Open main menu

Wiktionary β

User talk:Equinox


not the sharpest tool in the shedEdit

How is that a noun? It's interchangeable with "not very smart" or "dim", and it's only used to modify nouns. If it were a noun, it would be synonymous with "stupidity", not "stupid". Because it's a phrase, it's not really comparable and doesn't really work except predicatively, but that doesn't make it a noun. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"The sharpest tool in the shed" is certainly an NP. The applicable sense of "not" appears to be the adverb. Applying an adverb to an NP gives you an NP (like "hungry dog" becoming "surprisingly hungry dog"). Equinox 02:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
In your example, "surprisingly" is modifying "hungry", not "dog" (you can't say "*a surprisingly dog"). Likewise, "not" is modifying "the sharpest", not "tool". Chuck Entz (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Besides, this is really "not the sharpest" with "tool in the shed" tacked on in a way that doesn't diagram very well- that's part of the humor. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, roll 'em back if I'm wrong. Not sure that I agree but I can't articulately analyse and argue it right now. Equinox 03:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
It does seem to me that NOT(X) applies to all of X and I would like to see convincing proof otherwise. To take a really trivial example: if I say "Chuck Entz isn't a leopard in a zoo" then you would seem to be arguing that I'm saying you are in a zoo, merely not a leopard. Equinox 03:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
That isn't really analogous, because "not the sharpest" assumes membership in a set in order to allow comparison with the rest of the set. In fact, I think the underlying form is really something like "not the sharpest [of the] tool[s] in the shed". I'm not completely convinced this is an adjective, either- it seems like a (stative) verb phrase with the verb missing. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"named for", "named after", "from the name of"Edit

Those searches, while they generate a lot of chaff, also find lots of things to categorize as eponyms. You may already know, since I see many are already categorized, although I've found and fixed a few that weren't. - -sche (discuss) 20:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

We do have a named-after template of some kind, don't we? That automatically adds the category. I have never used it because it's another new thing to learn, being a trickless old dog and all, but it seems the best approach. Equinox 15:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
It's {{named-after}}. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


Hey Mineral Man. What was la,ce,pr,nd,sm, supposed to be on the murataite page? --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I had a bot that picked stuff off MinDat and generated the definitions based on the chemical symbols in the formula (so if the formula was, say, H2OCl3, which I've just made up and probably isn't chemically valid, we would say "a mineral made of hydrogen, oxygen, and chlorine"). If you find errors, it means that there was a typo or weird formatting on MinDat. Equinox 02:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The definitions are terrible. I wish that you had asked someone before doing it, because MinDat has the data to make much better entries. (If you're interested in improving them by bot, though, I could help you with the definitional aspect.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 11:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I do see them as stubs, but for me it's better to have a stub entry that acknowledges "this is a word, and this is VAGUELY what it means" (i.e. it's a mineral, and not a cake, or a dog) than not to have an entry at all. I can see how that is arguable. I'm not a mineralogist and mainly went for it at the time because it seemed like a way to generate (basic) entries for a large number of missing words. So I have no further plans. If you have a specific strategy for improving the entries that can be easily automated (and of course doesn't go so far as to violate another site's copyright) then I might be able to slap it together. Equinox 11:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I did take a mineralogy class, although I have to admit that I've forgotten a great deal of it. The single most important thing you can say about a mineral (besides stating that it's a mineral, of course) is its classification. Colour is deceptive and the elements in it are not very meaningful if you don't know the structure, but knowing the Strunz classification is a big deal. For murataite, the best ultra-stubby, automated def would be (IMO): A black oxide mineral. MinDat has a field for Strunz classification, and you can also get it from 'pedia (except for the fact that lots of minerals don't have an entry over there). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 11:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Well I took the existing stuff from MinDat (with some topical ignorance) and we may be in a position to improve on that. (BTW you will see that I always included them as a reference - not primarily because of my ignorance but because I think it's very rude to take someone's information, copyright or otherwise, without mentioning.) I think MinDat is the only place we are going to obtain mineral info en masse, but I am super-focused on my existing obscure word lists: can I be a bit rude and ask you to check it out and suggest how we can go through their entries and improve ours (without ripping them off too much)? As you are aware we need some kind of blanket algorithmic rule in order to do anything useful. Equinox 11:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm too inept to do the actual bot-work, or really figure out how exactly it ought to be done. Essentially, you should take the capitalised word in the Strunz classification field at MinDat, remove the final S and then make it lowercase, and insert it inside [[]] immediately before the word "mineral" in any entry you made that hasn't been substantially edited (those entries should be easy to find, as they will be members of both Category:Requests for expansion of etymologies in English entries and Category:en:Minerals (or Category:en:Mineralogy for the ones that haven't had their context label fixed yet by WF yet). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


8 years ago you expressed skepticism about a definition at wild-ass. In the course of revising other parts of the entry, I noticed your comment on the talk page. Your skepticism suggests that the term may be US. To me it is quite comparable to smart-ass. Also, the definition is not quite right. DCDuring (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, here on the other coast, I've never heard of any sense of wild-ass that was anything but wild with ass added as an intensifier and (sort of) slang marker, especially not one that could refer to a person. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know about my specific skepticism but this is a term that in general I'm not familiar with: if there is such a thing as a wild-ass (as opposed to a wild donkey) then I have no idea about it. I tend to put a US (or North America) gloss on anything with ass in it because over here we usually say arse. I suspect that will change over time, with the influence of Hollywood, Netflix TV, etc., but it would still (to me) be very strange to hear a native Brit say something like smartass rather than smartarse. Equinox 03:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
My memory or intuition have misled me. I couldn't find cites at books or groups. There is a biblical cite often referred to: "And he shall be a wild ass of a man: his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him". Should we respect process by RfVing it or just delete it? OTOH wild-ass as an adjective would pass RfV I think. DCDuring (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Equinox".