User talk:Lingo Bingo Dingo/2020

superioriteitscomplex

The usage example at superioriteitscomplex needed a Dutch translation. --Apisite (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Apisite Okay, I have readded it with some modifications ("one or some" as a subject doesn't really translate that well, and seems quirky English to me as well). I don't think that having translated usage examples without the original language is very desirable to leave in an entry, so if you have any other examples in need of translation to Dutch please let me know. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Potential Dutch entries

Someone is uploading Dutch audios that appear to be mostly missing pages here at en.wikt. I thought you might be interested in creating some pages with audio files. Ultimateria (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ultimateria Sorry for the late reply. I'm familiar with the user, who is the main contributor of Dutch audio files. Unfortunately, a lot of those files are for nonlemma forms that seem not very common to me. I likely will not prioritise adding those pages for now. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Your helpful comments

Hello Lingo Bingo Dingo, many thanks for your helpful comments and sorry for getting back to you only now.

With regards to barki:

• I'm not sure whether grasbarki ís derived from Etymology 1 or 2. Is there any way to indicate this?
• Etymology "bankie" seems a bit strenuous to me in view of more obvious derivatives like "banku" and "bangi". It would involve an n-r shift of which I know no other examples just off the top of my head. Would there be any way to indicate this?

With regards to cell:

• It's certainly a possibility it's a straightforward borrowing from American English, although I cannot prove it one way or the other. Could we add it with "or"?

Thanks for your assessment. --Appolodorus1 (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Appolodorus1 No worries, there isn't a deadline on replies here. As for your questions:

• You could add "either from etymology 1 or 2" to the etymology as long as it is clear that refers to barki.
• I think it is okay to just add that consideration to etymology 3, though maybe it should be discussed with Mnemosientje, who added the etymology. I agree the shift is strange for these languages, though there also doesn't seem to be a convincing link with etymologies 1 and 2.
• Sure! It's in fact better if etymologies indicate uncertainty when appropriate.

←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Templates

Hey, I know that when I combine both templates, the name of the language itself becomes italicised instead of the word from which the Polish term is borrowed, but I still prefer to do so, because I like everything to be neat and aesthetic, so if it's possible to cram everything into a single template, I would like to keep doing so. Besides, it is almost always used only for adjectives and verbs, since they are the ones to which inflectional affixes are added. I could accept the template you used for the word racjonalny, but I've undone your last edit on realny, because this second template deprives the entry from the "borrowed from" category, and that's the main point of combining the two templates, at least in my case. Shumkichi (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Shumkichi Well, suit yourself, but I think the users who frequently edit templates don't really like that kind of nesting.

By the way, could you check the quotation at siłownia? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with LBD, please do not nest templates like that. PUC – 14:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@PUC Why? I will keep doing so, no matter if you like it or not; it doesn't really change anything, so I don't see why anyone would have any problem with that. Shumkichi (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I apologise if you feel like I'm meddling, but you're being needlessly confrontational.

I have a problem with it because template nesting is avoided as much as possible around here (that's an ugly markup, and if you find it "neat and aesthetic", we evidently disagree about that), and because it yields an incorrect output (which should be your main concern anyway, especially if you're concerned about aesthetics). PUC – 15:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry

Please don't block me for my last edit. It was an accident and I can't revert it! Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

BTW, not seeing much offensive shit on this page... Darren X. Thorsson (talk)

@Darren X. Thorsson I'm not an admin, so I would not be meting out bans anyway. But accidental blanking is not really the kind of thing people get banned for, certainly not when you have good-faith edits under your belt. The content template is just my lousy sense of humour. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

ORLY Not an admin? I'll nominate someone to nominate you for adminship. Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Darren X. Thorsson Just now looking at your user contributions, I have to say that was a pretty convincing act, WF. Did fool me. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Fooling LBD isn't my prerogative, but thanks... Darren X. Thorsson (talk)

Anyway, become an admin soon Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Either way, the fooling worked wonderfoolly. I'll consider the admin nomination. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

zekeren

Hey. Last night I made zekeren, but I was a bit drunk at the time. Can you check it? Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Darren X. Thorsson  Done It looked good, there wasn't anything that shouldn't be there. {{nl-verb}} is preferred over {{head|nl|verb}} by the way; it doesn't have any required variables. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Re. "dress" (adjective) RFD

"Delete, plus lifetime bans for people who can't tell an adjective from compounds or attributive use." ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed I suggest a lifetime ban for jabberwockiers who can't tell a linguistic compound (a word that consists of more than one radical element) from a typology (a field of linguistics that studies and classifies languages according to their structural and functional features). LMAO. --Kent Dominic (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

An FYI: English is rife with typological anomalies. For example, most dictionaries (Wiktionary being an exception) don't include "nice" as a noun despite how it's entailed in the make nice verb phrase. Moreover, no dictionary anywhere includes "sure" as a noun despite its entailment in the make sure verb phrase. Personally, I prefer verb phrase instead of verb as the typology for such expressions. I detest idiom (see, e.g. "make sure" at Merriam-Webster.com). I'm not on a crusade to change Wiktionary's typology; I'm merely pointing out, for anyone interested in the minutiae of lexicology, that there's no one-stop typology for parsing the vagaries inherent in English phrases. --Kent Dominic (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure "nice" in "make nice" would not be analysed as a noun. Equinox ◑ 07:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Equinox:Would you analyze granted as a noun in take for granted?

• Yes; it complements a preposition.
• No; it's obviously a past participle.
• Who cares?

In my book, it functions as a noun in this limited prepositional phrase. (See nominalization.)

English - the language whose syntax ESL students can't fully figure out and native speakers hardly ever need to explain. So, should granted be included as a noun in dictionaries? Well... --Kent Dominic (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kent Dominic The reply was indefensibly harsh, so I apologise for that. There is an equivocation fallacy in your statement about "attributive use" though (attributive use is a typology, but not a field of linguistics), somewhat weakening the LMAO I guess. Pragmatically speaking, people do often call the modifier in a compound attributive. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo:No need to apologize for the trash talk. I intuited the humor and was just giving as good as I got (and then some).

About my supposed equivocation regarding attributive use: it was you who used the term; I hadn't done so. On the other hand, the definition I gave for typology comes from Wikipedia, not from me. According to that definition, I can't agree that "attributive use is a typology" but I'd agree that attributive use is typological. However, if you invoke the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "typology" (i.e. "A classification according to general type, especially in archaeology, psychology, or the social sciences"), then I'd agree with you. Picky, picky me. While it seems you and I both prefer Oxford's general definition to the academic one at Wikipedia, neither definition gets to the point of whether dress shoe entails an adjective or an attributive noun. As I've said all along, in my book, it's more precisely an attributive noun yet my own preference doesn't dissuade me from including it as an adjective here since so many reputable dictionaries classify it that way.

NOTE: I only go so far on this topic. E.g., Merriam-Webster classifies "swimming" as an adjective a la swimming pool, which, for me, is laughable from a typological POV re. syntax but wholly defensible from a semantic perspective. For me, the former consideration outweighs the latter. (In my book, "swimming pool" entails an adjectival continuative participle as I shun the traditional term, present participle, which I deem a terminological relic that has outlived its linguistic fidelity. I'd be okay with calling it an adjectival passive participle, but its functionality can be further parsed depending on the relevant ongoing/completed aspect that's involved.) Then we get the spout-offs (like one with a name that rhymes with "Geek-uinox") who seem to see these issues in black-and-white: "It's OBVIOUSLY this or that. Poll the WT:TR and you will find out you are wrong, and I am right, as always!" Whatever, Miss Geek-uinox.

A trivial FYI: The folks at Merriam-Webster refer to their definitional stuff, in descending order, as an entry word (or "entry" for short, regardless of whether it's a word or phrase), a main heading (e.g. "verb"), a type (e.g. "transitive verb"), and a sense (e.g. definition 1). They don't distinguish between canonical nouns and attributive nouns. If you you'd ask a random lexicographer there to explain their reasoning behind the adjective typology for "dress," he or she would probably ask you to wait for them to look up what "typology" means. They couldn't give you an answer vis-à-vis Wikipedia's entry for typology, but they could answer based on Oxford's or their own. Afterwards, they'd explain that they've classified dress an adjective simply because they don't have software that enables a global search & replace function to reclassify an adjectival type to an attributive type' in the *regedit* default directory for their big data. Then they'd ask why you didn't use "classification" instead of "typology" in the first place. --Kent Dominic (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Sysop...

...hood is (possibly) awaiting you at Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2020-12/User:Lingo Bingo Dingo for admin. Sadly, I couldn't convince anyone else to start the vote, got uncharacteristically impatient, so started it myself. Returning2stadia (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not going to accept right now. I meant to discuss it first with a few users, but other stuff happened and I forgot about it. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Dutch door

Hey LBD. Can you have a look at the Dutch quote at door - I'm trying to date it, but haven't got the language skills. I think it's the only undated Dutch quote. La más guay (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@La más guay Sure, I probably added it with incomplete data in the first place. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Definition of "zatch"

Hi, you said to leave a message here if the rollback was in error. "Zatch" (in "from guggle to zatch" or "from your guggle to your zatch") comes from the book "The 13 Clocks" and is actually defined there. Many will initially assume "from guggle to zatch" means something like "from top to bottom" or "from head to tail", but the whole book is a sort of language game, in a way. It means "throat", with "guggle" meaning "stomach". This line confirms:

• "Even if you were the mighty Zorn of Zorna," said the man, "you could not escape the fury of the Duke. He'll slit you from your guggle to your zatch, from here to here." He touched the minstrel's stomach and his throat.

For further support that it doesn't mean "anus" see this:

• The Duke took his sword out of his sword-cane and stared at it. He limped across and faced his captive, and touched his guggle softly with the point, and touched his zatch, and sighed and frowned, and put the sword away.

This is a fantasy tale suitable for children published in 1950. Moonithil (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This is something you can better discuss with the entry creator, @Kiwima, but although the cites are vague, your point about this meaning being unlikely for a children's story is a strong one. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

energieslurper

Hi Lingo Bingo Dingo - hope you are doing well! In Belgium, we would normally use the word "energievreter" for both meanings. For motorized transport using a type of gasoline (cars, planes, etc.) energieslurper would nevertheless make perfect sense for me and would not feel like a "Dutch-Dutch word". Using "energieslurpen" for electricity consumption (or a draining person) however would sound a bit odd in Belgium (admittedly not very logical as we do talk about current (stroom)). Morgengave (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Morgengave, thanks for your reply. I hope you are also doing well. It seems that energievreter is the more international word then, we also use it in the Netherlands (and apparently NL pop psychos also use it for "draining person"...). I'll put a NL-specific label on energieslurper. Curiously I cannot attest energieslurper for cars, but we do say benzineslurper and less commonly brandstofslurper in this meaning. Your point about the "current/stream" metaphor being limited in its use is very interesting, in the Netherlands there are also arbitrary limits on this imagery; for example, you can use lopen and lekken for electrical currents, but you can't use stromen or vloeien. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

ph vs. f in Dutch

When I added teleophobie I noticed the spelling with ph was atypical, but I was reassured by the presence of other Dutch words with ph. When was ph deprecated? The change is not mentioned in the Wikipedia articles about Dutch spelling I checked. Is it found in loanwords but not native words? I found one citable use as teleofobie[1] from 1903 among many non-durable lists of dubious phobias. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vox Sciurorum I'm not really sure because it happened well before I was born. All I know is that it quite commonly found up to and including the 1950s, but that its use decreased rapidly after that and that it is hardly ever found in nativised words after 1980. Now it is only used in a few very restricted cases (loanwords and names), mostly deriving from Greek, but also from English and a few other language. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Cafeïne, coffeïne - pronunciation

Hi Lingo Bingo Dingo,

Regarding the pronunciation of ”cafeïne” and ”coffeïne”: the /j/ in the middle (as in the pronunciations /kɑ.feːˈji.nə/ and /ˌkɔ.feːˈji.nə/) is a hiatus-filling glide, which is very commonly heard, especially in parts of the Netherlands where the /eː/ is pronounced as the diphthong [eɪ]. The same happens in ”theater” /teːˈjaː.tər/, for instance, the pronuncation of which is given in the Dutch Wiktionary as /teːˈ(j)aːtər/ (and the recorded pronunciation also has the [j]).

Similarly, after the diphthong [ɔʊ], the glide /w/ is inserted as in ”zoölogie” /ˌzoː.woː.loːˈɣi/ or ”shampooen” /ˈʃɑm.poː.wə(n)/. You can find the pronunciations /kɑfe(j)ˈinə/, /kɔfe(j)ˈinə/, /tejˈatər/ and /zowoloɣˈi/ in Heemskerk and Zonneveld: Uitspraakwoordenboek, Het Spectrum, Utrecht, 2000; and you can find [kafejinə] and [tejatər] on https://de.pons.com (Dutch-German online dictionary). (Note that these dictionaries don't use the colon (ː) for tense/long vowels since a different symbol is used for tense/long and lax/short vowels anyway.)

Regarding the phonological analysis of the pronunciations with [j] and [w], we have good reason to posit that /j/ and /w/ are not only context-dependent surface realisations but are also part of the phonological make-up of these words, since /j/ and /w/ are phonemes in their own right. Therefore, it makes sense to include them in the phonological transcriptions in brackets as possible varieties.

Another possible solution to fill the hiatus is to insert a glottal stop instead: this is what is heard in the recorded pronunciations in the Wiktionary entries for ”cafeïne”, ”coffeïne” and ”zoölogie” - as I can hear it is the same speaker, and he does not diphthongize /eː/ and /oː/, that's why he fills the hiatuses with a glottal stop instead of a glide. (As opposed to the glides /j/ and /w/, the glottal stop [ʔ] does not need to be indicated in the phonological transcription, since it is just a context-dependent surface phenomenon in Dutch (therefore it is predictable), thus, it is not a phoneme in its own right.)

Regarding the first vowel of ”cafeïne”: Wiktionary only mentioned /kaː.feːˈi.nə/, with a tense/long /aː/, however, the pronunciation with a lax/short /ɑ/ is also common, that's why I added the pronunciation /kɑ.feːˈ(j)i.nə/ as well. Heemskerk and Zonneveld have it with /ɑ/ - /kɑfe(j)ˈinə/ and Pons has it with [a] - [kafejinə]. (Note: it is very common to reduce unstressed /aː/ in open syllables to /ɑ/ in general, see for example the first vowel of “banaan” or ”apotheek”.)

In sum, I believe it makes sense to include the glide /j/ in brackets in /kaː.feːˈ(j)i.nə/ and /ˌkɔ.feːˈ(j)i.nə/ and to add the pronunciation /kɑ.feːˈ(j)i.nə/ with a lax/short /ɑ/ as well.

Please let me know your thoughts/comments or questions if you have any.

Thank you,

Leandro81 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The thing is that we usually don't include hiatus-filling glides. However, because you have a source for your edits with the glides I won't revert it again. What puzzles me though (and the reason I reverted you in the first place) is that I am from a region where hiatus-filling glides, especially j-glides, are very common and I regularly use those in speech, but I have never ever heard [j] in those words. That said, I recommend against reinstating the phonemic transcription with /ɑ/; use of [ɑ] can be interpreted as a realisation of /aː/. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Gotta say I never heard this with the glide. Randstad fwiw. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 20:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Douanier

Hi Lingo Bingo Dingo, yes, this is pronounced according to its spelling in Belgium (rather than to the original French pronunciation). Morgengave (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I will add it right away. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)