes for our dialects near the coast], but especially since Brabantian is the actual basis on which this in my view artificial "Dutch" is based [ic Dutch as the language spoken in randstad Holland, and Phrisian is more English than low German, what I thought was interesting to find out], the apparent omission of Brabantian in wictionary baffles me.

Sorry this entry got longer, Sven 70史凡 05:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

PS by the way, did you manage to have a look at the "rile up" --entry I tried my hand on? as said, I have a quote available, namely from "Dogbert", in what reads like nice, when perhaps a bit chatty English, the kind one finds in say newspaper columns [I didn't immediately add that information in as I kept it for a second step -- IP a, unfortunately so, I do not know how to give in; on the other hand, I think I know now how to put the TOC place].史凡 05:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

PPS now I just noticed that not all entries have the TOC anyway, good, that was another short entry, namely, for "stomache" [sic with da misspelling], this is all a bit confusing, you know? -- is it truly not possible, though I realize it was not you who reverted [See the following paragraph], to leave a little note in some form about the reason of the revert, deletion etc. I do realize that such would take up a certain amount of extra time,, on the other hand, I assume that most administrators will not have 2 deal with issues like typing through pain or art dictating themselves[that's a funny misspelling of my speech recognition program, I'm going to leave it in! Smiley], that is, I guess most admins are well established in working with the medium.

[it was not number seven but number 1, trying to put it in a lighter way, hopefully not leading to the impression of being "flippant" -- on a related note, I do think the label "personal attack" is applied to llightly, in the way that commonsense, and also wiki media guidelines, which make a lot of sense to me, would say that it should be okay to call the facts and the persons involved when trying to discuss occurrences; it concerns like one's "good standing in the community" would be felt to be imperild by such, then I think one puts one's perceived personal interests above those of the community, which would be a way of approaching things I would perceive as not so good in the framework of a community-based efforts like wiki media-- so far my two cents about that space smiley

To finish my point of concern, I can see that as well established Wiktionarians, one might like some respect and appreciation to have already helpd make wictionary to what it is, that is a useful resource in my view, and I think most people would like to have some respect, already for the "mere" fact of being human beings; likewise, I think most new be and wannabes wannabe wiki media editors wil have good intentions, when misguided or not, and might actually spend a substantial amount of time, being newcomers, for the ever so little appearing contribution they make, so why not give them some respect for that to, easily expressible by at least leaving some form of feedback coma, I think that might take the sting out of quite some unhappy responses and reactions by newbies.

[Glancing over some of the entries on your talk page, I couldn't help noticing You gettin your "fair" share of such reactions too; I didn't delve into the respective situations background [I wouldn't come to learning Chinese anymore, though today I "sacrifice" so to speak LOL], and wouldn't venture allocating blame and cause, on the contrary, I do take from your responses, as you also did to me, that you spent a substantial amount of your time dealing with actual "unhappy customers", and since I'm sincerely convinced that you as well as the other administrators are fountains of knowledge, me being me,, [I hate seeing time get wasted, basically], it somehow, how to put it, makes my heart cringe , voila!, to see you knowledgeable people also wasting your time basically in a back and full of unclarity's, misunderstandings, and resentments, at least of the part of many newbies.

I've noticed in abuv longer entries of mine, get I tend to lose the thread of my very own sentences, to the extent of it even becoming embarrassing when looked upon through the Iye of the language specialist; please consider that while dictating I have to train my speech recognition. Even one would think the simplest words such as " there/way/pain/leave" Etc., at least for now making dictating not comfortable and convenient as can be [but hey, at least some kind of more standard texts are coming out!], so thank you for your forbearance!史凡 08:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do think, I realize your talk page might not be the ideal place of trying to discuss such general issues; on the other hand, as can be taken from the above, at least in part, the starting point also departs from discussions and even run-ins had with you, so I left it here in this repository in genuine in good faith [and also on top of that, I don't feel like getting blocked "randomly" as it were in some more public place on wikimedia]; and yes, even being quite aware of the value of one's lifetime,. I do will spend heaps of time and effort withwith things, as well as people, I consider worth while , like the wiki media's various projects!--史凡 08:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thought it would make more sense if I put "enormously" in the Impossible definition. Steel Blade 20:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have seen it, I will apply to the others, thank you. --Chapultepec 16:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

-ler and -lar. According to the vowel harmony. For instance, kerpeten(ler), sazan(lar). --Chapultepec 16:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have tried it for mercan (mercanı, mercanlar), and it worked. So I can say it is ok, thank you. --Chapultepec 16:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

May I ask you how to put right these pronunciations? Thanks. --Pharamp 17:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

dear PTey [I don't get my speech recognition to write your allias said], I intended to highlight da subject/headline in the Spanish entries You created as of today [at least the ones I looked at I hold for rather helpful, I whish ther were contributors making a similar effort for Chinese!].

I was astounded to not actually see it in the source language, that word. Is that because of some kind of shortcut making/createing an/the entry?

I am not sure whether it is actually well lookd upon to blue-link a word in/part of a header, though after asking myself such, I did notice an actually bolded and blue linked header in an entry. [I could not say now which entry it was]

I looked up preterite [which was my reason behind my wish to blue link it anyway, so as not to have to type it, and also as a service to other users as they might want to look it up to]; if you would find the time to do the same thing [not that I doubt you know in the word], you might notice, and perhaps concur with me about the following: IP a/pronunciation guide is missing.

[Somehow I must have guessed how to pronounce it as my speech recognition program after two goes did display it, so it that I did not actually have to train it, and thus not actually had to type it in manually, which was good, but one will not be always so lucky without having to gold standard, that is pronunciation guide, to one's disposal -- I know whent to the Longman dictionary, the English-Chinese version of which has quite a few mistakes in da pronunciation guide actually, reducing its value quite a bit, and I take that in my first goes dictating, I used the British pronunciation, which I often need to train my program in order to smoothly recognize it] the first page that displays actually does not contain information which one is after, namely the definitions [which are actually more precise than the one provided by my Longman dictionary, so I'll hand the praise where due, as I go by fair is fair], and since my is accessibility and usability, here with my feedback! Smiley.

On another note, I was deeply unhappy, to the extent of being perturbed and losing sleep over it [happens when I'm too upset about things], to have discovered during my first venture into the beer parlor [I dare hope some Belgian beers are on draft though! tong out of mouth smiley] a bit by accident the thread about the "mystery editor" going through the TOC to get a feel for what people discuss over there;

It is not so much the fact that I featured ther, IC that actually positive, as in, that things get discussed and clarify, but it is that I feel your first entry doesn't quite reflect the facts as happened; as I know by experience by now that a hot headed reply doesn't tend 2lead nor foster a constructive with each other, I refrained from putting down a knee- jerk style on- the- spot reply;

As now with an unclear head and a sleep deficit [I do not blame you entirely for that tho] I don't see the circumstances ideal to do so either, also because I will have to go back and read the entire entry with cool head, and reflect a bit about it, preferably after a week or so.

To be fair, your second entry, spelling out my speech recognition acquirement [it was actually acquired long before, like months, but placed on the back burner because people kept telling me it wouldn't actually work and be functional, and not being a computer specialist, I went along their advice and I decided I had already more than enough frustrations to deal with on a daily basis to take on another project, speech recognition and however much I desired it, that looked like a dead-end street anyway] and progress using it, I see that as a to me fair remark, and thank you for it!

concluding, it should be by now abundantly clear that of any things I'm rather eloquent, and I do not quite understand why wictionary insiders do not take advantage of that to create a mutually beneficial situation, instead of I feel goin' for a more wrangling-based approach, especially in the light of that rather direct and head-on replies from newbies do not seem to be appreciated much, to put it softly.

And in case there is a desire to test newbz up on their ability to contribute, I do think there was plenty of scope for that, from whether asking your Taiwanese language specialist about the actual value of my contributions, that is their merit, apart from riding around about the very obviously lack of knowledge about proper formatting, and not that I've seen any help or actually helpful help pages about that, over throwing me some Brabantian and see what come back to actually give me some feedback, most of you being native English speakers, about the English new entry I tried my hand on, which was the "rile up"-one, and I here with stress there was no underlying subliminal message whatsoever, even though it occurred to me that it might be [Mis]construed as such, but part of my training package with my very speech recognition, a text that poked fun of the relationship between managers and their employees.

Now this got longer again, tho to my defense, the nature of the facts I'm trying to address and be part of the solution for the better, doesn't really allow a compact format; and in matters very compact formatting so to speak [I'm referring to my shorthand contributions], I do not need to spell out how disappointing that experience has been to me.

As famous football personalia keep stressing with Arsenal, a storyd London football club which has been experiencing a bit of a trophy drought in recent years and the wich trainer/manager they like and highly respect, they would like to see the club be successful, and such is my commitment and whish to/4 wictionary, and instead of mutually wasteing each other, there is tremendous scope for collaboration and improvements, with me as with quite a few other newcomers I would think, and perhaps the process, procedures and individual policies in dealing with those very new people are sub optimal for now. [I hope I'm lucky enough to find some appreciation for the extent to which I go in weighin' my words here, especially in the context highlighted in matters my beer parlor "discovery".]

Given the importance I feel this subject has, your user page, even as a person concerned and involved, perhaps more involuntary than otherwise, might constitute a sub optimal vehicle for a topic and aspect of the functioning of wictionary that deserves perhaps a wider discussion. Though I have been toying last night with taking it to a specific thread in said beer parlor, in the hope something good and constructive comes out of it, I will likely let some time ago over it, likely a week, or rather a fortnight, also, in order to be fair, I should give the first person concerned and involved a fair chance in a detached, that is, non-emotional context to perhaps provide me with his thoughts behind reverting a new entry like "rile up" comment lessly, but that will also require for me to wait for a day that such seems to be feasible, as, to be honest, I feel offended and hurt in my capacity of being a disabled person by the initial treatment received, which I still feel amounts up to being discriminatory, and since wiki media guidelines in general, and wictionary ones' specificly, lay great value on civility, recommendation and policy I agree with highly, my occasional and admitted overreactions notwithstanding perhaps paradoxically it may appear, I think it will be the clear the latter amounts to a concern of the gravest kind, and I sincerely do not think that any what I perceive as excuses about my shorthand, which I used in necessity will constitute any credible defense in treating with a serious, involved, experienced, academically accomplished, willing to share and disabled person as I am. If it has to do with ignorance or incredibility about the very existence of the syndrome RSI, I could recommend and stress more that Wiktionarians, wiki pedians and wiki medians learn about it in order to actually provide the inclusive community they stand for going by their own very manifesto of intentions.

I know this entry is very long, I am keenly aware of thst; please bear in mind that though plowing through it reading it and hopefully at least getting the gist of my communicativ intentions, it will still have taken up to four or five times for me to lay it down in this repository.

With genuine and sincere intentions, please accept the sincerests of my regards,

[As it seems informal didn't work, please do not think that is the only approach or way I am able with to communicate {would one think I would have been able to publish as a first author in "American pathology", at least five years ago rated as the number two American pathology medical issue/magazine-the right word slips my mind right now, but I'll provide the information anyway, the more so since I noticed there being such a keen interest in Number one and so forth positions in wictionary, competitive obsession almost with quantitative measures, which surprises me in what by all I know is a community based collaborative effort- and as such the de facto number two worldwide}, though I much rather prefer instead of expressing hopefully mutual respect by gestures and words, to assume that such respect is there anyway, in a mutually way, and as such to invest time and effort won, saved and spared in the further improvement and expansion of say wictionary!!]

Sven 70

PS I only made my way to the beer parlor after my lengthy post on your talk page the other day, and as such those two things, namely this and that entry, are unrelated and independent from each other.史凡 08:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

first of all thank you for the notification! I appreciate the time you spend doing this --you will have quite some reverts on your plate on a daily basis I guess, and many a small makes a [I have torturd my brain by now, this saying, I guess from British origin, keeps slipping my mind], it all amounts to time spent, so thanks again!

The reason I linked it is that in the end, when highlighted, that one click is easier on my arms, and perhaps just more convenient for most other users, than to go to the search mask and fiddle around with my speech recognition to giv in longer words like those; restarting my computer every time to have the software functioning optimally is not realy a feasible option, especially for minor inputs like that [though they still would make my hands hurt more], and given the very nature of the words concernd,I might have to train them with the program, which, since the spelling mode has hiccups, will likely require me typing out the not very useful word anyway[ even though the program has an extensive vocabulary, it is not always very forgiving with say da syllable stress I might get wrong in especially one of those more uncommon words].

I had to restart my computer in the mean, sorry for that; I timed it, half an hour -- can you imagine, every time you want to do something in your computer to have to go thro a procedure like that? Good, it was 20 minutes, during which I constantly need to go back to the computer and check because it might have seemed a good idea at the time to have the computer ask me for a program that is stuck:" Would you like to re- try ending the program properly, or do you prefer to end it now and possibly lose any data contained by the program.", and the other 10 minutes was to finish the cleaning job in the house that I did in the mean time.

Now, the program is running like the a dream/charm, well almost, but the potential is definitely there!

To finish off the topic in the header: since you've been so kind to notify me , as a matter of Cours I will refrain from linking words in the quotations until I'm aware that policy would have changed; if I think your policy in some way might be too strict, I guess the proper place to address this and bring this up is in the beer parlor; I didn't check the entry concernd by the way when posting this now, and furthermore in my 3/4 months here on wictionary [despite training it three times now, my speech recognition keeps writing stubbornly dictionary each and every time; a user of the software needs to have quite a bit of patience with it,sigh] and Wikipedia, I haven't reverted once, let alone engaging in a revert war, and even less I would be inclined to do so in this case, even more so since you were so kind to notify me.

In regard to the quotations, it can be really hard ones, fact of which I do not want to say that such is hundred percent bad, but it's fair to state that they can be quite challenging, even to somebody with advanced English, or even quite a few native speakers i dare surmise, like the Shakespearean one I've found with one entry, I do not recall which one anymore; I think Shakespearean English is interesting on that note, I only don't understand it, wouldn't know if it's middle English, it should have something to do something with incipient English, especially in written form-- whith such quotations a link to a potentially explanatory site elsewhere on wiki media or the Web would be most helpful!

On another note:

Ramekin, word which I found checking the pronunciation of "ramie" in my Longman dictionary, since the IPa was not yet provided in the entry, same goes for "caveat", which I both had to train in my speech recognition program just now, struck me as of Brabantian origin, etymology was not provided in wictionary. Checking Wikipedia, they trace the origin to the French word, which still strikingly points to Brabantian origin, like mannequin does,-ken for -let, as I'm sure you're aware; would you think it's worthwhile and interesting to have a look whether you can find more about the etymology in reference books? Here in Taiwan, I have hardly any reference books to my disposal, and as said, even in Flanders I would have none what so ever for etymology questions!

If you feel like checking the etymology, then thanks in advance for helping feeding my ever-hungry curiosity, along with that of other users, and as said thank you very much for ur notification!!史凡 10:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)whatReply

PS, what I forgot to mention is that the puzzling thing is that I have no idea whatsoever what Brabantian word it could come from, tho I gave that some hard thought; perhaps it's derived from a word that went out of fashion, or an- other origin altogether, somehow me mimicking the Flemish diminutive.

Also, since I've finally figured out here how to diminish the brightness of my TV and computer screens to the minimal setting, so my brain doesn't put me out of work so easily with a migraine headache, I hardly notice the difference between the black and blue highlighted words; I actually have to move the cursor on them to know for sure, so yes, I wouldn't know for sure how it looks on e screen with normal brightness [and I am not going to trie to change the setting to save my hands from pain], but any way史凡 14:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm about ready to start adding the missing entries for Catalan cardinal numbers and revamping the existing ones to among other things to use Template:cardinalbox. But I have one question before I do. For the numbers 1, 21, 31, ..., 91 should the lemma form be considered the noun form, u, vint-i-u, trenta-u, ... , noranta-u, or the masculine adjective form, un, vint-i-un, trenta-un, noranta-un ? Carolina wren 15:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply