Open main menu

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 2019

ads blocked by AdBlockEdit


The above page has been blocked by adblock - This was discussed on the #wikimedia-tech IRC Channel (see Adblock have also been made aware via

Pinging @Zppix who was invloved in the discussion

Thanks, RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

uBlock Origin seems to block it too by setting display: none; to whatever is a top display element, which hides all of the page. Chrome calls it an "injected stylesheet" in the Developer Console. It seems to be caused by EasyList rules, and based on those, it should also happen to advert and ad, and indeed the former is blocked, while bizarrely enough the latter is not. — surjection?〉 14:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Confirming the above is same for me. RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Surjection - filed. RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  Whitelisted RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Whitelisted by whom? Adblock? I still see an all-white page, also after clearing the cache. The source is fine. Neither can I edit the page; shows an equally blank page.  --Lambiam 18:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I've asked for action to be taken to prevent a simmilar issue in future affecting any wiki at RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Why would anyone using AdBlock (Plus)/uOrigin/Privacy Badger/etc. run them on WMF sites? I have them all whitelisted on all my ad blockers. I guess that's a bit rhetorical: another way to put it is that I recommend whitelisting. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

People who just pass every so often might not think to. RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to start a incident report at some point. RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Incident report @ RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
FWIW this is a known issue and has come up often enough that I documented it in the WT:FAQ/Help:FAQ a while ago; I just expanded the Q a bit to also cover "ads". The issue seems to be something for the adblockers to fix, not us. - -sche (discuss) 01:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@-sche, Part of the response to this will prevent future incidents involving and blockers. Wiktionary is already whitelisted so should face no further issues. RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@-RhinosF1 (Public): FWIW (regarding this being due to a "rule matching the pages on the 4th September 2018"), this issue or a similar one has been reported since at least 2014/2015, so there may be more to fix. - -sche (discuss) 07:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@-sche, All Wiktionary domains are whitelisted against all rules on easylist not just that specific one. RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Reference TooltipsEdit

I find the reference tooltips option on Wikipedia much more convenient than clicking back and forth to the citations list, on articles with many inline citations. After a bit of clicking back and forth in a Wiktionary article, I went to adjust my Wiktionary preferences to enable the option, and haven't found it. Is there not some way I may use reference tooltips on Wiktionary? Phillip Alan Gulley (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Phillip Alan Gulley:, The files are missing on Wiktionary. It could be added but we'd need a user with the permission to edit the MediaWiki area. I'll try to raise it on IRC as well. RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


How do I format the pronunciation of ndołkah for the IPA?Ndołkah (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

You would use {{IPA}}. I removed the pronunciation you gave, because it didn't seem to be IPA, but rather some kind of other transcription. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
it was ipa, ipa for western apacheNdołkah (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
No, it wasn't. If you don't know IPA, you shouldn't add it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
For the benefit of those who haven't looked at the edit history, the alleged IPA is "ndołkʰh". Apparently Western Apache has prenasalized consonants, and "nd" is one way to represent that. I'm skeptical, though, about "h" directly following "kʰ" without an intervening vowel. There are some languages, such as Persian, that have "h" after vowels, but I've never seen a language with syllabic "h", and it seems even stranger to have it following an aspirated consonant, since "h" is itself pure aspiration. Still, I'm not an expert on phonology, so it's possible I'm missing something. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
In the spelling of Western Apache lemmas we use ⟨ł⟩ (e.g. łóg), ⟨ɫ⟩ (e.g. ɫigai), and ⟨ɬ⟩ (e.g. ikaɬ), next to a plain ⟨l⟩, as in diʼil. Are these all meant to be different letters? The Omniglot site recognizes only ⟨l⟩ and ⟨ł⟩, the latter representing [ɬ].  --Lambiam 23:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I think ɫ is a mistake for ł: note this move. The difference is fairly subtle, and it's easy to miss if you don't know to look for it. The pronunciation is quite different, though: the first one is a velarized voiced lateral approximant, as in the Polish dark l, and the other one is a voiceless lateral fricative, as in Welsh ll. Now that you mention it, the "IPA" discussed above does use the orthographic ł rather than the phonetic ɬ, which is a definite problem. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I've moved those two to the correct orthography. @Julia, did you create any other Western Apache entries with nonstandard orthographies? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
We still have aɬdóʼ, aɬkʼidą́ʼ, bijatɬane, ditɬid, diɫhiɫ, Dziɫtʼaadn, dzitɫ ndeʼyú, hishtɫish, iɬdíʼgee, ɫibaa, nadzeeɫ, naʼitɬʼíígí, tsinaʼeeɫí, tsʼaaɫ, tudiɫhiɫi, yiʼaaɫ, and yídiɫig.  --Lambiam 09:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I've moved all of those. @Julia, would you mind finding the remaining Western Apache entries you created with "someone who..." definitions? It seems that they should all be verbs, and you were confused by the lemma form for Western Apache, which is 3rd pers. sing. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ndołkah, Metaknowledge, Chuck Entz, Lambiam: Anything that shows up in this search should be looked over or deleted. I made them when I was fairly new to Wiktionary. They are not quality entries and I don't know anything about Western Apache; I just copied a wordlist. Anyways, the correct orthography can be found here: fr:Apache occidental, which is from this study if you want a direct source. I'd rather an admin make moves because it doesn't leave a redirect, but I can provide a list if needed. For the corrections, ' and ɬ should be substituted with ʼ and ł respectively. I also found a bunch of vowels that have diacritics other than the ogonek. I don't know if this is wrong or just an alternate orthography. Julia 17:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, looking through the word lists in several languages, I see a good number that are in sort of a quasi-phonetic shorthand, so I wouldn't use those a guide for spelling. As for diacritics, the acute accent is used to mark high tone in Western Apache. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I based it on what i found here[1]Ndołkah (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    Since ł is not one of the IPA symbols, that guide is incorrect.  --Lambiam 21:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • maybe they didn't gave a way of inputting it on their device?Ndołkah (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    Entering ɬ in the HTML source would have done the trick.  --Lambiam 07:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Construction of adjective without nounEdit

In English, when you have a noun phrase that includes a adjective, but you want to leave out the noun, you have to replace it with one, e.g. the green one or a big one. In other languages, you are often able to leave out the noun altogether and don't need something else in its place. The adjective then takes on the role of a noun to some degree, but there is still the implication that a noun belongs there, you just didn't specify it (to avoid repeating yourself or whatever). What is such a construction called? It's not Nominalization, which is a derivational process that converts other words into nouns. In the case I am describing, the adjectives remain adjectives, the noun they modify has just gone missing. —Rua (mew) 17:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

metonymy? DTLHS (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
ellipsis? pronominalization? (I think Talk:le_mien has dealt a bit with this issue; see Wikitiki's posts) ChignonПучок 17:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
When a German says “der Alte” – which was a nickname for Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and also for a police detective in a popular German Krimi series – I don’t think they feel a noun was omitted. The common term for turning an adjective like alt into the noun Alter is nominalization; I do not see what makes you (Rua) think this is not covered by the term.  --Lambiam 20:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
It is clearly not nominalization, because the noun is still implied, just elided, as I said before. For more detail, I'm asking what is the proper term for the West Frisian adjective form described here. I want to include it in an inflection table, but that requires having a term to put in a table header cell. —Rua (mew) 20:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that a noun is implied, or is just your feeling it is? Is a noun implied in the sentence “the rich are getting richer by the day”? I can invent some noun, like “bastards”, to follow the word “rich”, but I don’t think there is a gap left by an omitted noun to put it in.  --Lambiam 21:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Based on your Taalportaal link, maybe just label the cell "with nominal ellipsis", "with elided noun" or "with noun elided"?
FWIW, I think you can also do this in English without "one", like: John Alessio, Social Problems and Inequality (2013, →ISBN): "Citizens [...] might entertain the dilemma of which of the two pills they want: the red or the blue." (I expect "...a red or a blue." is also possible, but searching is difficult.)
I poked through google books:"adjective" "implied noun" and didn't spot anything particularly helpful. This book refers to "stand-alone adjectives" in Hebrew where a noun can be inferred or implied.
I also checked if it might be called "pseudo-nominalization" but apparently not: this book uses that word for "the red" (presumably as in "the red of her car is different from his" or something), and this book uses it for things like "das Ich" and "un autre moi".
- -sche (discuss) 21:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


Is used colloquially in England for hand but doesn't appear in Wiktionary.

We have it. It's spelled mitt. Equinox 08:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Automated references?Edit

I'm trying to figure out how to reference a new dictionary. I see that major languages like Arabic have a code set up that references a common dictionary or glossary. I have virtually everything that's ever been published on Gulf Arabic, including a dictionary with about 8000 entries. Is there a way that I can set up a reference page for Gulf Arabic?

MarkDShockley (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@MarkDShockley: You can create your own templates. Look at Category:Arabic reference templates how such templates are coded, and you add your template under a convenient name, Template:R:afb:blabla. It is easy. (If there is something complicated in the templates, it is mostly because the template also links to online scans by page name.) Fay Freak (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Western Apache shashEdit

Is Western Apache shash really pronounced as [tʃatʃ]? All sources I can find (which however appear to copy each other) suggest that the pair ⟨sh⟩ is pronounced like in English, that is, like /ʃ/, while /tʃ/ is the realization of ⟨ch⟩.  --Lambiam 13:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Doubtful; I've removed it. @Ndołkah, I've told you a few times now, you really have to stop adding IPA to entries that you're just copying from an unreliable source when you don't actually know any IPA. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I know IPA just fine sh is ʃ and ch is tʃ I made a mistake, I am moving slowly. I just wanted to include the Ndee biyátiʼ alphabet in here. I know how to say it in person just not in perfect IPA because the chart I used was wrong that's all.Ndołkah (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ndołkah – I believe it is better to use the “broad” (phonemic) notation /.../ than the “narrow” (phonetic) notation [...]. The latter should be reserved for pronunciation nuances differentiating for instance Tonto from White Mountain.  --Lambiam 22:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
what's this? Please explain!Ndołkah (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Study the article International Phonetic Alphabet on Wikipedia, in particular the section Usage. See also the article Phonetic transcription on Wikipedia, in particular the section Narrow versus broad transcription.  --Lambiam 07:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm just using the table available on the article on Wikipedia I don't know how much more simple I can make it!2600:1700:94A0:2720:81B0:7554:65A3:F6A9 04:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Abuse filter...Edit

"This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed.

If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: strips L3"

I was trying to edit 僵屍 until I tripped an abuse filter because many of the soft redirects do not have a level 3 (part of speech) header. So I made a workaround.

The abuse filter above does not apply to autopatrolled users (whitelist), so I have to wait for someone else until I am nominated as one. Eyesnore (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

"Requests for creation"?Edit

I'm hardly a newbie, obviously (going to have been here for almost a decade soon), but where exactly ought I to go to discuss the potential creation of an entry?

I could hypothetically just go and create the entry that I wish to discuss the possibility of creating, but I really would rather not create an entry just for it to get RfDed fairly swiftly due to a lack of good attestations.

I've already found one possible citation for the phrase that I am suggesting have an entry, and perhaps I am being overly cautious and ought to just be bold and create the entry already. Nevertheless, even if in this case I am just being over-chary, it would still be good to know where to bring questionable entry suggestions in the future.

Would I take something like this to Requests for verification, perhaps? Tharthan (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

You may simply create a citations page with your citation. If you would like the page to be RFV'd you should create a full entry first. DTLHS (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Done. Tharthan (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Our rules are such that you don’t have to leap through hoops in order to create new entries, nor need you fear swift removal of your creations (unless patent nonsense or suchlike); they would need to go through rfv first. When torn by doubt concerning a potential entry, the Tea room would seem to be a cosy place for a friendly chat.  --Lambiam 09:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Tea Room! It's intended for discussing specific entries. Doesn't matter if they haven't been created yet. Equinox 23:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


Is that quote of Burns really dialectal English, or is it Scots? --Xx Adeliza xX (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it is Scottish English.  --Lambiam 09:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

tako̱lo lakna'Edit

I want to contribute more Chickasaw but the letter o (an o with a macron beneath it does not seem it exist here, how can I add the color orange then [[takolo lakna']]?Ndołkah (talk) 05:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ndołkah: Use , as found at w:Chickasaw language#Vowels. It uses o + the "macron below" character, instead of HTML formatting. —Suzukaze-c 05:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Thankies, I had tried that but had thought it was going under the LNdołkah (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ndołkah: Some fonts don't handle "strange" characters very well, sadly. It appears correctly in fonts like Charis SIL. —Suzukaze-c 05:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c: I see thankies.Ndołkah (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

reset "always translate this page" optionEdit

I went to Wiktionary home page:

Then I clicked on the Pycckiy (Russian language) button) which took me to here--

On this page I opened the Translation options box and clicked on Always translate this page.

This was the beginning of my nightmare, for now I can never see any Russian page in Russian any more. How do I reset the always translate into English option? I tried every way I could think of to reset it, but nothing works, not even restarting my computer.

But what I really, really want to do, however, is to be able to move through all the Russian word entries in Russian alphabetic order (starting with a and going sequentially until I get to я, the last letter of the Russian alphabet. I was able to do this before I clicked on Always translate this page. Now I can no longer find this index to all Russian language entries in ru.wiktionary.

I have searched all the help info I can find, and I cannot find any way to ask a question of anyone at Wikimedia except through the above email address.

I am a frequent donor (ca. $100/year for many years) and a frequent editor of Wikipedia and Wiktionary pages.

I am not sure that I am sending this request to the right people within Wikimedia, but I cannot find any way to ask any kind of question of anyone in Wikimedia except this method. Please forward this question to someone who can answer it if you are unable to answer it.

Thank you very much.

Bill Fairchild

Franklin, TN, USA

Isn't "always translate this page" a Google Chrome browser option, rather than part of wiki pages? Have you tried the Chrome settings in Chrome's menu (top-right of screen)? Equinox 21:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
The Chrome setting is on a language-by-language base. This Google support web page presents instructions for undoing “always translate“ in Chrome, but only for the Chrome app on an iPhone or iPad. On Chrome under macOS, when opening a page in a random language, I see a pop-up near the top that says “Translate this page? [Options] [Translate]”. The [Options] button gives rise to a dropdown menu with an option “Change Languages”. Clicking this, you get a box “Options / Page language: [     ] / Translation language: [    ] / [ ] Always Translate / [Translate] [Cancel]”. Selecting “Russian” for the page language, making sure the Always Translate button is unchecked and clicking [Translate] should undo a prior Always Translate.  --Lambiam 11:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed feedback. Your response looks likely to be what I need to do. I'll try it out and get back to you with my results in a few more days. IMHO, I greatly dislike a software product (e.g., Chrome) that encapsulates another software product (e.g., Wiktionary) and changes the appearance of displays produced by the inner product silently, automatically, "helpfully", and with apparently no warning that it is doing so or info on how to undo the outer product's "helpfulness". This is not the only reason why I dislike Chrome. Grrrr...


Today I have created the page durchleuchten, as one of the first of mine, and I have taken pretty much all English translations from my dictionary of choice Langenscheidt. I have quoted in a Sources section, which I think I have never seen used before. This led me to the question "Can we just copy from other dictionaries?". On the one hand, it could be considered compiling info from all sources, so that it is easily available on one website, on the other hand, those translations are still someone's mental property. The info page on Copyright talks about fair use but I have a feeling that is rather about quoting from authors or something. Can you help me? Anatol Rath (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Anatol Rath: Good question. Generally, no we cannot just copy and paste from other dictionaries (the big exceptions being others with a free license or those in the public domain); their content will be protected by copyright. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
That being said, I think it's probably fine to include information that two unrelated dictionaries have in common. Reduplicating translations is unavoidable, but it's best to include only what you can find in more than one source. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

How do I automatically add pages to a category?Edit

It may seem like a newbie question, but I've never done such a thing in a wiki. I'm currently compiling the Category:English hybridisms and there are many pages that still need to be included. However, editing every single page, adding the code and saving is pretty tiresome. Is there a faster way to do this, perhaps with bots, scripts or something? - Alumnum (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you could probably write a script to do it if you have an algorithm that can determine when a word is a "hybridism". DTLHS (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
BTW, I think "(etymological) hybrid" may be a more common word for these than "hybridism". Equinox 21:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm looking for a more simple tool, like one that could add a page to a category with one click (instead of having to open, edit and save the page) or categorize all pages in a written list. Is there anything like this? - Alumnum (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
[2] DTLHS (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm gonna take a look on that. - Alumnum (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Since the term "hybridism" is defined as anything with different origins, I'm assuming that any term inherited from Middle English plus any term not inherited from Middle English already qualifies? That's an extremely broad category. I've added meat wagon to demonstrate. —Rua (mew) 23:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
I think the term refers to individual hybrid words only. Phrases would indeed make the category extremely broad. - Alumnum (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't consider meat wagon a phrase, but a simple noun-noun compound. —Rua (mew) 23:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
But it's still two separate words. At least according to the Wikipedia article it is limited to words. There is meatwagon, though. - Alumnum (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Orthography has nothing to do with words. DTLHS (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn‘t consider meat wagon a hybrid, since it was formed as an English compound from English meat + English waggon. That these two English words have etymological origins in different languages is in my opinion not sufficient to warrant the “hybrid” label. For that, a word needs to have been forged from components taken from different languages at the time of coinage. Otherwise there is no end to it; for example, normalize goes back on Latin normalis + Ancient Greek -ίζειν (-ízein). But forlorn hope is an etymological hybrid, from the English calque forlorn + a loan from hoop.  --Lambiam 14:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

Merriam-Webster "ȧ"Edit

I don't know where I ought to bring this, but since it is only tangentially related to Wiktionary, I thought that this may be the best place to bring it.

I noticed that our entry for blague does not give any pronunciation for the word. I looked the word up through DuckDuckGo, and Merriam-Webster's entry for it was the first (or one of the first) to come up.

I usually avoid Merriam-Webster like the plague because I strongly dislike it and its general philosophy, but I thought "What's the harm?" and clicked on the link on the search results page.

And then I saw the pronunciation section...

Oh, right. They use their own silly little system for whatever reason rather than using IPA. *sigh* Well, whatever.

The "pronunciation" given is this:

\ ˈbläg, -ȧg\


I have been able to decipher it to this extent thus far:

/blɑg, -?g/

The problem lies in what their confusing vowel transcriptions mean. I found this unnecessarily long "pronunciation guide", that ironically uses IPA to explain their own silly transcription system, and even seems to indicate that their choices for how they transcribe things are not always perfectly ideal.

Through that, I was able to determine that the first pronunciation that they gave was actually /blɑg/ (they describe it as "the vowel of bother", which is not exactly accurate, especially because the actual vowel of bother is still used in parts of the very region that I live in).

But even using their guide, /ȧ/--excuse me, "\ȧ\", is not explained (unless I missed it. I don't think that I did).

The reason that this is particularly bothersome in this case is that I assumed that the two pronunciations must have meant

/blæg/ and /bleɪg/

...but I was way off apparently, because, according to their guide, (in their system) /blæg/ would be "\ ˈblag\", and /bleɪg/ would be "\ ˈblāg\".

So I have no idea what "\ ˈblȧg\" is supposed to represent. Does anyone have any clue about this? Tharthan (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's entry on ȧ says "it is occasionally used as a phonetic symbol for a low central vowel, /ä/." OTOH, Pronunciation respelling for English says Merriam-Webster uses both it and \ä\ for /ɑ/, from which (and the explanation at Merriam-Webster#Pronunciation_guides of the rationale behind them) I gather that the difference may be intended to indicate that some dialects have a particular split or merger which causes this word to be pronounced like other words which use the same symbol (which can be found via google:Merriam Webster "ȧ", which might help deduce what it is (e.g. via comparison to other dictionaries): maybe it indicates what precise pronunciation it has relative to one of these splits/mergers? Sadly, other dictionaries I looked at only have one pronunciation, corresponding to the first one MW lists. - -sche (discuss) 03:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't bother with what they say, look for words that rhyme with the pronunciations you think it might have, and see how they're transcribed. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
It's very aggravating that they omit \ȧ\ from the pronunciation key, but the entry for Bostonese, which I found in the Google results, says "the speech of Boston and the immediately surrounding region marked by certain features (such as the use of \ȧ\ for the a in ask) that set it off sharply from most other speech patterns of the U.S." Apparently this only means the specially broadened a, because it doesn't include the a in father; the only transcription they give for that is \ˈfä-t͟hər\. Bother is transcribed \ˈbä-t͟hər\, so I guess they aren't representing the Boston accent that distinguishes father from bother but pronounces cot and caught the same, but another accent that has broadening of a reminiscent of southern English English but still pronounces the vowels of father and bother alike. — Eru·tuon 04:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Ohhh, I think that I might have an idea. I am aware that a huge percentage of younger Boston English speakers ditch the Boston Dialect's traditional trap-bath split [that is essentially the same one that is found in Received Pronunciation and other manners of speaking that are based upon the kind of English speech widely associated with Southern England] in favour of a split for those same words that mimics the kind of unsavoury æ-tensing found in dialects in areas of the country that were hit by the Northern Cities Vowel Shift (this is not typically found that I know of in Eastern New England. In fact, at least where I live, this is one of the very noticeable distinguishing marks between New York City English and the dialect of New England English spoken in my city [it's a "suburban city", though, understand], along with the difference in how we pronounce aunt as /ɑnt/, whereas in New York City English it is a homophone of ant).
So I'm wondering (since you brought up the entry for "Bostonese" in Merriam-Webster, and its possible relevance) if "\ ˈblȧg\" is supposed to represent /blɛəg/.
Or... it could be a pedantic symbol to distinguish (in some convoluted and roundabout way) /ɑ/ and /ɒ/ for the sake of the traditional Boston dialect (because the traditional Boston dialect retains both the father-bother distinction and has the trap-bath split [in the traditional sense]). The thing is, that would be very arcane if that is indeed the case, particularly because the problem lies in the fact that they explain \ä\ as the vowel of "bother", rather than as the vowel of "father" or "ha" or something. If they used a different symbol to represent /ɒ/ in their utterly unnecessary system, this problem (if that is indeed what is going on) would not exist. This second explanation would explain what -sche mentioned earlier as well.
Tharthan (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
It does look like \ȧ\ is representing a pronunciation with a trapbath split (what I meant by "broad a"), together with some non-rhotic pronunciations, as in Carlylism, because of which words have been given that symbol. I also think they are more likely to represent an older pronunciation that has had time to get famous. In any case, they don't seem to be using the symbol very systematically, based on the search results and several entries in the broad a or æ-tensing categories that I visited. Maybe it's a recent innovation that they haven't gotten around to fully using. — Eru·tuon 08:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

"(US, rhotic, r-dissimilation)"Edit

(Was debating whether to bring this here or to the Tea Room)

How can this be distinguished from relics of non-rhotic pronunciation amongst younger speakers of historically non-rhotic dialects?

For instance:




(Incidentally, I have heard /ˈfoʊwɚd/ used for forward by a number of people in my country, but not generally by speakers of my dialect [and I don't use it myself, either]. Our entry for forward gives a similar pronunciation to this, but doesn't give it as being used at all in the United States of America. Perhaps we ought to take another look at that.)

...These are indeed the pronunciations that I, for instance, use. But it isn't because of "r-dissimilation". It's because the local dialect in my area has historically been non-rhotic. My mother's speech is, in rough estimation, 75% rhotic, and my father's speech is, in rough estimation, 85% rhotic.

My speech is, in rough estimation, 95% rhotic. Furthermore, to my mind, the fact that an "r" is in a word is fully evident. The r-dropping in my speech is essentially something that happens in relaxed speech, when I am in a state of passion (in discussion), and when I am drowsy. I don't resist it, because I have no desire to. It is not as if I start speaking in a non-rhotic fashion à la John F. Kennedy. I just will often, in a sentence, pronounce some of the words (not always, but it is quite common) without their final r.

So, again, how does one distinguish between instances of "r-dissimilation" and just vestiges of historical dialectal non-rhoticity? Is it even possible to do that? Tharthan (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The pronunciations above are commonly found even among speakers whose dialects are otherwise historically fully rhotic. While it's possible these speakers could be borrowing from non-rhotic dialects, it's telling that this only seems to occur in words with nearby rhotic sounds, suggesting that dissimilation, rather than interdialectal borrowing, is the likely cause. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 13:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Southern OhloneEdit

How can I cite the following[3] for all the css words that I have added?Ndołkah (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

My attempt:
{{cite-book|author=Felipe Arroyo de la Cuesta|authorlink=Felipe Arroyo de la Cuesta|title=Grammar of the Mutsun language, spoken at the Mission of San Juan Bautista, Alta California|publisher=Cramoisy Press|year=1861|volume=IV|series=Shea’s Library of American Linguistics|url=}}.
which produces
Felipe Arroyo de la Cuesta (1861) Grammar of the Mutsun language, spoken at the Mission of San Juan Bautista, Alta California (Shea’s Library of American Linguistics)‎[4], volume IV, Cramoisy Press.
There is a 1970 reprint by AMS Press, but it is out of print.  --Lambiam 19:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Please note that the orthography used by Arroyo was based on Spanish and may be considered outdated. For example, his spelling capjan for /kɑphɑn/ is rendered in the Mutsun–English English–Mutsun Dictionary published by the University of Hawai’i as kaphan.  --Lambiam 19:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Well capjan and kaphan make the same sound the letter j in spanish is /x/ just like the h in howdy or kaphan, I am fluent in both English and Spanish and think I can figure it out. Thank you for the resources.Ndołkah (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a difference between the voiceless velar fricative /x/ and the voiceless glottal fricative /h/. The latter phoneme does not occur in Castilian, at least not in the area Arroyo came from (the heart of Castile), so it is not strange that he substituted the closest phoneme known to him. Still, it is not the same.  --Lambiam 21:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, changing the topic slightly to orthography and not phonology, spelling the word with a K for a native Spanish reader would trigger the "loanword detector" immediately, and I suspect many native Spanish speakers reading "kaphan" spelled with a K might actually read it out loud as if it were the pseudo-Spanish word "cafán", because the K triggered the "loanword detector" and then the PH becomes a digraph from Greek that sounds like F in Spanish orthography. I suspect Spanish speakers who can read are almost universally aware that PH in loanwords "would usually be F in Spanish". I recall a friend of mine reading the English word "haphazard", and I said "Phaser what? Phaser like in Star Trek?" (He may have simplified the word-final RD consonant cluster to /ɹ/ with no sound for the written letter D, or the /f/ sound may have thrown me too far off track.) "Capjan" for a Spanish audience seems like the safest spelling, albeit imprecise. Fluoborate (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
But...we're not writing for a Spanish audience.
Ideally we should be using whichever spelling system / orthography is most used by the people in question, which may be whichever is most modern. Failing that, a more phonetic system (like kaphan if the word is indeed /kɑphɑn/) seems preferable. - -sche (discuss) 07:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I seeNdołkah (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Northern OhloneEdit

Any resources or wordlists available for Northern Ohlone?Ndołkah (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I was given access the a linguistic gem by the University of California Berkeley library, they are Harrington's Chochenyo (Northern Ohlone) field notes with María de los Angeles Colós and José Guzman fluent tribal members of the time, can someone create a citation for me to paste to all the new entries I have been able to make, the notes are largely a Spanish-Northern Ohlone dictionary with some notes in English as well.Ndołkah (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "create a citation". Do you mean a citation template? —Rua (mew) 11:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Something like this @RuaNdołkah (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
{{cite-book|author=Felipe Arroyo de la Cuesta|authorlink=Felipe Arroyo de la Cuesta|title=Grammar of the Mutsun language, spoken at the Mission of San Juan Bautista, Alta California|publisher=Cramoisy Press|year=1861|volume=IV|series=Shea’s Library of American Linguistics|url=}}.
which produces
Felipe Arroyo de la Cuesta (1861) Grammar of the Mutsun language, spoken at the Mission of San Juan Bautista, Alta California (Shea’s Library of American Linguistics)‎[5], volume IV, Cramoisy Press
So you want a template that produces that text? —Rua (mew) 12:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I just want to put in a reference to some new entries!Ndołkah (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you want a template so you don't have to copy and paste the whole reference. Usually reference templates are prefixed with R: ({{R:LSJ}}) and sometimes the language code is added ({{R:ar:Wehr-4}}). For the reference above, possible titles are {{R:de la Cuesta}} or {{R:cst:de la Cuesta}}. — Eru·tuon 04:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


the system won't key me create antivaxxer —This unsigned comment was added by Ndołkah (talkcontribs) at 04:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC).

There's a filter for titles with "xx". DTLHS (talk) 05:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Created it. — Eru·tuon 05:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
ThankiesNdołkah (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

My link to "adolescent (ro)" goes nowhere, but the others workEdit

This is quite likely a stupid question, but I read the docs for the template "desc" (descendant) and I can't fix it. I just added two more descendants for the Latin word adolescens (section: Descendants) - it has obvious cognates in Romanian and Catalan that were not listed until I added them. I just pasted the same template with "ca" for Catalan and "ro" for Romanian, and the proper spellings. The Catalan link works. The Romanian link does not. And it is not a redlink. Hyperlinks to Romanian nouns are especially important because Romanian nouns are highly inflected (relative to Spanish or English), and this common Romanian word has the whole declension table on Wiktionary, because Wiktionary is awesome: adolescent (Romanian). It is a bluelink on the Latin "adolescens" page (the first link in this post), but clicking on the bluelink brings you to the English entry for "adolescent", not the Romanian entry. The lemma forms in English and Romanian do share spelling (singular in English, singular-nominative in Romanian). This may contribute to the problem.

Please fix it and then tell me how you did so. Thank you. Fluoborate (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Links on English Wiktionary go to entries on English Wiktionary, not Romanian Wiktionary. There's no entry on English Wiktionary for Romanian adolescent. — Eru·tuon 02:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

how do i format mashkodebizhiki to make it more like ᒪᔥᑯᑌᐱᔑᑭ?Edit

or should they be in one entry? how are entries in other languages with multiple scripts handled before i go ahead and Syllabics to the other Ojibwe entries?Ndołkah (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Content should (consistently, across all entries) be at whichever script is more common overall, and entries at the other script form should be soft redirects of some form, using a template to display something like "Latin script form of..." or "Canadian Aboriginal Syllabic form of...". The lemma entry could link to the other entry in its headword, like Serbo-Croatian does. Serbo-Croatian is, incidentally, an exception to the usual practice of lemmatization; full entries are allowed to exist and fall out of sync at multiple script forms. Most reference works I've seen use Latin script, even though some also include syllabic script, FWIW. (Incidentally, Wiktionary needs to apply a "Runic script form of..." template to ᚱᛁᛋᛏᛅ and the few other Runic Old Norse entries... and consider whether to move the Cyrillic spelling of iubi, юби, into the headword line like with Serbo-Croatian... but anyway юби has an example of a language-specific script-form-of template...) - -sche (discuss) 07:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I see so could you fix up mashkodebizhiki for me so I have an example of how to do it. And what is a soft redirect exactly, how does it differ from a regular redirect. Basically I am understanding that ᒪᔥᑯᑌᐱᔑᑭ should be on the mashkodebizhiki entry and the ᒪᔥᑯᑌᐱᔑᑭ should redirect to mashkodebizhiki, correct?Ndołkah (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
A "soft redirect" is an entry with minimal content, just some form of "___ form of" template on the definition line that "redirects" (points) users to the main spelling. As for mashkodebizhiki, my own inclination would be to make it the lemma and have ᒪᔥᑯᑌᐱᔑᑭ soft-redirect to it, because most works I've seen use Latin script and it seems easier to input. But my experience may be limited. User:Stephen G. Brown, do you have any knowledge of whether Ojibwe is more often written in Latin script or in Syllabic script? (Does it differ in the US vs Canada?) - -sche (discuss) 00:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

'the cover is a detail'Edit

On the Edward Said page, we have the sentence: "The cover of the book Orientalism (1978) is a detail from the 19th-century Orientalist painting The Snake Charmer, by Jean-Léon Gérôme (1824–1904)." What does the word detail mean here? I have seen this type of usage before I think. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

"7. A part distinct from the whole." —Suzukaze-c 08:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
"Detail of Mona Lisa (1503–1506) by Leonardo da Vinci, Louvre." —Suzukaze-c 08:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c I find this usage distinct from that definition and from the example given for that definition on the detail page. I'm trying to think of a synonym that could be switched with the 'detail' in both the Mona Lisa and Snake Charmer instances to the same effect. So far I have section and portion, but I don't they they are quite right. Is there a usage like this outside the art world? My initial speculation was that there was a artsy feel to this usage. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC) (modified)
I would say sense 7 as well, but I don't agree with the current citation of sense 7 being where it is. The "details of [WikiLeaks] corruption" are the specifics, as opposed to a broad or general view, whereas the "detail" from a painting is a small portion of it. Equinox 11:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Equinox, Suzukaze-c I'm trying to read this art dictionary definition for 'detail' but my head is starting to spin I think that there is a possibility that there is special meaning for the word 'detail' in the art community, specifically for paintings (maybe also for photos? that's just a guess). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
It is as Equinox says, a small portion of a larger artwork. It is typically something that has a meaning of its own, like a bee, or a brooch, or a bible. Or whatever, as long as someone considered it interesting to examine, for whatever reason. It can also be an enlarged portion of an artwork that serves to demonstrate a technique, such as the brush strokes of a Van Gogh, or the hatching and crosshatching in a Rembrandt drawing.  --Lambiam 22:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Equinox, Lambiam, Suzukaze-c Sorry to bother y'all again, but I just want to confirm that I didn't mess up the detail page. Do you think adding this definition is worthwhile? I think it is, because I can't get from 'A part distinct from the whole.' to 'a selected portion of a painting'. We don't take a car and say, "This is a detail of the steering wheel." like we can say "This is a detail of the Mona Lisa." --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, one would. I does not have to be a painting or other work of art: detail of matching gears, detail of rudder, detail of an iron gate, ..., so the sense “a selected portion of a painting” is too restrictive. Oxford Living Dictionaries gives the main definition “An individual feature, fact, or item”, which I think is also not very clear, but it is elaborated upon by giving more detailed subsenses, including “A small part of a picture or other work of art reproduced separately for close study”. While this is indeed a common use, the examples above show the “small part” need not be a part of a work of art. When you combine the Oxford def with our current sense 7, you get: “An individual feature, fact, or item, considered separately from the whole of which it is a part.” Would that be sufficient clarification? This should then be illustrated with well chosen usexes or quotations – the current single quotation at sense 7 is in my opinion not apt; the sense is actually a different one.  --Lambiam 09:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Two thingsEdit

1. How do pingbacks work? I have created/started major work on some articles that seriously need input from people more well-versed in the language than me, and apparently you aren't meant to ping them back on the article itself. 2. Thai transliteration. I have created some Thai entries, namely โอลิงกีโต (oo-ling-gii-dtoo) and เมียร์แคต‎ (miia-kɛ́t‎). When I put the appropriate template there, not all the transliterations show up.

--Corsicanwarrah (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

When a link to an editor such as [[User:John Smith]] is added to a page, that editor gets an alert (aka notification): “So-and-so mentioned you on page ABC in section XYZ”. Instead of using wiki markup like that, you can use the ping template in the form {{ping|John Smith}}. On the page it will look thus: “@John Smith”, with a link to the editor’s page. When using ping, you can specify up to nine users to be notified. Since the output is visible with either of the two methods, this should only be used on discussion pages.  --Lambiam 22:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
One detail that most people get wrong is that pinging only works if the message, the ping/user name, and your signature are in the same edit. If you get the user name wrong or you forget to sign, fixing such things won't make the ping work. Another, fairly new feature is wikilinking to the user name in the edit summary( i.e: "User:Corsicanwarrah, this needs attention from someone who knows the language").
Whatever method you use, use discretion: it's like waving your arms and yelling to get someone's attention- it's necessary sometimes, but if you do it all the time, you get on people's nerves. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Moving/merging misspelt pageEdit

The page toodeloo is a misspelling of toodle-oo (note that the latter has actual examples of usage; moreover, "toodeloo", unlike "toodle-oo", is not listed as a word in well-known dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster (1 2) or the OED (1 2)).

The pages should be merged, but I am not exactly sure what merging pages entails. Just cut and paste the content from toodeloo to toodle-oo, and turn the former into a redirect? There is a template {{merge}}, but it lacks documentation and so I am unsure under what circumstances it ought to be used. --Superiority (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't merge pages on Wiktionary, note the documentation of the template (which is present!) that says "Mergers of dictionary entries are inappropriate since each spelling gets its own page." Instead, if you doubt the existence of a term, you can use the WT:RFV process. —Rua (mew) 20:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
This spelling is easily attested: [6], [7], [8]. Since the etymology is unknown and toodle by itself doesn’t mean anything, it isn’t clear why one should consider toodeloo a misspelling of toodle-oo, rather than the other way around.  --Lambiam 22:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The dictionary entries (and lack thereof) in major British and American dictionaries are why one should consider that. The OED has an attestation of "toodle-oo" from 1907. And, notably, the links you give for "toodeloo" are American publications, despite the word being "chiefly British" in usage (and somewhat rare even there); Americans misspelling a word that's not used in American English is not unexpected. --Superiority (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Grammar question: correlative comparative constructionsEdit

I've found an interesting article about those, but I couldn't find an answer to my question there.

I would like to know whether this sentence is completely grammatical: "the fewer trucks there will be on the roads, the safer they will become".

I'm in doubt because I was told you can't use the future tense in the first part of the comparison, hence you should write instead: "the fewer trucks there are on the roads, the safer they will become" (similarly, not "**the more he will brag, the more people will laugh at him" but "the more he brags, the more people will laugh at him", etc.).

Thoughts? @Equinox, Mihia, Tharthan?

Canonicalization (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that it is incorrect, "the more there will be, the safer they will become" simply sounds unnatural to me in regard to formation. Remember that "to be" means "to exist" (pretty much, and definitely so in the sense used in those examples). What you want to say is "the greater the amount that exist, the safer that they will become" or "the greater the amount that are there, the safer that they will become", hence the reason why the sentence is properly formed with "are" and not "will be", and why "brags" is proper and "will brag" is not in the example that you gave. Tharthan (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
"The more there will be, the safer they will become," sounds pretty natural to me. Informal, perhaps, but not incorrect. A regional difference, perhaps? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
What you were told is correct: it should be "are" and not "will be". However, I would say that the resulting sentence is still slightly unclear. It could be read as implying that each individual truck will be safer if there are fewer trucks, whereas I suppose the intended meaning is actually that each truck will not necessarily be any more safe, but overall safety will be improved simply because there are fewer. Mihia (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's grammatically incorrect but it is definitely not how a native speaker would say it. It sounds wrong in the same way that "if you will come to England next year, we'll meet up!" sounds wrong (you'd really say "if you come to England..."). I don't really understand the rules here but we don't generally use the "will" / future tense when we are talking about a conditional situation. "If you will" is a set of three words that don't really occur together. Equinox 02:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)