Last modified on 19 March 2015, at 14:07

User talk:Metaknowledge

Archive
Archives
  1. Jan-Jun 2012
  2. Jul-Dec 2012
  3. Jan-Jun 2013
  4. Jul-Dec 2013
  5. Jan-Jun 2014

Welcome backEdit

But you came at a bad time. A lot of drama in the BP right now... —CodeCat 00:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I think my solution to that will be avoiding the BP, then. Really, all I know of what's happened in the last months is whatever template changes get posted on N4E. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

painstickEdit

This is something from Star Trek (so might not meet WT:FICTION): see [1]. The word seems to occur in a very few other sci-fi/fantasy books, for similar devices. Equinox 17:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

A brief survey on BGC left me with the impression that it was more generic in nature than the Star Trek version, but I couldn't tell quite how generic, hence my inability to define it. I'm pretty sure it meets the policy, though. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

camīnātaEdit

Could you please create the Latin entry? --WikiTiki89 18:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how best to treat it. L&S only gives a quote from Pliny and decides to assume that it is the past participle of a verb camīnō, but it's so rare that it could just as easily be a one-off adjective, albeit one with an implicit verb that might just as easily exist if anyone else were to use a word this esoteric. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
So do you have any ideas for a possible definition it could have had? It has descendants with the meanings "chimney" and "room". --WikiTiki89 12:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I have never seen this word before; you can see what L&S say. I suppose that the semantic shift makes some sense. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:albifronsEdit

In retrospect I think you were right to suggest that inflected specific epithets may as well be treated as Latin. Requiring the extra steps of creating Translingual inflection-line templates seems silly. I am leaving the uninflected specific epithets and the genitive forms of pseudo-Latin (SB's term) personal surnames as Translingual. If there were a clear consensus for another solution, I would go that way, but the practical advantage for speeding proper Translingual entries with comprehensible specific epithet information, not present in any existing taxonomic databases that I've seen, seems substantial. I think there are databases, some fairly comprehensive, that have specific epithets, but they are not very convenient for casual users. DCDuring TALK 16:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I remain, like you (as far as I know), deeply sceptical of how we can handle Translingual entries without guidelines and demarcations clearer than those that exist at present. I haven't time to do much work on these matters any longer, nor will I for months, but if you create a vote or discussion and leave me a notification here, I will be happy to (briefly) critique, debate, or vote as the situation demands, if it can help lead us to a clear-cut solution on entries like this one. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Some features that reduce the risk are the presence of New Latin labels in many of the debatable Latin adjectives, the small number of Translingual adjectives, and the existence of categories marking entries as using or needing Latin or Translingual specific epithets. If necessary we could reverse almost all the choices made so far fairly quickly. Though I have worked on these for a while I don't really have a preference for the ultimate solution. DCDuring TALK 21:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

re: rollback to "kuri"Edit

I came across alternative form "goorie" and couldn't find it in wiktionary but a Google search brings up lots of references linking it to kuri and "mongrel dog" Goadeff (talk)

The word goorie is never used in Māori; I do not know how or if it is used in other languages, but a Google search is not sufficient to prove its use for Wiktionary's purposes. Please do not add words in languages you are not comfortable with, and review WT:ATTEST for how we demonstrate that a word is inclusible. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
To elaborate a little: the spelling "goorie" looks like the way a native English-speaker who doesn't know anything about Maori would try to represent kuri: it's very easy to mistake a "k" without aspiration for a "g", and Maori "u" rhymes with English words that end in "oo". If you don't know Maori well enough to spot that, you're just spreading other people's mistakes. "Goorie" as an alternative spelling for kuri makes about as much sense as Sumisu for an alternative spelling of Smith, because that's how a native Japanese-speaker might spell it in our alphabet. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

rebenyuEdit

A Google search has led me to believe that rebenyu may mean something in Tagalog. Since you have experience in Polynesian languages, I thought I'd ask you about it. --WikiTiki89 11:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That's like asking you about a word in Albanian because of your expertise in Slavic languages: Tagalog is only very remotely related to anything Polynesian. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
A quick search leads me to believe it's a loan from English revenue. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
If there were no other Indo-Europen speakers around, the Albanian would be the right person to ask. Plus, I thought he'd appreciate the cross-linguistic pun. Anyway, thanks for the answer, it looks like you're right. --WikiTiki89 15:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I did take a look at studying Tagalog, and although I did like some parts of the language, overall the orthography and the syntax drove me mad. Tagalog has a lot of English and Spanish borrowings, and this word looks very much not autochthonous. But it seems Chuck already figured all that out. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yiddish dialectsEdit

You and User:Angr may be interested in the Yiddish dialectal vowel table I added to Wiktionary:About Yiddish#Vowels. --WikiTiki89 14:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I like it, although I don't know enough to assess it all. We really ought to add those orange links, though. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
It's based on information given in Neil G. Jacobs (2005) Yiddish: A Linguistic Introduction, which I bought for some light reading. I'm thinking we could make a pronunciation generator based on this table, if only we had a reference for determining which group a vowel in a particular word belongs to, since etymology alone is not reliable enough. --WikiTiki89 22:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Missing Spanish feminine adjectivesEdit

Hey. You mentioned a year ago about a bot for these Spanish adjectives. You said that your bot ("clunking thing") could process them. Is that option still there? I'm not allowed to run a bot anymore, sadly. At least, only if I run it very slowly. --Enterloppd (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

My life being as busy as it is, I can't commit to it for sure, but I'd like to help you out. I'm on holiday this week, but feel free to email me and I'll see if I can get the thing running on this computer. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup#AcinetaeEdit

Could you take a look at this and see if you can make sense out of it? The definition as stands now is totally useless due to completely obsolete 19th-century terminology. There are a few Google Books hits for the terms used, but you have to know enough biology to read between the lines and figure out what they're referring to in modern terms- and my high-school biology from 40 years ago doesn't cut it. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I've given my opinion there. I am slightly confused by the fact that Wikipedia claims that flagellated organisms were considered infusoria, whereas the Google Books hits seems to be trying to restrict it to ciliates alone, but that doesn't really change the taxonomic identification of this term. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Template.Edit

You're right. I'll be more careful in my next edits. - Alumnum (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about thatEdit

Sorry about the confusion on the vote. I thought it was still open. I didn't look at the date until you just reverted it.Reguyla (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Reguyla: That's okay. You can see that it's closed at the bottom, by the way. And as I noted, you can see at WT:V that you need more edits to be eligible to vote. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know that either. Good to know, I'll just have to create a few missing terms then. Reguyla (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit

Hi! This is my first talk.

Thank you for your edit. Yin May Lwin (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Myanmar Language PleaseEdit

(1)Myanmar language.

I'm from burma.My nationality is Myanmar.Government says Myanmar is not the name of a nationality.But it isn't true.

There is not a language called Burmese.The word Burma belongs to many nationalities.Those nationalities have their own languages.

A man created a word that belongs to nationalities in my country.That word is Burma. Nay Win,dictator,wanted to erase people's memories about great leaders.That man was a great leader of my country.So,everything about him was deleted.But the word burma can't be deleted.So,Nay Win maked people believed that Burma belongs to only one nationality.

(2) Not etymology It's not real etymology. It's just my thought about that word.I know I shouldn't do like this.But I want to know whether my thought is right or wrong. Everyone can edit wiki.So,if my thought is wrong,someone will edit it.I thought someone will edit it. Bye Bye. Have a good day Yin May Lwin (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary does not follow any political point of view, and the name Burmese is used because it matches what most modern linguists and scholars use. Also, please do not add anything that you think may be wrong. We do not have enough staff to fix everything that is wrong, so only enter it if you know it is correct. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit

It's my mistake.I shouldn't write something which is not proved.Thank you for your advice. Yin May Lwin (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks againEdit

Wiktionary does not follow any political point of view


So,you read it.Oh,thank you.

Yin May Lwin (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary doesn't. We're a descriptive dictionary: we describe the language as it is, not how it should be. If the speakers of a language use a term in a way that's illogical or factually wrong, we describe it rather than pretending it's something else that might make more sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Metaknowledge".