Open main menu

User talk:Per utramque cavernam

boulet raméEdit

We still don't have several senses of ramer, but does boulet ramé "bar shot" seem idiomatic to you? I reckon that the relevant sense is "to stake (a plant)"? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: I'll look at that later, I'm not familiar with that vocabulary. Happy New Year in advance! Per utramque cavernam 14:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, the same to you! ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo:, @Per utramque cavernam:. Hello, I was just passing by... For "boulet ramé", you can refer to [1], but click tab RAMÉ2 (= for admunitions), not RAMÉ1 (= for plants and deers). --AldoSyrt (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

RollbackEdit

You clearly dont have an idea of what heavy metal please dont rollback because wikipedia would be misleading Genesisfanfoxtrotbythepoun3678!! (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Genesisfanfoxtrotbythepoun3678!!: You're welcome to suggest improvements to the definition, but it's not going to be removed or cut down the way you did. Per utramque cavernam 23:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Trou de BâleEdit

Hello, I think this rollback is in error. This french terme is documented.--88.136.24.72 11:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@88.136.24.72: I don't see anything on Google Books, and your edit is poorly formatted. Per utramque cavernam 11:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you read that book from Gaston Bonheur ? I gave the title--88.136.24.72 11:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC) |My edit is poorly formated ? And what about your state of mind ? --88.136.24.72 11:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@88.136.24.72: All right, found it, but that's not a valid quote per WT:CFI. For a term to be included here, it has to be used (as opposed to merely mentioned, as it is here) three times in durably archived sources. Find more quotes, then you can create an entry for trou de Bâle. Per utramque cavernam 11:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's poorly formatted. And buddy, if you start insulting me, you're gonna get blocked. Per utramque cavernam 11:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

AdminEdit

Would you like to be nominated for admin? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I asked before (?). "I won't be here as often as before", you're not fooling anyone! Do it. Equinox 22:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
You don't have to use the tools often to make a contribution. DCDuring (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Proposed new rule: anyone who lasts six months without begging to be an admin becomes an admin. Even WF can't make that. Equinox 01:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo, Equinox, DCDuring: I would, yes. However, if one of you were to nominate me, I think this episode should be mentioned for full disclosure. I'd like to believe I've calmed down and matured a bit since last year, but still. Per utramque cavernam 23:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll link to that. Do you want to be nominated right away? You technically have to accept a nomination on the same day, but accepting it a bit later is not problematic. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
He did accept so please create the vote (I am bad at creating votes). I did not know about that self-nom drama, but IMO not a very big deal. Equinox 11:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  Done. You (Puck, not Equinox) can accept here, please check the languages, time zone and email set-up and feel free to modify the languages in the nomination as well. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

"Cunning Linguist"Edit

You should not have reverted the term "cunning linguist". A "cunning linguist" is NOT "One who performs cunnilingus"; although these terms sound similar, they are not. Please undo your reversion and restore the proper definition to the page. Thank you. Walterblue222 (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

No. Per utramque cavernam 22:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
It's actually both, but the phrase is pretty much never used seriously and literally, and it's also the sum of its parts, so we wouldn't want an entry for it. That leaves the sexual meaning, which does get some usage- though it's far outnumbered by literal uses made to sound like the sexual one. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
You are mistaken. "Cunning linguist" and "cunnilingus" are not synonymous, or similar in meaning, and are not even homophonic.
"An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components. Non-idiomatic expressions are called sum-of-parts (SOP). For example, 'this is a door' is not idiomatic, but 'shut up' and 'red herring' are."
It is not "actually both"; being a 'cunning linguist' is NOT the same as performing 'cunnilingus' in spelling, punctuation, pronunciation or meaning.
There is no "sexual meaning" for 'cunning linguist', and claiming that there is based on misusage is not appropriate.
Here are some similar examples: "bulls hit" is not the same as "bull shit", "Felicia" is not the same as "fellatio", "assapanick" is not the same as "ass panic", a "bumfiddler" is not a "bum fiddler", a "cockchafer" is not the same as a "cock chafer", "formication" is not "fornication", "cummingtonite" is not "cumming tonight", "mastication" is not "masturbation, so on and so-forth, et cetera, etc., etc.
Undo your inappropriate, unjustified reversion and restore the accurate definition to the page. Thank you. Walterblue222 (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
If I read someone the riot act, I'm not literally reciting a piece of legislation. There's the literal meaning, which is not dictionary material, and then there's the figure of speech. In this case, there are some people who say cunning linguist as a humorous way to avoid saying cunnilingus. They're not confused, and I'm sure they know both terms. Language means what the people who use it understand it to mean. Dictionaries can't dictate that. Glad originally meant slick or smooth, sad originally meant heavy. The phrase "the exception proves the rule" originally meant "the exception tests the rule. Originally, the plural of pease was peasen, until people decided that pease was really peas and that it was the plural of pea- a word that didn't exist until then. Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary. We describe the language that's actually used- not what makes sense, and not what somebody says it's supposed to be. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Again, you are mistaken - and your argument is really self-defeating when you say that we don't describe the language based on "what somebody says it's 'supposed' to be" - when trying to support the assertion of "what somebody says it's 'supposed' to be".
The misuse of a word or phrase does not modify the original meaning - if this was the case words would not be universally understood to people speaking the language. Yes, language changes over time - but not in this manner, and not because a few people decide that a word or phrase should mean something different than it does globally, to billions of people.
By your logic, if a few people decide to begin calling the sun a shoe, then it would be appropriate to modify the dictionary definition based on the whim of this small group of people, despite the fact that billions of people speaking the language understand that the sun is the sun, and not a shoe. Walterblue222 (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Can you believe this joker? "Maybe if I delete the citations the meaning will go away!" [2] Equinox 16:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me, Equinox, but personal attacks are not appropriate. Please refrain from using them. Removing the citations is appropriate because the "meaning" was not correct or applicable. Walterblue222 (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
What would be a more acceptable noun to refer to someone who seems to have strong, erroneous beliefs about language and be ignorant of the norms of Wiktionary or lexicography, verbose, and resistant to learning? You can use Wikisaurus, Roget, or your favorite online thesaurus. DCDuring (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Are you asking a question or being rhetorical? A more acceptable noun than 'joker', to refer to me? Are you unfamiliar with the term 'joker'? "Someone who seems to have strong, erroneous beliefs about language" is not an appropriate definition of the term 'joker', nor is it an appropriate description of me, based on the statements made on this page.
"Ignorant to the norms of Wiktionary or lexicography" again, not applicable to the term 'joker'. "Verbose" - all right, I'll give you that one (as applied to myself, not the term 'joker') however, this is subjective.
"Resistant to learning" is another attribute that is inaccurate for both the term 'joker' and myself.
Amusingly enough, your poorly composed remark makes it abundantly clear that you, DCDuring, are not a 'cunning linguist'. Walterblue222 (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Walterblue222 You're starting to get on my nerves. Couldn't you acquaint yourself with the way we do things here, or go play elsewhere? Per utramque cavernam 19:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
No. Walterblue222 (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I blocked the user in question for edit warring and all subsequent inquiries (at least for a while) are best put on their user talk page. — surjection?〉 19:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Is French gender difficult for native speakers?Edit

How often, if ever, are you uncertain of the gender of a word? Equinox 18:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Equinox: Mh, good question. Not sure I can give you a meaningful answer; in general, I'd say it's relatively rare.
For rare terms such as piédouche, you have to check a dictionary, because it could be either.
Other than that, there are a few relatively common terms whose gender I never seem to remember, such as épithète or échappatoire. Besides, some nouns are often ascribed to the wrong gender (see a list here: I don't agree that all the words they've mentioned are problematic, but for some of them I'm always surprised when I'm reminded of their correct gender). Notice how it's mostly words ending in -e that are problematic. Mass/uncountable nouns beginning with a vowel are a source of difficulty too, as their gender is generally hidden: de l'ambre (intuitively, I would see it as feminine, but it's masculine), de l'acné (the reverse). Per utramque cavernam 18:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Per utramque cavernam".