User talk:Metaknowledge

  1. 2012
  2. 2013
  3. 2014
  4. 2015
  5. 2016


Hello I am a new Wikipedia editor Wiktionary I am using voice recognition so I apologize for any grammatical or syntax errors in advance a different editor told me that smoke plus fog equals Smog and that is a portmanteau how do I write about a portmanteau that I invented branding + friending equals brending? Any assistance that you can give me would be helpful thank you COACH ZARLINO (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)- | 🇺🇸

I moved your post to the correct place at the bottom of the page. As for your question: we're a descriptive dictionary, so we only include terms that are actually in use (and not just by you and a friend or two). Please read our Criteria for inclusion before you spend any more time on this. Also, Wiktionary has very strict rules on formatting of our entries, so I'd like to ask you not to edit the entries themselves if you don't have precise enough control of your text. Feel free to leave requests at Wiktionary:Requested entries if you have ideas for entries that meet the requirements of our CFI, and you can suggest edits on the talk pages of the entries or at the Tea room. If you have questions, you can ask them at the Information desk. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Rollback of Takelma definition of word LawayaEdit

Hello, Metaknowledge I don't understand why you removed the addition I made to the word Lawaya. It is listed as a Zulu word but is also the Takelma (American Indian) word for Bear Creek an important Rogue River tributary which flows through the extinct village by the same name and is loosely translated as "knife in belly." Having accidentally discovered the Zulu definition I felt it important to ensure that the Takelma use was preserved as well. I first heard the word used while speaking with Agnes Baker Pilgram (Takelma elder) back in 1995. Anyway here are a couple local articles confirming the above use. Grandma Aggie can easily be googled. I respectively hope that you put the information back up and give the Takelma language credit for their use of the word which differs greatly from Zulu.

Bertolero (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)bertolero

Metaknowledge is on vacation, so I'll try to answer for him. It's not the validity of the word, per se, but your definition- it could easily be mistaken for gibberish, and is certainly not very clear: "knife in belly" probably belongs in the etymology. There's also required formatting missing. I left our standard welcome template at your talk page, so you can learn our standards and make edits that won't be deleted. By the way, see Category:Takelma language for what little we have in the language. Without having read the articles you linked to, I'll say that they could meet the requirements of our Criteria for inclusion if they've appeared in print (not just on a web page) and are a valid resource on the language. Both Metaknowledge and I are very interested in documenting little-known languages, but we have to maintain our standards, too. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

rock recordEdit

Hi Metaknowledge!

I included rock record in Category:en:Rocks because the rock layers and their juxtaposition are about rocks! Geochronology uses stratigraphy of rocks coupled with dating techniques to determine if juxtaposed rocks are chronologically sequenced or not. Geology is much more than rocks or their apparent record. --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The category is just for rocks. The rock record is not a rock, but instead an analytical way to group information about earth history composed by rocks into a single cognitive category. That's why gneiss belongs in Category:en:Rocks, but a word like this that relates to rocks belongs in Category:en:Geology. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and @Marshallsumter, I do appreciate your interest, as I have a fair amount of geological training myself, and I know that Wiktionary is still lacking in that field. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

rollback of interwiki link on faire fiEdit

I believe this rollback was a mistake and have reverted it. The other option is to change the page on the English Wiktionary to be faire fi de rather than simply faire fi, but regardless, as noted in my edit summary, the French entry m:wikt:fr:faire fi de corresponds precisely to the English entry faire fi, having merely included the de in the page title whereas the English page puts the de inline as a usage note.

Timmy Tofu (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Interwikis must link to the same exact pagetitle, regardless of content. Your edit would just get undone by a bot eventually regardless. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


@Metaknowledge The etymology was misleading previously and I do not believe that any Cornish analogy is applicable, hence that section should be deleted! I just corrected it according to its source. Andrew H. Gray 19:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)Andrew talk

You are in errorEdit

Listen "amiko" if you think my given etymology of krokodili is without merit, than by every comparable measure is the one about "crocodile tears" completely unvalidated as well. Can you, or anyone for that matter, cite a single source for that? At least there is some measure of consistency in a physical comparison, while any invented explanation about "bemoaning the fate" is closer to ideological speculation than anything resembling a logical reason.

If my etymology is going to be deleted, it should only follow that the "crocodile tears" nonsense should go as well and keep only the "latter two", which given that they are merely allusions, should not a more all-encompassing perspective be necessary to frame it in any sort of context?

Your arrogance appalls me. Vi devus hontiĝi.


Hello Why did you revert my edits? Greetings Rasmusklump (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC) I just am adding the colours of and a Youtube Video by Coolmansam.

You need to learn how Swahili works before making edits like these, and you can't rely on Quizlet and YouTube. I just haven't had the time to fix all your edits sufficiently. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
3 independent entries in 3 different sources? Ok, looking curious forfard to your changes. Thanks :)


Is the Yiddish word קאַווע masculine or feminine? It seems feminine. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 09:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It is, thanks. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


There are new citations after last rfv (including a printed journal which has an ISSN), you could put it into rfv page instead of fast deleting. -- 08:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

References don't count toward the three citations needed. If you were aware of the RFV that happened, then you should have known that your recreation of the page was against the rules and going to be deleted. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Question over the entry Agėjo knygaEdit

Metaknowledge, why do you deleted the page Agėjo knyga? If you don't know, the books of the Bible in Lithuanian should be written with complete name, exactly as is in the Wiktionaries in Lithuanian and Portuguese. Please, don't delete the books of the New Testament in Lithuanian that I am creating.

Leonard Joseph Raymond (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

If you are sure (do you actually speak Lithuanian at all?). In any case, the definition should then be improved to say "Book of Haggai", so it's clear it's not the character. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I am actually learning Lithuanian to create entries with books of the Bible in this language in the Wiktionaries.

Leonard Joseph Raymond (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


Stop trolling wiktionary or I will have you banned. This is you ONLY warning! 2601:806:4301:C100:9D2B:A6B:8245:6EA 20:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I totally forgot that the Wolfgang anon and the threat anon were the same person. I feel like Chuck had a funny response to you last time, but I honestly can't remember whose talk-page that was on. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

peiger, peigerenEdit

peiger looks like a regular borrowing from Yiddish, but is it attested in Yiddish? Also, would you know if there is a verb derived from peyger in Yiddish? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that the Dutch adjective is derived from the verb. I knew פּגרן (peygern), but apparently פּגר (peyger) refers to the corpse itself. It's pretty slangy in Yiddish too; Raphael marks it as only being for animals, which seems to be its literary use. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, it's been added as deriving from the verb. Ironically, in Biblical Hebrew the word פּגר is mostly used for humans. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


Looking forward to the entry for asowere, MK...--Quadcont (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Happy to help! This has actually inspired me to work on Mwani around here. We didn't have any entries at all, and now have over a hundred. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


You mentioned ideophones a while ago and I've been seeing them a lot in Doke's dictionary. But I don't really know what they are and how they are used. Are they verbs? Adjectives? Do they inflect? —CodeCat 19:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

They're a separate part of speech. Refer to Ideophone and the conversation I started in the BP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Attachiamenta bonorumEdit

Hey, is Attachiamenta bonorum a candidate for inclusion over here? Premeditated Chaos (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Doubtful, but maybe. Here's an easy way to check: go to google books:"attachiamenta bonorum" and see if you can find three independent uses, rather than mentions. It doesn't look promising. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Premeditated Chaos (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Handling copulatives in ZuluEdit

In Zulu, relatives take a subject concord to express being something (-bomvu (red)babomvu (they are red)) and add a modifier particle to that to create a word that can modify a noun (ababomvu ((who are) red)). Copulatives, formed from nouns with various prefixes, behave essentially identical to this (umuntu (person)ngumuntu (copulative)bangumuntu (they are a person), abangumuntu (who are a person)). The essential difference is that copulatives can be used on their own (ngumuntu (it is a person)) while relatives can only be used with a prefix.

My question is how this should be handled with respect to inflection tables and lemmas. The current Zulu noun tables don't show the various inflections of copulatives, with the idea that they'd receive their own sublemma entry which lists them. So ngumuntu would receive a definition saying it's the copulative form of umuntu while it also has a relative inflection table. Do you think this is a good idea? Or should those forms also be listed on the inflection table of the main noun lemma?

The Zulu words for 6 to 10 are nouns, e.g. isithupha and ishumi. To actually quantify a noun with any of these, you use the copulative of the numeral in the modifier form, thus you get constructions meaning "who are six", "who are ten" and the like (e.g. abantu abayishumi (ten people)). The treats these copulatives as lemmas of their own, however, and considers them relatives. Given the almost identical behaviour of relatives and copulatives, this is not surprising. But what should Wiktionary do? What should appear in the translation table of the numeral six, the noun or the copulative/relative? Should we give the quantifier definition on isithupha or yisithupha? —CodeCat 23:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a hard matter. Treating copulatives as sublemmata is somewhat inherently silly, because they're inflected forms. Many Bantu languages have very limited copulatives (like Chichewa, where it can only be done with pronouns), so I haven't thought as hard about what to do for Nguni languages. Essentially, we run into the same problem that always occurs with Bantu, which is that an enormous number of regular, easily predictable inflected forms can be created (and may not be attested!), and listing them all is an awkward thing to do. If you do think that copulative inflected forms should be given, I think that the lemma entries for the nouns and pronouns is the only good place to put them. However, I lean toward simply not including them at all, but making sure a relevant grammatical appendix is linked to. Any copulatives that are created, like ngumuntu, should have a special-use template like {{zu-copulative of}} that links to that appendix as well. As for the numerals, they are basic and sufficiently non-intuitive for English speakers that I would advise you write a short explanation to put in the usage notes of each entry (or write it in an appendix and have the usage notes of each entry link to it). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
If we're going to include forms of copulatives in the main entry, we run into the question of what to do with the locative. Adverbs inflect like relatives too, and the locative is an adverb. It can take subject concords and this can then be turned into a modifier: kumuntu (at the person)bakumuntu (they are at the person)abakumuntu (who are at the person). If we're going to include all of these forms in noun lemmas, it gets quite large. This is why I thought of offloading it to sublemmas: since the locative is an adverb, it can be given its own adverb inflection table (once it is created), and the copulative gets the same treatment. I would have liked to do the same with the possessives too, but they have no common base form that inflections can be placed on; the lemma itself is that form, so that's the only place to put them. —CodeCat 17:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and just to make it all more fun: all of the forms potentially have negative forms too... —CodeCat 17:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, as I said, you can't solve this by offloading. I think that as I said above, the best solution is not to include them. To give a much simpler example, Swahili regularly forms locatives with -ni and no further inflection occurs, but this is still not a form given in the lemma entries, because it's predictable through the grammar. We can't replicate a grammar textbook for every lemma, and we shouldn't — we have appendices for that kind of thing, and the lemma entries discuss phenomena particular to that specific lemma. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The locative is not fully predictable for Zulu though. Occasionally the -ni is dropped, or palatalisation fails to occur, or both palatalised and nonpalatalised forms exist. So this is information that should be listed in the inflection table, it can't be garnered any other way. For the copulative, there's three different prefixes and which one you use depends on word class (noun vs pronoun) and also on noun class, and I believe that for some pronouns it may in fact be unpredictable. Compare ngumuntu (it's a person), yinja (it's a dog), wudonga (it's a wall), yimi (it's me), nguwe (it's you). In any case, if we have inflection tables for Esperanto, which does have completely predictable forms, we can have them for Zulu too.
As for another reason to have sublemmas for locatives and copulatives... essentially these belong to a larger class of words that you might call "verb-like". This class includes relatives, adverbs, and nouns prefixed with a preposition as well. What these words have in common is that they can take a subject concord, and a modifier/relativiser can be prefixed to that. This is the same as the present tense of a verb: a-ba-kumuntu ((they) who are at the person) is grammatically not very different from a-ba-bona ((they) who see). Both can modify class 2 nouns, as can a-ba-bomvu, which is a relative. For this reason it makes sense to me to treat them inflectionally the same, and give them inflection tables. Verbs, of course, have different tense/mood stems and some of those take quite different prefixes, and they also have object prefixes which these "verb-likes" don't. But these verblikes can be combined with the copula ba to express these nuances as well, although I'm not sure on the exact details. —CodeCat 17:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Esperanto has conjugation tables because it's a European language with a small, finite number of inflected forms, and our treatment of it imitates other European languages. We can't try to handle this like a European language. I'm not clear on to what degree it's unpredictable, considering I can't actually speak any Zulu myself, but a handful of irregularities and widespread unpredictability are very different, and you would be best off doing more research to find out exactly what the nature of it is. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
A better example is Volapük (an arbitrary specimen: getön). The template's color scheme makes it easy to imagine a derivation from Latin volo + English puke =8ǁ
This reminds me of an word from a phonology class at UCLA (all consonants, no vowels): it was Bella Coola and translated as "I saw those two women coming this way out of the water". There are so many languages where inflection does what we use words and sentence structure for in English, to the point where inflection tables start to look like phrase books, and the number of permutations approaches infinity. Where do you stop when there's no inherent limit? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
This seems more germane to my current discussion with JohnC5, but yes, that Volapük table is an ungodly sight, and desperately needs subtables. We need to choose limits, arbitrarily if need be, and simply seek to tell when we can't show. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh goodness, that is the ugliest table I've ever seen. We're discussing have collapsed subtables for such things. —JohnC5 05:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


Why do users keep ruining these pages? Do they think that these are just pish posh, making them okay to wreck? — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 06:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Metaknowledge/Types of vandal. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I've played three of your four parts, MK. Not yet got into the world of spamming, though. I'll look into it. --Quadcont (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Not mine, Equinox's! Gotta give credit where it's due. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
There's an abuse filter that catches a lot of those- you're only seeing the tip of the iceberg. I've noticed some definite patterns in the distribution of the IPs, so there may be some kind of user-interface or cultural factor at work. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Someone (possibly you, Chuck) recently pointed out the "XXX means porn" thing. I wonder if there are some really confused people in some country somewhere thinking that typing XXX into these pages (which is usually all they add) is the way to search for pornography. Equinox 19:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I reckon that's a testable hypothesis. You could see if the XXX vandals are significantly more likely to geolocate to certain countries rather than others relative to IP vandals in general, which would be compelling evidence for a cultural factor at play. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Not wanting to take credit here, but I believe it was I who provided the porn hypothesis ;-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
If you look at the hits for Abuse Filter 54, there are IPs from Pakistan and Arab countries, but also India, Myanmar, Vietnam, Thailand, as well as Turkey and the Dominican Republic. I'm leaning toward some kind of misplaced mobile-device navigation commands, but the evidence is far from conclusive. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


Greetings can you tell me why you change my correction in Gãrtsia page ?Elladha is called Greece by Aromanian Greeks(like my self) and not Gãrtsia cause it comes from the Greek Elládha :p —This unsigned comment was added by Kp4816 (talkcontribs) at 19:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC).

I moved this to the bottom of the page where new posts go. Your edit changed the link to an Aromanian term into a link to Greek term that displayed as if it were still the Aromanian term. We don't allow terms in another language to be listed as synonyms, and it would have been very confusing, as well. I added our welcome template to your talk page so you can learn Wiktionary's formatting rules and practices. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

w:Augment (Bantu languages)Edit

I just created it, based on one of the sources you gave me. Can you have a look at it and improve if necessary? —CodeCat 20:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a good start. The only big thing that's lacking is to talk about where the augment came from; I believe Meussen 1967 covers this, but if you can't find it, tell me. Also, when citing TBL, you should ideally give the name of the author of the specific section you're citing and the section's name. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Pkbwcgw + aWa =?Edit

Any time I see an inexperienced user handling tasks like archiving, it makes me nervous. I'm not well-versed in all the intricacies, but this diff looks wrong (archiving without closing). Do me a favor and check into this. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That one's fine, it was deleted out of process (hopefully correctly), and archived properly. Thanks for looking over the archiving, though, because I meant to do that as well and forgot — I'm not particularly comfortable with noobs doing that kind of thing either. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Quotations from election programmesEdit

I just saw that an old problem user (read: troll) has added some very opinionated text from election programmes for a very easily attestable word. Is there any policy on using election programmes for citations? Most post-war election programmes in the Netherlands have been durably archived by the way. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not appropriate. Any kind of text that uses the word can be put on the Citations page and nobody can really complain, but I assume you're referring to the body of the entry. I would recommend you just replace them with neutral, simple quotations, and if the user objects, inform them that they can add theirs back on the Citations page. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


Why would you revert my edit? It was going to get categorised! (It has now been restored to my edit) — AWESOME meeos * ([nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 08:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

That would only work if you were talking about a little Apfelmann. This is a compound of Apfel and Männchen. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. In my opinion, the three components are combined simultaneously. It is neither Apfel + Männchen, nor Apfelmann + -chen, but rather simultaneously Apfel + Mann + -chen. --WikiTiki89 15:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Totally agree on you, Wikitiki! — AWESOME meeos * ([nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 19:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Chuck's logic was why I reverted, and Wikitiki's logic (which I came to after looking into it) is why I did not revert again. Awesomemeeos, you should be more careful with etymologies, though — you may think you're merely categorising or templatising, but in cases like these it has a bearing on the linguistic analysis of the word. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Augment in Proto-BantuEdit

While the augment is not found in all Bantu languages, I'm not aware of it having a particular distribution, it's found all over the family. This suggests to me that the augment existed at least in some form already in Proto-Bantu, whatever its original function might have been. Do you think we should have Proto-Bantu entries for the augmented noun prefixes? It would make it a bit easier to sort the descendants, as well as make it immediately obvious which languages have the augment and which don't. —CodeCat 15:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It is probably very old, but not necessarily as old as PB. Refer to Maho — you can't use that kind of logic like you might in other language families. Just because it doesn't have a restricted distribution doesn't mean that it didn't spread across various branches post-PB. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


I noticed you created this last year, but didn't include the class 1a prefix u- that's used with names. Do you think it should be moved? —CodeCat 21:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, it should be moved, and it can be converted to an English entry if appropriate. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
So Jabulani is English, and uJabulani is Zulu? I have no idea if it's attested in English, so I'd rather leave that decision to someone else. —CodeCat 21:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks like it is, and yes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I've moved the entry. —CodeCat 21:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Edit was absolutely 100% reverted in error. The word "cum" is considered by everyone to be slang, so that edit should not have been reverted.Captain Cornwall (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Please explain reversions unless it's outright vandalism. Equinox 22:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thought you could figure it out — we usually don't give etymologies on alt forms unless it's substantially different from the lemma's ety. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm undecided on the matter, but technically, alternative forms exist by the grace of having different etymologies. If two terms have the exact same history, then they'd be the exact same term, after all. I understand, however, that it's not necessary to explain little trivialities like grey vs gray in every word derived from them. —CodeCat 17:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

for no relation between deus and θεόςEdit

If you are not going to take part in consensus building, and outright ignore good faith arguments, I will assume you have no further interest in the topic, especially as your comment didn't address the core of the issue, the source.

I'll admit that I have difficulties expressing myself to maintain proper conduct, thus opening conflict and inviting offensiveness. However, half of that is in response to inappropriate allegations like yours. I expect you to be civil about this in the future. Your inflammatory comment certainly was not in good faith or neutral language, so I have to ask you to stop it. Will you stop it? 13:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You didn't even format your comment properly. That is disrupting the thread, so please remove the comment. 13:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Stop heckling me. My comment was expressly not directed at you, but instead at everyone else, to encourage them to recognise you as a troll. By the way, I'm done with this whole business, so please do not leave any further comments here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Swahili mali, Zulu imaliEdit

Unrelated? The Swahili says it comes from Arabic while the English entry on mali says the Zulu comes from English. DTLHS (talk) 05:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The Swahili comes from the Arabic; on this there is no question. Now, the Zulu is much more confusing; the sound-change is odd, and probably went through a non-Bantu language as a Wanderwort (this seems to be the norm with money, which was introduced rather suddenly to southern Africa; compare the history of Chichewa ndalama). I see that Döhne proposes that imali comes from the Swahili, but swiftly proceeds to prove himself to be philologically inept. The English entry has that statement presumably because the OED gives that etymology (although the OED is by no means infallible, especially when it comes to non-European languages). I would conclude that it's probably correct in this case, though, and that it's just a coincidence. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


What do you mean? It's an obvious case of metathesis, and not fat drunken Equinox fingers! Equinox 02:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I have some meta-knowledge about your meta-thesis... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I met a
guy at college
who said I
should love Jesus
and I've met a
but I've never met
a thesis. (Ogden Nash... probably.) Equinox 02:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Metaknowledge".