Wiktionary:Information desk

(Redirected from Wiktionary:ID)

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Information desk

You can search in the archives of Information desk:

Welcome to the Information desk of Wiktionary, a place where users can ask questions about words and about Wiktionary, ask for help, or post miscellaneous ideas that don’t fit in any of the other rooms.

To start a new topic, clicking on the “+” tab, or click here: Start a new topic.

Sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~), code which produces your signature, followed by a UTC timestamp.

For past questions, see /Archives.

Information desk archives edit

April 2023

Confusing message about 咼Edit

In https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E9%81%8E, I read:

Note that the box in the upper part of 咼 differs in simplified Chinese – in simplified Chinese fonts it is on the left, while in Japanese and traditional Chinese it is on the right (as seen in the Kangxi dictionary).

I do indeed see both versions in the wild: the regular traditional 咼 and the strange variation with the box on the left.

However, the explanation is not clear to me: the character 咼 in simplified Chinese does not have any box at all, since it looks like 过. So when exactly is 咼 printed with the box on the left?! 11:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multiple Latin Nouns with Identical SpellingEdit

I noticed that abluvio can either be the nominative singular form of abluvio or the dative/ablative singular of abluvium. Since they belong to the same part of speech and have the same spelling (including macrons), the convention seems to be splitting it into two etymology sections like in circa, which is what I did. However, no etymology text exists, which makes the section names "Etymology 1" and "Etymology 2" seem awkward. I'm not sure if this is the correct way to organize this entry, so it would be nice to hear from experienced editors. PetraMagna (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that is the correct and standard formatting. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 08:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I'll leave it like that then. PetraMagna (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Encyclopedia listed under words with 7 SyllablesEdit

I disagree with the Wiktionary listing of encyclopedia under words with 7 syllables. I must be missing something. Perhaps the list includes 6 syllable words also. Just curious.

Thank you! Two-elks (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The culprit seems to be Module:syllables, which counts the number of syllables in an IPA transcription and whose results are used for automatically assigning categories to words based on the number of syllables.
The invocation {{#invoke:syllables|countVowels|/ənˌsəɪ.kləˈpi.di.ə/}} yield 7 syllables instead of 6, which is causing the incorrect category listing. Specifically, the module does not treat "əɪ" and "aɪ" as diphthongs because {{#invoke:syllables|countVowels|/əɪ/}} says there are 2 syllables, which seems wrong to me. (this paragraph contains incorrect information as Module:syllables should be invoked with "countVowelsDiphthongs" and a language argument; see the response below)
I suppose we can ask someone familiar with Modules to see if this can be fixed. PetraMagna (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nevermind. Module:syllables is working fine. It disregards diphthongs by default unless a language is specified, in which case it uses the designated language's table of diphthongs in Module:IPA/data. We're seeing incorrect vowel counts possibly because "əɪ" is not added as an English diphthong in that table. PetraMagna (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to inherit an IP and its contributionsEdit

i finally made an account, but the contributions i made without an account (IP contributions) weren't linked to me when i created the account. is there any way to get those contributions linked to me? or i can't do that? thanks for all you do (wait is this even the place to put this in) - Rockragged (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. Would be complicated programming logics to alter edit history, as you might imagine. Fay Freak (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sucks. Still, thank you! - Rockragged (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rockragged the best you can do is state on your user page what IP addresses you used. Of course, that means everyone will know where you were editing from. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
meh doesn't matter to me anyways, come at me, haha - Rockragged (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One possibility that occurs to me is to add record your account name on the IP's user page and talk page. That way, anyone with questions about one of your edits can raise the matter with you. --RichardW57m (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potential Copyright Issues in QuotationsEdit

Some entries such as iste are using quotations adopted from Wheelock's Latin. The sentence

"Iste," inquit, "sceleribus suis tollētur."

is an adaptation of an exercise sentence in chapter 22 of Wheelock, which reads

"Iste," inquit, "sceleribus suīs brevī tempore tollētur"

Other examples include versus, neglego, careo, poeta, hic, and littera, which all used the same sentence from Wheelock.

Wheelock's exercise sentences are constructed by the author, meaning that

  1. Using them in wiktionary has potential copyright issues, though I'm not sure if this can be justified as fair use.
  2. It goes against Wiktionary:About_Latin#Quotations because Wheelock sentences are made up for translation exercises.

I'm wondering about what to do with them. Should they be deleted outright or replaced when possible? PetraMagna (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If Wiktionary were using them as cites/quotes to attest words, that'd be one thing (with various different considerations, like whether they're uses or just "made-up examples of how a word might be used"), but if entries are just using them as examples of the grammar (in usage notes), then it does seem like they should be replaced with other examples. - -sche (discuss) 05:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not too worried about criteria for inclusion since words that appear in a textbook are likely to be attested in many classical Latin sources. Though no example exists in the entry, they can easily be added. The second issue does seem concerning. I'll try to replace these example sentences with ones written by classical authors instead. PetraMagna (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


is Lychrel as in Lychrel number a homophone of literal an littoral? 09:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

well I played three short YouTube videos and each of them had a different pronunciation. In general, print-dominant words like this tend to have flexible pronunciations, but since it was coined from Cheryl, i would give the pronunciations with /ʃ/ more weight if we have to pick one as the standard. Soap 09:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are literal and littoral homphones? Their pronunciations overlap, but syncopation and frication are more frequent in the former. --RichardW57m (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was going through CAT:D and noticed that this entry, although it currently does (as the tag says) consist of nothing but the character name, is actually attestable (and even more surprisingly, searchable on Google Books). In some books, it's an OCR error where the actual book has a diamond bullet point or various other things, but some books do, upon inspection, use this character. Furthermore, several seem to use this character as a bullet (rather than for its Unicode-intended use); I've added two to illustrate this. Presumably the attested and unrelated bullet sense is includable (?); does it make the 'proper' Unicode use also includable or no...? - -sche (discuss) 17:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed that this is a valid entry and useful for documenting how this character is used in real life (to my dismay). —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I'm from Wikipedia, and yes this is about transwikiEdit

Related Beer parlour discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/June#Appendix:Numerals in various languages

Wiktionary has this page: Appendix:Numerals in various languages

English Wikipedia has this page: w:User:Abcormal/List of numbers in various languages (started in 2003, deleted last year due to Wikipedia not being a dictionary, but restored to userspace and worked on further)

The Wikipedia page (any and all copies thereof) is probably/hopefully going to get deleted for good so that it isn't accessible anywhere on Wikipedia.

The talk page of Appendix:Numerals in various languages says: "This appendix has been imported from w:User:Abcormal/List of numbers in various languages. Please see that page's history for attribution."

  • It wasn't truly imported because the editor was unable to save the source code due to an edit filter triggering, but some prose was copied; so, yes, the Wiktionary page was started by copying a portion from said Wikipedia page, and possibly even multiple portions, in sequence.
  • When the Wikipedia page is deleted, the "Please see that page's history for attribution" part will be false, because the history will no longer be accessible, and attribution will no longer effectively be provided.

I'll be honest and say that the page was heavily scrutinized on Wikipedia and problems with it were identified that will probably also be seen as relevant on Wiktionary. It was pointed out that it uses base-ten when it shouldn't; some characterized this as Eurocentric.

Should said Wikipedia page be transfered to Wiktionary? Certainly not to replace the existing page as the formatting, templates, etc. don't match but maybe simply to keep its source code here to be used as a draft for future list entries. Its page history can be copied in textual form to provide attribution.

@Chuck Entz: Pinging you as a participant in the previous discussion relating to this topic. Thank you for any help you can give.--Alalch E. (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sometimes, when I need to preserve the edit history of a page for attribution, but (hist-)merging the two pages would be messy, I move the page to be preserved to the talk page of the target page (then blank it and replace the content with a note saying to see the history). I suppose that could be done here: make a technical deletion of Appendix talk:Numerals in various languages, transwiki the Wikipedia page to there, and anyone who wants the contents for attribution or to improve the appendix can pull from the history there. - -sche (discuss) 05:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be fantastic. Alalch E. (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I've deleted Appendix talk:Numerals in various languages; you can move the page to there and then we can see about updating the main appendix page with anything of value from the moved page.
Regarding the statement at AfD that Wiktionary has categorically refused to accept transwikis: OK, that's mostly true, but that's because it doesn't normally make any sense to transfer a Wikipedia encyclopedia article [even a short DICDEF one] to Wiktionary, because we usually already have an entry for that string [and merging histories would be confusing], and already have or could write a better dictionary definition (and have different requirements for verifying that the words are in use). And we don't want just any appendix or whatnot. But in this case, my 2c as an individual Wiktionarian is that since we already have the appendix, and Wikipedia has but doesn't want a more fleshed-out edition of it, I don't see harm in moving it here. Maybe other people will disagree and RfD the appendix here too, but that seems ... independent of whether we transwiki the fuller copy (since we already have a partial copy here, so if anyone here feels it needs to be deleted here, they'll need to RfD it here regardless of whether a fuller copy gets transwikied over). - -sche (discuss) 00:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would be quite surprised if it has anything to add to our coverage of well documented languages, but that leaves the vast majority of the languages of the world, which are limited documentation languages and for which our Criteria for inclusion have sourcing standards that are pretty close to Wikipedia's.
It would also be nice to create a template to integrate the Module:number list data submodules into the appendix, since we already have the data in a usable format, and merge the Wikipedia data into that where our coverage is lacking. That way we get the best of both worlds. To be safe, we should state in edit summaries where we're getting it from when we add the data to the submodules. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please start a new Grease pit discussion and describe what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: various specific spammer habits
Oh no.
This is what happened when I was trying to move the original source to the talk page and show it as pure code. 17lcxdudu (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought the idea was to transwiki it to preserve the history, not to just manually copy the latest revision? - -sche (discuss) 16:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, yes, that's certainly the idea; 17lcxdudu is another Wikipedia editor who is interested in this content being retained and further worked on, but probably doesn't know about proper importation. @17lcxdudu when the page is transwikied it will mean that its source code will be accessible from the talk page's history, and it will take a lot of work to expand the existing Wiktionary appendix with imported content. This is how it has to be. You don't need to do anything before importation. Alalch E. (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The original user page has already been deleted 17lcxdudu (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not cognate but ...Edit

The etymology section of Turkish o (he, she, it, that) gives Chinese (that) as a cognate. However, Chinese is not a descendant of the Turkic language from which this was borrowed, so the term cognate is not applicable. Is there another term (less vague than related ) that covers this situation?  --Lambiam 21:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds like someone is pushing Altaic theory (or similar). This is also mentioned at Karakhanid ال‎. @Surjection Theknightwho (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the glossary entries for cognate and Appendix:Glossary#descendants. As far as words are considered, Wiktionary does not require genetic continuity - borrowing is accepted. RichardW57m (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Foch in PolishEdit


The Polish language also contains the word "foch" (sulk) and I would like to add the definition to English Wiktionary. But... I do not really know linguistic and I do not know the technical aspects (templates etc.) used on this website.

Could somebody help me, please? ;-)

Best wishes! -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 10:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kaworu1992 In the future, you should know about WT:RE:pl. Vininn126 (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, thank you? ;-) It appeared by itself - what magic is that? :D --Kaworu1992 (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Check the history on foch, you'll see a familiar face ;) Vininn126 (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User: Chuck Entz reverted 5 of my edits in totoEdit

Well I'm a novice user here. I think it's too rough to revert my edits like that without explaining. I don't get what I did wrong nor does it encourage me to participate here. Shubjt (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is copying quotes mentioned in books plagiarism?Edit

Language learning books and dictionaries often explain terms using quotes from newspapers, magazines, old books (old enough to copyright-free) etc. The quotes of course could prove that people are / were using the certain term in the certain way. However, if once I read such kind of language learning books and dictionaries and copying the quotes mentioned to Wiktionary, would it be considered as plagiarism? Or should the copyright issues judged by the quotes themselves? Beefwiki (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current general practice is that it is frowned upon and we should find other quotes, but for some rare terms/LDL's those often are the only quotes that exist. I do not believe it is plagiarism, we have the right to quotes just as any other dictionary. A bigger problem is copying definitions word for word. Vininn126 (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I came across this word at Wiktionary:Requested entries (French)/M-Z and fished around for sources for it. It does seem to be a now-unused word for Madagascar, as said at its line on Requested Entries, but it does not seem to be from French. One source [1], quoting an earlier (1661) work, states that while the island is known as Madagascar by cartographers, it is known by the indigenous peoples there as "Madecase" and describes Madecase as the island's "true name". This is repeated, in some variations by other sources, probably all deriving from the 1661 source by Flacourt. If the word is worthy of an entry, what language should be classified under? Edward-Woodrow (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where should I put quotes with the word fits multiple meanings?Edit

If a word appears multiple times in a same quote, but in different meanings, which definiton should I put it under?

For example: (Chinese )

曾子 [Classical Chinese, trad.]
曾子 [Classical Chinese, simp.]
From: Warring States period, 韓非 (Han Fei),《韓非子.外儲說左上》
Zēngzǐ zhīzhī shì, qí zǐ suí zhī ér qì. [Pinyin]
Zengzi's wife goes to market, her son follows her and cries.

And they fits these definitions:

  1. (literary) Indicates that the previous word has possession of the next one.
  2. Indicates that the previous word modifies the next one.
  3. particle indicating that the preceding element is specialised or qualified by the next
  4. (archaic) Particle infixed in a subject-predicate construct indicating a subordinate clause.
  5. (obsolete) this; these
  6. (obsolete) to sprout; to come about
  7. (literary) to go
  8. (literary) The third-person pronoun: him, her, it, them, when it appears in a non-subject position in the sentence.

Beefwiki (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Beefwiki: short answer- put it where it will do the most good. If it were just there to give evidence of usage for CFI, it could just as easily be relegated to the Citations tab. Presumably, you're trying to tell the reader something about the way the term is used by showing how someone has used it in context. Choose the sense where the reader would benefit most from that. If there's more than one sense that seriously needs it you could even have it under more than one sense, though that generally isn't a good idea. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can also just put it on the citations page and use clearer sentences for the main page. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However, according to the logic of "unclear citations to citations page", since "之" appears almost in every Classical Chinese texts, I would literally have to copy the texts from thousands of years in Chinese History... Beefwiki (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean or why it's a problem.... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beefwiki: there are two reasons to include quotes: 1) to provide evidence that the term or sense has been used in order to meet the requirements of WT:CFI, and 2) to illustrate usage of the term or sense in order to give a better understanding of the term or sense. Neither of those purposes requires texts from thousands of years of usage. The choice of whether to put particular quotes in the entry or in the citations page makes no difference in the number or type of quotes. If the nature of any specific quote or the sheer volume of text detracts from the usability of the entry, some or all of the quotes can be moved to the citations page- but it's merely a matter of where to include them, not whether to include them. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's also 3) to show when a sense was in use, especially the earliest usage. --RichardW57m (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Criteria for inclusion - date of most recent attestationEdit

How old can the most recent attestation of a word be for inclusion in Modern English wiktionary? Presumably a word that only appears in Beowulf would not be included, but how about Chaucer? Where is the cutoff? JohnRBoersma (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Our motto is "All words in all languages". We would include words from Beowulf as Old English, and Chaucer as Middle English. Our (arbitrary) cutoff for modern English is 1500. Anything before that is Middle English. See WT:AEN, WT:AENM and WT:AANG for how we treat all historical stages of English. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May 2023

Reporting misplaced linkEdit

In https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mnie#Polish : It says "genitive/dative/accusative/locative of ja". If you click the highlighted 'ja' it goes to the Slovak 'ja', not to the Polish 'ja'. 09:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It goes to ja#Polish. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is due to the effect of the collapsible table of contents: the browser doesn't account for the page being a different length, so it goes past the actual location on the page. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vanished Reply LinksEdit

On discussion pages such as this, yesterday there was a '[reply]' link or similar by each signature in a conversation. They've now disappeared! How do I get them back? They were very useful in that they:

  1. allowed users to compose replies simultaneously
  2. targetted the right paragraph in long discussions
  3. allowed tricky wikicode to be tested quickly.

--RichardW57m (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They're still here for me. I'm using Monobook skin. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks as though I was somehow using Internet Explorer. I'm back on Edge now, and functionality has reappeared. --RichardW57m (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Does Russian папара́цци (paparácci) sometimes decline in the plural? I can find some evidence that it does, but I don't know how common it is in practice, or whether it's associated with a particular mode of speech. No doubt this is because Italian paparazzi is itself a plural form which happens to have a matching ending. Pinging @Atitarev @Nominkhana arslang @Thadh, who are all native speakers. Theknightwho (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never heard it in the plural: один папарацци, два папарацци, etc. Thadh (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theknightwho: No, it's indeclinable. Used in the sg. and the plural. Same as мафио́зи (mafiózi). Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Atitarev I had a chat with Thadh and Nominkhana arslang on Discord, and it seems папара́цца (paparácca) exists - likely as a back-formation. That would explain why forms like папара́ццей (paparáccej) or папара́ццами (paparáccami) are attestable. Theknightwho (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theknightwho: There are very few hits on Google books and it's illiterate usage. It happens with various indeclinable words, incorrect declensions, stress patterns do happen. It's good for making fun memes about people who use this type of grammar but not really a dictionary material. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Atitarev, Theknightwho: Declined forms of Russian indeclinable words sound exactly like the sort of 'standard' 'non-standard' words Wiktionary should be recording, like English ain't. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RichardW57: You missed the first part of my message - very few hits in Google books. It's uncommon. Non-standard but common usage is added and labelled accordingly - non-standard, proscribed, vulgar or "low colloquial" (просторечие). Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi! Is it allowed to add translations in Na'vi (the fictional language of the Avatar movies)? 2402:800:61CD:112F:16B:5D5D:6539:8D15 17:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. Equinox 18:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having trouble with rendering a cite-journal template in a page I recently createdEdit

Hi, I recently created the page Nevadaplano (proper noun, a neologism widely used in geological publications and circles in analogy to the 'altiplano' of Bolivia/Peru), and I have quoted several papers in the page, as well as added a citation for the coinage of the term within the etymology section. However, the citation is somehow rendering an extra right angle bracket at the end, and I cannot figure out why it is doing this.

Additionally, the citations for the three quotes provided for the term definition are not showing up in the references section, presumably because of the aforementioned rendering error. Complicating this, one of the quotations is from the same reference as the citation provided in the earlier etymology section, so it should not be duplicated in the references, but I could find no way reading through all of the documentation on how to accomplish this (i.e. use a citation in the etymology, and then provide a quote from the same reference, leaving only a single entry for that reference in the 'references' section).

Any help anyone could provide would be very much appreciated, thanks!

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I want to nominate intergenerational for National Grandparents Day. but page is protected 01:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request for Module:bn-translitEdit

I've already posted this edit request at Module talk:bn-translit. However, since there is no response, I have reposted it here.

Replace all instances of ph with f. This edit will not cause any error.

The main reason for the above edit is that there are several Bengali words with manual transliteration that use f for ফ instead of the orthodox ph. Also, the letter ফ is more often pronounced as /f/ or /ɸ/ than /pʰ/, the latter is found only in careful speech (Suniti Kumar Chatterji, 1921 & 1926; Sameer ud Dowla Khan, 2010). If the edit is done, the number of entries in Category:Terms with manual transliterations different from the automated ones/bn may reduce. --Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 08:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Headword lines with transliteration different to the automatic transliteration are no longer being recorded in Category:Terms with manual transliterations different from the automated ones; I haven't worked out why. Discussion at Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2023/April#Warning_of_Headword_Transliteration_Issues. Without that, we are looking at scattered manual transliterations for systematic changes. Although for transliteration in the strict sense that category should be empty, there are sometimes many cases where that is not so. Problems start as soon as the phonetics of particular words have to be taken into account, e.g. if transliteration records irregular 'schwa deletion'.
Also, the starting place for this change to transliteration should be at Wiktionary:Bengali_transliteration, ideally at its talk page or at WT:GP. RichardW57m (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sbb1413: I agree with @Atitarev that WT:BP is better than WT:GP. --RichardW57m (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RichardW57m I can’t find anything to suggest {{head}} added terms to Category:Terms with manual transliterations different from the automated ones or Category:Terms with redundant transliterations, but it seems like a strange omission. Maybe it did a while back, but certainly not recently.
I’ve now enabled both, so they should be filling up now. I imagine this will make the parent categories functionally useless for individual terms due to sheer numbers, so it’s probably worth only adding terms to the language-specific categories, keeping the parents as umbrellas. Theknightwho (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theknightwho: Thanks for the change. Unfortunately, it isn't working for Pali, and I've added a request at Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2023/April#Warning_of_Headword_Transliteration_Issues for a change to Module:headword/data to allow automatic transliteration for Pali headwords. --RichardW57m (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theknightwho: How many days should the filling up take? (You might not know.) I'm trying to work out whether it is worth purging all the pages of immediate interest to me. The edit, and also the second part done specifically for Pali, will formally affect almost all pages in main space. 19 hours after the second edit, I'm still waiting for a specific term to be added to one of the categories. (The category addition shows up on the page itself.) This might not be a 'bad user experience', but it's a 'bad editor experience' - not that I know any reasonable way of avoiding this experience in this case. --RichardW57m (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RichardW57m: the job queue is shared with all Wikimedia projects, so it can vary widely, depending on what else is happening. With a module error in a widely transcluded module, I've seen things popping into CAT:E for upwards of a week. Or it might take hours. The number of steps in the transclusion also have an effect: if it's simply a template directly invoking a module, that's different from a module called from another module invoked by a template expanded by a module invoked by a template, it can take a while for the edit to propagate all the way to the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And for the record, the two categories are still being loaded for Pali! --RichardW57 (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And still! --RichardW57m (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But perhaps the task has got lost - cat:Terms with redundant transliterations/pi seems to have stabilised at 45 entries. --RichardW57m (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The test word ພຸດໂທ has now finally been added to cat:Terms with manual transliterations different from the automated ones/pi --RichardW57 (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sbb1413: That’s a language policy change. I don’t see any consensus or even a discussion. You might argue j/z the same way you do about ph/f. The Wikipedia page about the Bengali phonology doesn’t really match with what you’re saying. Even if “f” is more frequent than “ph” (I don’t know if that’s true), is “ph” considered to be more classical or standard? I’d start with a WT:BP discussion, get some attention from fellow Indic editors. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it is true that /pʰ/ is considered standard and correct by the Bengalis and careful speakers will pronounce it with /pʰ/ (Chatterji, 1921 & 1926). However, I've consulted the papers of linguists like Suniti Kumar Chatterji and Sameer ud Dowla Khan and found that /f/ and /ɸ/ are more common than /pʰ/. Of course, I'll put forward the proposal to WT:BP, along with the new rules for inherent vowel deletion. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 15:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usage note for パーセントEdit

I added a usage note to パーセント regarding the pronunciation of 10% (じゅっパーセント). What's the recommended way to format this? Qzekrom (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Qzekrom: It's fine like this. Since it's only one sort of unpredictable reading, you don't need to make a full list, as in {{ja-minutes}} or {{ja-number-counter:時}} Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This may not be specific to パーセント; for example, 十羽 can be pronounced as 十羽(じゅっぱ) (juppa).  --Lambiam 20:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think there should be two changes to Persian "عرفان" but I am not 100%. First "â" to "ā" for consistency. Second There is no "ʔ" in the Farsi pronunciation of the عرفان. Because of this reason those unfamiliar with the name often spell it as اِرفان. I'll even go further to say Almost all words/names with "ع" in Farsi don't pronounce the "ع" despite wiki stating they do. I have never heard any Farsi speaker pronounce "ع" in any word. CaesarVafadar (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the second point, it seems that:
  1. There is no difference between the phoneme represented by ain, hamza and initial alif.
  2. The simplest phonological analysis seems to be that there is a phoneme /ʔ/, but the phonetics of it is quite complicated, best summarised as the phoneme being a 'weak' consonant. The register of the utterance also affects whether there is an actual glottal stop. (It's rather reminiscent of the complexities of the Thai glottal stop, though that is quite audible intervocally within words, apparently unlike the case in Persian.)
--RichardW57 (talk) RichardW57 (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CaesarVafadar: #1: What consistency are you talking about? Wiktionary:Persian transliteration clearly states that ا‎‎ is transliterated as "â" when representing the long vowel. Modern Iranian is currently the default, not the classical Persian.
As for #2, w:Persian phonology states that ع‎ stands for /ʔ/, Even if the letter represents no sound, it is transliterated as ' (apostrophe).
Both points are about the language policy and the pronunciation module Module:fa-IPA, not about individual words. If it's proven ع‎ should be silent, some changes to Module:fa-IPA can be made over time (nobody works on the module currently). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ع‎ is silent on almost every word, and instead the vowel of is pronounced. Specially if ع‎ is at the start of the word it is never ever pronounced. So, is عراق ærāq, عباس is æbbas, عینک is eynæk, علم is elm,عالم is ālem,علوم is olu, جمع is Jæm, جمعه Jome, سریع is særi. I can go on forever but the only real time a glottal stop is used when there is two vowels after one another and very like معلم but very few people actually will pronounce that and will just say moællem.
If you like, searching up on Youtube "Persian Grammar: Persian Character Which Share the Same Sound" the person explains there is no difference.
As for the "â", all the books that I have they read uses "ā" instead of "â" so when looking for words etymology "â" is just not used which gets confusing for some new comers (It certainly confused me at the beginning) if you don't know "â"="ā". For example:
A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary
Dictionary of MMP
Pārsīg Language (The so-called Pahlavi)
A Reader in Manichaen Middle Persian & Parthian CaesarVafadar (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look to the comment I wrote to Anatoli but the only real time "ع" it is actually pronounced is when there are two vowels after one an other but otherwise it's not. In Khuzestani dialect maybe, but they speak Arabic as a mother tongue so that influences their Farsi speaking. CaesarVafadar (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iffy ReconstructionsEdit

What is the process for requesting a review of an iffy reconstruction? I added {{rfv}} to the page for Sanskrit *अष्ठि (aṣṭhi) which I had extracted from the various references to it, but that got converted to a request for deletion. --RichardW57 (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RichardW57 The verification process does not apply to reconstructions, as they are inherently unattested, so can never be verified. Instead, all deletion requests for reconstructions (for whatever reason) are centralised at WT:RFDR. I guess you can also use the tea room for general discussion of a reconstruction entry. This, that and the other (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formatting questionEdit

Odd variations on what might be formatting conventions

I just looked at the entryn for "moose" and noticed something that caught my eye. I've noticed that this entry does not follow headings with the link to the edit, viz, "[edit]". Is this some sort of new formatting convention?

Plaasjaapie (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I see all of the [edit] links on moose. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Plaasjaapie That's because the page is protected so that anonymous and new editors can't edit it- there's no point in giving you links you can't use. The protection is because there have been repeated attempts to replace the content with jokes along the lines of "the plural of moose is meese/mice, etc.". This has been going on for years, but every one of these idiots thinks they're the first one who ever thought of it.
Just keep editing, and soon your account won't be new anymore. After that, you'll see edit links on that page. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roman or Latin? Witch and why?Edit

The Serbo-Croatian text is writing in Cyrillic or Roman/Latin. What is right on enwiktionary and why?

P.S.: Because Special:Permalink/73207071.

Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dušan Kreheľ There may be nothing inherently wrong with the way you would prefer things to be, but it's not the way the rest of Wiktionary does it: see About Serbo-Croatian#Translations. The subheader in translation sections is added by the translation-adder gadget and is to be found in thousands and thousands of translation sections. Changing it in one translation section just makes it inconsistent with all the others. Because there are a lot of people contributing from all over the world all the time, following standards is important to keep everything from becoming a disorganized mess. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason we use "Roman" is because it causes technical problems to use "Latin" (which is the name of another language in the table, which humans and scripts therefore tend to mis-interpret and mis-sort). - -sche (discuss) 17:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meaning of "non-Sino-Vietnamese" in etymology sectionsEdit

To me, it seems like the usage of "non-Sino-Vietnamese" in Vietnamese entries doesn't line up with its meaning for other loans into the Sino-Xenic vocabularies of other Sinosphere languages. As an example, . Both thiêng and thánh are obviously derived from Chinese languages; thiêng is not a native word. The Japanese kun readings, for example, taking characters as semantic loans for native items, seems the more natural/usual meaning for "non-Sino-Xenic" (here native hijiri vs Sino-Japanese sei). I would appreciate pointers to any Wiktionary policies on this or just an explanation of the reasoning behind the counterinutive use of this term. Thanks. Auvon (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I can't vouch for its correctness, the Wikipedia article w:Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary lays out fairly clear criteria that explain how Chinese-derived words could be considered to not belong to Sino-Vietnamese:
"Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary (Vietnamese: từ Hán Việt, Chữ Hán: 詞漢越, literally 'Chinese-Vietnamese words') is a layer of about 3,000 monosyllabic morphemes of the Vietnamese language borrowed from Literary Chinese with consistent pronunciations based on "Annamese" Middle Chinese. [...] There is also an Old Sino-Vietnamese layer consisting of a few hundred words borrowed individually from Chinese in earlier periods. These words are treated by speakers as native. More recent loans from southern varieties of Chinese, usually names of foodstuffs such as lạp xưởng 'Chinese sausage', are not treated as Sino-Vietnamese."
There is also our own entry on Hán Việt. It reminds me of the more specific terms "go-on", "kan-on" and "tō-on" in Japanese, but I don't know whether Hán Việt is commonly understood by all Vietnamese speakers to have such a specific meaning, or if this is a case of specialized linguistic terminology (which would not make it wrong for us to use it).--Urszag (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, the note on Hán Việt about spoken vs literary loans addresses most of my thoughts. Auvon (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jamaican Creole words that originated from EnglishEdit

Recently, I've started to work on Jamaican Creole vocabulary and I'm having problem classifying the etymology of the words correctly. If the word is from English is it inherited or derived? I'd asked on our Discord channel and the answer was inherited (that was also my option) but since I'm not 100% sure I'd like you guys to give your opinion. I'd say it's inherited as Jamaican Creole was created basing on English so the vocabulary is somehow inherited. Am I wrong? Tashi (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tashi: It's tricky. English is the lexifier for Jamaican Creole, but I'm not sure that equates to inheritence. Creoles come from pidgins, which are improvised languages that develop between groups of speakers who don't all share a first language. In English-based pidgins, everybody has some English as at least a second language, but there may be no native English speakers at all. If you have speakers of a dozen different West African languages who use mostly English vocabulary because that's the only language they all understand, have they inherited that vocabulary? Chuck Entz (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chuck Entz You think derived would be better? Tashi (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]