Open main menu

Wiktionary β

User talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV

"Tu" as nonstandard second person pronounEdit

I noticed that you've changed my edit of the "tu" pronoun. I am Brazilian, born in São Paulo and living in Porto Alegre, and feel that simply describing the pronoun as "archaic, poetic or regional" does not fully cover the range of uses the pronoun can have. The closest to a nationwide "General Brazilian Accent" we have is Carioca, since soap operas, films, music and TV show made in Rio are so popular everywhere in the country and it is very much the default accent for foreigners learning Brazilian Portuguese. The point is: people from Rio do employ "tu" quite often in their informal speech, albeit with nonstandard third person verbs, as I showed in the linguistic research I attached to the usage notes. Since I find it rather odd to define Carioca as a regional accent, I decided to edit the article to include "tu" as a possible nonstandard second person pronoun in very informal settings. —This unsigned comment was added by Phastolph (talkcontribs).

When you add a label to a definition, the label applies to that definition alone. It’s the use of tu with third-person verbs that is non-standard, not tu itself.
Now, about your claim that Carioca can be treated as equivalent to General Brazilian, sorry, but that is unacceptable. You can consistently tell that a person is from Rio when they speak Carioca; no one uses Carioca when trying to avoid regional Portuguese in the same way that people use RP or General American. If, when describing “General Brazilian” (which is an abstraction, and not at all a monolithic lect), our goal is to avoid characteristics that are generally considered markers of a regional variety (such as the use of postalveolar coda sibilants or approximant coda rhotics), then words featuring characteristics associated with Carioca must be indicated as such. Not doing so would be tantamount to fooling our users. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

sìpriEdit

Hallo, Ungoliant. Please, can you delete this page sìpri, that is wrong in the accent over that ì?! Thank you. In the meanwhile, I'll rewrite the right page without accent. Thank you, --Glo (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

pronunciationsEdit

hello, is it illegal to copypaste ipa pronunciations from other dictionaries. thank you. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:219E:66C4:EF6D:97FA 15:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I’m not familiar with American copyright law. Our transcription standards are unique enough that there aren’t going to be many cases where you can copy IPA pronunciations en masse without adaptations anyway. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

jullieEdit

Hi, Ungoliant. I won't get into a reversion war with you. However, I would like to point out that the collocations "subjective pronoun" and "objective pronoun" are not standard English. The terms employed in the context of grammatical analysis are "subject pronoun" and "object pronoun". You may wish to reformulate my "second-person plural object (pronoun)" etc., but I believe that using "subjective" (which in English means "relating to personal feelings, tastes, or opinions") in relation to grammatical case muddies the waters unnecessarily. -- Picapica (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Picapica: (Sorry for butting in) see sense 7 at subjective. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 20:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

No need to apologize, Aryamanarora. But in a way you said it yourself: that meaning is sense number seven! I've been learning and teaching languages for nearly seventy years and never yet encountered "subjective" or "objective" pronouns in anything I've read or heard.

See https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=subject+pronoun%2Csubjective+pronoun&year_start=1900&year_end=2000&corpus=18&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Csubject%20pronoun%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Csubjective%20pronoun%3B%2Cc0

-- Picapica (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Picapica, OK, I apologise. I will revert myself. — Ungoliant (falai) 10:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Ungoliant; that is very decent of you. (BTW, I've also converted another instance of subjective/objective on that page, which I missed first time round.) -- Picapica (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ShunEdit

@Ungoliant (falai) Thank you for bothering to thank me: I check each fresh etymology revision once or twice each day from Monday to Saturday. Etymologies are largely conjecture, as you would know, unless the time line of the first evidence of each cognate can be ascertained. For example, if none of the Germanic dialect cognates for oat could be traced back before the fifth century, it would be most likely that a PG reconstruction would be applicable, but not so if they could be traced back to primitive sources around 3,000 years ago; nor indeed from after the ninth century, when they could well have been borrowed from Old English, seeing that there is a Scots Gaelic form "ad" that implies 'corn' which is clearly not borrowed, and may be cognate with Welsh and Breton "id". It would help if new editors took into consideration that certain words in Old English are in fact a hybrid of contemporary and older forms. Kind regards. Andrew (talk)

Testing the hiding of synonyms, antonyms, etc.Edit

Add the following line to your custom Javascript pages:

importScript("User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV/synshide.js");

and report problems here. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The space between a definition line with hidden nyms and the one below is a bit bigger than between two regular definition lines. This is due to the margin of the element that contains all nym lines. I can’t think of a non-convoluted way to solve this without having a single button to toggle all of a definition’s nyms. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I think having a single button to expand everything is easier for the user. Perhaps quotations can be included in it as well, but I'm not sure. —Rua (mew) 20:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Portuguese compoundsEdit

Hello. This discussion (a shame so few people took part in it) led me to create CAT:Portuguese verb–noun compounds and put an item in it; thought I'd let you know. Three questions:

  • would you have preferred an hyphen instead of the en dash?
  • would you have preferred "compound words" instead of "compounds"?
  • would it bother you to find sacarrolhas (infinitive+noun, if I'm not mistaken) alongside porta-aviões (3rd person+noun)? Personally, I don't like the idea of having French faire-part alongside couvre-chef, since they seem typologically different to me, but I haven't found how to discriminate.

An idea I've just had: {{af}} would be cleverer if, when we add the pos parameters, it could compute the right subcat and add it automatically, instead of adding the mother cat Compound words by language. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I’ll add some entries.
  • No preference on hyphen vs. en dash.
  • Compound is better, since it is shorter. Due to the poor way our categories are displayed, it is better to have shorter cat names when possible.
  • Sacarrolhas is not infinitive + noun, but saca + rolhas. The double R is an orthographic artifice.
Ungoliant (falai) 18:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, thanks, and thanks. Another question: how would you translate French window in Portuguese? I can find porta-janela in Collins, porta de janela in fr.wikt. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
The usual name where I live is janela francesa, or janela de varanda if it leads to a balcony. Porta-janela (which is a noun-noun compound) is well attested, though. Porta de janela apparently doesn’t meet the CFI. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I see, thanks. Yes, I chose this example to show that it can be useful to distinguish compounds by the POS of their components (admittedly, there shouldn't be many cases of conflation... porta/porte might even be the only one).
Crap, I've found this: Category:Spanish verb plus plural noun compounds. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

User:DTLHS/ptwikisourceEdit

There's some crap in here, but it looks like a good source overall. For a more curated list of literary Portuguese redlinks/orangelinks, my User:Metaknowledge/Português still exists. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Unsurprisingly, most of the Wikisource redlinks are obsolete spellings, even Old Portuguese in some cases, so definitely not high priority, but it’s worth going through anyway. I really need to focus on your list and Requested Entries first, but unfortunately I haven’t had time to do much heavy lifting with Portuguese lately; I mainly use WT at work, and the short time between tasks I spend patrolling the recent changes. — Ungoliant (falai) 11:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I understand; your focus on work is commendable. I edit as a form of procrastination, mostly. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I feel ya. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
SOML... --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Pssst, UngoliantEdit

Merry Christmas! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Hey, you too! (or was it happy Hannukah?) Incidentally, is the hometown-dialect challenge still up? — Ungoliant (falai) 21:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, it was a happy Chanukah when it happened. As for the hometown dialect challenge, I gave up on that when I realised how similar it is to GA and how limited my skills at transcribing subtle variations in vowels are. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, while I'm here, it would be great if you could do your mass page protection for FWOTDs for 2018. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  Done (I think) — Ungoliant (falai) 20:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

troncoEdit

A couple of etymological dictionaries say that the Portuguese word tronco could also mean prison, jail or dungeon or something. Could you verify that? (See also this old dictionary.) Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that’s correct. It is a synechdoche of another sense of tronco that is more closely connected to the primary sense of tree trunk: an upright trunk or pole in prisons or plantations to which prisoners or slaves were tied and flogged. — Ungoliant (falai) 11:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added "prison, jail" as a sense, but I can't tell if it needs any labels. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow...Edit

Did someone seriously copy the entire transcript of The Bee Movie onto Talk:Wikipedia? That's some really intense vandalism. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I didn’t realise that was the actual script. I better hide that edit for copyright violation. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The Bee Movie vandal is a regular. I tried to block them with an abuse filter but perhaps they have found a way around. Equinox 18:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Something You Might Find UsefulEdit

I've created a filter that tags edits by certain Thai IP ranges to entries without a Thai section or Thai translations with "-th". As you know, the vast majority of recent edits like that are either useless or wrong, so I figured I would make it easier to spot the pattern at a glance. Feel free to add any Thai IP ranges that I missed. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Chuck. I’ll keep my eyes open. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

دعای ربانی - a favourEdit

Please could you do me a favour and delete this entry and hide the original entry I made? I made a really bad mistake. Then I will re-create it. Thank you. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It's gone already- phew :D Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Was it really that bad? Anyway, you can thank User:AryamanA for that.
Incidentally, you can replace the content of an entry you create with {{delete|created in error}} and someone will delete it sooner or later. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, yes it was very offensive so it needed to go quickly. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: I saw the page history, I think you did the right thing by getting it deleted. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 17:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I think this is one of the worst things, or maybe the worst, thing I have ever done. I feel really terrible about it. I'm very sorry for any offence caused. I can't feel the end of my hands very well because of the cold and it makes typing slow so I usually copy and paste from an existing entry. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: Don't worry about it, I think it was deleted in time. We all make mistakes :) —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 19:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
And if I understood it correctly, it wasn’t something anyone here would give a second thought about. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Another favourEdit

Hello, please could you hide this revision [1] of my user page, please? Someone is using it as a reference when they shouldn't, really, that is why I deleted it from my page. Thank you in advance. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary I’ve hidden 4 revisions with apparently the same information. Please let me know if I got it right. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: Yes, well spotted. Thank you, it is very helpful. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV".