Open main menu

User talk:Jan.Kamenicek

As the Babel box on my profile page shows, I am not a native English speaker. This may sometimes be the reason why I do not express myself clearly enough. As a result it may happen that somebody feels offended by the choice of my words in a discussion, although I did not mean it in that way. Therefore I would like to ask for some tolerance.

Contents

WelcomeEdit

Welcome to the English Wiktionary.

If you ever need any policies, the two most important ones, IMHO, are WT:CFI and WT:ELE.

If you need reference templates for Czech etymologies, we have {{R:Machek 1968}} and {{R:Rejzek 2007}}, used in klokan, although inline referencing is not all that common in the etymologies in the English Wiktionary.

We have WT:ACS, but please don't take it very seriously: it is only a draft and is very tentative. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit summariesEdit

Hi. If you leave the Edit Summary box blank instead of writing "founded", we can see the actual page contents in the Recent Changes. It's more helpful. Thanks! Equinox 18:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I see, no problem. Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Gender in inflected formsEdit

I have removed gender from inflected forms as per common practice in Czech entries: that type of info is in the lemma. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is in the lemma, but is there any reason why it should not be in the inflected form? It does not make any harm and the reader learns the gender without having to go to the basic form entry. I can imagine that somebody could find the information on the gender provided in the inflected form entry useful, but I cannot imagine anybody who would find useful that the information is not provided. Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The harm is that it creates redundancy with no added value that I can discern. I am not against all redundancy, but this one seems to add close to nothing. I don't see why the reader should not want to go to the lemma: the lemma has all the information including definitions, which the inflected form cannot realistically have. My assumption is that the reader will most often want to visit the lemma anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, although I still do not see any harm by adding it, it is not such a big thing for me to quarrel about it. Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The harm is in that if the gender is incorrect, someone will have to go through all inflected forms and correct it. It is a good practice from the point of view of maintenance to keep such information in one central place — the lemma. --Vahag (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, makes sense, thanks for explanation. Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for adding declension tables!Edit

I find that the biggest problem with Czech noun entries is lack of inflection, so I appreciate you adding the tables very much. Děkuji! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The biggest problem with Czech entries is the lacking coverage of Czech words and their semantics. But inflected forms and inflection tables do not harm, obviously. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Semantics could definitely be improved, but in terms of existing noun entries, I stand by my statement. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Then you obviously differ from Angr, who opined that it is pronunciation that is the most important part of any entry. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Semantics rulez. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Μετάknowledge: I am really glad that you appreciate it. I think one of reasons why they are often missing are numerous problems with declension templates, since Czech inflections are not very regular. Recently I have (hopefully) solved problems with the nouns of the pattern "žena" and I am testing it by adding the templates to the entries of such nouns. Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Dan Polansky: I personally think that they not only do no harm, but that they are even useful. I do not like adding incomplete entries very much. Entries containing just Czech word and meaning are not very useful, because there are numerous online and offline dictionaries which can supply the same, and Google translator can do it as well. But details such as etymology or tables with inflection forms make Wiktionary different from most online sources. Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I can even say that only after I realized this difference (and strength) of Wiktionary I started thinking about contributing, because I had considered Wiktionary quite redundant before. Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Czech entries only covering semantics are useful, since they are linked to entries with English definitions (which other online source does that?), and since many of them feature content not present anywhere else online, based on my experience. Obviously, inflection is easily available online in the Příručka, so the available-elsewhere argument does not hold water for it anyway. Be it as it may, obviously, feel free to contribute in any area you prefer: it's your use of your time and attention. I am just trying to raise points for consideration, and spread my enthusiasm for semantics. --Dan Polansky (talk)
Needless to say, your contribution so far is appreciated! It's great to see someone further fixing cs-decl-noun-auto, for instance. I would sooner shut up than have you stop contributing aspects of content of your choice. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

References at definition levelEdit

FYI, I started to remove references from the definitions that you are adding. For Czech and many other languages, we do not reference definitions; instead, we rely solely on attesting quotations meeting WT:ATTEST. Etymology is a different case, although, AFAIK, the jury is still out about whether the use of inline references is actually preferable to placing the reference without an inline connection. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I have noticed that you remove just the inline reference and leave it in the "External links" section. I am fine with this solution. Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Great. Let me add that I think that the best external links are those that take the reader to an immediately accessible source of more information, meaning online. Those are {{R:PSJC}} and {{R:SSJC}}; the former often contains scans from a lexicographical quotation database, which I find very cool. That said, links to offline sources are okay, and are fairly common in the English Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem with PSJC is that it is more outdated than let's say Akademický slovník (although the edition I use is also not the newest one). I prefer to check newer sources if they give the information I am looking for. Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
PSJC is a bit dated but not too much, and it is online. Most users of Wiktionary can't be bothered with offline sources, I estimate. SSJC is even less dated. Checking with latest sources certainly does not harm, but does not provide all that much value to the online user. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I should emphasize that the English Wiktionary does not trust any dictionaries, dated or less so, as a matter of principle. Just today, I found entries in PSJC for which I could not find attesting quotations, so I did not enter them. In this respect, it is very different from Wikipedia. We are looking at the direct evidential material--the attesting quotations--which constitues original research. Original research is what we really do, as far as definitions, based on evidence that we can find. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, the problem with direct evidential material often is that it clearly proves existence of a word, but its meaning is often not that clear from the context. Besides this, especially the qualifiers should be checked in dictionaries in my opinion, because from the context of a primary source it is usually impossible to get whether the word is colloquial, slang, dialect and so on. For example the word "šalina" is a regional slang, but if you look at the examples provided by PSJC, you will not get it from them. But if you look the word up in a dictionary, you will. Another example: it is not difficult to find example for the word "fixlovat", such as "Taxikář s odebranou licencí ještě fixloval s taxametrem, but if you change it for "Taxikář s odebranou licencí ještě podváděl s taxametrem", you will not be able to get the proof which of them is standard Czech and which is not from these two sentences. Of course that we know that "podváděl" is standard Czech, but just knowing can sometimes be tricky and lead to mistakes. My knowing can also hardly be a satisfactory proof to non-Czech speakers who try to learn the word from the Wiktionary and who do not know who wrote the word's entry and how well he understood Czech language, but if I support it by a reference from a dictionary, they can feel more secure about it. I often come across such a problem personally. For example I happened to find out that the word buck means (among others) dandy. The entry says, that this meaning is used in the UK and is obsolete. There are two quotations below it, but in fact neither of these quotations contains information that this meaning is not usual nowadays too, and that it is not common also in the United States. And even if they found such a sentence (which I have doubts about), they would need another one proving that it is not (or was not) common also in Australia. But if they supported it with references from some Oxford dictionary and from Merriam-Webster, saying that it is an obsolete and mostly British meaning of the expression, it would be clearer to me. But the way it is now I have no clue how the author of the entry found it out. Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
References are all too often wrong. For instance, AFAIK, datlovat does not mean "to typewrite in an awkward, unskilled way", contrary to [1]; certainly "awkward" is not part of the differentia. The author wrote his estimate without providing any evidence. His sentence containing "všichni rozumíme" ("slovesu datlovat, které ve slovníku ani není, všichni rozumíme jako označení neumělého, pomalého psaní na psacím stroji, eventuálně dnes i na počítači") suggests a lack of research care or careless hyperbolic phrasing; he cannot possibly know what "všichni" (all of us) do in regard to the word. Investigation of evidence of "datlovat" in Google books suggests to me that the word is most often used to mean the generic "to type" (google books:"datlovat", google books:"datloval", google books:"datlovala"), without there being any reference to skill in the word. For instance, "Pozdravil elegantně oblečenou Asiatku, která dovedně datlovala do klávesnice velkého počítače, a vstoupil do dveří za ní" even contains "dovedně datlovala" in which the presence of skill is indicated in "dovedně". I do not believe the author has some extra-evidential access to the meaning of the word that I do not have. To use such an unresearched article as a reference is to me a truly bad practice. If we were forced to go by such references and ignore all lexicographical evidence, there would be no way for us to correct datlovat.
As for labels, I created another thread here, #Referencing labels. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I have to say that I really like the example that you found: dovedně datlovala. It is possible that the word acquired more general meaning too (besides the one that I added to the entry). If you found more examples like "dovedně datlovala" (this phrase is really new to me), we can add another meaning to the entry.
However, the basic meaning really contains awkardness and I often hear to use it in that way. Most examples that Google found do not directly imply if the word contains awkardness or not, when I read them I see it there because that is how I "know" and use the word (but that is not enough). That is the problem: what you really suggest to do is not a real "original research"; such a research would have to contain e. g. questionnairs filled by hundreds of people expressing how they understand the word mentioned in quotations. Instead you decide just from your feeling how you understand the quotations.
Despite this, some quotations do directly imply the meaning of "unskilled typing". Besides the one from Český rozhlas I found: Nejdříve tedy potřebuji angličtinu, ale taky psaní na stroji - zatím umím jenom datlovat - a práci s počítačem. I also think that it is quite clear (though I failed to find a source which would support it) that the word datlovat is a shortened form of the phrase psát/ťukat jako datel, which has the meaning of unskilled typing without any doubt (Moc mu to nešlo, psal jako datel).
Please, do not misunderstand me: I am not against the quotation practice at all. In fact I like it very much. I do not consider the practice of cs.wiktionary, where they insist that only meanings which are in a dictionary can be added, to be very good. But I think that it can be combined with usage of secondary sources. Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
You make some good points. From what you wrote, it seems there is a sense of "datlovat" that involves a lower degree of skill, especially given that you supported the sense with a further quotation of actual use.
On a tangent, I don't think questionnaires are a reliable method of lexicographical research. They are self-reports rather than observations of actual verbal behavior. Self-reports are generally unreliable, AFAIK. Attesting quotations are samples of actual verbal behavior, albeit written and polished one. I wonder whether any lexicographers use questionnaires to ascertain word meanings, and how they tackle the methodological challenge. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Referencing labelsEdit

Labels such as obsolete are determined largely based on corpus evidence. Thus, the obsolete label is placed based on whether modern quotations are found. If the reader knows this, they know how we came up with the label. An entry can be wrong, but one can hope that someone spots a suspect label, makes a research for it, and corrects it. Importantly, a label hypothesis can often be refuted using evidence: if someone claims the term is obsolete and I find plenty of modern quotations, I can remove the label as refuted. Double checking with dictionaries does not harm, but taking dictionaries as the ultimate arbiters and disregard available evidence is something we do not do and something I do not want us to do.

Placing inline references to labels is something we do not do and I do not want us start doing. We can start a Beer parlour discussions about it if you wish. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand. However, it can work well only if there are many contributors who constantly check the labels (and correct them if necessary). This can be true for the English language part of en.wiktionary, and for some others too, but not for languages which are beeing added by a very limited numbers of contributors. You write that the labels should be added based on corpus evidence. But do people really do it or do they just simply use a label which they "think" is correct? And can corpus also help to decide if a word is informal, colloquial or slang? How can corpus help me to find out that "šalina" is a regional slang? I am affraid that it cannot.
However, I know how difficult it is to push through some radical change in attitude and I am affraid this is something I do not wish to spend time with (expecting that the effort would be fruitless).
As for the last sentence of your contribution: I do not think that dictionaries should always beat other available evidence. I just say that they are a good evidence too, and often the only available. Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
You make some good points. I certainly do double check with dictionaries a lot rather than looking only at the corpus, although I do take dictionaries with a grain of salt.
Let me note that dictionaries are not really evidence; they are reference. Reports made about a thing are not evidence of the thing. When a dictionary reports that a word means so and so, that is not evidence, merely the dictionary authors' report of what they have found the word to mean. That is why the English Wiktionary even contains Appendix:English dictionary-only terms; as you can see, even multiple dictionaries containing a putative word do not suffice for inclusion in the mainspace. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

houbelec etc.Edit

I have reverted a couple of changes of part of speech at houbelec etc. but I am not sure I should have done that. I have started a discussion at Talk:houbelec. I hope we can clarify this through discussion and research, and change the part of speech based on the result. --Dan Polansky (talk)

PossessivesEdit

I believe two things of possessives:

  • They should not repeat the etymology of the base word.
  • They should not have any Related terms section.

They should be treated as almost an inflected form; maybe some grammarians even treat them that way. Thus, orlův should not repeat the etymology that is already in orel. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you mean and in fact I was thinking about it too. Finally I decided to treat it the same way as other lemmata, because they belong to the category Czech lemmas, and because they are usually treated as a category of adjectives equal to categories of hard and soft adjectives.
When speaking about Czech possessives, what do you think about categorization of their inflected forms? The expression "orlova" is also a possessive adjective, so should a subcategory Czech possessive adjective forms be created? Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how to treat Czech possessives and their inflected forms in general. It is not obvious that they are lemmata; some consider gradations of adjectives to be non-lemmata and yet the gradations (mladší, nejmladší) are themselves inflected. It would be best, IMHO, to treat possessives as non-lemmata. Another case like that might be Latin participles. You might want to look around in the English Wiktionary what other languages do instead of reinventing the wheel. English does not have possessives at all in en wikt, since the apostrophe (as in "giant's") renders them sum of parts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
PSJC and SSJC do not treat possessives as lemmata, as per online search: orlův in Příruční slovník jazyka českého, 1935–1957, orlův in Slovník spisovného jazyka českého, 1960–1971, 1989. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I think they should be treated as semi-inflected forms. obrův should not say "giant's" but rather "a possessive of obr" or the like. The entries should be minimal as for etymology and related terms to minimize content duplication. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, all grammar books I have seen so far put possessive adjectives to the same level as other categories of adjectives (hard, soft, possessive), as I have written above. It does not make sense to me that an adjective is a form of a noun: either it is a form of a noun (and thus a noun too), or it is an adjective (and thus a new lemma). I did not try to reinvent the wheel, I had looked around here at Wiktionary and saw that e. g. Slovak or Russian possessives are categorized as lemmas, too.
I have no idea what "semi-inflected form" means and I also failed when trying to find it out. I also do not see, in what way would the dictionary be better if the entries of possessives were minimalized. Possesive adjectives are adjectives and there is no reason to treat them differently from other adjectives. Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Whether possessives are lemmata or not, it is insane to repeat the etymology there. It also does not help the reader to repeat the meanings of the base form in the possessive entry. Both create a maintenance nightmare. The reader is served well by being directed to the base word. If you continue creating possessives with etymologies and related terms, I'll bring it to Beer parlour since I strenuously disagree and am not open to compromise on this one.
The term "semi-inflected form" is a one-off invention, apparently, intended to indicate that there are things that are neither lemmata nor the ultimate inflected forms. If you have a better term, I am all ears. What I have in mind is the likes of abambulans in Category:Latin participles, present in Category:Latin non-lemma forms. I hope most of editors will not want to repeat the etymology of abambulo in abambulans. --Dan Polansky (talk)
One of reasons for repeating some info in the etymology section is proper categorization e. g. into Category:Czech terms derived from Proto-Slavic. I think it is better than manual categorization. I have no objections to discussion at beer parlour. Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think they should end up in that category. I started Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2015/August#Czech possessive adjectives - etymology and related terms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Re: "all grammar books I have seen so far put possessive adjectives to the same level as other categories of adjectives": I don't see why it should matter what grammar books do as opposed to what dictionaries do. We are a dictionary and we need to manage our content. I don't deny that these "possessive adjectives" behave like adjectives but that alone does not make them suitable for ditionary treatment as full lemmas. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Dictionaries do not provide a lot of information that Wiktionary provides, such as declension tables, which are typical for grammar books (and still nobody wants to remove them from Wiktionary). If you want to use grammatical arguments (such as whether a word is an adjective or whether it just behaves like an adjective, but in fact it is a form of a noun) than you should consult grammar books which give more detailed information regarding these arguments than dictionaries do. Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Whether something is a dictionary lemma or not is something only a dictionary and its makers can decide, not a grammar book. The grammar book does not tell you how to make information management decisions, including those which content to centralize where. The grammar book does not tell you that you do not want definitions in inflected form entries (I say you add these but don't remember where), and it does not tell you not to repeat etymology in e.g. -ly adverbs in English.
You seem to posit the following:
  • When a form is a lemma for a group of inflected forms, it should have a full-blown dictionary entry, full with an extensive etymology.
I disagree, and so do makers of dictionaries, it seems. The lemma vs. non-lemma dispute can actually be easily put aside by considering English -ly advers: these are lemmas from a grammatical standpoint but the English Wiktionary does not repeat the etymologies of the base adjectives in the -ly derivations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

žampion and žampiónEdit

Thank you for adding these great Czech entries! Just a note about these: when there are alternative forms, we choose the more common one as the lemma form (where most of the information, like etymology, categories, etc goes) and the other one uses {{alternative form of}} and only has pronunciation (if it differs), inflection, and anything else particular to that alternative form. Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the problem often is that it is difficult to decide which is more common. Talking e. g. about žampion x žampión, my feeling is that standard Czech nowadays prefers žampion (though not a long time ago the opposite was true, as can be seen at this entry of the Slovník spisovného jazyka českého [Dictionary of standard Czech language]), while colloquially žampión seems to prevail to me. But that is just my feeling, therefore I decided to have both entries as equal. Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Even when difficult, we have to decide so that the entries are standardised. Usage notes would be a helpful way to point out to readers which is more common in various contexts. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Forms and spellings says that official policy is that all the forms are equally valid. There is also written: For some words where there are two or more very common spellings, there is no consensus to use an "alternative form of" template, for example color and colour. In this case, neither entry uses "alternative form of", but the other spelling should be listed in the "Alternative forms" subsection. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Just to explain why I prefer to have two equal entries: The power of Wikimedia projects is growing and influences the world and language in an increasing way. If I decide that one of two versions is the "main" and the other just its "alternative form", I send a signal that reaches quite a large audience and in fact help one of the versions to prevail. But this is not and must not be the task of Wiktionary. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Uses of template:taxlinkEdit

There are two functions served by {{taxlink}}:

  1. To provide a link to Wikispecies.
  2. To categorize the taxon as one that is "wanted" by a Wiktionary entry.

If an entry for the taxon does not list, at least users have the option of searching for the term and finding an entry for a synonym or higher taxon that contains the taxon.

Also, some obsolete and polyphyletic groups are in Wikispecies, because no one has deleted the Wikispecies entry, because:

  1. no taxonomist has produced a monophyletic classification for the taxa that has been accepted,
  2. the entry was deemed useful for historical reasons, or
  3. no one has gotten around to it.

If you think it would be useful, we could convert {{taxlink}} to allow a parameter, say "altwslink" so that taxlink could lead to a higher or synonymous taxon. DCDuring TALK 20:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the entry Gastromycetes was rejected at Wikispecies and deleted 9 years ago and the given reason was that it was not a part of current classification. There is no synonymous taxon that would fit into current classification and that would be acceptable at Wikispecies. I have no idea, which taxon could it lead to, the nearest highest taxon that contains all genera included among Gastromycetes is the class Agaricomycetes. I do not think that linking to it would be of any use, because the Wikispecies entry on Agaricomycetes does not (and will not) contain any information about Gastromycetes: the readers would probably be very confused, why they were directed there, when they clicked something different. I think I will found the entry Gastromycetes here instead. Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
BTW, may I ask, what is the parameter "noshow=1" good for? I do not see any change on the page after it was added and I cannot find anything about it on the template page either. Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Gasteromycetes founded.
Now I also noticed that the categorizing function of the template is inactive. Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The categories are hidden ones. You have to go to Preferences (upper right edge of any page), Appearance, Advanced options to find the appropriate checkbox.
"noshow=1" is a way for me to review entries that use the template and to thank those who do use it. I haven't been too diligent about thanking lately.
There is a parameter in {{taxlink}}, "nomul=1", that is intended to result in the correct categorization and linking for terms like Phallus for which we have an entry but not a taxonomic one. DCDuring TALK 02:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. I have make the display of the project links always display on the same line as the last element of the tsxon.
$ I have made the Commons link go to the Category page of the taxon, which usually exists, rather than the taxon page, which usually does not.
  1. I haven't corrected the nomul=1 functionality yet. DCDuring TALK 03:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation. However, I must say that I much prefer the {{taxlinknew}}, because it does not create false blue links. It would be good, if {{vern}} worked in the same way (i. e. kept the red link and provided link to WP only in superscript). What I like about all these templates is the hidden category of wanted terms, but it cannot ballance the disadvantage of false bluelinking. Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Rhymes:Czech/nɛkEdit

I have some doubts about whether Rhymes:Czech/nɛk is a rhyme. If it is, it would be a weak rhyme, I think. But I don't know where to check. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that it is quite subjective. I founded it simply because I felt it as a rhyme. I do not think it is possible to check anywhere. Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The most elementary check I can think of is finding actual use in poetry. A further check would be in a treatise on rhyming. Zimmerman's perfect rhyme is, of course, of little interest :).
Here's a subjective check, without checking actual poetry:
Koupil nový mlýnek
Z nakreslených stránek
Sounds like not a really good rhyme to me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Here are rhymes for a particular lyrics:

  • hledám
  • sedám
  • nahlížím
  • sotva plížím
  • nad hlavou
  • děravou
  • bloudím
  • loudím
  • nespěchám
  • nechám
  • sbírám
  • posílám
  • hledám
  • nemám

It seems to me that, in a good rhyme, the last two vowels have match. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, it depends on the fact whether we are looking for a rhyme or for a good rhyme. Of course some rhymes are better than others. So what I suggest is to have a rhyme page with -nɛk rhymes, as well as rhyme pages with rhymes like -onɛk, -ɛnɛk and alike. I can found them because I wanted to do it later anyway. Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The problem I see with that is that it is more messy and leads to considerable duplication of information.
On a related note, when I started doing rhymes, I made the decision to distinguish them by vowel length, which was not necessary even for a good rhyme. And I really would not like to see both approaches combine. I mean the pair Rhymes:Czech/ar and Rhymes:Czech/aːr. In an alternative scheme that I did not choose, Rhymes:Czech/aːr would not exist.
The other thing is of evidence, something to look at. Have you found actual rhyming that uses these weak rhymes? Can you give one example? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I understand your point and although I still think that a weak rhyme is still a rhyme, I do not have very strong feeling about this. If you believe that only the rhymes -onɛk, -ɛnɛk and alike are worth having a rhyme page, I will not oppose it. Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Czech IPA for čEdit

I see you entering the following IPA for Czech č:

What I am used to is the following:

It is also what I see in the IPA for English Czech, and I see no reason to belive that the English pronunciation of "ch" is significantly different from Czech "č". In rhyme pages, I used tʃ everywhere.

In http://www.phil.muni.cz/jazyk/files/fonetika/ipa-pro-cestinu.pdf, I see there is some sort of a bow to connect the two letters, albeit below rather than above the two letters.

As far as I am concerned, the requirement of simplicity leads me to side with the IPA for English.

Can you please clarify what makes you think t͡ʃ is preferable to tʃ?--Dan Polansky (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that both of them are used, but t͡ʃ shows better that it is a single phoneme, while tʃ can in some words express two phonemes: t and ʃ (e. g. in "Potštát"). I got used to this usage in various wikiprojects, it is used in that way in English Wikipedia (see e. g. w:Voiceless palato-alveolar affricate), Czech Wikipedia (cs:w:Neznělá_postalveolární_afrikáta) or Czech Wiktionary (cs:Wikislovník:Výslovnost/čeština) and so I started using it here as well. Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
As for IPA pronunciation in the mainspace, we can keep both markups for the time being. For rhyme pages, they were started with tʃ, and since I find the reason to switch uncompelling and find reasons to keep them compelling (simplicity, consistency with IPA for English--e.g. "cheers"), I will oppose any such switching (renames).
The Czech Wikiprojects are a poor model and source for these kinds of decisions, IMHO. In the Czech Wiktionary, there are things to observe that raise suspition, such as their use of ʊ for u and ɔ for o without tracing this to any source (AFAIK), and contrary to the only academic source I have online. As for W:Voiceless_palato-alveolar_affricate, it mentions both t͡ʃ and tʃ, and that does not indicate preference for one or the other. Even if it did indicate such a preference, the revision history of the wiki article shows how first tʃ was used, later tʃ was absent from the introductory paragraph, and then later tʃ was added to the intro paragraph again. In general, non-wiki sources carry much more weight than wiki sources, where various partisan stances often take hold.
As for Potštát, W:Potštát shows "[ˈpot.ʃtaːt]": if this is correct, then "." can be used to disambiguate and the problem is solve. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The meaning of the point "." is not to show a different pronunciation, but to show the break between syllables. As such, it is quite rarely used in IPA pronunciation at English wiktionary and so the readers do not expect it there. So, if they see tʃ without this syllable break, they still do not know, if it should be pronounced as one phoneme or two phonemes. It is the same as with "ou̯". Why should u̯ be used? We could simply use the syllable division in words such as "po.uʒiːt", and not to use it in words like "mɛloun". Despit this we use it for better clarity.
If we decided to use point "." to show the syllable break, it would also be very confusing to use it only between t and ʃ, but we would have to use it for all syllables in the word (e. g. nat.ʃɛ.ɲiː). On the other hand, if we do use it between all syllables in the word, it would make the readers wonder, why do we do it, when other expressions at Wiktionary do not have it.
Beside this, there are some examples when there is no syllable division between the two phonemes, such as the interjection "ts", which I sometimes hear pronounced in both ways ts (2 phonemes) and t͡s (1 phoneme). Also the word "většinou" I sometimes hear pronounced with tʃ as 2 phonemes and with syllable break before them (i. e. vjɛ.tʃɪ.nou̯).
As for the ɔ and o, once I saw somewhere written, that both pronunciations are possible in Czech words, and that speakers from Bohemia tend (i. e. not all of them) to use ɔ, while speakers in Moravia tend to use o, but both of them are considered "standard". Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Re: "Why should u̯ be used? ... Despit this we use it for better clarity.": Who's we? Šimáčková, Podlipský, Václav, Chládková, Czech spoken in Bohemia and Moravia (2012) Šimáčková, Podlipský, Václav, Chládková, Czech spoken in Bohemia and Moravia (2012) does not use it.
Re: "if they see tʃ without this syllable break, they still do not know, if it should be pronounced as one phoneme or two phonemes": They'll know this is one phoneme unless indicated otherwise. And the cases where this is for two phonemes are really rare.
Re: "once I saw somewhere written": we need to know where this is written; we have two sources which do not state as much AFAICS: 1. Krčmová, IPA pro češtinu http://www.phil.muni.cz/jazyk/files/fonetika/ipa-pro-cestinu.pdf; 2: Šimáčková, Podlipský, Václav, Chládková, Czech spoken in Bohemia and Moravia (2012). --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
"ou" pronounced separately appears in a much smaller extent, but it is not rare. Differences in pronunciation of various phonemes are better to be expressed by means of expressing differences in pronunciation of phonemes, not by means intended to express something else, such as the boundary between syllables (which also not always does this service, as I pointed out above with tʃ). Here is one example of a source using it: [2].
Re: "They'll know this is one phoneme unless indicated otherwise." This is your opinion which I do not share. When I saw tʃ for the first time, I thought that the author wants to say that the two symbols represent two phonemes. I think there can be many people with the same problem. Even if they were only few (which I doubt) we can still very easily help them. IPA has means two express the difference so we should use what IPA offers. I cannot see any advantage from not using it.
Here is another source where t͡ʃ is used: [3]
Re: When I made an offtopic note on using o x ɔ, you wrote: "we need to know where this is written". Well, I just made a little note on this to say why I understand the attitude at cs.wikt. We would need to find such sources if we considered changing the current practice of using o x ɔ in Czech IPA transcription here at en.wiki. However, I have not been thinking about such a change so far. Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll rephrase for clarity: a reader acquainted with the use of tʃ for English will be able to assess that tʃ is used in Czech in a similar way. If "." is used for the cases where tʃ is for two phonemes, the information is there for the reader to pick. That is a fact, not an opinion. How fast various readers will be able to pick this convention I do not know, but the information will be there, and I really see no reason why a reader acquainted with IPA for English should per default assume that tʃ in Czech IPA is for two phonemes. I do not deny t͡ʃ is a valid option--this or similar is used both in Šimáčková, Podlipský, Václav, Chládková 2012 and in Krčmová, but it is one that I do not prefer, especially for rhyme pages, and it is inaccurate to say that tʃ is unworkable. The idea of using "." is, for "ou", mentioned in Krčmová[4], which leads me to think that Krčmová holds such a practice workable, even if not necessarily preferable. Whether one cares more for simplicity or unambiguity is a matter of preference or taste. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I do not think that it is correct to assume that en.wiktionary is used only by English native speakers or only by people acquainted with the use of tʃ for English. It is used by people acquainted with the use of IPA for various languages (who might not have to be acquainted with its use in English). The ambition of the English Wiktionary should be to become a universal tool and in my opinion it is on this way. I do not think that only native English speaking people use it to find useful words in other languages and speakers of other languages to find words in English. I as a Czech speaker use en.wikt to have a look e. g. at German, Polish or Russian entries, and so I suppose that many other people do it as well. Therefore I consider using the less ambiguous t͡ʃ better than simpler but slightly ambiguous tʃ. Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I acknowledge that English speakers are far from being the only users of en wikt. However, even non-English speakers can hardly fail to notice tʃ in the English IPA in en wikt. And anyone with rudimentary knowledge of Czech phonology cannot be mislead into thinking that tʃ usually stands to two phonemes, certainly not for long. Again, I think we could agree that there are two workable practices, and that the choice between them is largely a matter of taste and preference, couldn't we? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I can agree that it is a matter of preference between simplicity (more for the writer than the reader) and unambiguity. Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I have even admitted too much with "unambiguity"; the markup that relies on "." is unambiguos. So that should probably have been "clarity", or "reinforced unambiguity".
A note on rhyme pages: The fact that we are using IPA in the page names is itself alone enough of a PITA; the use of various optional diacritics and similar fancy typography would only make it worse. It would be actually cool to use "č" rather than "tʃ", but that is not how the rhyme pages were historically set up. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I am affraid I cannot agree with this for the reasons I stated above: a) it is not good to rely on a symbol that is meant to do something different b) because this symbol is used to show syllable boundaries and because syllable boundaries are usually not shown in IPA pronunciation in en.wikt entries, the readers do not expect them and so the fact that the symbol "." was not used does not have to give them any information. I am afraid that we got to the point when we just repeat our arguments. Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying that the use of "." to indicate the cases of tʃ where it is two syllables is ambigous? Not good or bad, but ambiguous? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
No. I am saying that not using the diacritics above t͡ʃ or under u̯ is ambiguous. Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
That is, are you saying that Šimáčková, Podlipský, Václav, Chládková, Czech spoken in Bohemia and Moravia (2012) chose to use ambiguous markup for "ou"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I do not know the article you are writing about because I do not have the permission to see the articles on that page. Ambiguity or unambiguity depends on many things: context, audience and so on. In the context of en.wiktionary and with as wide and diverse audience as en.wiktionary has, I consider the use of diacritics to be better for the ambiguity reasons. But this is again something that I have already written above, though with different words. Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Can't you access http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/katerina/documents/illustration-of-Czech.pdf? It's linked from W:Help:IPA_for_Czech. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I do apologize: the first page contains the abstract below which there is written: Request Permissions: Click here, and so I thought I need a permission and did not notice that the article is on the following pages. Thank you for bringing my attention to it, it is very useful in more ways than only for the purpose of this discussion!
They use the diacritics in t͡ʃ, d͡ʒ and t͡s, but they do not use it for ou. Having seen this, I have nothing to change in my previous contribution: ambiguity or unambiguity depends on context and audience. They probably did not consider it ambiguous in the context of their article and with the audience they were adressing. They know their readers better. Our audience is very wide, we should strive for unambiguity more. Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

liška podšitáEdit

Hi Jan. Idiom shouldn’t be used as a part of speech. Use the POS of the term based on how it is used in a sentence. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. As for the parts of speech, it is a noun + adjective. I will change it for a phrase. Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
It would be entered as a noun, since we enter noun phrases as nouns. The fact that the adjective is on the 2nd position rather than the 1st one would be some sort of archaism or peculiarity, as in "muchomůrka červená", or it may be a wordplay on the structure of taxonomic names. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Czech noun phrases are not nouns, at least I have never seen anywhere to call them so. Noun phrases can consist of various parts of speech, as in our example where it is a noun and an adjective. See also the definition of a noun, saying that it is a word, not a sequence of words, which is a phrase. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
black hole is entered as a noun. It is the practice of the English Wiktionary. I don't have a link to when this was decided but it has been so since the beginning of 2007 when I started here. It makes sense from the standpoint of part of speech classification: the grammatical role of "černá díra" is the same as the one of "díra", so the English Wiktionary decided not to care about the difference. In the same vein, New York is entered as a proper noun rather than a proper noun phrase. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
One can look at it this way: The reader immediately sees that there is a space between the two words and that the item consists of two words. Telling the reader that this is a sequence of two words by using the word "phrase" only tells the reader what was already blatantly obvious, even to a non-native speaker. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello Mr Kamenicek. Thank you very much for submitting this and My Warmest Congrats on the achievement! (I mean the nomination and selection for FWOTD).--Pyprilescu (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Bot creating Czech verb formsEdit

Hej Jan! How are you? Thanks for working on Czech verbs! Do you think it is a good idea to have a bot that generates all the verb forms automatically to Wiktionary? I did that for some regular -ovat verbs about 10 years ago, and I can do it again. --Gente como tú (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. It is true that -ovat verbs are very regular and so most forms could probably be created by bot, which would be great. The only problems I can see are the future tense and transgressives. Imperfective verbs like sledovat form future tense by combination of být and their infinitive, e. g. budu sledovat and they also have only present transgressives. Perfective verbs like vysledovat express future by their present forms, e. g. vysleduji, and have only past transgressives. There might be some very few exceptions with the transgressives but they would be extremely rare (transgressives are rare generally). The problem with aspect should not be a big problem if the aspect is mentioned in the verb's entry, but I am not sure how to solve it if it is not. Could the bot check e. g. Internetová jazyková příručka to see whether the verb has přechodník přítomný (present transgressive) or přechodník minulý (past transgressive)? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@Gente como tú: Another possibility would be that all the entries which do not indicate the aspect would be conjugated as imperfective (which is most common for the -ovat verbs) and at the same time would be listed in some hidden category to be checked. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested entry.Edit

Hi. Can you make the entry for your own (supposed) surname, Kameníček? Thank you! PseudoSkull (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: Done :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Related termsEdit

Greetings. I wonder whether it is really useful to enter full related terms lists into entries that are derivations. Thus, I wonder whether having full RT in uzenina is really useful; I would expect the reader to click on the etymology term to get to the related terms, ultimately landing at udit, which would have the full list. Otherwise, this leads to considerable duplication of lists. Similarly for uzený, a participial adjective derived from udit. Participial adjectives are one click away from the base verb, via etymology; thus, mražený will be one click away from mrazit, dušený from dusit, etc. (Or they will be once the etymology is there.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I was thinking about it too and both attitudes have their pros and cons. If we put all related words to the udit entry, than the reader would need more than one click to get there from nevyuzený --> vyuzený --> vyudit --> udit and if one piece of the chain is missing, they even won't get there. This can be solved by writing something like "For related terms see udit" into the Related terms section. This would also have the advantage that it is easier to keep one centralized list than to keep multiple independent lists. Some more minor disadvantages are: 1) one click is still more than no click 2) sometimes the base entry has not been founded yet, such as marnivý --> marnit. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
"For related terms see udit" would solve the problem, explicitly guiding the reader to the base entry, even from uzenina and nevyuzený, where multiple clicks would be required otherwise. I am not sure I like it, but it certainly does solve the duplication problem, and ensures the list is one click away.
The missing base entry is only a temporary problem. I now created marnit. I once made a point of creating base verbs from which many other verbs can be derived.
I think that marnivý should still contain marnivost as a derived term, but not promarnit as a related term.
On a minor note, once the text would be in "Related terms" section, the text could be reduced to "* See udit", for maximum brevity. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Derived terms should definitely be mentioned all in the Derived terms section. I'll think about the related terms problem. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Dan Polansky. I work with Russian, where long lists of related terms on every entry are common practice; I find this annoying and distracting.
The "* See ..." pattern seems like a good solution, especially when the derivation chain is rather long. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
It can be less annoying if the template {{rel3}} is used, which has the advantage that you can open the box with the related terms without leaving the entry. For me the only advantage of a central list is the easy maintenance: if I add a related term, I do not have to add it to many other lists in other entries. So it depends, which of the advantages of both attitudes is valued higher. I was also thinking about a central list located e. g. at a subpage of the base entry, which could be transcluded to other entries. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Noun phrasesEdit

That diff is pretty unhelpful. Marking noun phrases as nouns is a widespread en wikt practice. No one is helped by a change in that practice, least of all the reader. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I cannot speak for other languages, but as a Czech language reader I was very confused when I saw a Czech noun phrase consisting of various parts of speech marked as a "noun". Denoting Czech noun phrase as a noun is simply wrong and I cannot see how helpful can writing something wrong be to any reader. If we want to help the readers, we cannot violate standard linguistic practice. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
It is not wrong as a part of speech (slovní druh) classification. A noun phrase is an item that syntactically acts as a noun in a sentence. Now what, shall we use the POS phrase in Czech černá díra and the POS noun in English black hole? M-W[5] ranks blank hole as a noun; AHD[6] has "n.", Collins[7] has "countable noun". IJP Příručka does not seem to have an entry for "černá díra", and thus, "černá díra" does not seem to be in ASCS, nor does it seem to be in PSJC and SSJC. Duden does not seem to have schwarzes Loch but it has das Black Hole[8], where it says Wortart: Substantiv, Neutrum. Now what, shall we wait until the Czech lexicography comes to its senses, here in the English Wiktionary? The thing is, "phrase" is not even a part of speech. We don't have "Verb form" as a part of speech but rather "Verb", for the same reason: "Verb form" is not a part of speech. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree that phrase is not a part of speech, but it is not an argument against denoting noun phrases as noun phrases.
The fact that other dictionaries have less entries does not prove much as they are created by a limited number of people.
I do not think it is a problem when the same meaning is denoted as a different part of speech in different languages, e. g. recently I have added rozkulačený (adjective), which is equivalent to dekulakized (past participle of a verb).
I think you are applying rules of English language linguistics to Czech language. In Czech language linguistics only one word expressions can be denoted as a nouns, multiword expressions with a noun as their head are noun phrases. Sentence Vleklá ekonomická krize v Evropě nemá žádné jednoduché řešení does not consist of noun + verb + noun, but it consists of 1) adj + adj + noun + prep + noun + verb + pronoun + adj + noun, or 2) noun phrase + verb + noun phrase. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The English Wiktionary is not made by Czech linguists. It is documenting Czech language in whatever way it sees fit, reagardless of what Czech linguists see fit. It makes a point of using attestation (WT:ATTEST) and rejecting dictionaries as unoverridable authorities. The English Wiktionary made the decision to place part of speech into the part of speech headword, as documented in WT:EL. WT:EL says: "Some POS headers are explicitly disallowed: [...] Noun phrase, Verb phrase, etc. (with the exception of Prepositional phrase)". "Noun phrase" is not a part of speech and is not mandated by WT:EL. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I am aware that "noun phrase" is not allowed in the header (probably because most users here based their attitude on the knowledge of the linguistics connected with the English language and did not realize that other languages may have different linguistics. So using the term "Phrase" seems a good compromise to me.
I am not sure about your attitude to dictionaries and other linguistic publications: You seem to accept them when they seem to support your opinion (see above your notes on ASCS, SSJC, Duden), and reject them when they do not. However, I have no problem to accept the attestation criteria to Czech nouns, because I am convinced that the term "noun" is primarily used only for single-word Czech expressions not only by linguists, but generally. And if you found some examples that do it the other way (probably not), they would definitely be just a small fraction of how the term is handled and understood generally. I have never met any non-linguist nor linguist who would say that the above mentioned sentence about crisis in Europe constists of noun + verb + noun.
If we do not want to confuse the readers, we must be consistent with what they are used to meet in books on Czech language and how Czech nouns are understood generally. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
One more point: The difference between "černá díra" and "black hole" is not a difference in the grammar of Czech vs. English. Both are noun phrases. I vaguely remember that the heading "Noun phrase" was used early on in the English Wiktionary. There could be a difference in how various groups of linguists treat things, but that's it. The phenomena of language involved are the same; the only difference is in those who describe the phenomena, if at all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, I cannot say much about which English expressions can be considered nouns, although English Wikipedia entry Noun says " In English, nouns are those words which can occur with articles and attributive adjectives and can function as the head of a noun phrase." and later also " In English, some modern authors use the word substantive to refer to a class that includes both nouns (single words) and noun phrases (multiword units, also called noun equivalents).". However, I do not feel competent to solve this and leave it to people who are better educated in English linguistics. I can only say that only one-word Czech expressions can be classified as nouns according to widely accepted criteria. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
You see? Wikipedia distinguishes noun phrases from nouns, but Wiktionary does not, and nor does Merriam-Webster. A description for a dictionary purpose may be different from a description for a general linguistic purpose.
Using "Phrase" is not a good compromise since it loses the actual part of speech (noun), and "phrase" is not intended for černá díra and black hole.
My attitude toward lexicographical sources is a flexible interest or regard: let's look what others do, and let's also look at evidence independently, and use our capacity to stubbornly try to think clearly. Thus, other sources are support of some strength, albeit not infinite strength. Thus, when I do my reasoning, and other sources seem to agree with my reasoning, I feel reinforced in that reasoning.
And again, the Czech vs. English linguistics is a red herring; it is exactly the same phenomenon. Furthermore, I do not have any example of a Czech dictionary that ranks "černá díra" as "noun phrase" or "phrase", so I do not even know what a Czech dictionary would do for such an item. And again, what general linguistics as opposed to lexicography does does not matter all that much, as per WP vs. Wiktionary for English noun phrases vs. nouns. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure what I am supposed to see. What I see is a statement that "modern" linguistics on English language differentiates the terms and used it just as a small comment to your arguments concerning lingustics on English language. But that cannot apply for Czech words anyway. Czech word "Krize" is a noun but "vleklá krize v Evropě" is not considered to be a noun by anybody.
If you feel strengthened when some sources support your opinion, you should also feel extremely weakened when practically all (or all?) sources contradict it. Either the sources have their value or they do not. But it is not only linguistic sources who understand it that way, it is a general understanding of all laypeople as well as linguists. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I created a discussion at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/March#Czech noun phrases. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

ApologiesEdit

I am sorry. In the above thread, I used a needlessly confrontational tone, I feel. I lost sight of what is important. Most readers could not care less about whether they have lošák zprohýbaný marked as Phrase or Noun.

What readers certainly do appreciate is your work on Czech conjugation templates, the subsequent volume work on conjugations in Czech entries, new rhyme pages and expanded rhyme pages, finetuned {{cs-IPA}}, new entries for borderline attested idioms (borderline => more valuable), and so on.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: Hi. I did not feel there was anything wrong with your tone and your tone is definitely not the reason of my pause. However, it is true that I have a big problem with the final decision on the "noun x noun phrase" case. Generally, I can accept when the community decides that something has to be done in one of possible ways although it is the way which I do not like. In fact the list of things on en.wiktionary which I do not like and which I accepted would be quite long. But I am really reluctant to accept things which are simply wrong and which nobody (experts and lay people) does. If I continued editting I would probably need to found a Czech noun-phrase entry from time to time and I really would not be able to label it as a "noun" as it contradicts the way I understand my language too strongly.
Despite that, the above described problem is not the main reason why I stopped editting here, although it was one of the drops. The main reasons are my off-wiki activities and also some of my other wiki-activities (such as participating at a WikiExpedition in South Bohemia, my previously founded Wikiproject Litovel, which needs more attention of mine, and others). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Hello! Sorry for writing in English. 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 (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia surveyEdit

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 26% of Wikimramedia contributors who Wikimedia programs like the Education program, editathons, or image contests. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you are not fluent in English, I apologize again for posting in English. If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. 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.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. Thank you! —WMF Surveys (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Wikimedia survey (corrected link)Edit

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 26% of Wikimramedia contributors who Wikimedia programs like the Education program, editathons, or image contests. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed.Take the survey now.

If you are not fluent in English, I apologize for posting in English. If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. 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. 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 (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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 are not a native speaker of English, I apologize for writing in English. 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. Thank you!! --WMF Surveys (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Jan.Kamenicek".