Open main menu

Wiktionary β

User talk:Metaknowledge

  1. 2012
  2. 2013
  3. 2014
  4. 2015
  5. 2016
  6. 2017

Moroccan ArabicEdit

Thank you for your interest to a great language which is neglected - even denied - by its users. Most of speakers will not accept the appellation "Moroccan Arabic", calling it "darija" (slang). But it is a general problem in all the "small languages".

I am not a native speaker, but I have learned it since the 1970ies. Since 2009, I used it systematically in Walloon Wiktionary, mainly translating Walloon words, but also in own pages. See Wiccionaire:arabe marokin.

I learned the language in Rabat, but I am living in Doukkala rural area since 1989, where it is my work language.

It would be better to discuss problem points in this talk page: Copene:Wiccionaire:arabe marokin.

I give you my opinion on "hamza" letters (أ إ ؤ ئ) over there.

--Lucyin (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lucyin: I'd like to keep the conversation in one place and preferably on this Wiktionary, where the page in question is. Moroccan Arabic seems to have a fair use of the glottal stop to me, especially in borrowings from MSA. We can't consider the colloquial languages to be entirely independent of MSA influence, especially among educated speakers, and really they are both points on the same spectrum of formality. Did you see any errors or points of discussion in my attempt to represent how Moroccan Arabic is spelt or pronounced? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I ordered Richard S. Harrel's A Short Reference Grammar of Moroccan Arabic (ISBN 9781589017610). It's coming tomorrow, so I should be able to help more with Moroccan next week. --WikiTiki89 14:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    Harrell is really the only good source out there, which is, in a way, a bad thing. Anatoli has his graded introduction to Moroccan Arabic, and I have his dictionary of Moroccan Arabic (the phonological introduction of which I used to help build WT:About Arabic/Moroccan). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    I'm make sure to use my critical reading skills and not take anything he says for granted (which is what I always do anyway). --WikiTiki89 17:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


Hi MK. You like aWa. Any chance you could run it on Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2010/Unresolved requests Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2011/Unresolved requests Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2012/Unresolved requests Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2013/Unresolved requests Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2014/Unresolved requests --WF on Holiday (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you do it? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I have not got the necessary user rights - thanks goodness --WF on Holiday (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Yes you do. Pretty sure anyone can enable it in their prefs. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Nope - I am level 1 user - this is a level 2 user thing --WF on Holiday (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Are there instructions anywhere? SemperBlotto (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


Is there some way to get bots to make pages for conjugated verbs, & derivative verbs? Thank you. Anjuna (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

For derivative verbs, I don't think they should be created by bots. In many cases, they may have specific unexpected meanings that have to be added by a human. For example, -andaa (prepare) has the stative form -andika (write). However, conjugated forms, infinitives, and noun plurals could and should be created by a bot. My thinking is that it would be best to wait until there is more to be done, on the assumption that whoever runs the bot will not want to do so all the time, and that way I can bother them less often. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

User:BedrockPerson and User:יבריבEdit

Not sure where best to post this information, but I suspect that User:BedrockPerson (see also w:User:BedrockPerson) and User:יבריב are the same person and that his claim of poor English skills was a total lie. I'm not 100% sure, but it's a strong suspicion. Both accounts also wreaked some havoc at Wikipedia as well (and both at Wiktionary and Wikipedia, the edits largely overlap). Also ping @Chuck Entz. --WikiTiki89 15:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a bit elaborate, but it could make sense. BedrockPerson never claimed to know Hebrew, though, right? And then יבריב claimed to be a native speaker. So do they actually know Hebrew? (In any case, they're both permablocked for just cause, so it doesn't really seem to matter.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
BedrockPerson's Hebrew seemed far more abysmal than יבריב's, though. — Kleio (t · c) 16:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@KIeio: Could you give some examples? --WikiTiki89 17:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Mostly based on the creation of this entry, the definition of which as given by BedrockPerson betrays a severe lack of understanding of how Hebrew actually works. Recall also זרתסטרא, which has since been deleted. The few samples of Hebrew writing by יבריב on their talk page in contrast are actually sorta coherent (though not as fluent as I'd expect from a "native speaker", tbh - "זה האחד חיבור"??), more so than I'd expect given how elementary BedrockPerson's mistakes were. But looking at the overlap between their edits your suggestion does seem plausible, especially since יבריב does seem to have been lying about a native speaker. — Kleio (t · c) 17:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually if you look at יבריב's edits in Hebrew entries, you'll find similar kinds of mistakes as in BedrockPerson's edits to מנדעית and זרתסטרא. Such mistakes do not necessarily have to do with fluency in a language. --WikiTiki89 19:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


You might want to delete some of these too. —suzukaze (tc) 01:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. I'm helping WF do his spring end of summer cleaning. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


Thought you are from the US? Accidentally revealed your love for British spellings? :) Wyang (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

People do seem to notice this every few months or so, which I think is rather funny, considering that I've been writing like this the whole time. (I think the last person to question it was JohnC5.) Anyway, I have a personal orthographic norm that is purely suited to my own aesthetics, and mostly matches Canada in 1900 or thereabouts. In the real world, I often have to stifle it and remind myself to write like a 'Murican (and I do keep to 'Murican spellings for writing Wiktionary definitions), but I can relax and write as I would for myself elsewhere on Wiktionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!JohnC5 21:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Very interesting! The words "1900" and "Canada" do ring a (very faint) bell, but I guess I'll need to be more alert (despite the background of growing senileness). Wyang (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Metaknowledge".