User talk:Lingo Bingo Dingo/2019

FWOTD

I'd say your focus week went quite well. How interested are you in continuing your involvement? We can do a focus week each month, or you could just try setting regular FWOTDs. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge I think that getting focus weeks to run monthly would be too often if sufficient variety is to be maintained. But I'm okay with occasionally setting FWOTDs and I'll try to get at least a few more focus weeks ready to run.

I have ordered a Sarnami dictionary by the way, to check the attestation of dhuku. (That said, I think it is reasonable to suppose some term corresponding to Sranan Tongo duku is used in Sarnami.) ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, monthly focus weeks could present their own challenge. I'm just hoping that you liked setting FWOTDs and want to do more in the future, as it's something I'm worried about having enough time for, and you setting that week really took some weight off of me. And thank you for doing all that research! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Feel free to indicate when I should set FWOTDs and what languages should or shouldn't be featured in that period. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, you can do whatever you like. For example, in February you only really need to avoid Valentine's Day, and that sort of thing should be obvious from the FWOTD nom page. As long as you tell me (or do it far enough in advance), I won't have any issue with it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge All right, I have set two words for the weekend. Do you mind if I set Hindi मुकेश (mukeś) for 4 March? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, but I was waiting on صبوح because the quotations lack translit and translation, as well as metadata like date (easily added from the WP articles). I can probably do the translit, but I don't think I'm up to translate it, so we'll have to find a Persian to do it or dig up an out-of-copyright translation, both of which are doable but annoying.

As for मुकेश (mukeś), I think that Mukesh ought not to be a redlink when it's featured, but otherwise it should be good. You can link to Maha Shivaratri using the focus= parameter. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Ah, sorry. I've replaced صبوح with ईंट (ī̃ṭ) as that entry has all of those and we haven't yet had any Hindi this month. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Eh, does the page only update once or twice a day? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Re صبوح: thank you, the replacement looks good. A big part of this job is bothering other people, seeing as no one person can be competent in all the languages we feature. I now see that you've pinged exactly the right person, so thank you!

Re updating: by "the page", I presume you mean the monthly subpage? You just need to refresh it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hey LBD. Are you interested in setting more focus weeks (or regular weeks, for that matter)? You've been doing great, and I mostly want to encourage you to do FWOTD whenever you feel moved to help out. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Metaknowledge I would be, but right now I mostly spend time on expanding and clean-up in Dutch entries, which doesn't leave much room for other things. Did you already have dates planned for מָרוֹר and πάσχα (páskha) by the way? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  I understand. I'm just struggling to keep up with balancing demands in meatspace with FWOTD upkeep, so any help is appreciated. And yes, I've been saving those for Passover, although I don't particularly care which days. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Metaknowledge If you tell me what words to use, I can set FWOTDs for a week or a few days. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Dutch Street Language (Straattaal)

Looking at the word waggie, categorized under Dutch slang. This is a Straattaal word. I wonder what to do with the Straattaal words, bro. How serious do we have to take them. In my opinion they are a marginal phenomenon. The words vary very quickly. What is used today, isn't used next month any more. Plus the number of users is very low, although the users behave very popular. I guess at most 10000 non-native speakers and they are concentrated in the inner suburbs of Amsterdam (Amsterdam-West, Bijlmer). I have a list of Straattaal words, and there even is a (not so serious) dictionary https://straatwoordenboek.nl . HansRompel (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@HansRompel It's fine to add them if it is possible to find three CFI-compliant cites. So if the words on your list seem citable feel free to add them, but make sure to label them appropriately. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@HansRompel You'd be surprised how many kids use these words, and not just in the Bims either. Post-secondary students and high school kids of all backgrounds across the Randstad use these words. Waggie imo falls in the same category as doekoe, fissa, fittie in terms of how common they are, which is pretty common. I would estimate >100,000 people in the Netherlands occasionally use these (including humorous/"ironic" slang usage), and I'd say that's a conservative estimate (especially for doekoe or fittie which are basically ABN by now). The ones I listed here (including waggie) all meet WT:ATTEST via Google Books or at least Google Groups. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 07:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mnemosientje, HansRompel Yes, I agree that some of these terms are incredibly (sense 2) widespread and that many more are far from a marginal phenomenon. I wouldn't consider doekoe or fittie Standard Dutch though, in my view the register is still slang, though 'respectable', widely understood slang — a bit like dough. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm from Eindhoven and I've never heard anyone seriously use these words. Only when imitating a randstedeling. I wouldn't know what a lot of them mean either. —Rua (mew) 19:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

moeten and gaan

Hi there. I'm a German-speaker who's lived in the Netherlands for a while. My Dutch is near-native, but, of course, not quite. The usage notes at these two verbs say something about a use of the past tense with the meaning of the present tense. My question: 1.) Do they really mean exactly the same? 2.) Is this restricted to these two verbs?

I tell you how it is in German: If a speaker says "Musstest du heute Abend noch arbeiten?" (Moest je nog werken vanavond?), then this implies that this speaker has some prior information about the matter, but that he's in doubt. Perhaps he remembers having asked the same question the day before, but he forgot the answer. Or something like that. At any rate this implies that the question is not entirely new. But if I ask someone I've just got to know, or about whose working schedule I've never known anything, then I can only use the present tense.

Is this what the usage note is about? Or is there really something special about gaan and moeten. Because that would be new to me and I like to learn stuff that I don't know yet :-) Thank you in advance.

Yes, it is basically the same thing as in German. It typically indicates an expectation or suggestion and I suppose it often (but not per se always) relies on adverbs to indicate that the statement pertains to the near future. It could probably also work with some other auxiliary verbs, like zullen, which doesn't have to be a conditional in this context. I suppose the "pastness" of this sentence type is that the subject is assumed to have some prior intent. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again! Appreciate it.

PS: Probably "hebben" as well, right? "Had je dansles vanavond?" Would work in German at least ("Hattest du heut Abend Tanzstunde?").

I think so, though I suspect that may be more marginal. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sense ids in Dutch etymologies

I noticed that Category:Dutch words suffixed with -er seems to contain a lot of agent nouns, even though there has been a separate category for them for a while now. Maybe you already know this, but just in case, you can specify the subcategory by providing a sense id to the morphology template, like in diff.

I'm not sure how to further subdivide the entries that remain, the ones that aren't agent nouns. Agent nouns are derived from verbs, but there seem to be a variety of senses that derive nouns from nouns as well, and not all of them are documented on -er yet. Maybe you can help figuring these out? From a quick glance, there seem to be the following cases:

• Brabander, Amsterdammer, buitenlander and the like. We already have a sense for these at -er; they should probably use the id inhabitant, following Category:English words suffixed with -er (inhabitant) and Category:German words suffixed with -er (inhabitant).
• Words like the above, but that are adjectives, e.g. in het Groninger museum.
• brugklasser, benedictijner, EHBO'er, tegenstander. These derive from nouns, so they're not agent nouns, but they do generally refer to people associated with something, so they may fall in the same category as Brabander. vrijwilliger, although formed from an adjective, may belong in this category too.
• dubbeldekker. This doesn't refer to a person, but instead something that has the noun it's attached to. A double-decker has two decks. This may be an extension of the previous sense.
• aanrader. This looks like an agent noun, but it's actually a patient noun, because it refers to the thing being recommended, not the person doing the recommending. English keeper (“thing worth keeping”) may be a case of the same.

The more difficult part may be figuring out the etymologies of all these variants. The "inhabitant" sense is clear, and derives ultimately from *warjaz. If the etymology of German -er is to be believed, the adjectives referring to a place are entirely separate from these, and are remnants of an old case form. The remainder is more difficult, but they all seem to follow the general trend of broadening scope, first referring to a person with a more general association, then anything at all characterised by the suffixee. I'd like to see if there are any sources that confirm this first, though, rather than coming up with an explanation myself. The fact that other languages, English in particular, have similar uses of -er may help in our search. —Rua (mew) 21:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rua From the angle of implementation, it would at least seem a more pleasant experience for the implementer to begin with granular categories and merge when you're convinced that they really are the same class than to begin with catch-alls that have to be weeded out later. I'm not much help when it comes to the etymology of various senses. Anyway, I'll look around if I can find anything on the subject.

So implementing the category for inhabitants looks like the best starting point to me; nobody in their right mind would dispute this exists and, like the agent noun class, identifying the sense is rather straightforward in most cases.

When it comes to other possible categories, there may also be a type of -er that is added to borrowed nouns and adjective (gladakker, gramper), though this could be quite marginal, and another one for objects derived from a noun or phrase with which they are associated (onderzeeër), that could be similar either to EHBO'er, etc., or dubbeldekker and such, and this is likely quite small as well. Giller looks like the same case as aanrader.

As for adding the id parameter to agent nouns; I know it exists and generally try to include it, but it is the kind of thing I'm occasionally prone to forgetting to add. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

krijgen

This is an inherited strong verb, which are normally primary verbs, not derived from anything. Rather, strong verbs are generally the basis for the derivation of other words. The denominative affix -en always derives weak verbs. —Rua (mew) 08:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

admin

How about being an admin now? If not, I'll ask in 2020. --Mélange a trois (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mélange a trois Thanks for the offer, but I'm going to pass up on it (and probably will do so in 2020 as well). I don't move pages or use {{d}}, so I probably won't use the admin tools a lot either. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, NP. Speak to you in 2021, then. --Mélange a trois (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

zenita

You rolled back my edit but it is necessary for the entry to have correct categories ("-ita" is a participle ending, so the "eo-head" template adds the "non-lemma forms" and "adjectival participles" categories, instead of the "lemmas" and "adjectives" categories). J3133 (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@J3133 Oh, right. The way this is normally done is by adding them to the lists at Module:eo-headword/exceptions, see this edit for an example. Generally speaking, replacing language-specific headword templates with {{head}} is a bad idea. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know this list exists. J3133 (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

There's no shame in that, more or less no-one knows. The page could use a publicity drive. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@J3133 Eh, do you plan on just leaving the other headwords you edited as they are? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Sea-coal

Hi Lingo. Last month you were kind enough to look up a word for me in the Oxford English Dictionary. Could you look up "sea-coal"? I don't know how to do it on line and I gather that the on-line version doesn't give all the meanings (at least in the case of "pomelo"). If you do, plase Ping me. Thanks. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Eric Kvaalen The OED has two lemmas for "sea-coal", one of which is a convoluted redirection chain to "sea-kale". If you meant the first lemma, it has an Old English sense "Jet", a sense 2 a. "A name for mineral coal ('coal' in the ordinary modern sense) as distinguished from charcoal. Now only Hist." with a lengthy section about the etymology and copious cite, a sense 2 b. "U.S. rare. 'Soft coal as distinguished from anthracite'", only quoting another dictionary, and a rather uninteresting third sense with attributive uses. "Sea-kale" is apparently Crambe maritima, with a "sea-kale beet" being a white beet. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The Wikipedia article Coal also uses the term for coal that washes up on shores (which is apparently the source of the term). But I think it's incorrect usage now, since the term apparently just means mineral coal now. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Eric Kvaalen The etymological note on sense 2 a. states: "Commonly explained as meaning 'coal brought by sea'. But carbo maris occurs in the Newminster Cartulary (Northumberland) c 1236 (...); and in 1306 a Glamorganshire document (Inquis. Post Mortem, ...) speaks of 'unus puteus in quo fodiuntur carbones maris '. Unless we suppose that the documents were written by Londoners, or (what is very unlikely) that the London term had been adopted in the coal-producing regions themselves, these early examples appear to point to some different explanation. Possibly in early times the chief source of coal supply may have been the beds exposed by marine denudation on the coasts of Northumberland and South Wales." The Latin means "one pit where sea coals are excavated", translated literally. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what Coal gives as the explanation of the term. Thanks again. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Mithrasmas rollback

Unclear why you chose to rollback my edits; the reverted etymology and definition are lopsided in their emphasis. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 01:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

First of all, they aren't lopsided and you haven't made an argument that they are. While the religionsgeschichtliche hypothesis about the origin of Christmas is reasonably current, that cannot be said of any links to Mithras which is seriously superseded.[1] The current etymology effectively communicates that the latter theory is not widely held among scholars any more. Moreover, your removal of "presented" from the definition introduced problematic bias. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The lopsidedness is the overemphasis in disproving any connection between Mithras and Christ. Regardless of the historicity of the personae, the coinage Mithrasmas simply links Christmas to Mithras. I don't see how removing "presented" introduces bias to the definition. Usage of the term to associate Christmas and Mithras does not require the link to be historically accurate. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 18:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

It is hardly overemphasis to note that a notion crucial to a word's etymology and use isn't mainstream. Explicitly referring to "presented" indicates that the usage is opinion and isn't lopsided either. And "the historicity of the personae" is not the matter at hand at all, it's about the date and relation between festivals. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)