User talk:Equinox

Language research in Middle East.Edit

As I was editing on the (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/adultery). I'm in the middle east now going over historical Islamic texts finding root forms or Latin words and phrases with the national Science Foundation grant. The writings in Islamic texts all use the word Zina for sexual encounters and Adultery was rooted with latin word "adultere". Which is literal meaning of "violation of conjugational faith". Conjugate meaning connected, coupled, etc. (only has word marriage in relation of "religious" meaning change through the 1200's.). As per this research, Adultery is changing meaning through time from "unfaithful" to "breaking marriage vows" (based on religious values). So My simple addition of (# Adultery is being unfaithful to spouse or persons within relationship.) correlates to additional definition that is being founded by the research of Hawk Intelligence and the National Science Foundation.

The literal meaning in Latin is irrelevant to the English. "nom de plume" is literally "feather name" in French, and doesn't make sense in French, despite being of French origin. Equinox 01:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
We are talking about the causes and creation of the word. Adultery and subjects of that root wording.
  1. adulterationem - to corrupt or falsify. (no religious context to marriage)
  2. avoutrie (french) - Is translated to "adultery". That word in the 12-16th century meant to be "unfaithful" Didn't have any context to marriage until the late 15th century with christianity started to form everything toward religious texts. Which transfered that definition from just "unfaithful" to "unfaithful in marriage".
  3. adulterate (latin) - to make impure (UNFAITHFUL) to process. Metallurgical term used for blacksmiths that were "unfaithful" to the directional creation of armor and weapons. Skipping processes to make inferior equipment. Also used against jewelers who would melt silver or gold around lead to sell for higher weight.

Is the french word (avoutrie) transfered to the direct word in english of Adultery, then the meaning would still relate to being "unfaithful" and only having religious subtext, while the primary definition would still relate to being unfaithful. So in a relationship sense, it would mean simply unfaithful in any term, not just directed toward marriage.

  • Hawkintel, you have no idea what you are talking about and you are giving me secondhand embarrassment from your awkward lies and weak grasp on philology. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The causes and creation of a word go into the etymology. Only the actual usage of a term can determine the definition. ***obviously you haven't looked into the definition of the field lately, but it's the study of the meaning of words and their changes over time, which is what I am speaking about along with the translations and meaning of the words they come from.*** That's usage by English speakers, by the way, so any research in the Middle East is irrelevant (though the IP that posted the exact same edit as yours gelocates to MediaCom Cable in the US, so I suspect you're lying about that, too). Also, we consider anything before 1500 as Middle English, so your other information is irrelevant, as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It's called remote access to central data base which is in central IL. I will contact Cambridge as per my grant project and get it change through that route, as I was doing. I can't wait.  :D ~dr. Ian Paul.

Okay, then both of you post an email here so that I may take it up with you personally. Because I am currently researching the subject matter and on a grant research project for this topic in relation to arabic and islamic studies. So please, give me a professional email and background so that I may contact you both and tell you who I am in the world of etymology. Since myself and the 12 professors I am working with today are pretty well known in the field.

It doesn't matter who you are, since Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary and we go by documented usage, not by authoritative sources. As for posting an email, you're welcome to use the "Email this user" feature if you wish, but I won't hold my breath. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
But see now I am very curious as to the identity of this person who thinks him/herself a big enough muckamuck to merit such credence. —JohnC5 02:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
It's just a dictionary on the Internet, it's nothing that should be made personal. And no, don't say "You've already long since passed from merely being persistent into being a caricature", nor "Congratulations". 130.105.213.149 09:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The vulgarityEdit

Sorry lol. I was scatterbrained that night and hadn't even thought about if it was or wasn't a vulgarity when I put the usex. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

aothEdit

thoutisawthataplenty(butcantfindit/gugl.admitedly-praps=jusMYusage,uh81.11.206.17 12:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

BCR-link<sins'dbPLURALinmyview..(pi3etc=bio-concpt>hypernymsETCEdit

BCR ⋅ actions ⋅ popups New revision 2016-10-23 11:07:43 Old revision 2016-10-22 21:45:00

  1. Zydelig targets what’s(ARE) called PI3-kinase(S<myview [sic], a family of enzymes involved in ceptor (BCR) pathway inhibitors.‎ [http://www.curetoday.com/publications/c

"Faery"Edit

I am well aware that "Faery" is not a word with a different meaning (as you said: "the capitalisation is just orthography, not a word with a different meaning"), so the appropriate thing to do is to create a redirect from Faery to faery, right? OldMss (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

No, just rely on the search engine to let users find it. We don't need a capped entry. Equinox 23:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

media biasEdit

What is the proper format for an "only in"-type reference? We once had a template with a name like "only in". {{only in}} does not serve that purpose. Do you know what replaced it or where I might look for such a template? What should such an interwiki redirect look like? DCDuring TALK 23:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Pedriana did it this way: {{no entry|{{in wikipedia|Media bias}}|lang=en}}. Equinox 00:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I just found the same in a painful 8 minutes. Sorry. DCDuring TALK 00:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"Beetlejuice"Edit

Examples shouldn't need to be provided for the names of movie characters (or the fact that their name is also that of the movie they star in). 68.67.49.234 14:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

We do not generally include movie characters since this is a dictionary. Requesting an example that meets our WT:CFI rules is not only acceptable but advisable. Equinox 15:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

oliebolEdit

Similar to a donut? An oliebol is spherical, not toroidal. —CodeCat 19:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I meant in taste/texture, since it seems to be a sugary dumpling, and many sources compare it to a doughnut. But feel free to fix. I've never eaten one. Equinox 19:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Having had both, I guess the texture is sort of similar, but oliebollen tend to be more airy. A lot depends on who made it, though. —CodeCat 19:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

dzungEdit

Thank you very much! I didn't know there were specific templates for each language.

Plural head parametersEdit

Why are you adding a head parameter for single words like phosphinines? DTLHS (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

An artifact of my software. It needs the headword to be inside the entry contents somewhere. Is it a problem? Equinox 01:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
No, just thought it was odd since you said you wanted to remove redundant parameters. DTLHS (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose so. The actual reason is that each batch of plurals to create is assigned random alphanumeric filenames (I didn't want to go through hassle every time a word contains a character not allowed in a filename) and then the upload process extracts the entry title from the head= parameter. There is probably a better alternative. Will think about fixing it when I'm less sleepy. Fixed it nao! Equinox 02:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Latin alfetumEdit

@ Equinox Have to state that one is disturbed by the Latin (non-existent lexeme) - a long way below your status as an etymologist. Can this be removed, please, as it would stumble a lay person reading this! Thank you in anticipation. The rest of the etymology, that initially relates to a pre-Norse origin and root of unified Cornish oeles (hearth, fireplace) is really helpful! Compare the Greek ἀlέa (warmth, heat of fire), possibly akin to Phœnician, or else of great antiquity. Kind regards. Andrew H. Gray 18:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC) Andrew (talk)

Sorry, I don't really know Latin so I am reluctant to make changes there. I don't know which entry you're talking about either. Equinox 18:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
It is for me to be far more sorry about the way I sent my message and now feel embarrassed and ashamed. To begin with, I never even mentioned what the lexeme in question was: alfet! After checking Lloyd's etymological dictionary I find that "alfetum" was Low Latin. I had no excuse, since I looked it up recently; however, the Low Latin form was so irrelevant in my mind that it did not register. I shall just add "Low" to save you bothering. Kind Regards.Andrew H. Gray 07:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Andrew (talk)

fried eggEdit

I think we usually invoke "fried egg" in RfD discussions about entries for compound nouns, not for the components of those compounds. One could also invoke it in discussions about a hyperspecialized definition of a component of one of those compounds, eg, fried or submarine. The semanticist John Lyons (linguist) has a discussion about public in public school (UK sense) and country in country house (UK sense).

I think that the metaphorical sense of submarine that is the base of submarine pitch is a bit of a red herring.

Lastly, I think that the definition of submarine has moved farther along the sense-evolution line that I had thought at first. DCDuring TALK 00:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I just think it's cute when things have names :) prime number is another one that people "voted" to keep because of the collocation (I think?), although one would suppose that a word with a formal mathematical definition would form the worst kind of SoP. The fact that I'd never heard of a "submarine pitch" before this discussion makes it all a bit alien to me really. blah blah Equinox 01:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

anderun/anderoonEdit

Hi ! Thanks for taking a look at this ! I see that anderoon is labelled obsolete, but I am seeing a lot of post-2000 uses for anderun. Perhaps we should flip-flop them (--make anderoon the obsolete alt form) ? Leasnam (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead if you like. Equinox 15:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


MoralphobiaEdit

I had a problem implementing the quotation code before dinner. After eating I removed the code but left my substantial edits. I shall restore without quotation code Garconian (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Is non-aggression principle a proper noun?Edit

I'm not a grammarian, but I don't see why non-aggression principle is a proper noun. Wiktionary doesn't have the golden rule and the silver rule labelled as proper nouns (but Wiktionary could be wrong). Doing a search for ethical principle on Wiktionary, I can't find any other ethical principles labelled as proper nouns. Additionally, I can't recall ever seeing the non-aggression principle capitalized, and proper nouns are generally capitalized. On Wikipedia, Golden Rule actually is capitalized, despite it not being capitalized on Wiktionary, so maybe it is a proper noun (non-aggression principle isn't capitalized though). If ethical principles actually are proper nouns, then I think you should modify other ethical principles on Wiktionary to reflect that, and change the other versions of the non-aggression principle to proper nouns (nonaggression principle, non-aggression axiom, and nonaggression axiom are still labeled as uncountable and not proper nouns). Otherwise, I think you should change it back to how it was before.

Thanks IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC) IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Ditto re revolving door syndromeEdit

Hello Equinox -- I just noticed that you recently changed the POS for revolving door syndrome to "Proper noun" (and I see, above, that you've already got another challenge regarding this sort of change). I've always had the highest regard for your judgment and can probably imagine why you're inclined to think it's a proper noun, but, alas, I'm not so inclined. A major criterion I've long had in mind is that a proper noun should have a unique referent. But revolving door syndrome names a whole class of qualifying situations. Heck, Eq, the term even has 3 distinct senses, all supported by citations. Nothing unique about this big bundle quivering with potential referents. Old EncycloPetey has a subpage on the issue of what qualifies as a proper noun here: User:EncycloPetey/English_proper_nouns. What do you think? Any chance you've wandered a bit off the reservation with your POS-ing? -- · (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

We've had this conversation before. I was unable to convince Eq. of the error of his ways and just gave up. Perhaps you will have more success. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
How would you prefer to classify "X syndrome" and "Y disease" entries? Where there isn't an attestable plural, they are often entered as "uncountable" ({{en-noun|-}}), but that doesn't seem right because the count-mass distinction is that between (say) "three loaves, one bottle" and "some bread, a little milk". It's a syndrome, a disease, so in theory countable (syndromes, diseases) — but it's one particular thing, like "the Eiffel Tower" (towers). Haven't read Petey's page yet but I will take a proper look at it another day. Equinox 21:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

proper nounEdit

If Alice chess is a proper noun, then is chess a proper noun too? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Haha, that's a very good point! But then why is "Eiffel Tower" a proper noun, when "tower" is a common one? Equinox 22:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Let's see if I can answer it: The Eiffel Tower is a specific tower in a specific location; I believe the name was given to differentiate it from other towers. A "tower" is any tower.
If I'm not mistaken, "traditional" games and sports are common nouns, including chess, go and basketball, while games which are brand names like Monopoly and Cluedo and any video games are proper nouns. Regardless of whether this distinction actually makes any sense, I believe this is accurate as the tradition in English.
We could make the case that all games and sports should be treated as proper nouns, because by the logic above (again, if I'm not mistaken) then if chess did not exist yet and someone invented it today, it would be a proper noun. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

ClintonEdit

163rd gameEdit

I hope my changes have answered your concerns.Purplebackpack89 21:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

the futureEdit

I haven't added isohydroxybotryococcene yet, but it's only a matter of time. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

whitelashEdit

Hello, I started a discussion on the talkpage of whitelash about the definition. I am willing to abide by the consensus. I hope you will participate to improve the definition. IQ125 (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

German interjectionsEdit

"we regard intj as a class, compare other languages' categories"

German interjections are a word class and I didn't say otherwise. But German interjections "do not belong to any of the inflected grammatical word classes" (notice the word "inflected" before "word classes") as German interjections do not inflect. Of course, the same is true for German adverbs, conjunctions and prepositions. The words of these four word classes do not inflect, hence they are known as particles (and in German Partikeln). -84.161.54.221 13:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

wuckas and wucksEdit

Why a redirect? It's better to stick with the system of making an entry, right? I don't really like redirects. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

If it's never used as a word on its own, only in the phrase, then I don't see how it makes sense to have a full entry for the word on its own. Equinox 06:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Why do we have Template:only used in then? PseudoSkull (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. I don't think it's used consistently. A word recently failed RFD for only being used in one phrase, but I can't remember what it was. Equinox 04:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Plus, someone could discover that wucks is in fact a word in a language besides English. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Unless and until they discover that, we don't need a full entry. Equinox 04:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Kings and queensEdit

Who are the kingdoms of this world Tiler1913 (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for planidialEdit

Our edits overlapped and were functionally identical, but I had added an example, so I overwrote. JonRichfield (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

out...Edit

I am disappointed that there are zero Google hits for "outhiccough". SemperBlotto (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Even out-Google is arguably attestable. Equinox 13:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You are joking meEdit

Hi Equinox. "You are joking me" is plainly bad English. Yes, some people use in place of "you are kidding me", nut it is still wrong. I simply changed it to something that is standrd English understood and accepted by all speakers, native and foreign. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It's perfectly good English. Perhaps you should recognise that the dialect of English you speak is not the only dialect out there. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I guess then you have a very poor understanding of how the project works. We are supposed to use language and terminology that are part of the general English corpus, understood by all users - please read MOS:COMMONALITY. Even when a term is understood by all people in the US, but not very common in the UK; or understood by all speakers in the UK, but not very common in the US, and there being other options that are equally well understood by both sets of speakers, preference should be given to such terms. Naturally this excludes cases where the use of a specific dialectal construction is critical to what the text is about, which is not the case here. So, the way I left, everyone understands, the way it is now, lost of people will see it as wrong. But there is so much to do across the various projects that I am not going to waste my time. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
The sense is marked as transitive and I have heard it used by people in real life, so it's real, and we should document it. Equinox 08:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Your Wikipedia page says you aren't even a native speaker! We are. Equinox 08:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
"I guess then you have a very poor understanding of how the project works." That's a very disrespectful thing to say to someone with hundreds of thousands of edits more than you.
MOS:COMMONALITY is a Wikipedia policy. This is Wiktionary.
The case in question is a usage example. Enforcing dialect-neutrality in usage examples would be detrimental to learners.
The first part of the usage example, "Twenty euros cover charge?", suggests a British context.
Ungoliant (falai) 11:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
As a native of speaker of English, I happen to agree with Rui Gabriel Correia that this is "bad English". Yes, this phrase is common, but it has always sounded wrong to me. I don't think I have ever heard joke used outside of this phrase with the transitive meaning "to deceive [someone]". I think this probably originated jokingly from the fact that since "kidding" can be replaced with "joking" in "You're kidding!" then let's replace it in "You're kidding me!" as well. Anyway, I think the tag "colloquial" covers this. However, I do think that this definition should be moved to the lemma joke#Verb, possibly with a note on the usage limitations. --WikiTiki89 12:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Wanna check this quotation?Edit

Quotation from John Aubrey, which contains some obsolete spellings. [1]. DonnanZ (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

UnsecureEdit

Regarding this edit to unsecure.

  1. insecure is not "rare". It is the more common term (because it is the correct word). At the very least, that phrasing should be changed.
  2. "unsecure" is not actually a word.
    • "unsecure" is not in the Oxford English Dictionary (checked on my kindle today)
    • Online collins dictionary doesn't deem "unsecure" a word. Searching for it sends you to unsecured, which is a word.
    • My browser spell checker doesn't deem "unsecure" a word
    • Linux doesn't think "unsecure" is a word
      $ egrep "[ui]nsecure" /usr/share/dict/*-english
      /usr/share/dict/american-english:insecure
      /usr/share/dict/american-english:insecurely
      /usr/share/dict/british-english:insecure
      /usr/share/dict/british-english:insecurely
      (however it also thinks unsecured isn't a word)
    • Whenever someone uses "unsecure" they really mean to use "insecure" or "unsecured".
      • Example: When someone says "The unsecure WiFi" or "The WiFi is unsecure", they sure have used "unsecured" (although insecure is also correct).
  3. The mis-usage is common enough for it to appear on Wiktionary

Tape measure (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Nobody cares what "Linux thinks". You need to read WT:CFI regarding our rules for inclusion. Equinox 01:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
"Linux thinks" was a joke - because it also thinks "unsecured" isn't a word when it clearly is. Apologies for going off topic. All the other arguments still stand. I have read the rules. I *think* unsecure falls under Attestation. Which is why I don't think it should be removed, but rather reference the correct usage. I have two questions:
  1. Other than widespread misuse, is there any other reason to declare "unsecure" a word?
  2. Is there any evidence to support the statement that "insecure" is rare?
Tape measure (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah okay, but did you know Linux was developed by a Finn? 132.161.246.175 02:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Quiet! We don't talk about that. Someone might find out. Tape measure (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
If you don't like it, challenge it at WT:RFV, where it will pass and be kept. Equinox 05:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to remove it. I primarily want to change the reference of "rare" next to insecure. I don't know the correct way to say "Enough people use unsecure for it to merit inclusion here as an accepted word, but it originates from places where a writer should have used insecure or unsecured.". Any advice on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated. Tape measure (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Equinox".