User talk:-sche/Archive/2018

Westphalian

@-sche, if you have a second, could you weigh in here. Much appreciated. --Victar (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

WT:RFM

As always, there is a backlog of language code discussions that could use some attention. Hardly anyone comments in a substantive way, let alone a scholarly way, on the issues I raise there, so your input is much appreciated. I'll try to clean out the ones that you've actually responded to. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder; it prompted me to spend the past few weeks (and hopefully coming weeks) going through more of the requests. I could (and perhaps should) go through adding codes much faster if I only segregated out the ones that seem like they might need further checking to be sure there is content in them (e.g. Gamela, and maybe Èrsh depending on whether more than placenames are attested and what language we prefer to include the placenames as), and just added all the rest in one go, but I try to find and add content in them at the same time as I add the codes, which slows things down. On a related note, it is probably time to start going through the chaos of Category:Tasmanian language and assigning the words to actual languages. - -sche (discuss) 06:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Just as you started to catch up, we got swamped with a new deployment of ISO codes: WT:Requests for moves, mergers and splits#ISO code changes for 2017. Most of these should be fairly straightforward, but I'd especially like your input on those for which I have abstained or disagreed with the ISO outcome. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 10:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It always interests me that we and the ISO/SIL find different things to grant new codes to — we have a lot of exceptional codes they haven't added yet, while all of their additions look like things we hadn't spotted. Cuitlatec is also interesting because I also thought I had read somewhere that the ISO/SIL/Ethnologue had decided not to grant codes to any more extinct languages besides the ones already included, but perhaps I misremember. Anyway, thanks for spotting the changes; I've retired all the codes they retired and will look into the rest. - -sche (discuss) 17:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I remember reading that about extinct languages too! I had actually spotted one of the missing codes already (Nzadi), but I hadn't gotten around to posting about it on RFM because it's part of a confusing and mostly poorly documented cluster of uncoded languages, which still need to be addressed at some point.
If you ever care enough about ridding us of exceptional codes, we could team up to submit some requests and see if we get any. :) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

schließen

Hey. This has been on WT:RFC for 200 years, more or less. It looks to me to have been cleaned up already - is the conjugation correct now? If so, we can remove it from the RFC page. --Gente como tú (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it can be removed from RFC, because it now uses its own custom conjugation template, so any additional forms that need to be added can just be added. - -sche (discuss) 06:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

muslimsk

I have been using Moslem since I learnt how to spell, and I don't see any need to change and I don't consider it offensive. It can't be eliminated entirely, all words in all languages remember? It may be worth listening to the pronunciations here. BTW, you undid all of my revision. DonnanZ (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

-sche said "that spelling is dated and chiefly used by Islamophobes these days, as the entry warns, and is just an extra click users have to make to get to the lemma". There are several important considerations here. You may not consider it offensive, but its use is often intended to be thus (as our entry documents). The pronunciations are irrelevant, because we are talking about spelling. And "all words in all languages" refers to the fact that we should (and do) have an entry for Moslem, not that you should use a spelling that requires users to click through in order to find content. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, my opinion is that there's no need to list a dated and sometimes pejorative/offensive alternative form, which is also not the lemma, anyway (so users who click on it then have to click again to get to the definitions at Muslim).
I'm sorry I undid the other parts of your edit; I have now restored them. - -sche (discuss) 22:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

male

Template:seemreCites in sense 1. (Also, I have some research associates in this specific topic.) - Amgine/ ^t·e 15:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that typo! :) I'd appreciate more feedback from knowledgeable people on how this word could be defined, if they'd like to take a look, though please consider what's been said in Wiktionary:Tea room/2018/February#male, particularly about the inclusion of any more qualifiers ("[typically] has a penis"—but not all species or individuals who are referred to as male do; "[typically] has XY chromosomes"—but not all species or individuals do, references to "XX male" people are numerous; etc). One must be cautiously aware of how (flexibly) the word is actually used. - -sche (discuss) 15:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

In humans there are many variants of sex-linked genes, not simply two. Phenotypic expression (having 'typical' genitals) mismatching sex-linked genes is rather more common than many 'normal' genetic variations, for example red hair or A+ blood type. Although rare in mammals, phenotypic expression can change from one to another; this is more common in other animals - for example parrot fish. My partner's implications for practice essay on the topic. - Amgine/ ^t·e 20:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Todo/Non-templatised genders (old)

Hey. Is Wiktionary:Todo/Non-templatised genders still useful? Can it be regenerated? --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I regenerated it in AWB, but found that it was mostly false positives (cases where e.g. "n" was mentioned as a letter, or sometimes short for "noun". So I regenerated it in a probably over-narrow way. - -sche (discuss) 03:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

(Regenerated again. - -sche (discuss) 20:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC))

from from

Hey. I've also noticed you adding "from from" in etymologies. It's a weird mistake, but please try not to make it. Thanks for your awesome work. --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you point to examples? I usually find myself cleaning up the error, including working from the cleanup list that probably inspired you to make this post. :p - -sche (discuss) 21:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I went for the old-fashioned googling approach. Typing "from from" site:en.wiktionary.org and then searching "from from" in the browser brings up a ridiculously big number of such things. Maybe most of them are not done by you, but I suspect you're a member of The Etymology Club, who is responsible for this henious crime. --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

When I search for the "from from" in quotes using Wiktionary's search, I get about 125 entries. Most of those have from ending a line and from beginning the following line. I cleaned up three so far. DCDuring (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

A more precise search line is:

"from from" insource:/[fF]rom [fF]rom/

Running it now shows no such duplications occur. Thanks for noticing the problem. There must have been more than 30 or more of them, mostly in etymologies. DCDuring (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Statistics/generated

Another question for you while I've got your attention. Why the heck does Wiktionary:Statistics/generated take so long to sort in ascending order? --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably because we include so many languages. - -sche (discuss) 21:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

kimono usage note

Did you mean "literary"? DTLHS (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh! I'm glad you caught that typo. I meant "literal". Literary might also be accurate. - -sche (discuss) 02:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

truther

I think your rollback is in error because there is a profound lack of clarity and bias in the definition. Let's discuss this on the definition discussion page. ~ JasonCarswell (talk)

Manners

Calling me "stick in the mud" is rude. Please desist. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Bureaucratic masturbation

You wrote in an edit summary: "since I'll make use of this section as part of my general opposition to what one of our more colourful users once called bureaucratic masturbation".

A cheap trick, isn't it? The responsibility for inflamming the discussion by using terms like "bureaucratic masturbation" is yours; you cannot shift the responsibility to unnamed "colourful users".

Prevalence: google:"bureaucratic masturbation".

--Dan Polansky (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, a warning: the behaviour you are engaging in is not an appropriate use of a Wiktionary talk page. Secondly, you are either ignorant or lying; either way, you have decided to attack -sche in bad faith. That phrase was first notably used at Wiktionary by Dick Laurent, and searching the site would have revealed that very quickly if you had bothered to try. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Huh? I do not deny that the phrase was used by someone else before; indeed, the link above I provided makes it very easy to verify. Rather, I point out that people are responsible for their use of phrases regardless of whether these phrases were used by someone else before. I believe that the use of the phrase is rude, unnecessary, inflammatory, and therefore to be avoided. A talk page seems like one obvious venue to raise that in; I do not see why e.g. Beer parlour would be a better venue. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

xmn

Hi -sche. When you changed the language code xmn to pal, I think you missed a few. They are in CAT:E. —Internoob 23:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Code for Kam-Sui language family

Hi there. I think we need a code for Kam-Sui languages. What do you think it should be? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Since no (super-)family to which it belongs has an ISO code, it'll need a qfa- code, like qfa-kms, or any other three letters that approximate the name of the family if you would find e.g. something with a vowel in it like qfa-kas easier to remember/use. (You may already know this, but for the benefit of anyone who doesn't, how to construct codes is documented in Wiktionary:Families.) - -sche (discuss) 03:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

qfa-kms looks good to me. Thanks! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. Do you think we need a code for Hlai languages (which is the family including Hlai and related languages, like Cun)? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

How many languages would go in the family? It looks like most of the Hlai lects are currently lumped into one language code, lic. If there would only be a couple of languages in the family, it might not be that useful, unless it would help you in some other way — for example, if you need to be able to say "from a Hlai language" in etymologies, then go ahead and create a family code (although, if there really would be just two languages/codes in the family, it would seem like etymologies could say "from Hlai or Cun"). - -sche (discuss) 03:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's Proto-Hlai, which is used sometimes for comparison in Chinese etymologies and can be used for Hlai/Cun/Jiamao entries. (Ethnologue seems to put Cun under Kra rather than Hlai, but Glottolog puts it under Nuclear Hlai.) — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

As I skimmed through Norquest's reconstruction of Proto-Hlai, it seems like even Jiamao's classification into Hlai is doubtful. Since we're treating all the varieties of Hlai as one language, I'm not sure how we could include something like Proto-Hlai in etymologies. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, we do have Proto-Basque, despite the Vasconic family consisting of only Basque and arguably Aquitanian, so a family being ultra-small doesn't stop us from including Proto-Hlai if scholars have reconstructed it. (And I think we usually create a family code whenever we create a proto-language code.) If you'd like to include Proto-Hlai reconstructions, then go ahead and create a code. (Do you think the Hlai varieties should be split? Or are they, like Zhuang, usually treated/standardized as one language?) - -sche (discuss) 04:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The written language is only standardized to the Ha dialect, similar to the situation with standard Zhuang. I'm not sure how other dialects are written (or if they are written at all). It's usually treated as one language, so I think we should leave it as is for now. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The Tai-Kadai node above Kam-Sui has an ISO 639 code, "tai". Evertype (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Evertype: If I'm not mistaken, tai is for Tai languages which is one of the branches of the Tai-Kadai family, not the same as the Tai-Kadai family itself. Hlai and Kam-Sui are sisters to Tai. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Old High German Ôstara

Hello, I'm confused on why you marked the template for clean up when it is quite neat in its presentation. I had to use a blank template so I can put all the correct declined words. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Addition of Idiom Neutral to Module:languages/datax

I see you edited Module:languages/datax today. Could you take a look at my request at the talk page? Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 10:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

usex at down#Adjective, 2015

[1]: The original usexes seem to have been a set of rhymes, and I'm curious as to why you changed Tyrone to Jack :p —Suzukaze-c◆◆ 06:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I no longer recall... possibly so that it didn't sound like AAVE speakers were the only ones who used the (widespread) sense. - -sche (discuss) 16:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Middle English Etymology

Hi--thanks for fixing those etymologies from the non-lemmas. I included them because I didn't realize that I could just have the Etymology heading without any content, but I'm glad to know that's not necessary. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@SanctMinimalicen: No problem. :) By the way, the reason I noticed them in the first place is that you used {{der}} and similar templates to link to other words in the same language, which caused them to be categorized as "twice-borrowed", which should actually only happen in a case like anime. If you just need to mention that the current word is a variant of another word in the same language, you can either just use {{m}} (it's assumed the word is in the same language unless otherwise specified), or {{cog}}. - -sche (discuss) 17:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Ohh, right, now I see that. That was carelessness, I'll admit. I know not to use the {{inh}} and the like with the same language (I had made that mistake in the past), but with some of these I had imported existing etymologies from the en entries of direct descendants (e.g. thy for þi where it was applicable (i.e. when the enm members were mentioned in the en etymologies), and in some cases I must have accidentally just changed en to enm for enm members of chains instead of fixing to the {{m}}. In any case, I'll not do that again. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick question...

Do you have any idea why /æɹ/ and /ɛəɹ/ distribution differs slightly between British English and some North American English dialects lacking the Mary-marry-merry merger, such as my own? Is it due to hypercorrection, or is it due to something else? To be more specific, /ɛəɹ/ in my dialect is never where /æɹ/ ought to be, but /æɹ/ is sometimes where /ɛəɹ/ is in British English. I'm not sure if I asked you this question before, but if I did, I don't remember your answer. I'm just wondering. Tharthan (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting situation; I'm not familiar with it, and don't know a cause. If you can't find a historical reason (e.g., if the forerunners of your dialect community spoke a variety of English with a different distribution of those sounds than current canonical/common BrE), perhaps it's interference from other dialects that are around you geographically or in media, or just lexical diffusion. If it interests you, you might try to track what words it happens in and look for commonalities (which could be clues), like if certain phonological environments trigger, enable, or prevent it, or if the words affected are ones you hear from outsiders more than from fellow dialect-speakers (perhaps leading to something like hypercorrection, as you speculate, if you unmerge the sounds "wrong"), or if the words tend to be ones you use a very little (which might thus be "book words" your brain guessed the "wrong" unmerged sound for) or if they're words you use a lot, or if the shift helps distinguish the words from (or draws them closer to) other words. - -sche (discuss) 05:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Trans definitions

Thank you for your attention to the edits around trans and cis terminology. I have not edited Wiktionary before and am not terrifically familiar with the platform. (Thank you as well if it was you that unblocked me - it was very upsetting having my first edits result in a ban for "gibberish" when I explained all of them and provided citations!) The entries for "transmasculine" and "transfeminine" are still not quite accurate - in retrospect I should have checked elsewhere first for clearer definitions, as on Wikipedia "transfeminine" is defined as "an umbrella term describing individuals who were male at birth but identify on the female side of the gender spectrum" and on the Gender Wiki it is defined as "a term used to describe transgender people who were assigned male at birth, but identify with femininity to a greater extent than with masculinity". Both of these are accurate and much clearer. The main idea is that "transfeminine" describes feminine trans people who were assigned male at birth; it is not exactly a synonym either for "trans women" or for "feminine trans people" because the former is not inclusive of transfeminine nonbinary people and the latter is overly inclusive (i.e. includes feminine trans people who were assigned female at birth). I don't mean to heap more work on you but frankly I'm afraid that if I make the edits myself I'll just be banned for gibberish again. Best wishes.

Please delete اسهال

Hello, please delete this page to make room for a move. I have copied the information. Thank you.Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Middle English Etymology

Hi--thanks for fixing those etymologies from the non-lemmas. I included them because I didn't realize that I could just have the Etymology heading without any content, but I'm glad to know that's not necessary. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@SanctMinimalicen: No problem. :) By the way, the reason I noticed them in the first place is that you used {{der}} and similar templates to link to other words in the same language, which caused them to be categorized as "twice-borrowed", which should actually only happen in a case like anime. If you just need to mention that the current word is a variant of another word in the same language, you can either just use {{m}} (it's assumed the word is in the same language unless otherwise specified), or {{cog}}. - -sche (discuss) 17:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Ohh, right, now I see that. That was carelessness, I'll admit. I know not to use the {{inh}} and the like with the same language (I had made that mistake in the past), but with some of these I had imported existing etymologies from the en entries of direct descendants (e.g. thy for þi where it was applicable (i.e. when the enm members were mentioned in the en etymologies), and in some cases I must have accidentally just changed en to enm for enm members of chains instead of fixing to the {{m}}. In any case, I'll not do that again. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick question...

Do you have any idea why /æɹ/ and /ɛəɹ/ distribution differs slightly between British English and some North American English dialects lacking the Mary-marry-merry merger, such as my own? Is it due to hypercorrection, or is it due to something else? To be more specific, /ɛəɹ/ in my dialect is never where /æɹ/ ought to be, but /æɹ/ is sometimes where /ɛəɹ/ is in British English. I'm not sure if I asked you this question before, but if I did, I don't remember your answer. I'm just wondering. Tharthan (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting situation; I'm not familiar with it, and don't know a cause. If you can't find a historical reason (e.g., if the forerunners of your dialect community spoke a variety of English with a different distribution of those sounds than current canonical/common BrE), perhaps it's interference from other dialects that are around you geographically or in media, or just lexical diffusion. If it interests you, you might try to track what words it happens in and look for commonalities (which could be clues), like if certain phonological environments trigger, enable, or prevent it, or if the words affected are ones you hear from outsiders more than from fellow dialect-speakers (perhaps leading to something like hypercorrection, as you speculate, if you unmerge the sounds "wrong"), or if the words tend to be ones you use a very little (which might thus be "book words" your brain guessed the "wrong" unmerged sound for) or if they're words you use a lot, or if the shift helps distinguish the words from (or draws them closer to) other words. - -sche (discuss) 05:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Trans definitions

Thank you for your attention to the edits around trans and cis terminology. I have not edited Wiktionary before and am not terrifically familiar with the platform. (Thank you as well if it was you that unblocked me - it was very upsetting having my first edits result in a ban for "gibberish" when I explained all of them and provided citations!) The entries for "transmasculine" and "transfeminine" are still not quite accurate - in retrospect I should have checked elsewhere first for clearer definitions, as on Wikipedia "transfeminine" is defined as "an umbrella term describing individuals who were male at birth but identify on the female side of the gender spectrum" and on the Gender Wiki it is defined as "a term used to describe transgender people who were assigned male at birth, but identify with femininity to a greater extent than with masculinity". Both of these are accurate and much clearer. The main idea is that "transfeminine" describes feminine trans people who were assigned male at birth; it is not exactly a synonym either for "trans women" or for "feminine trans people" because the former is not inclusive of transfeminine nonbinary people and the latter is overly inclusive (i.e. includes feminine trans people who were assigned female at birth). I don't mean to heap more work on you but frankly I'm afraid that if I make the edits myself I'll just be banned for gibberish again. Best wishes.

Please delete اسهال

Hello, please delete this page to make room for a move. I have copied the information. Thank you.Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Middle English Etymology

Hi--thanks for fixing those etymologies from the non-lemmas. I included them because I didn't realize that I could just have the Etymology heading without any content, but I'm glad to know that's not necessary. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@SanctMinimalicen: No problem. :) By the way, the reason I noticed them in the first place is that you used {{der}} and similar templates to link to other words in the same language, which caused them to be categorized as "twice-borrowed", which should actually only happen in a case like anime. If you just need to mention that the current word is a variant of another word in the same language, you can either just use {{m}} (it's assumed the word is in the same language unless otherwise specified), or {{cog}}. - -sche (discuss) 17:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Ohh, right, now I see that. That was carelessness, I'll admit. I know not to use the {{inh}} and the like with the same language (I had made that mistake in the past), but with some of these I had imported existing etymologies from the en entries of direct descendants (e.g. thy for þi where it was applicable (i.e. when the enm members were mentioned in the en etymologies), and in some cases I must have accidentally just changed en to enm for enm members of chains instead of fixing to the {{m}}. In any case, I'll not do that again. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick question...

Do you have any idea why /æɹ/ and /ɛəɹ/ distribution differs slightly between British English and some North American English dialects lacking the Mary-marry-merry merger, such as my own? Is it due to hypercorrection, or is it due to something else? To be more specific, /ɛəɹ/ in my dialect is never where /æɹ/ ought to be, but /æɹ/ is sometimes where /ɛəɹ/ is in British English. I'm not sure if I asked you this question before, but if I did, I don't remember your answer. I'm just wondering. Tharthan (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting situation; I'm not familiar with it, and don't know a cause. If you can't find a historical reason (e.g., if the forerunners of your dialect community spoke a variety of English with a different distribution of those sounds than current canonical/common BrE), perhaps it's interference from other dialects that are around you geographically or in media, or just lexical diffusion. If it interests you, you might try to track what words it happens in and look for commonalities (which could be clues), like if certain phonological environments trigger, enable, or prevent it, or if the words affected are ones you hear from outsiders more than from fellow dialect-speakers (perhaps leading to something like hypercorrection, as you speculate, if you unmerge the sounds "wrong"), or if the words tend to be ones you use a very little (which might thus be "book words" your brain guessed the "wrong" unmerged sound for) or if they're words you use a lot, or if the shift helps distinguish the words from (or draws them closer to) other words. - -sche (discuss) 05:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Trans definitions

Thank you for your attention to the edits around trans and cis terminology. I have not edited Wiktionary before and am not terrifically familiar with the platform. (Thank you as well if it was you that unblocked me - it was very upsetting having my first edits result in a ban for "gibberish" when I explained all of them and provided citations!) The entries for "transmasculine" and "transfeminine" are still not quite accurate - in retrospect I should have checked elsewhere first for clearer definitions, as on Wikipedia "transfeminine" is defined as "an umbrella term describing individuals who were male at birth but identify on the female side of the gender spectrum" and on the Gender Wiki it is defined as "a term used to describe transgender people who were assigned male at birth, but identify with femininity to a greater extent than with masculinity". Both of these are accurate and much clearer. The main idea is that "transfeminine" describes feminine trans people who were assigned male at birth; it is not exactly a synonym either for "trans women" or for "feminine trans people" because the former is not inclusive of transfeminine nonbinary people and the latter is overly inclusive (i.e. includes feminine trans people who were assigned female at birth). I don't mean to heap more work on you but frankly I'm afraid that if I make the edits myself I'll just be banned for gibberish again. Best wishes.

Please delete اسهال

Hello, please delete this page to make room for a move. I have copied the information. Thank you.Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Middle English Etymology

Hi--thanks for fixing those etymologies from the non-lemmas. I included them because I didn't realize that I could just have the Etymology heading without any content, but I'm glad to know that's not necessary. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@SanctMinimalicen: No problem. :) By the way, the reason I noticed them in the first place is that you used {{der}} and similar templates to link to other words in the same language, which caused them to be categorized as "twice-borrowed", which should actually only happen in a case like anime. If you just need to mention that the current word is a variant of another word in the same language, you can either just use {{m}} (it's assumed the word is in the same language unless otherwise specified), or {{cog}}. - -sche (discuss) 17:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Ohh, right, now I see that. That was carelessness, I'll admit. I know not to use the {{inh}} and the like with the same language (I had made that mistake in the past), but with some of these I had imported existing etymologies from the en entries of direct descendants (e.g. thy for þi where it was applicable (i.e. when the enm members were mentioned in the en etymologies), and in some cases I must have accidentally just changed en to enm for enm members of chains instead of fixing to the {{m}}. In any case, I'll not do that again. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick question...

Do you have any idea why /æɹ/ and /ɛəɹ/ distribution differs slightly between British English and some North American English dialects lacking the Mary-marry-merry merger, such as my own? Is it due to hypercorrection, or is it due to something else? To be more specific, /ɛəɹ/ in my dialect is never where /æɹ/ ought to be, but /æɹ/ is sometimes where /ɛəɹ/ is in British English. I'm not sure if I asked you this question before, but if I did, I don't remember your answer. I'm just wondering. Tharthan (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting situation; I'm not familiar with it, and don't know a cause. If you can't find a historical reason (e.g., if the forerunners of your dialect community spoke a variety of English with a different distribution of those sounds than current canonical/common BrE), perhaps it's interference from other dialects that are around you geographically or in media, or just lexical diffusion. If it interests you, you might try to track what words it happens in and look for commonalities (which could be clues), like if certain phonological environments trigger, enable, or prevent it, or if the words affected are ones you hear from outsiders more than from fellow dialect-speakers (perhaps leading to something like hypercorrection, as you speculate, if you unmerge the sounds "wrong"), or if the words tend to be ones you use a very little (which might thus be "book words" your brain guessed the "wrong" unmerged sound for) or if they're words you use a lot, or if the shift helps distinguish the words from (or draws them closer to) other words. - -sche (discuss) 05:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Trans definitions

Thank you for your attention to the edits around trans and cis terminology. I have not edited Wiktionary before and am not terrifically familiar with the platform. (Thank you as well if it was you that unblocked me - it was very upsetting having my first edits result in a ban for "gibberish" when I explained all of them and provided citations!) The entries for "transmasculine" and "transfeminine" are still not quite accurate - in retrospect I should have checked elsewhere first for clearer definitions, as on Wikipedia "transfeminine" is defined as "an umbrella term describing individuals who were male at birth but identify on the female side of the gender spectrum" and on the Gender Wiki it is defined as "a term used to describe transgender people who were assigned male at birth, but identify with femininity to a greater extent than with masculinity". Both of these are accurate and much clearer. The main idea is that "transfeminine" describes feminine trans people who were assigned male at birth; it is not exactly a synonym either for "trans women" or for "feminine trans people" because the former is not inclusive of transfeminine nonbinary people and the latter is overly inclusive (i.e. includes feminine trans people who were assigned female at birth). I don't mean to heap more work on you but frankly I'm afraid that if I make the edits myself I'll just be banned for gibberish again. Best wishes.

Please delete اسهال

Hello, please delete this page to make room for a move. I have copied the information. Thank you.Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

carranchano?

We don't even have a definition for Minderico yet. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Minderico

To answer your comment, I never found any evidence that Minderico is anything more than a cant like Lunfardo or Polari. Most of my research was done in 2013~2014. The only linguistic information I was able to find were glossaries. I never found anything about its phonological system or syntax, and the glossaries consisted of high-content lexical items. I also remember that one of the arguments someone made in favour of classifying it as a language was that Minderico is passed from father to child rather than being learned. This circumstantial evidence convinced me that Minderico is a cant, but I chose not to nominate the langcode for deletion before I had more information.

Incidentally, I was similarly stumped when I sought material on the so-called Cafundó Creole, but some authors did something much more shady: they described some syntactic and phonological characteristics of the “creole” that proved that it was different from Portuguese, but in fact those characteristics were also found in the low-prestige dialect of Portuguese spoken in the same area. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Should it be relabelled / merged into Portuguese, then, you think? Will that effectively ban it? (Do we care?) I notice that even a basic word like carranchano doesn't seem like it would meet WDL requirements. - -sche (discuss) 19:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn’t make this call without knowing more about Minderico, but even if it is merged with Portuguese, we can have a full appendix page with words. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. I've moved the entry to Appendix:Minderico, but left the language code as-is. - -sche (discuss) 19:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Sum of parts

I've generally only done that when it's stood out as notable and recurrently used over years in different contexts. "Individual racism" is an important concept especially now with pushes to narrow the definition of racism from its previously broad past to only refer to systemic/historic ones. Fake family units are a much more notable concept than fake motorcycle licenses. The latter has not come up as the main concept of several movies and present political issues.

SoP is a potentially very broad objection which could result in the loss of many useful pages if the basis was that we shouldn't recognize compound words and just let people figure it out for themselves. ScratchMarshall (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Kermanic language codes

Hey -sche, could I get you to comment on Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium#Kermanic_language_codes? Thanks! --Victar (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

"Lives" in the context of life insurance

Re: diff. Since you ask, yes: this terminology is still used in life insurance today. But it refers not to a policy but to a life assured (a somewhat subtle difference that only matters when discussing joint life contracts). I've edited life accordingly. :-) -Stelio (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Neat; thanks! I wonder if those are distinct senses, though. The Century Dictionary is where I found the sense, as "an insurance on a person's life; a life insurance policy". Does one speak of renewing a life assured, or of an assured life lapsing? If so, I guess it is best handled as the same sense, but for comparison: I asked some baseball fans about the baseball sense to see if it was still current, and they insisted it would only ever have been metaphor, like "the mistake gave the batter new life", because that's the only way they were familiar with it — but old examples make clear (IMO) it had a different (specific, idiomatic) sense a century ago.
Btw, from the usage notes on life assured, it looks like that entry itself may really be two senses that belong in two different entries, life assured and assured life...
- -sche (discuss) 16:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. When life insurance started, it will have been only single life (with joint life a later innovation, although I don't have records to say how later). As such, the idea of a "life" being a life assured could be equivalent to a policy. So perhaps there's a sense of "a life assured" (still in use) and a separate sense (by extension, obsolete) "a life insurance policy". That seems a fine stance to take, given citations, and I'd be happy with that.

Heh, I added the entry for life assured just before posting here. ;-) It felt to me like "life assured" was a valid entry but that "assured lives" is more sum-of-parts (lives that are assured). It was a subjective stance. -Stelio (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2A01:E35:2E6F:D760:64:CE18:477E:1ED5

I suspect our bad Thai IP is now using a French IP- the style of their Verlan edits and their obsession with adding inflection templates to anything that moves are very suggestive. Unfortunately, my German isn't good enough to tell if their German edits make any sense. Please have a look. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a mixed bag, e.g. the declension of Scheiß was wrong, Scheiße was merely lacking a header, and fixing the POS of qqn seems helpful. The edits to e.g. and p. ex. were misguided but the sort of understandable mistakes a relatively new user (who had just edited labels and seen {{abbreviation of}} in other entries) might make... but the haphazard interests of the IP and the quick arrival at that editor's favored topic of verlan, suggest it might not be a new user at all. - -sche (discuss) 14:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Iroquois

Thanks so much for your formatting assistance on Iroquois! I'd kept trying to mark it in the IPA template itself, to multitudinous error messages. 76.10.186.58 05:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you think about {{tlb}}?

Following diff. Do you think that it is only to be used for multi-sense terms, provided the categorization is not different (which it is when for example writing rare or archaic)? {{lb}} is probably more visible for you, on the other hand this largely rests on old habits and we could deploy {{tlb}} further to make it more familiar and it or a predecessor probably should have been used much earlier. Fay Freak (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

When I created it (as Template:term-context, back in the era of Template:context), I envisioned it as enabling a distinction between e.g. entirely archaic words/spellings vs still-common terms with a single archaic sense, and as enabling not having lengthy not-meaning-specific labels like "American spelling" or "British spelling" take up space in front of all the meanings of especially a highly polysemous word with other labels like [[realize]]. (I am surprised at how much it's caught on, which still isn't that much.)

To me, "bally means balaclava in MLE" feels more like sense/definition/"meaning"-specific information, like disco fries being a NJ/NY term and hence also {{label}}led on the sense-line even though it only has one sense — because terms in dialects could have or develop other senses that aren't limited to the dialect, like stoop or favor do (and having the label in the same place in disco fries and stoop seems helpful to me). Whereas, something like "flavour is a British spelling" is what feels like term-level information to me, since it's unlikely flavour would develop a sense that wasn't limited to British spelling.

But it is debatable, and using {{tlb}} on bally is arguably consistent with what the documentation of that template says. Maybe we should change the documentation, or maybe that's how the template has come to be used / how people want to use it and and I should change my ideas about it. - -sche (discuss) 08:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Are quotation templates reference templates?

Yesterday, you renamed a template to be {{R:pi:Sai Kam Mong}}. Now, I had decided not to give it a name like that because it is not being used in a reference section (under '===References==='), but as an expansion of '#* Quotations' in WT:EL. I had half-expected to need a prefix 'Q:', but that is not defined. Are you sure this template deserves an 'R:' prefix?

If it does, there's the group of templates that invoke it that I should probably similarly rename. I'm making the texts that I have work very hard, but as at the moment I'm just using them to confirm the spelling of known words in a less familiar script, I don't think it is unreasonable to work them hard.

Alternatively, this template, but not its invokers, deserves the 'R' prefix because it can be used to define a citation by giving it no arguments. I don't think I will use that functionality, but it's there in case anyone needs it. Please advise. - RichardW57 (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I initially interpreted it as a reference template, because the displayed content made it look like one, and then I didn't have time to reformat it as a {{quote-book}} template when I saw that that was what it was aiming at, so I posted a note on WT:RFM. It looks like it should be formatted as a "RQ" template; I will try to help you with that. - -sche (discuss) 18:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Derp.

Ya. It's late, and I'm feeling stupider than normal after a few longer-than-normal weeks IRL. I appreciate your patience. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 05:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

use

Hi, in this edit made back in March, you left a comment "will specify with glosses shortly" under the "Verb > Notes" section of use, referring to the senses that are pronounced /juːs/ rather than /juːz/. It seems you never got back to do that, with the result that the note is presently in a somewhat unclear state. It is also not clear what "respectively" refers to, and not very clear in what situations "use" in "did not use" is pronounced as /juːs/. I could try and fix it up myself, but perhaps you may remember exactly what you had in mind and may prefer to complete it yourself. Mihia (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. The part about glosses was just that I intended to provide a terse gloss of (the former) "sense 1" etc in place of those numbers, since numbers are subject to change (indeed, my edit reordered the definitions). The old note claimed that both the "habituate" and "habitually do / employ" senses were pronounced with /s/, but I'm only familiar with "habituate" being pronounced that way, so that's the only sense I've edited the usage note to say has that pronunciation. "Respectively" seems superfluous and I removed it, and indeed rewrote the note. "Did not use" would be pronounced with /s/ in a sentence like "the soldiers did not use [=habituate] to the hard weather", I think. But please revise it further, or let me know, if there are still nay problems (or omissions) ... :) - -sche (discuss) 01:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. I think the second sense pronounced as /juːs/ was supposed to be the "I used to like her" sense, with negative "I didn't use to like her" (their example presently "I used to get things done"). Do you not pronounce that one as /juːs/? I also question the statement that the "to accustom; to habituate" sense (the other "used to" sense) "is now found chiefly in the past tense, and as a past participle". As far as I can think, this sense is only nowadays used as a past participle, as in "I am used to hard work". Did you have an example of ordinary modern past tense use in mind? It could be that I am misunderstanding something here. Mihia (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Extension:PageNotice

-sche, how should we move forward with mw:Extension:PageNotice? --Victar (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. If you want it installed, file a request on Phabricator, and link to the two discussions to show that there's consensus/support for installing it. (If the folks on Phabricator want a clearer show of consensus we could run a straw poll or vote.) - -sche (discuss) 01:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I... have no clue how to do that. @Erutuon, do you think you could help with that? --Victar (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

There's already a request here. You can post on the thread there. It's less threatening than having to post a whole request. — Eru·tuon 02:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

More details on your revert for "gender"?

Hi -sche, last week you reverted my edit on gender, but your explanations did not answer my questions, so I added more details. Can you give more details? I understand that you find it "a bit tricky to define all these words" but I does not seem to me to be a valid reason to revert a change trying to make the definition clearer (by removing its circular aspects). I'm tempted to reproduce my modification and then wait for you to provide appropriate explanations for the non-change. 09:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I outlined the problems with your change on the talk page, in more detail than you quote, but thanks for the poke: in thinking about this some more, it occurs to me that we could perhaps just replace "male/masculine" with "a man", and solve several issues at once; I will suggest that on the talk page. - -sche (discuss) 19:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the answer. I appreciate that you propose a modification to solve the issue, however I still have questions that I detailed on the talk page. Lboukoko (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Vowel allophones?

Hey -sche. I just had a question about the pronunciation of the vowel "o" in different areas.

I understand that the general rule is that the vowel is pronounced as /oʊ/ in North America (aside from in the South, where it is pronounced /ɛʊ/, and aside from some parts of the Upper Midwestern and at least one area in the Western United States where it is pronounced /oː/) and generally as /əʊ/ in the United Kingdom (except in Scottish English, where it is pronounced /oː/, and except in wholly [in regular RP speakers], where it is pronounced [ɒʊ̯]). I know that there are variations on these, but they are beside the point here.

My question is this: have you heard of any North American English dialects that have /əʊ/ as an allophone of /oʊ/ depending on the environment that the sound is in? I ask this, because I notice this as being a natural part of my own speech (something that I am working to correct, actually). It's hard to explain, but like I said, in some environments, I pronounce "o" as /oʊ/, whereas in others, I pronounce it as /əʊ/. For example, unless I am being self-conscious, I pronounce go as /gəʊ/. With that said, /oʊl/ is always /oʊl/, never /əʊl/ (as far as I can tell) in my speech (although that may be because, when I was younger, I had a tendency to merge /ʌl/ and /oʊl/ to /oʊl/). There are other examples of this, but I can't think of any specific examples off of the top of my head.

Do you have any clue as to what might be going on? Tharthan (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of such a phenomenon, sorry, though it wouldn't surprise me if certain phonological environments pulled the diphthong in one direction or the other in certain dialects. Searching for any mention of it in literature is made difficult by the frequency with which /əʊ/ vs /oʊ/ is discussed; the closest thing I spot is a book saying that some English people use [ɒʊ] in cold, bolt etc in contrast to [əʊ] in code, etc. - -sche (discuss) 22:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

harborough

I found an edition of the work that contained the cite with different, more modern spellings (of other words) that was published by the Hakluyt Society. Hakluyt used that spelling often in most of his works. DCDuring (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)