Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Information desk/2018/July

< Wiktionary:Information desk

'kloogy' edit

What does 'kloogy' mean?--J. Wiwat (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen that word, and I cannot find any uses online, even with Google. Out of context, I would guess it's a misspelling of kludgy, but it would be an odd misspelling unless based on a mispronunciation as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've always heard kludge as rhyming with stooge, not fudge, and I've been hearing and using it for decades. When I first saw it in writing, I wondered why it was spelled that way. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Metaknowledge and Chuck Entz, I appreciate your information. However, I came across a sentence with 'kloogy translations', what sort of translation is that? Presumably, I think it suggests a negative meaning.--J. Wiwat (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Kludgy translations" seems to fit (saying that the translations are only kludges). - -sche (discuss) 22:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, --sche.--J. Wiwat (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish pronunciation inconsistencies edit

These four entries transcribe doğu- four different ways:

Is each one really pronounced differently, or should they be standardized in some way? Should we have some kind of policy at Wiktionary:About Turkish on how to transcribe /ğ/? Pinging User:Djkcel as the most recently-active editor in Category:User tr-N. - -sche (discuss) 00:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The soft g of Turkish is an issue to be sure. There seems to be some confusion between broad and narrow transcriptions; the allophone that is present in this word is Ø, I believe, but the phoneme should still be represented in broad IPA. @Anylai, Atitarev, Mahagaja, Allahverdi Verdizade, Lambiam —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The most accurate broad transcription in this case is /do.u.../, the narrow transcription would be /doɰu.../. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia's article Voiced velar fricative, the letter ⟨ğ⟩ may have this phoneme as a non-standard realization in some Turkish dialects. The example given is ağa → [aɣa]. This was once the standard realization before the sound change that made it silent in standard Turkish pronunciation, except for lengthening the preceding vowel in some circumstances. The Wikipedia article Ğ also states this sound change is not yet complete in some Turkish dialects. I have personally never actually observed anyone using this. Turkey is large and my exposure to dialects has been limited, but you will not hear this on the radio or TV. Should we also cater for such rare, non-standard pronunciations? I don't see us doing that for other languages. The Wikipedia article Ğ further mentions that between different rounded vowels (o, u, ö, ü) it is mostly silent, but may be a bilabial glide, like doğu → [dowʊ]. If there is a glide, I think it simply represents speakers' inability to realize the hiatus in a pure, discontinuous way. Personally I don't hear it in doğu, but I do hear it in doğan → [dowan]. I also hear it in fuar (“fair, exposition”) → [fuwar], so I think it is just a matter of articulation that has no phonetic relationship with the unrealized ⟨ğ⟩.
What about transcribing it as /ɰ/, the voiced velar approximant? The Wikipedia article Ğ states that the ⟨ğ⟩ is “sometimes represented with /ɰ/ for convenience”. I find this a cryptic message; how is this convenient? No source that I know of states that this is an appropriate phonemic realization of the ⟨ğ⟩, even in dialects. Intervocalic, like in doğu, there is also no lengthening.
As to the ⟨o⟩ in doğu, I think it is obviously the IPA phoneme /o/. The /ɔ/ does not occur in standard Turkish. Finally, ⟨u⟩ is normally /u/, but word-final, in an open syllable, it is usually realized with the allophone /ʊ/. In conclusion, I think that in all cases doğu should be transcribed as /do.u/ (for simplicity) or [do.ʊ] (for precision). The use of /ɔ/ and lengthening are wrong, and /ɰ/ serves no useful purpose that I'm aware of (and is not accurate for the standard pronunciation).  --Lambiam 16:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could give a more helpful answer in technical terms, but in the dialect I've always used (Istanbul) the ğ is almost always silent, as in değmek (“to touch”). It's usually in front of a vowel to make it sound longer. In Turkish dialects from the east I've heard it pronounced as "gh" like in Arabic. Djkcel (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question 1: Do you feel Wiktionary should list the eastern dialectal pronunciation? We could do something like "(Standard) IPA(key): [doˈʊ] / (Eastern dialects) IPA(key): [doɣˈʊ]". I do hear a nonstandard voiceless velar fricative (also used in Arabic) quite often, also in Istanbul, but only word final, as in çok → [tʃox].
Question 2: "In front of a vowel" – did you mean "in front of a consonant" (as in değmek? I assume you hear the difference between demek and değmek. What do you hear, /dejˈmec/ (which is the pronunciation now given at değmek, and which is how deymek would sound if it was a word) or /deːˈmec/, with an /e/ that is merely lengthened?  --Lambiam 21:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1 - yes, I do think that would be helpful. the Eastern dialects (in a place like Iğdır, for example), are pretty much interchangeable with Azeri.
2 - haha yes, that would probably be the lack of technical knowledge I was talking about, sorry - following a vowel. First syllable of demek to me sounds short like deh while değmek sounds like "day" with a longer vowel. Djkcel (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a native Turkish speaker, and all information I give here is based on my idiolect. The ⟨ğ⟩ in Turkish has two main functions. Keeping in mind that it always has to follow a vowel:
  • Syllable initially, i.e. before a vowel, it has no sound, and only marks the start of a new syllable. So ⟨ağ⟩ and ⟨ağa⟩ have different pronunciations, [äː] (see below) and [ä.ˈä], respectively.
  • Syllable finally, i.e. in other cases, it lenghtens the preceding vowel. ⟨boğmak⟩ is [bo̞ːmäk].

Alternative forms and alternative spellings edit

I've created a few entries here now but I'm still confused about when to write "alternative form of" vs "alternative spelling of" vs just repeating a definition. For example, I have done the first in duodecane, the second in chicklit and in foro conscientiæ, and the latter in spermaticide; however I am not confident I have made the best choices. Could someone please explain this to me? BethNaught (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative spelling is a specific type of alternative form that differs only orthographically from the main form. When in doubt, use alternative form. As for the third option, that should be avoided, if possible. Wikis can be edited by anyone at any time, so the definition you repeat may later be completely changed, giving the impression that the entries have different meanings. Worse, one form may preserve an error that was corrected in the other, or an error may be introduced in one form and go unnoticed by those who are watching the other. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipédia edit

I really feel like I should know this...but I don't, and it's always left me wondering. So, it's finally time to ask it.

Why is the French Wikipedia called natively Wikipédia? It doesn't make sense to me, because I would think a French speaker would name it "Wikipédie." I understand it's a borrowing that uses the accent (probably should be mentioned at the etymology section of that entry but it isn't), but...why did consensus come to that name over "Wikipédie"? Especially when the French Wiktionary is called Wiktionnaire... PseudoSkull (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The French-speaking Wikipedians use the name "Wikipédia" for the whole project, including the original English Wikipedia, and not specifically for the Francophone version. That is why they have separate articles for Wikipédia, corresponding to the article Wikipedia on the English-language site, and for Wikipédia en français, corresponding to the article French Wikipedia on the English Wikipedia. When the main page of the French Wikipedia was created in 2002, it used the name "Wikipedia" just like the English one (as in Bienvenue sur Wikipedia, une encyclopédie libre, gratuite, et écrite coopérativement), but soon this edit (by an anonymous IP, originating from INRIA), changed it to "Wikipédia". I don't know if this was the original move that resulted in the name becoming spelled like it is still now. In May 2014 there was an attempt to Frenchify the name of the French article Wikipédia en français by moving it to Wikipédie en français, but the move was undone 35 minutes later. The French page Wikipédia:Wikipédiste, which is not meant to be taken seriously, (re)defines wikipédien as an inhabitant of the country named Wikipédie.  --Lambiam 22:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If an anon IP was indeed responsible for the addition of the accent, that would make quite a story. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 23:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look at this page. The name Wikipédia has won with 42 votes, and the name Wikipédie lost obtaining only 9 votes. Agusbou2015 (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can this font be installed on Western Windows without any BSoD? edit

I want to install the Japanese font "Osaka", which is a TTC file. I have the font file, but I'm afraid from installing it 'cuz a font (Osaka–等幅) has kanji on it. Can this font be safely installed? I have the Chinese, Japanese and Korean versions of Microsoft Office IME 2010. --186.88.113.201 01:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You will be fine. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 23:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fonts included in that TTC are Osaka, Osaka–等幅 and Osaka-UI.

Пенсильва́нія (Pensylʹvánija) (the American state) Pennsylvania edit

Could we please add the Ukrainian word "Пенсильванія?"

Is it also possible to add the Belarusian word "Пенсільванія" for Pennsylvania, in English Wiktionary?

It's a wiki! If you know those languages, you can add it yourself. If not, you can add to WT:RE:be and WT:RE:uk respectively. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'new word addition' edit

Want to add / contribute a newly coined word to Wiktionary but when I try adding it before I publish it halts it as spam, can someone guide or do this for me please? Agilewiz

We don't include words that were just made up; see WT:CFI. Try a site like Urban Dictionary. Equinox ◑ 12:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what happened edit

I'm not even sure this is the right place to discuss this, but I will try anyway.
I was editing a page, and when I clicked the ‘Show preview’ button, the edited page appeared, only with a large picture – named ‘male fellatio.jpg’ or something like that – depicting what I would call NSFW content, that I hadn't included in my edit. I proceeded to delete it, and saved the rest of the edit.
What does this mean? Could it be that my account has been hacked? I seriously can't wrap my head around this.
Again, sorry if this isn't the right place for this kind of discussion. — GianWiki (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which page were you trying to edit? DTLHS (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DTLHS, it was accontentare. — GianWiki (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was recent vandalism on that page that has been hidden from the history containing the image you are describing. DTLHS (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok: I guess I worried for pretty much nothing. Thanks for your answers. — GianWiki (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GianWiki The vandal was apparently stalking the recent changes log, according to their edits. They probably saw your first edit to the page, and decided to vandalize it after that. This is some pretty ugly vandalism, not just because of the NSFW content, but because of the particular method used to disrupt the project. I can see how you might have thought your account had been hacked, as that was a pretty shocking discovery for me at cougarhood as well to say the least. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Idiom "beneath (someone's) concern" edit

There does not appear to be an entry for "beneath one's concern". Also, I googled the exact phrase "beneath one's concern", and I only got a single-digit number of hits, none of which shed much light on the idiom and its use. I know that it would usually be used with a different pronoun than "one's", though.

Is this proper usage? "For you it is enough to know that the machine works. How it works should be beneath your concern." — This unsigned comment was added by 32.212.48.121 (talk).

"Beneath his concern" is fine; some other words can do this, e.g. "beneath one's notice", so I don't know whether it needs an entry as a whole phrase. Equinox ◑ 21:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name of language not know edit

Language of Damdam and close name is what? Languages of large neighbors large different, large different. Not Parsi, not Luri, not Baxtiyari. Language of Damdam different with all forms of building and small sounds. In Parsi office and Western office name of this language is what? Master of English said 'is Kurdi' wrong, Kurdi large different also and together not understand. Name of self Guti but in office name is what? — This unsigned comment was added by Yewbul (talk • contribs).

The village of دم‌دم is very small, maybe 36 people in total. If their language is different from Farsi, I do not know what it is. —Stephen (Talk) 20:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you still for answer. Close of Damdam also and moved people, this language more than 36 people together speak. Large similar words of Parsi with different words of other neighbors but large different words of them also, all maybe new of their origin if this language in heart not Aryan with them? Not sure right writing but comparing you know? Small sample of different words in Parsi انسان and کودک and تابستان and آهنگ, in this language maybe write wrong but sounds مانو and زابوک and اغار and پولا or try with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA sounds mɑnu and zɑbuk and ɑʁɑr and pulɑ but maybe wrong, not know if right ä or ɐ or ɑ and u or ʊ and z or dz and r or ɾ and sorry for not hear difference of n or ɳ and l or ɫ or ɭ or ɺ but try right. Know name of this language in office is what? Yewbul (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We do not know what language is spoken in دم‌دم. There is some information at fa:w:دم‌دم, but nothing about language. —Stephen (Talk) 19:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given the area, I would have certainly assumed Bakhtiari. As far as I know, only PIA and Nuristani retained the PII *mánuš (“man”) in modern form, i.e. Shina مَنو (manu), Kamviri مآنشا (mânša). @Yewbul, perhaps you want to create a swadesh list.
For easier reference for other: مانو (manu, “man”), زابوک (zabuk, “child”), اغار (aghar, “summer”), پولا (pula, “melody”). --Victar (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
پولا (pula, “melody”) could be related to Urdu لولی (lolī, “lullaby”), Indus Kohistani لاَیلی (layli, “song”), Pashto للی (lalay), للو (lalu, “lullaby”). ---Victar (talk) 07:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yewbul Could you please make a word list? Perhaps we can compare with other nearby Iranian languages, but if you say they are different I can try to see if there are any similarities with Indo-Aryan languages. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 01:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. This list too long and confusing, too large work for translating right and writing right all words.... Want fill it but, how easier? Why also some words of English and Parsi not match right, for sample نخ and rope, and more of half of list in German? Yewbul (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yewbul: the Persian column is irrelevant as you would be replacing it with words from your dialect. Swadesh lists are what linguists use to compare languages. You can just create a list on your computer if you like, then paste it into a new user page, perhaps User:Yewbul/Swadesh list. --Victar (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categories edit

Do I need to seek permission before creating a new category or two? I was thinking of making some new categories for parts of speech more specific than what we have now, like for compound verbs and phrasal nouns. What do you think? What about topical categories? (to be clear, I promise I won't make a bunch and barely populate them or anything, I'll make a reasonable stab at thoroughness). GaylordFancypants (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GaylordFancypants: You don't need special user rights but should generally be cautious. In which langauge(s) do you plan on working here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just English. I will be cautious and go slow, thanks! GaylordFancypants (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a very big problem, quite a big problem, too big a problem edit

Is there any general rule or sense to structures of the kind "a very big problem", "quite a big problem", "too big a problem", which seem to vary in syntax needlessly? Equinox ◑ 21:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Information_desk/2018/July&oldid=65118284"