WelcomeEdit

Hey, nice to see you made an account after we talked on discord, welcome. I'll include the standard "welcome" message below, it has some useful links and stuff if you want to read more about how Wiktionary works. But you can always ask me stuff on discord, I check it every day or at least every couple of days. Or you can ask on my user talk page which I check fairly often, here: User talk:Mnemosientje. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

  • Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
  • Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
  • If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
  • Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
  • You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Unattested inflected forms (Ido, maybe Esperanto)Edit

It is all right to devote time to creating missing inflected forms, but I suppose there is a much better use of your time than adding unattested forms, such as sketeyi and simetresi. Google Books is often a useful place to check before publishing. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

bonvenonEdit

mi rekomendas al vi aldoni babel al via uzantpaĝo.--So9q (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Snerts and heatsEdit

I really don't want to get into an edit war with you over these two words, but your "noun 2" construction is completely nonstandard. Kiwima (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kiwima (I was planning to post in your talk page); I have seen those headers ("Noun 2") before but if they are nonstandard then you can remove the "2" (instead of rolling back everything); that is how other words which are both a plural and a plurale tantum are (i.e., with two headings; for example, Garinagu), because the word needs the categories for both nouns and lemmas, and noun forms and non-lemmas. J3133 (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

malepartEdit

Might be an obsolete form of malapert, or an error for that. Equinox 11:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Your edit at whiteEdit

Hi. Derived terms should (I think) go below the correct part of speech. So e.g. "black-and-white" comes from the adjective, not the verb. I think you just broke that. Equinox 20:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Because the derived terms are for all parts of speech it should not be below a part of speech (see also black). J3133 (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't completely agree. The derivatives should be under the correct part of speech, but till now they were indiscriminately dumped in the same derived terms section, which was incomprehensibly shoved under the noun section, so either someone should go to the trouble of dividing them by the part of speech they derive from or they should go in a part-of-speech-neutral position. — Eru·tuon 21:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
See Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup#black, white. J3133 (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I see: I think I oversimplified this and ideally we should split them by part of speech. OK. Thanks for listening. Equinox 20:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Spaces and dashesEdit

Hallo, I was surprised by this edit, where you removed spaces from around a dash. Is that based on some policy or your personal preference? In either case I find it less appealing than the previous version. PJTraill (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@PJTraill The previous character was a hyphen-minus (-). I changed it to an em dash (“”). Because Wiktionary’s style guide does not mention anything about the use of dashes I looked at the English Wikipedia’s Manual of Style. I do not have a strong opinion regarding the kind of dash used: change it if you want to. If following the English Wikipedia’s Manual of Style then an alternative to the unspaced em dash is a spaced en dash (“ ”). J3133 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, I did notice there seemed to be a hyphen in the old version, and I think a dash is an improvement; I have followed your suggestion and used a spaced en dash (and removed a rather lost looking full stop). PJTraill (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

{{unsigned}}Edit

Kinda weird that you're going around and adding {{unsigned}} to super old talk pages, but if you're going to do that, maybe just add it to the end of the line, and not on a new line. Also, definitely don't change timecodes of old signatures. --{{victar|talk}} 06:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Victar I was already writing on your talk page but I will post my reply here:
  1. “For some reason”? I am adding unsigned templates for the same reason the unsigned template was made for—to sign unsigned comments.
  2. “not on a new line” I would like to see where this “rule” you mention is specifically written.
J3133 (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey, if you want to add {{unsigned}} to 17-year-old talk pages, be my guest, but it's certainly very odd behavior. Adding them in a new line after single line comments though, that's breaking with standard practice. I don't even know why you would do that. --{{victar|talk}} 07:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@Victar The talk pages of Wiktionary are a mess with many unsigned comments and I decided to fix that. “Adding them in a new line after single line comments though,  []” I do not add them in a new line after single line comments but if I did then it must have been a mistake (or I considered that the lines of the comments were confusing). For multiple line comments, I add them in a new line because when multiple users write after the same-indented comment it is confusing where the comments of the users end and where the other comments start, especially if the comments are unsigned then it looks like the comments were written by one user unless you look at the history of the talk page and find out that is not true. J3133 (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I changed the time from EDT to UTC because UTC is the standard of Wiktionary and because all other comments are in UTC you would have to convert the time if you wanted to know when it was posted, which is unnecessarily complicated. J3133 (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Great, I think we're on the same page then regarding new lines, with that edit being a fluke. I get where you're coming from with the timezone discrepancy. --{{victar|talk}} 22:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Curly quotes in policiesEdit

There is no consensus for having curly quotes in policies, not even 60% support. Therefore, I reverted them in Wiktionary:Style guide and asked for their revertion in CFI. Some votes: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-12/curly quotes in WT:ELE, Wiktionary:Votes/2013-02/Typographic vs ASCII punctuation in policies. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Miracle jesterEdit

You seem very Miracle-jestery, I must say. Happy useful contributing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Instead of creating multiple sections on my talk page with sarcastic comments you could explain who is this “Miracle jester”. I hope you enjoy your “useful contributing” which consists of reverting my changes. J3133 (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
"Happy useful contributing" was meant in earnest rather than being sarcastic, but it would not necessarily sound so: my mistake in communication. Since, if you are Miracle jester (an if), there is a good chance we will see a lot of good contribution from you. Maybe you are not Miracle jester; we will see. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: I don't know what or who this "Miracle jester" is either. There's no user by that name and no search results. Are you accusing J3133 of being yet another historical Wiktionary vandal, or something else? — Eru·tuon 19:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Miracle jester was a word play on Wonderfool. And you explained elsewhere that he is probably not. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I see. Well, J3133 is not likely to get this coded reference (and apparently neither am I), and so you were just coming across as making some accusation and refusing to explain what it is. — Eru·tuon 20:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Seems like I chose an unfortunate communication strategy in dealing with a potential Wonderfool user. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Why on earth you think this editor is Wonderfool, I don't know. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I was upset by what J3133 was doing (with no edit summaries, no tracing, nothing) and causing someone else to do by sending them an off-wiki message, and I acted in a way that seems rather suboptimal, to put it mildly. I picked some misleading clues while making almost no double check. I should not make these kinds of posts when I am upset; alternatively, I should almost never make posts about Wonderfool. I have not done it for a long time; I'll think it over. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

AdminEdit

The standard evolution of a Wiktionarian is: anonymous IP, new user, user, autopatrolled user, established user, suspected Wonderfool sockpuppet, user nominated for adminship by Wonderfool, user nominated by someone else, admin, bureaucrat, checkuser, king. I see you're on step 6 already. Fancy a promotion to step 7? --CasiObsoleto (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, we need you as an admin. --Kriss Barnes (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Would support. Equinox 07:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Skipping step 7, go straight to step 8 Yellow is the colour (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

ʾiʿrābEdit

The page was deleted. You should read its talk page before starting an edit war. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev: It being deleted before does not make it an exception to all other {{no entry}} pages (including deleted ones), which have a heading. J3133 (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Brahmi, Digits (Nd) and Numbers (No)Edit

I see you've been adding Brahmi non-digit numbers to the {{mul-numberchart}} family. I'm assuming that at some point soon you will be adding the numbers composed of Brahmi digits. Have you though about how you will do this? There is an issue looming that you are probably blissfully unaware of.

Number symbols come in two main flavours - mere numbers, which include most Roman numerals, and decimal digits, which have may be strung together to form other numbers. Thus, when 6 says that VI is an alternative form of it, that is not entirely true; '66' is a number, but 'VIVI' is not. So far the meaning of 'digit' may only have been documented for 0, 1 and the N'Ko digits. I have been thinking of supplying an argument to the likes of {{mul-numberchart/6}} to say 'only show decimal digits', 'only show what are not decimal digits', and with the default action of showing everything. I want to keep the addition of new number systems as easy as possible. I'm hoping the fiddly coding can be kept to {{mul-numberchart}}. This is where Brahmi comes in. As far as Unicode is concerned, U+11052 BRAHMI NUMBER ONE to U+1105A BRAHMI NUMBER NINE are just numbers, but U+11066 BRAHMI DIGIT ZERO to U+1106F BRAHMI DIGIT NINE are decimal digits. These two types of number should not be supplied to {{mul-numberchart}} in the same argument, as they will have to be split when the upgrade to separate digits from non-digits occur. --RichardW57 (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Counting rods are another pain. Rods of the same orientation should not occur next to one another, so as digits the two orientations are not alternative forms of one another - see the Wikipedia entry for counting rods. --RichardW57 (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Handling sexagesimal digits might be fun when you implement them, though we have the additional fun facts of:

  • Akkadian decimal cuneiform (e.g. 𒐑 for 60)
  • No standardisation on the Unicode formatting of a long number
  • Cuneiform sexagesimal digit zero. I don't know whether it would be used for 60

Have fun! --RichardW57 (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@RichardW57: I do not understand; are any of the numbers I added wrong because “there is an issue” with them and they “should not be supplied” to the template? J3133 (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Also, what do you mean by “nd” and “no”? J3133 (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
There is a problem with the existing use of the templates. Look at how it is used in the entry for 1. The page claims that Α΄ and α΄ are alternative forms of the symbol 1. That is very wrong - the symbol 1 does not just represent the number 1; depending on its position in a sequence of digits, it can represent 10, 100, and so on. This not true of Α΄ and α΄. As alternative forms for 1, one should only list characters that function as decimal digits. I'm intending to generalise {{mul-numberchart}} to be able to list only decimal digits if so desired.
Now when you added Brahmi numbers, for each value, you only list one of the two possibilities. For the value two, there are two characters: 𑁓, which you have listed, and 𑁨, which you have not. Only the latter is a digit. For example, there are two ways of writing 20 in the Brahmi script: 𑁜, which you have listed, and 𑁨𑁦, which you have not. The obvious way of fixing this omission for the value 2 is use |brah=[[𑁓]], [[𑁨]]. If you do that, when I add the selection of digits, that will have to be split into two parts, e.g. as |brah=[[𑁓]]|brah_dig=[[𑁨]], so that I can display only the appropriate character as equivalent to the digit 2.
I've added |brah2= for Brahmi numbers using place notation. See 0 and 1 for application and, currently, the N'Ko number for 1, for non-splitting. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Nd and No are Unicode general character codes. Nd means 'Number, decimal' while No means 'Number, other'. The code Nd is used for decimal digits. --RichardW57 (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

outsuaveEdit

Hi J3133, I just wanted to let you know that I have started a discussion at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2020/August#tlb_template. This, that and the other (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

LuaEdit

Nice to see that you are familiar with Lua; I'm afraid I have no idea how to use it! — SGconlaw (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverting edit on CencusEdit

Can you pls add an explanation to this revert https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=census&diff=60427755&oldid=60427740? Best regards --Pmt (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pmt: They are not descendants. J3133 (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit warringEdit

Hey, @J3133. Just tag an administrator in your next undo. That dude who's editing your page is weird. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 20:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for screwing up your edit on pre-depression. I need to be more patient when I’m reading. —(((Romanophile))) (contributions) 17:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

HotelEdit

I'm not familiar enough with Wiktionary policy to understand what the issue is. The RFV in question appears to be just one guy from Zurich in 2012 saying he's never heard the usage before, which is hardly surprising because he lives in Zurich, and no one agreed or disagreed with him. How much evidence now needs to be provided to prove it's a very normal common use in Australia? Do I just need two more news articles? Mclay1 (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mclay1: When a sense fails RFV (the amount of people participating is irrelevant), (I quote the summary of entries deleted for failing RFV) “do not re-enter without valid quotations”, linking to the criteria for inclusion, where it is written that for (English) attestation three citations is the minimum for inclusion, which must be durably archived, independent, etc. (see Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion § Attestation). J3133 (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

ClarificationEdit

Hey- what were you asking me about Homo sapiens? I didn't understand what you wrote. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: See the linked discussion (a user thinks the declension table should be removed and I posted for others’ opinions on this). J3133 (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Character infoboxEdit

Hi J3133 - perhaps I was doing it for a reason :) After doing it more than once you could have asked!!

When pages are viewed with tabbed languages the box appears outside the tabbed text area so that the entry detail is squished into the left hand half of the screen - ie the screen consists of:
LH menu items —|— Tabs —|— Entry details —|— character box
In the ratio 1:1:2:2

What would be your solution - assuming the tabbed page is necessary — Saltmarsh. 11:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not have a solution, however, the consensus is long-standing, thus not to be modified without a discussion, regardless of reasons or not. J3133 (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
To apply your phrase, “before doing it more than once you could have discussed”. J3133 (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Nonetheless, after your change the page became cluttered, with four character infoboxes (two identical) in succession, thus I would not support this kludge, as evidently the readers that use tabbed languages were specifically considered, others disregarded. J3133 (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

POS/table-related redundancyEdit

Hey, thanks for all the copyediting and helpful improvements. On this edit, as well as this one earlier: I wanted to put the Proper noun in some conspicuous place so that the reader is properly informed about the connection between the proper and the common noun usage (which in Latin is sometimes indistinguishable, given the lack of capitalisation). Based on my complaints here, I think adding a declension table for it has no real utility, but makes the page look worse; I would think that even if this wasn't an alternative form, where the table surely needs to be reserved for the main form. Speaking of which, these complaints still remain unaddressed even though everybody seems to recognise the problem. What do you think? Brutal Russian (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Brutal Russian: I moved the sections because the derived terms and the declension with the plural forms included belong to the common noun, not the proper noun. J3133 (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.Edit

Apparently, AWB has some defaults that are set for Wikipedia standards rather than Wiktionary. I have turned these off. bd2412 T 07:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Twitter does not countEdit

Hello, J3133. You noted in your edit summary at cassiosome, "Twitter does not count". I guess this means that usage on Twitter (and presumably other social media?) is not acceptable for attestation of a word. I don't see this explained at WT:ATTEST, and wonder if I'm looking in the wrong place. I realize that Twitter is not durably archived, but the quotation I added was durably archived at Internet Archive. If I am looking in the wrong place, I would be grateful for a pointer. Thanks for your time, and happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cnilep: There was a discussion here; the consensus was adding a link to the Wayback Machine does not make it durably archived (thus it failed). J3133 (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

wagecuck, glowniggerEdit

I added cites when I recreated these. I'm not going to speedy them. Do you take issue with the quotes I provided?__Gamren (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gamren: Equinox wrote “I've heard glowie (only) among 4chan types. Good luck with the CFI!” yet your cites are from 4chan. J3133 (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Gamren: DTLHS deleted glownigger. J3133 (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and? Other than Wikimedia sites, we have no policy of not using specific sites, as long as they're considered durably archived.__Gamren (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

My bad.Edit

You are right, it makes more sense for that note to be under Etymology 3.

The entry is so bloated as it is that I thought that your edit was doing something else.

My apologies. Tharthan (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tharthan: The note was not moved when Etymology 3 was created for the verb (Special:Diff/50078952). J3133 (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

ImpressiveEdit

Hey, you do great work!----Orgullomoore (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

formagiumEdit

Attested in Medieval Latin (also see References). Brutal Russian (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Vowel lengths in alternative formsEdit

Regarding this edit Special:Diff/62571628: I think the best approach is not to list vowel lengths in alternative forms because many of them are Late/Medieval/obscure Latin, and therefore the lengths are often difficult or impossible to establish, other times entirely inapplicable, for example when o/v, e/i, ae/e spell the same vowel regardless of original length (see deorsum). Many of these forms' pages aren't even worth creating. For this reason I have been relegating the lengths to the individual pages (when they exist). Brutal Russian (talk) 06:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Brutal Russian: Entries of attested words should be created regardless of their “worth” (we do not have notability guidelines). J3133 (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Fine, then it's simply that I don't create them because I hate creating pages. But do you agree that the lengths are best left out of the Alternative forms section? To further illustrate: the short vowel /i/ merges with the long /ē/ in most Late Latin varieties with loss of phonemic length, but both remain distinct from the long /ī/. Therefore a word like rēte can be spelled as rite, with a long vowel that is not [i:], which we spell ī. Similarly with aetās spelled etas, with a long open vowel [ɛ:] which contrasts with the vowel that we spell as ē. Brutal Russian (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

{{R:DMLBS}} and {{R:la:DMLBS}}Edit

Yes, sorry, I neglected to check whether someone had created it while I was putting it off; no, don't delete, I'll make them aliases. Brutal Russian (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit on slothEdit

[1] Yes, I was copying from the Norse word. I was trying to fix the link on sleuthhound, which at the moment points to the main entry for sloth, a totally unrelated word. 24.228.0.221 01:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I am aware you were copying, which is why the entry was wrong. J3133 (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Would you prefer I retarget the link in sleuthhound, or create a new entry from scratch? RedPanda25 (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@RedPanda25: The link already is targeted to “sloth § Middle English”. The Middle English entry has not been created (as many currently are not), thus it defaults to the top of the page (not (the top of the) the English entry, as it would if it linked to it). If you can create a correct entry then I do not see why I would oppose. J3133 (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Pali khantiEdit

I thought I'd messed up my edit; I didn't realise you'd undone part of my edit.

The word is given in dictionary as having two stems, one with short vowel and on with long vowel, with no hint iof any difference in meaning. I've found a compound exhibiting the long vowel (about to be cited under the alphabetic Lao script entry). It therefore seemed appropriate to combine the two words as one, with a combined inflection table and both forms being listed in all scripts under the 'alternative forms' header. Do you have objections to this approach? --RichardW57 (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@RichardW57: No objections, it was a mistake. J3133 (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Latin brisaEdit

Hi, where exactly is the "illyr. > lat." part in Pokorny? I can't find it. I've found this instead which mention brisa coming from Messapian or Venetic, not Illyrian: Lat. ferveō, -ēre, fervō, -ĕre ‘sieden, wallen’ (über fermentum s. bher-2); dēfrū̆tum ‘eingekochter Most, Mostsaft’ (: thrak. βρῦτος, βρῦτον, βροῦτος ‘eine Art Gerstenbier’; aus thrak. *brūti̯ā (gr. βρύτια), stammt illyr. brīsa ‘Weintrester’, urverw. alb. bërsí ds., woraus serb. bersa, bȋrsa, bîrza Schimmel auf dem Wein; lat. brīsa aus dem Venet. oder Messap.). Herakliu (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a citation. J3133 (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I've seen it, but Pokorny mentions something different in the source you wrote. Maybe it's Uwe Friedrich Schmidt you are referring to? Herakliu (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Someone (you, perhaps: although, if it was you, why would you not add Messapic or Venetic?) removed the origin, only leaving a cognate. I tried to find a citation for the Illyrian claim and added one instead of having nothing. J3133 (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Indeed you are right, I didn't have your source in hand. Actually it's Krahe and Neroznak that derive brisa from Illyrian, meanwhile Pokorny derives it from Venetic or Messapic. Both can be added. Cheers. Herakliu (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Ok I've found your source, it's actually Krahe and Neroznak that derives brisa from Illyrian, not Pokorny. Herakliu (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

LaskeEdit

@J3233: Many thanks for correcting my careless oversight and mistake. Andrew

SignatureEdit

Hello, recently, on the Beer parlour, you added an 'unsigned' template after one of my responses because I forgot to add my signature; is it now okay if I update that comment with my own signature, or does it have to stay like that? Sorry for my inexperience, and thanks. Kiril kovachev (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

You can replace it with “Kiril kovachev (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)”. It is your choice: some users update the signature, others leave the “unsigned” template. J3133 (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


sorryEdit

Hi, I'm hoping to get some clarity around the "sorry" etymology. It feels a bit misleading to say that "sorry" is equivalent to combining the suffix -y and the Modern English word sore. That is neither how the word is parsed by Modern English speakers, nor is it how the word was formed in Modern English. The word may have been historically equivalent to "sore -y", but that equivalence does not exist in Modern English. Wouldn't it be better to indicate the equivalence by using a template with the appropriate historical language tag, like sor +‎ -y or sore +‎ -y (both spellings seem to be used for the Middle English word)? (Also note the template on the Middle English sory page.) Thanks for helping to clarify this! Jonathanbratt (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the equivalence, as English is not equivalent to Middle English. J3133 (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
That makes a lot more sense now--thanks! Jonathanbratt (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jonathanbratt: Also if it had remained |nocat=1 would have been needed to not add “Category:Middle English words suffixed with -y”, as that is the entry for the (Modern) English word. J3133 (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Ah, good point! Jonathanbratt (talk) 03:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

senex#DescendantsEdit

  • I do not find any instance of Spanish sene in dictionaries, or in the RAE's diachronic corpus (CORDE). The latter gives exmaples such as dia sene (the sixth day?) and hojas de sene (??), neither of which seems like 'old' or 'old age'. I have no idea where IP user 201.194.89.140 got it from...
  • Old French sené does show up, but the Middle French dictionary on CNRTL gives the etymology of its root as SINNO- citing the FEW, related to PG *sinnaz and German Sinn, not Latin senex. Here's the FEW entry, where it is derived from Old French sen...
  • The Old French descendant would have to come from something like sen(em)- + -ātus, if from senex, which is an odd formation in light of the lack of cognate formations. This merely nudges me in favour of the FEW etymology though.
  • I'm also having trouble finding information about Portuguese sene... but I don't have access to resources to check much
  • Checking the history, I see they were added by IP users, which both raises my suspicion and doesn't give me much hope they'll respond to inquiries... not that I tried to ask them
  • The terms are not listed in the REW (which however lists descendants in Sardinian, Aromanian, Old Italian and Abbruzzese), which I find pretty suspicious, considering they're major Romance languages

This is why I proceeded to delete those descendant terms. I'm more than willing to let the Portuguese sene stand in particular, and maybe the Old French one, but I would love some better defence of the existence of the (Old?) Spanish term...--Ser be être 是talk/stalk 18:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Wees BereidEdit

I noticed you initiated the speedy deletion of wees bereid. As a motto it is printed on antique literature from the scout organizations in Holland (I can prove this with pictures). I was not given notice of the nomination to delete. Had I been given notice I would have voted keep and I would have explained the reasons. The delete reasons given were pretty insignificant -- that it came from me, and that something else I had added was speedily deleted. Goldenrowley (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

It was not a speedy deletion but a RFD discussion; i.e., we voted to delete the English Scout Motto and also the Dutch Scout Motto; you can create a request for undeletion at WT:RFD as telling me you do not like the outcome is fruitless. J3133 (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Sorry for being negligent re the RfV. Don't know how I didn't see it! Prahlad balaji (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Two etymologies for priorEdit

Hi! I see you made an edit to "prior" that split the English section into two etymologies; one retained the adjective and adverb usages, and the other the noun usages. I'm curious about your reasons for this, since they both trace back to the same Latin etymon.

I would particularly like to know because of the latter two noun senses (law enforcement and statistics). These seem (to me) like they're clearly noun uses of the adjective, quite distinct from the other senses (ecclesiastical and civil titles). As such, they should go with Etymology 1... but before I make any such edit I want to more clearly understand the purpose and historical record underlying the split! -- Perey (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Perey: The noun is inherited from Old English; the adjective is a Modern English borrowing from Latin. Compare the Online Etymology Dictionary and the Merriam–Webster Online Dictionary (which also has two etymologies). J3133 (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The former notes the law enforcement sense is short for prior arrest, by 1990; I have moved the senses you mentioned to etymology 1. J3133 (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. Thanks, it makes sense now—and you've made exactly the change I was pondering, so there's nothing left for me to do! Thanks again. -- Perey (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixes to other quotation templatesEdit

I recall there was another quotation template that needed fixing. Which one was it again? (I need to have a better way of tracking these.) — SGconlaw (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: {{RQ:Holinshed Chronicles}} perhaps? J3133 (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Norman words for 'five'Edit

Hi,

I do not think that the Norman forms chînq, chinq, chin can derive from Middle French cinq /sĩːk/. Coming ultimately from Vulgar Latin *cinque (as all Romance forms do), the Norman forms show the evolution, before front vowels, of /k/ > /tʃ/ > /ʃ/, not the central or 'Francien' evolution /k/ > /ts/ > /s/. The Norman development, shared also with Picard, reflects an ancient isogloss present already in the early stages of Old French. Nicodene (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nicodene: We state that the Norman language is a descendant of Middle French; is that wrong? J3133 (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
It's incorrect, yes, and for more reasons than just this. The main Wikipedia pages for French and Norman present the more accurate picture- with French placed under Middle French, and Norman directly under Oïl. Wiktionary has, it seems, multiple issues with its Romance language classifications, considering that it also claims Old Catalan as a descendant of Old Occitan (its contemporary), which no scholarly source agrees with. Nicodene (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nicodene Re hui: I added it as there is an entry; should there be a RFV, as you claim it did not exist in Modern French? J3133 (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The last author that the FEW entry cites for hui by itself (that is, not as part of a compound) is des Périers, who wrote in the early sixteenth century. Hence my assigning the last phase of the word to Middle French. If a later attestation exists—say, on the eve of, or during, the seventeenth century—then that would change things.
You can start an RFV- perhaps someone will come along who knows of the right places to look. Nicodene (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The end of the FEW entry hints at the continuation of the term in legal jargon, but what it refers to are a number of fixed expressions containing the combination d'hui (the TLFi provides some examples), rather than the simple form hui.
That is a situation that I would describe like so:
  • Middle French hui
    • ⇒ French d'hui (in fixed expressions), aujourd'hui
Nicodene (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"bedstave"Edit

Thank you for nomming this for deletion. I omitted the "s" due to a typo in a preview link from WP, and somehow propagated the error and didn't catch it before I published. I think deletion is appropriate. Apologies. HLHJ (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

AdminshipEdit

Helloo J3133, there are many reasons for why it would be beneficial for you to be an admin. Would you accept my nomination? — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 08:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha: Yes, I would. J3133 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Please accept the nomination here. After that, I will start the vote. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 19:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

nomanEdit

Hey man. I understand, you thought it was hasty of me to "Middle English"-ize this entry. But I think it is very problematic in several ways, as it stands. Namely:

  • Entry has got NO glosses at all saying it's obsolete or weird or nonstandard. A learner using Wiktionary could see that and think that this is an everyday word to use in chat with friends, or at work. Let's at least gloss "obsolete".
  • Sense 2 has a mysterious gloss "noman's", and an example sentence that nobody ever would use, and nobody (noman?) ever used. And if it's "noman's" then why isn't it at "noman's"? (I'm making trouble for myself...)

Please don't be Leasnam on me. Do you want to tidy it up before I take this to the shitshop? Thanks. Equinox 12:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox: I have added the label “obsolete” (although the alternative forms, no man and no-man, which link to this entry, are not completely obsolete); I have also moved the second sense to noman's, added the label as well and removed the example. J3133 (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Perfect. Equinox 20:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

OucaEdit

Don't you see it's creating an error in the etymology? Maybe don't blindly undo. Vininn126 (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

AdminEdit

Congratulations! Chuck Entz (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary:AdministratorsEdit

Hi, TAKASUGI Shinji is Former administrador. Can you remove User from list of administrators? Thank you! AlPaD (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. J3133 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate character info at Edit

Hiya - the duplicate was down to the fact that the ditto mark entry should be merged with . This is because the Unicode consortium state that the "double prime" symbol should be used when writing the ditto in the Latin script, and that should only be used when writing in an East Asian script. This isn't just pedantry, either - has East Asian character behaviour and will have unexpected behaviour outside of that context (such as being too wide or displaying in an East Asian style depending on user's system etc). I added the second character info box in preparation for this, but I got sidetracked before actually doing the merger because it needs to be done properly, and I never got round to it. My bad. Theknightwho (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Homo sapiensEdit

Hi - it doesn't seem appropriate to have a Latin declension table under a Translingual section at Homo sapiens, because that doesn't apply translingually. It seems like a clear case of where a separate Latin section would make sense. I notice that this has already proven controversial before, so what is the reasoning for having it that way? I don't see this approach being taken on other taxonomic entries.

I also don't think it makes sense to give the Classical Latin pronunciation, given the term wasn't coined till about 1,500 years after that stopped being spoken. Theknightwho (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: The declension table was discussed was Wiktionary:Tea room/2021/February § Homo sapiens and Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2021/February § Translingual. I will ping @Fay Freak who stated “[] a spectacular fail of realizing this close connection of translingual and Latin. The translingual is an ideal entity, therefore we want macrons and inflection tables []” and “3. “A translingual term may present diacritics, inflection tables, and similar grammatical information particular to an individual language if the term is manifestly closely connected to it.” (then it is also no undue hardship to not have Latin entries for certain words because the translingual term can have all the macrons and inflections)”. There are quotations that decline it (“hominum sapientium”, “hominis sapientis”, “homini sapienti” in English and “Hominis sapientis” in Latin); I do not see it much differently than providing the plural, which is also cited (see Citations:Homo sapiens; compare Homo sapiens sapiens (with quotations using “hominis sapientis sapientis” in Czech and “hominum sapientium sapientium” in Latin in a German book; the plural Homines sapientes sapientes has quotations in many languages). I did not add the Latin pronunciations. J3133 (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

It’s simply incorrect to give a Latin declension table translingually, because languages outside of Latin do not inflect the term that way. Yes, there is a plural form that happens to be the same as the nominative plural in Latin (and is derived from it) but it is factually incorrect to give the full Latin declension table translingually, because English does not use any of the other inflections for the other cases listed. It is simply the plural, and we can list it as such.

I note that the other user back in Feb 2021 pointed this out, and it was completely ignored, but it explains exactly why a table like this makes absolutely no sense. If you want the table, then we should have a Latin L2, which is easily attestable. Theknightwho (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: I pointed out that there are quotations inflecting it in English. J3133 (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The 1974 cite incorrectly uses the genitive plural instead of the correct accusative, the 2007 cite uses the genitive singular instead of the correct ablative plural, and the 2017 cite uses the dative singular instead of the ablative plural. They’re all wrong! Theknightwho (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

In any event, they’re isolated pretentions by a few twunts who want to sound clever. They’re not genuine English inflections (and that’s to say nothing of the fact it still doesn’t justify it translingually anyway). Theknightwho (talk)

@Theknightwho: The declensions were removed by Ultimateria yesterday. J3133 (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Taxonomic Latin is a strange beast. It started out as ordinary New Latin which was used in running Latin text with all the expected inflections (Though I doubt there has been or ever will be occasion to use the vocative- who talks to scientific abstractions?). As scientific discourse transitioned to the vernacular, it became an atrophied copy of Latin and Greek. For that reason, a declension table for a binomal like Homo sapiens is indeed quite misleading. Still, pretty much anything nominal or adjectival in Latin can be used in taxonomic names- even participles and fossilized phrases (cf. Impatiens noli-tangere). Taxonomic names in the genus group have gender, and those in the species group also have number as well as nominative and genitive cases. Specific epithets are typically adjectives agreeing in gender and number with the generic names they modify, but they can also be nouns in apposition, including genitives. One interesting group of the latter are in names of parasitical organisms, which are often the taxonomic names of the host organisms in the genitive. The names of higher taxa are normally formed by adding the rank endings to the genitive stem of a generic name. This causes confusion because some taxonomists aren't well versed in things like stem consonants and Grassman's law.
The upshot of all this is that it can be helpful to know the gender of generic names, and how they decline in the nominative and genitive in both singular and plural. For specific epithets, it can also be helpful to know how they decline in all three genders. That means limited declension tables for generic names and adjectival specific epithets are a good idea. For one thing it helps readers understand why higher taxa based on generic names that end in -thrix seem to always have variation between forms with -thric- or -thrich- and -trich- Chuck Entz (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz Thanks for this thoughtful and insightful response. I do think we probably need a better way of handling taxonomic names, as you're correct that it's useful to know how they decline, and we should acknowledge their Latin (or maybe Latin-esque) nature, but I'm not really sure how we should go about it. Theknightwho (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

үөһээEdit

That was fast. Thank you for doing that. 216.234.200.179 20:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

liberEdit

J3133, your revision that I reverted has nothing to do with any module errors. You changed {{inh|la|itc-ola}} to {{der|la|itc-ola}} which is incorrect. -- Gowanw (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gowanw: There was a module error, stating that Old Latin (itc-ola) is an etymology-only language and not an ancestor of Latin (la): it was fixed by @Benwing2 (who likely saw the page at Category:Pages with module errors) here about two hours after I wrote that edit summary telling you that there is an error. J3133 (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Great but Benwing had the correct solution. --Gowanw (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
If I knew this correct solution (i.e., ancestral_to_parent) I would have done it. J3133 (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
That's fine, but instead of putting forth a bad edit for the sake of removing the error, you could have informed someone with more knowledge. Anyway, water under the bridge. --Gowanw (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Deleting vandalismEdit

Hey, thanks for dealing with the vandal but I have some friendly advice for you. It's not a huge deal in this case since they only made 3 entries, but when someone uses {{vandal}} it generates a "nuke" link that will let you mass delete all the entries they created. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

3133, no reversion is allowed without errorsEdit

I'm trying to correct the misspellings and errors that a few users added to any page, or everyone will revert the disruptives by blocked users or vandalism inserted by all vandals. 176.88.80.117 09:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Nothing is misspelled; “-ability” nouns are formed from corresponding adjectives in “-able”. I am not sure what “no reversion is allowed without errors” means or the “disruptives”[sic] and “vandalism” which do not exist there, as some of those “-ability” etymologies you reverted were added by me. J3133 (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
and I removed the word "possibility" since that word does not end with "ability". 176.88.80.117 09:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:RQ:Spenser Fowre HymnesEdit

Hi. Not sure how this works. I wanted to include the name of the hymn at degener but it broke Zumbacool (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zumbacool: The chapter is automatically added if the page number is specified; you can now also manually specify the chapter. J3133 (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Please deal with this crapEdit

Delete and create-lock this shit please. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. J3133 (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

In error?Edit

I have no clue why you made this revert – the edit summary is totally uninformative – so how am I supposed to form a judgement as to whether this rollback is in error?  --Lambiam 20:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I see you rereverted.  --Lambiam 20:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
@Lambiam: The edit summary (“this rollback is in error”) which you call “uninformative” is automatically added, not mine. I did not mean to revert your edits (which is why I reverted myself immediately). J3133 (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

cucurbita#EnglishEdit

The Latin word referred to some gourd, but there was apparently no gourd native to Italy. They could be found in northern Africa and the Middle East. I don't know whether they were grown in the central and western Mediterranean 2,000 years ago, but it doesn't seem impossible. The plants of genus Cucurbita are native to the New World and got the genus name from the Latin by reason of similar appearance and/or function. The cite about early American agriculture would probably be about the genus. The other cites are likely about gourds in general, ie, possibly the family Cucurbitaceae. We could use another cite suggestive of the family as a whole or, better, the Old-World gourds. DCDuring (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@DCDuring: I meant whether the definition “Alternative form of cucurbit” is correct—not whether the statements in the quotations are correct. J3133 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
The same ambiguity applies to cucurbit. Also, there are no cites show that suggest usage for the "receptacle" sense, so a real definition would seem needed. DCDuring (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@DCDuring: I have added the gloss “plant”, so that it would not seem to apply to the receptacle sense. J3133 (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

CollocationsEdit

Hey, thanks for cleaning up my typos. Been trying to catch them myself. If you see a page with a ton under the definition lines and you have a spare moment (unless you're in a certain groove), feel free to put them in a box. Cheers, Vininn126 (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


WorcestershireEdit

Why do you think having the North American pronunciation would actually be helpful? North Americans barely have any reason to talk about UK cities, besides the big ones. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 178.120.68.63 (talk) at 10:57, 27 August 2022‎ (UTC).

As an English non-native speaker who wants to pronounce UK cities the right way, the audio doesn't help me at all.

We aim to have all pronunciations, whether that may be American or British. J3133 (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

But Brits will make fun of me if I mispronounce the name of their city. Better to have nothing than only the US pronunciation. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 178.120.3.50 (talk) at 10:11, 29 August 2022‎ (UTC).

I have added a request for UK audio: again, we do not remove other pronunciations. J3133 (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
UK audio has been added. J3133 (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

IPv6 blocksEdit

Just thought I'd reiterate some advice I saw somewhere here before: if you're blocking an IPv6 address apparently it's best to issue a range block. I'm not sure but from what I recall it seems like one person's IPv6 address could change frequently within a smallish range...the language I recall being used was something like that blocking a single IPv6 address "doesn't really do anything". The syntax that is supposed to be used is to append "/64" to the end of the IP you want to block. Here, I actually found the documentation page here if you are interested in learning more. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)