Wiktionary:Information desk/2022/July

discussion rooms: Tea room • Etym. scr. • Info desk • Beer parlour • Grease pit ← June 2022 · July 2022 · August 2022 → · (current)

---

How can I nominate a foreign word of the day

I have already read Wiktionary:Foreign Word of the Day/Nominations, but that’s not detail enough for me to understand. Could anyoneexplain the nominating process to me? Beefwiki (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

It is easier to explain if we know the word, but for concreteness' sake, assume you want to nominate 十月芥菜——起心. Then go to the section Wiktionary:Foreign Word of the Day/Nominations § Asia, click "edit", and add, at the bottom, the line

* {{fwotd-nom|zh|十月芥菜——起心|cite=0|pron=1|trans=0}} ~~~~

This will add a nomination looking like

• Chinese: 十月芥菜——起心 (no citations, no translation, pronunciation) Beefwiki (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Since this is not cited and translated, it is not a very good candidate. Make sure that your candidate meets the stated requirements.  --Lambiam 18:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. But, actually I want to nominate un頂able／un顶able, not 十月芥菜——起心. Is un頂able／un顶able a good candidate? Beefwiki (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Beefwiki It's an interesting word and has a pronunciation section, so it's almost ready to go. All you need is to find another quote that features it, and it's FWOTD-proof. brittletheories (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean that a FWOTD candidate, needs to have two quotes at least? Currently, un頂able has one quotation and one citation. Beefwiki (talk) 07:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

One is nominally enough, but two translated quotations (as there are now) is better. It seems good to go. Of course, there is a large pool of candidates already, but this code mix of languages and scripts is unusual enough that it stands a chance.  --Lambiam 13:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lambiam Then I will try to nominate un頂able／un顶able. Thanks for your help! Beefwiki (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Schwinger effect

Can someone please convince Whoop-whoop that their idea of uncountability is wrong? Equinox ◑ 19:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please point out to Equinox that Schwinger effect is an uncountable common noun in the same vein as cosmic microwave background or gravitation? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 19:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox Also, for future reference, it's "her", not "their". Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 19:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

their Determiner sense means "Belonging to someone (one person, singular)." Works for anybody. Equinox ◑ 22:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Unless the person in question has expressed a different pronoun preference (in this case, her). Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 02:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion continues at Talk:Schwinger effect.

It's a proper noun, because you can't have a quantity of it as you can with a mass noun. It's a single, well-defined phenomenon. Theknightwho (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Theknightwho You also can't have a quantity of cosmic microwave background, another single, well-defined phenomenon; should we relist that as a proper noun? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 19:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Whoop whoop pull up As I just said: No, because you can have a quantity of cosmic microwave background (e.g. you can say there is "more cosmic microwave background"). You can't have a quantity of Schwinger effect, and it is incorrect to say "more Schwinger effect". Theknightwho (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Theknightwho Except that you can't "have a quantity of cosmic microwave background", or, for that matter, of general relativity or (when it's being used to refer to the physical principle itself, rather than as a fancier term for gravity) of gravitation. There is only one, indivisible cosmic microwave background, general relativity, gravitation, or Schwinger effect. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 19:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Whoop whoop pull up Stop replying in two places. If you've already said something somewhere, don't say it again somewhere else. Theknightwho (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Theknightwho Will do, although I would advize you to practice what you preach in that regard. My comments on this matter will, going forward, be found at Talk:Schwinger effect. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 20:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Whoop whoop pull up I've been replying where you responded first. It's very simple. Theknightwho (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking for buttons

Sorry, I was asked why a user cannot see button Move at top-righthand buttons. Also, I am trying to find Wiktionary:User rights, somewhere, anywhere at Category:Wiktionary users or at its pages and I cannot find the link at all. Would it possible to have this link at the Rights pages? Thank you. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 19:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

A! it is https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:ListGroupRights
And it is a page without interwikis. It takes a long time to find this address. Would administrators agree to add it at the above pages? Would be very helpful. Thank you ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 19:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

This issue came up because the Latin entry Stōicidae needs to be moved to Stoicidae from Stoicida, which I can't do. See Talk:Stoicida#A Greek etymology? for context. Fruitless Forest (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fruitless Forest: I don't see anything about your account that would prevent you from having "move" rights, and no protections on either the source or destination page that would prevent moving by anyone with "move" rights. This kind of problem usually stems from the fact that the "move" option is only visible on most screens if you hover or click on the "More" control (not a button but a menu). On my screen it's the last thing to the left of the search box. The order is "Edit", "History", [star (watchlist icon)], "More ⌵". As an admin, my "More" menu has more options than yours, but it should look the same for both of us before selected. I suppose it's also possible that "autoconfirmed" status was needed (I don't know what the minimum requirement is), but you're definitely autoconfirmed now. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, thank you for pitching in. I don’t have a “More ⌵” button/menu; I have Read, Edit, History, ✰, QQ, and the search box. Fruitless Forest (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing that "QQ" is something added by the Quiet Quentin gadget, which I don't have enabled. I'd be curious what others who do have the gadget enabled see at the top of their Wiktionary pages. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, yes, that's the button to use Quiet Quentin. It seems it must have replaced the “More ⌵” menu. IMO, it would make more sense for QQ to be an option in that menu, rather than a button that replaces that menu altogether. Fruitless Forest (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Does Special:MovePage/example work for you? 98.170.164.88 01:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@98.170.164.88, it did! Thank you. I'll just use Special:MovePage/… in the future. Fruitless Forest (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I have noticed that occasionally the "More" button doesn't load/appear for me, and I have to reload the page in order to make it appear. I don't know why. (Occasionally the Quiet Quentin button doesn't load/appear, but that seems more expectable, that sometimes the script that adds it might fail to run for one reason or another.) If it consistently never appears for you, that could be something to file a phabricator report about, with information about what OS and browser you're using. - -sche (discuss) 23:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@-sche, my OS is Windows 10 Home and my browser is Mozilla Firefox 102.0.1. I have never noticed the “More ⌵” button/menu being there. Fruitless Forest (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Classification/Grouping of Romance languages

In several Latin entries there are Romance descendants, with different classifications/groupings. Was the classification of Romance languages in Wiktionary ever discussed somewhere, was there any agreement on how to classify/group the languages?

Some examples of what can be found:

System 1: (see e.g. Latinus, *mīrāculum, amo)

• Balkan Romance:
  • Aromanian:
  • Istro-Romanian:
  • Megleno-Romanian:
  • Romanian:
• Dalmatian:
  • Dalmatian:
• Italo-Romance:
  • [C.1] Corsican:
  • [C.1] Gallurese:
  • Old Italian:
    • [C.2] Corsican:

      Gallurese:

      Sassarese:

    • Italian:
  • Neapolitan:
  • [C.1] Sassarese:
  • Sicilian:
• Padanian:
  • Friulian:
  • Ladin:
  • Ligurian:
  • Lombard:
  • Piedmontese:
  • Romansch:
  • Venetian:
• Northern Gallo-Romance:
  • Old Franco-Provençal:
    • Franco-Provençal:
  • [A.1] Oïl:
    • Bourbonnais-Berrichon:
    • Bourguignon:
    • Franc-Comtois:
    • Old French:
      • Middle French:
  • [A.2] Old French:
    • Bourguignon:
    • Champenois:
    • Franc-Comtois:
    • Gallo:
    • Lorrain:
    • Middle French:
      • French:
    • Norman:
    • Picard:
    • Poitevin-Saintongeais:
    • Walloon:
• Southern Gallo-Romance:
  • Aragonese:
  • Old Catalan:
    • Catalan:
  • Old Occitan:
    • Occitan:

      Auvergnat:

      Gascon:

      Languedocien:

      Limousin:

      Provençal: - including: (Niçard)

      Vivaro-Alpine:

• Ibero-Romance:
  • Mozarabic:
  • Old Leonese:
    • Asturian:
    • Extremaduran:
    • Leonese:
    • Mirandese:
  • Old Galician-Portuguese:
    • Fala:
    • Galician:
    • Portuguese:
  • Old Spanish:
    • Ladino:
    • Spanish:
• Insular Romance:
  • [B.1] Sardinian: - including: (Campidanese), (Logudorese)
  • [B.2] Sardinian:

    Campidanese:

    Logudorese:

    Nuorese:

Possible issues:

• With Old French vs. Oïl it's not the same in all entries.
• Aragonese is classified as Gallo-Romance and not as Ibero-Romance (see some examples in Ibero-Romance).
• Catalan is classified as Gallo-Romance and not as Ibero-Romance, as a bridge language between Gallo- and Ibero-Romance, or grouped together with Occitan as Occitano-Romance (see some examples in Ibero-Romance).

System 2: (merged together from slightly different classification in e.g. boscus, Roma, populus, bonus)

• Eastern Romance:
  • Aromanian:
  • Istro-Romanian:
  • Romanian:
• Padanian:
  • Rhaeto-Romance = Rhaetian:
    • Friulian:
    • Ladin:
    • Romansch:
  • Gallo-Italian:
    • Ligurian:
    • Piedmontese:
    • Romagnol:
    • Old Piedmontese:
• Venetian:
• Italo-Dalmatian:
  • Corsican:
  • Dalmatian:
  • Italian:
  • Istriot:
  • Neapolitan:
    • Tarantino:
  • Sicilian:
• West Iberian / Ibero-Romance:
  • Extremaduran:
  • Navarro-Aragonese:
    • Aragonese:
  • Old Leonese:
    • Asturian:
    • Leonese:
    • Mirandese:
  • Old Galician-Portuguese:
    • Fala:
    • Galician:
    • Portuguese:
      • Kabuverdianu:
  • Old Spanish:
    • Ladino:
    • Spanish:
      • Papiamentu:
• East Iberian / Occitano-Romance:
  • Old Occitan:
    • Occitan:
      • Gascon: - - including: (Aranais)
      • Languedocien: -
      • Provençal: - - including: (Mistralienne), (Niçois), (Occitane)
      • Vivaro-Alpin: -
• Gallo-Romance:
  • Franco-Provençal:
  • Oïl:
    • Old French:
      • Angevin:
      • Bourguignon:
      • Bourbonnais-Berrichon:
      • Middle French:
        • French:
          • Guianese Creole:
          • Haitian Creole:
          • Lao:
      • Gallo: - including: (Ille, Vilaine)
      • Norman: - including: (Jersiais), (Sercquiais)
      • Orléanais: - including: (Solognot)
      • Picard: - including: (Athois), (Ch'ti)
      • Walloon: - including: (Charleroi), (Forrières, Liégeois)
• Southern:
  • Sardinian:

--Akonada (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The groupings are based on Koryakov's system, which matches well with my own experience of the languages. Granted, he placed Aragonese under Ibero-Romance, which would also be fine with me. If there is any bridge-language in that area, it's certainly Aragonese, not Catalan, which clearly goes with Occitan (despite the misgivings of some 'Castilian supremacists'), whatever name one chooses to gives to their grouping. I personally dislike 'Occitano-Romance' as it grants a sense of primacy to Occitan, as if everything else in that group simply derives from it (a notion which took me months to uproot in Wiktionary's Catalan etymologies). But the label isn't all that important in the end.

I opted not to use 'Eastern Romance' in this context because the term is often, perhaps even most often, used for a mega-grouping that combines Italo-Romance with Balkan Romance, per Von Wartburg's proposal back in the day.

I've yet to decide what to do about Old French. Should it be used broadly, to include all medieval Oïl languages, or more narrowly, focusing on 'Francien' and perhaps some neighbouring varieties?

As for whether 'the classification of Romance languages in Wiktionary [was] ever discussed somewhere' - not that I am aware of. Nicodene (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nicodene Very, very briefly here. PUC – 22:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Koryakov's system

Koryakov's system has:

• Occitano-Romance [and not "Southern Gallo-Romance"]. Thus in some way Catalan is not classified as Ibero- or Gallo-Romance.
• Aragonese as Ibero-Romance (on the picture: "Ibero-Romanze") [and not as Gallo-Romance].
• "Rhaeto-Romance" (with quotation marks, probably because of the w:Questione Ladina) and North Italian (including Gallo-Italian) [and not Rhaeto-Romance and North Italian together as "Padanian"].
• ""Italo-Romance"" (with quotation marks) and also "South-Romance (Italo-Romance)". That's like having Italo-Romance in a broad and a strict sense.

As for Occitano-Romance: It appears that the term Old Occitan exists with two senses, in the broad being the ancestor to Occitan and Catalan, in the strict only to Occitan. Old Occitan defines it in the broad sense, while w:Old Catalan states: "Consequently Old Catalan can be considered a dialect group of Old Occitan, or be classified as an Occitano-Romance variety side by side with Old Occitan (also known as Old Provençal)." If Old Occitan is used in the broad sense, the term Occitano-Romance should be fine. That's also how Scots has Middle English as ancestor () and not something like *(Middle) English-Scots

As for Oïl vs. Old French: WT:AFRO states "Old French describes the dialect continuum spoken in northern France between roughly 842 and 1339". IMHO that sounds like Old French is the ancestor to French, Walloon etc. w:Walloon language too gives Old French as ancestor of Wallon.

--Akonada (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

For example, Variation and change in Gallo-Romance grammar (2020, Oxford University Press, as cutting-edge a source as one can get) places Catalan under '[evidence from] southern Gallo-Romance varieties' (§8.5). Granted, on page 10 it is noted that 'while many of the authors in this volume and elsewhere include Occitan within Gallo-Romance (Wheeler 1988; Oliviéri and Sauzet 2016) this stance is controversial, with Bec (1967) famously arguing for an Occitano-Romance subgroup, including both Occitan and Catalan on the basis of shared linguistic features, which are principally morpho-phonological.' In the end, 'Occitano-Romance' is fine, as long as it doesn't come with misnomers such as the one that you have quoted (implying, contrary to any modern source, that Old Catalan is a dialect of Old Occitan).

I am, as before, not especially concerned with what grouping modern Aragonese should belong to.

Koryakov does group 'Rhaeto-Romance' with 'Northern Italian'- see page 6 for elaboration. (Note that his use of 'separate outer language' for Venetan and such does not mean 'separate from this grouping'- he uses the same description for Gascon and Portuguese/Galician, which he has firmly within Occitano-Romance and Ibero-Romance respectively. The description really means 'separate from the inner core'.) Unfortunately he does not decide on a name for this grouping, hence I opted for Padanian, the term of choice of Hull (author of The linguistic unity of northern Italy and Rhaetia, 2017).

I'll have to see how modern specialists treat medieval Oïl. I doubt that incidental (and uncited) comments on a Wiktionary page are reliable. Nicodene (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't be suprised if even today there were multiple competing views.

The picture distinguishes Gallo-Italic and Gallo-Italian, and gives this grouping:

• Gallo-Italic
  • Gallo-Italian
    • Lombard / Piedmontese / Ligurian / Emilian-Romagnol
  • Rumantsch
• Ladin / Friulan / Venet / Istriot

To me this doesn't seem to be a common meaning of Gallo-Italic.

So he also distinguishes Gascon from Occitan, which Bassong (cited in Gallo-Romance) might do as well. --Akonada (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes his contrast between Gallo-Italic and Gallo-Italian is unusual, not to mention confusing. I suggest that we accept the latter subgrouping (Piemontese/Lombard/Emilian-Romagnol/Ligurian - which is uncontroversial) and place it alongside the others (Romansch/Ladin/Friulian/Venetan/Istriot) in the larger category to which he does not give a particular name (other than the description 'Western Romance of Northern Italy').

Koryakov's division of Gascon from the main body of Occitan, on the other hand, is supported by Koppelberg's and Chambon's studies (both available online) and the view of Baldinger, a specialist in the subject, all cited on Wiki.

Some commentary by Thomas Field (Professor of Linguistics and French at Maryland University, writing on a website that he runs):

'Today, after centuries of shared history within France, Gascon is usually grouped with the other forms of the langue d’oc as a dialect of Occitan. Its distinctiveness, however, has always been clear, and many scholars (Luchaire, Bourciez, and Baldinger among them) have recommended studying it as a separate language. Bec’s (1970-71) proposal of a tripartite Occitano-Romance, consisting of Gascon, Occitan, and Catalan is a relatively satisfying solution from the linguistic point of view [...] Thus, while we can say that Gascon cannot be subsumed under Occitan in the usual genetic sense, its modern status cannot be settled so easily [...] The position taken on this website is that Gascon is a distinct linguistic form that deserves study in its own right.'

Some commentary from Mooney (Manual of Romance Phonetics and Phonology, same page that you have cited for Ibero-Romance):

'One commonality in all taxonomies is that Gascon is considered as separate from other Occitan dialects, primarily because it is the most divergent in terms of its phonological and morphosyntactic structure (→ Rohlfs 1935/1937; cf. also → Massoure 2012; → Walter 1988, 153).' Nicodene (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

A proposal, leaving aside the matter of how Old French should be handled:

• Balkan Romance
  • Aromanian
  • Istro-Romanian
  • Megleno-Romanian
  • Romanian
• Dalmatian
• Italo-Romance:
  • Old Italian
    • Corsican
    • Gallurese
    • Italian
    • Sassarese
  • 'Neapolitan' (upper southern Italian)
  • 'Sicilian' (extreme southern Italian)
• Padanian (perhaps 'North Italian')
  • Gallo-Italian (or 'Gallo-Italic')
    • Emilian
    • Lombard
    • Ligurian
    • Piemontese
    • Romagnol
  • Friulian
  • Istriot
  • Ladin
  • Romansch
  • 'Venetian' (Venetan)
• Gallo-Romance (narrow sense)
  • Franco-Provençal
  • Oïl
    • (etc.)
• Occitano-Romance:
  • Catalan
  • Gascon
  • Occitan
• Ibero-Romance
  • (Old) Navarro-Aragonese
    • Aragonese
  • Old (Astur-)Leonese
    • Asturian
    • Leonese
    • Mirandese
    • Extremaduran
  • Old (Galician-)Portuguese
    • Fala
    • Galician
    • Portuguese
• Insular Romance:
  • Old Corsican
  • Sardinian
    • Campidanese
    • Logudorese
    • Nuorese

Nicodene (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nicodene: Gallurese should be under Corsican. I'm also unsure about placing Corsican as a descendant of Old Italian, and if that is historically correct we should update the appropriate module. Also, I don't think 'Old Corsican' is a language we have or should have for that matter. Thadh (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Find pages that belong to multiple specific categories

I'm trying to find pages that belong to two categories, more specifically "English 1-syllable words" and "English nouns". How can this be done on wiktionary? Henrysz (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Type this in the search box:

incategory:English_1-syllable_words incategory:English_nouns

and hit the Return (or Enter) key.  --Lambiam 20:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Is this Orthographic Borrowing?

Hi. I don't know if this is the correct place, or if it fit better in the Tea Room. I have trouble grasping the correct meaning of orthographic borrowing.

I have added it as the etymology of the Swedish word momang. Which is the "Swedified" spelling of the French pronunciation of moment.

I also did the same to tabberas, which is the Swedish spelling of the French pronunciation of table rase.

Is this correct use of orthographic borrowing? I cannot compare with earlier examples as this template has never before been used for Swedish on Wiktionary, I had to add the { {autocat} } myself. --Christoffre (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not the correct use of 'orthographic borrowing' as far as I can tell.

An example would be if the Swedes borrowed French moment, kept that precise spelling, and then pronounced it as if it were an identically-spelled native Swedish word. Nicodene (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

As a twist of irony; Swedish already has and use the word moment (“moment; part”) (not yet added to Wiktionary). Does this mean that I should use this template when I add the Swedish definition of "moment? Or is it just for e.g. Latin <-> Japanese alphabets?

Also, how would you go about if you wrote the etymology of momang and momang? How do I explain it is the Swedish spelling of French pronunciation. Or is this implicitly understood with Borrowed? --Christoffre (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

If Swedish moment is pronounced precisely as a native word would be, then it could qualify.

It's nothing unusual for language A to borrow a term from language B (which shares the same script), approximate the pronunciation used in language B, and then change the spelling to suit that pronunciation according to the spelling norms of language A.

If I felt the need to explain this, I would say something like 'borrowed from French moment, with the spelling changed to suit the French-style pronunciation'. Nicodene (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the help 👍 --Christoffre (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Example: French pipeline, copying the English orthography but pronounced /pi.plin/.  --Lambiam 21:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I see... So it's sort of the exact opposite of what I thought? The spelling remain intact, but the pronunciation change.

If that's the case; would unadapted borrowing mean that both spelling and pronunciation remain intact? --Christoffre (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

One can’t expect the pronunciation of any borrowing into English to remain intact; it is at best less mangled than usual. For the example cubiculum I expect something like /kjuˈbɪkjʊləm/ instead of /kuˈbikulum/. Adaptation is a matter of degree; I interpret “unadapted” as “relatively unadapted”.  --Lambiam 10:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

OK... So – at least between Swedish, English, and French – it doesn't matter if I use unadapted borrowing or orthographic borrowing, as in this situation they are essentially the same? --Christoffre (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

In theory there is a difference. An unadapted borrowing ends up with some imitation of the source language's pronunciation, while an orthographic borrowing can end up with a radically different pronunciation.

In practice, though, I doubt this is important enough to worry about. Nicodene (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Part of the reason people have trouble grasping the meaning of "orthographic borrowing" as it relates to alphabetic languages like Swedish is that it was intended for the etymologies of non-alphabetic Asian languages, and not Swedish. But our setup means any language can use any of these templates, so people try to contrive ways to use them for English, Swedish, etc (this is also a problem with "English phono-semantic matchings" IMO), where unadapted borrowing or just borrowing is better. I would use "unadapted borrowing" if something was borrowed without change despite some change (to the ending, spelling, etc) being expectable. If no change would be expected because all the sequences of letters and sounds of a particular word are also cromulent in the borrowing language and it doesn't regularly change any of the elements (e.g. Latin adjectives in -us getting adapted to -ous), distinguishing an "unadapted borrowing" from a "borrowing" seems artificial. If two languages have different scripts or phonetic repertoires, then as Lambiam says, nothing is really borrowed "intact" and it becomes a question of how much adaptation we accept as still being "unadapted" (for example, I think simply writing a spoken Russian nyet in Latin letters rather than Cyrillic ones, when borrowing that word into English, is probably not "adapting" it in the sense of the glossary, but is it an "unadapted borrowing", or it is a case where no change would be expected?). - -sche (discuss) 17:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

That certainly explains why I couldn't figure it out. As both Unadapted and Orthographic are more or less the same, I'll just stick with the more common Unadapted template. I've also put up request for deletion of Category:Swedish orthographic borrowings from French. Thanks for giving a more in-depth explanation 👍 --Christoffre (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The wikipedia foundation press link on contact us goes to the old page

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Contact_us Wakelamp (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I suppose the correct link is https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/press/, better linked to in a sentence like, “All media inquiries or requests related to Wiktionary should be handled through the Wikimedia Foundation”.  --Lambiam 12:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Have there been attempts to create an open historical dictionary?

I'm new here and hope I'm asking this question in the right place for this community.

Question: Have their ever been discussions around tracing the historical development of languages by attestations akin to how OED does it?

Unlike many other languages, it seems for the English language its main historical dictionary, OED, is as of today still behind a paywall and not open access.

I find again and again when doing research that getting references to early attestations of words can be very beneficial in understanding its origins. 'wɪnd (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@'wɪnd, in case you weren't aware, the OED's first edition, A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles, is out of copyright and each of its volumes has been digitised and uploaded to the Internet Archive. Fruitless Forest (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Fruitless Forest :) I appreciate the pointer. I am aware of the Internet Archive copy and use it frequently. I'm grateful that it exists.

The three shortcomings with this approach for me are:

1. Completeness. It is out-of-date in some places, that is, misses all new developments in the last 100+ years and one can't add to it if one finds older references.
2. Legibility. The scanning is occasionally illegible. (Although this is fixable by a new scan.)
3. Efficiency. I'm still fairly slow at looking things up. (I tend to approximate the location in the book and then keep turning the pages until I hit the right word. The same for looking up full references. — Maybe there's an index I've missed to get me to right page immediately?) 'wɪnd (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@'wɪnd, I'm unaware of an index, but if you find one, I should be grateful to hear of it, since I am also irked by how much time it takes to look something up in those scanned copies. Are you looking for historical dictionaries of any languages in particular? Fruitless Forest (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

For most languages I'm interested in, there are openly accessible historical dictionaries. English is the odd-one out here. So the English language is the one I'm most interested in. It seems to me having an open historical English dictionary could be very useful. 'wɪnd (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@'wɪnd, the OED is the only English historical dictionary I know of and is not open-access. I suppose we can try building one here. Fruitless Forest (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@'wɪnd: You have framed the question in a manner that of course there has not been an attempt of a dictionary akin to the OED, for anyone is most akin to himself. There is nothing to discuss since “tracing the historical development of languages by attestations” nobody is paid for in the same extent in which the OED editors are. Mostly there aren’t any historical developments to trace either, for basic words: the more you add, the fewer people will read it, so we raise more by adding questionable slang words and fringe dialectalisms. At the time of writing the OED has not even deigned to document glizzy, in spite of barely a minute passing without someone dropping it on Twitter; while since the last century academics have complained that OED misses the Northern bysack, to no avail, and it turns out they don’t have our modern Tyneside sense of huckle; they are sore slanted. Fay Freak (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fay Freak It sounds like you disapprove of OED not including words in common use (like flizzy, bysack) and modern common senses (like of huckle). Also, you raise the point of financing: very few are interested in historical developments, most want local words in common use.

This all resonates with me.

I'm definitely not suggesting to be like OED, rather to improve upon it. Historical dictionaries are of great value to some of us interested in etymology, even if we may be fringe. As you know, you can find these type of dictionaries in most major languages, and they're usually open access. However, the main current English one is not open access.

I can definitely see the concern of financing and finding contributors, the same issue Wikipedia faced when it started. However, that doesn't mean that it couldn't be of great value. One could start by importing the older OED version which is out of copyright. 'wɪnd (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Request for page name to be edited.

Hi, could somebody please remove the accidental accent above the "и" from the title/name of the Ukrainian page закінчи́ти for me?

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B8%CC%81%D1%82%D0%B8

(Just the actual title/name of the page itself - the accent is fine elsewhere within the page.) DaveyLiverpool (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Wow,that was quick! Thanks very much. :) DaveyLiverpool (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

vi-etym-sino produces different outputs

E.g. {{vi-etym-sino|腳|[[postage]]/[[transportation]] [[charge]]|費|[[fee]]}}. produces:
Sino-Vietnamese word from 腳 (“postage/transportation charge”) and 費 (“fee”).

whereas

{{vi-etym-sino|腳|[[foot]]|註|[[note]]}}. produces:
Sino-Vietnamese word from 腳註, composed of 腳 (“foot”) and 註 (“note”).

with the term displayed with both SV characters initially and then broken down into its constituent characters following the text
, composed of

— This unsigned comment was added by Gavinkwhite (talk • contribs) at 03:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC).

@Gavinkwhite: The template logic checks whether the page exists. 腳註 does, so it is linked. 腳費 does not exist, so it is not linked. I'm not sure if that behavior is justified, but that's what the code does. 98.170.164.88 07:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, ok. That's interesting. Thanks for clearing that up! Gavinkwhite (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Deliverer

On Wikipedia:pizza delivery the person who delivers the pizza is called "a deliverer", and a "delivery person"

I am Australian (so normally UK English) and would use delivery person.

Which is the preferred word in the US and UK? — This unsigned comment was added by 220.240.173.146 (talk) at 08:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC).

As an American, it would probably be most common to call this person "the pizza guy", but between those two options, I think "deliverer" seems more natural to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

In Snow Crash, he was called the Deliverator. :) – Jberkel 13:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

In the UK, out of these two it's probably "delivery person" (realistically, "delivery man" or "delivery guy", though). Theknightwho (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Coinage of word 'meritocracy'

Word: meritocracy

Wiktionary says: Etymology

merit + -o- + -cracy, coined by British sociologist Michael Young, Baron Young of Dartington in 1958 in his book Rise of the Meritocracy.^[1]

This is not correct

‘meritocracy’ first appeared in print in an article published in 1956 on social class and inequality by industrial sociologist and socialist Alan Fox.

Fox, A. (1956). Class and equality. Socialist Commentary, May, 11‑13. Droyce42 (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done meritocracy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Link to Wikipedia subsection?

Hi. How can I link straight to a Wikipedia subsection from Wiktionary? The method to do this within Wikipedia [[Name of main page#Name_of_subsection]] amended for Wiktionary {{w|Name of main page#Name_of_subsection}} does not work and I have tried various permutations of this. TIA Gavinkwhite (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

What makes you think that doesn't work? The code {{w|Example.com#Purpose}} generates the output "Example.com#Purpose", and clicking that link works for me. 98.170.164.88 05:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it does work. The hyperlink hover box was displaying the name of the page, not the subsection though. Thanks! Gavinkwhite (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

"https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/let_go" contents menu is missing, I don't have the expertise to re-generate it

Title Santropedro (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The table of contents (TOC) is only automatically generated when a page has at least four headings. The entry let go only has three (English, Verb, and Translations). You can still force a TOC to be generated by adding __FORCETOC__ as a separate line at the top of the page, but there's not really much point to doing so on short pages. 98.170.164.88 17:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Help with Edits: Comparative & Superlative Degrees

How do I remove them? My page is "Otukian", and I accidentally added that there were comparative/superlative degrees, it does not. There is no "more Otukian" or "most Otukian". I want to edit it but the place where it was just says en-adj. Please help. THX Allan Polatcan (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

No need. I found a document on this. It helped! Thanks to whoever wrote it! Allan Polatcan (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Preferred forms of reconstructed words

I'm currently trying to edit the etymology for the Latin preposition ab in accordance with the Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages (Vaan 2008). While the etymology as it is right now looks to be generally correct, Vaan 2008 (p. 32 on the Archive link above) gives the following etymology:

PIt. [Proto-Italic] *ap(V), *aps 'away, off'. It. [Italic] cognates: U. [Umbrian] ap-ehtre 'from outside'. Pael. O. af- 'away, off' in cp. (uncertain).

PIE [Proto-Indo-European] *h₂ep-. IE [Indo-European] cognates: Skt. [Sanskrit] ápa 'away, off', apa- 'without, Av. [Avestan] apa-, OP [Old Persian] apa- 'away, from', Gr. [Greek] ἀπό, ἄπο 'far (from), away (from)', ἄψ 'back, again', Latv. [Latvian] ap 'beneath', Go. [Gothic] af, af- 'from, since.'

I had a look in the Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics (Klein and Joseph et al. 2018), which gives *h₂epó as the underlying/phonological form, and I'm not sure whether the "surface/phonetic" form or the "underlying/phonological" form is preferred for reconstructed words on Wiktionary. I'm also unsure whether the '(V)' given for *ap(V) should be added or not. I checked Wiktionary:Etymology and Wiktionary:Reconstructed terms but I didn't seem to find anything on this.

– EstuVortaro (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)