informaçao como iniciar uma investigaçao cientifica, que dados especeficos sao necessariosedit
ola boa tarde gostaria de aprofundar meus conhecimentos na area de investigaçao, sou enfermeira com 33 anos de carreira sem grandes oportunidades e possebilidades para custiar minha formaçao gostaria de adequerir mais conhecimentos para ser uma mais valia para meu pais.
Sinto muito, mas não temos essa informação não. Somos apenas um site de dicionário e não sabemos sobre enfermagem, etc. —Stephen(Talk)20:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if or how this use of the word king should be stated.
The "something" could be an abstract noun, like knowledge, context, or rock and roll.
I suppose it could be considered a snowclone, but I don't know if that would change anything.
Another way of looking at it is that rather than it being a seperate use of king or a special phrase, it could be that the "something" is personified and so it would be one of the currently stated uses.
My opinion is that a seperate or broadened sense of king would probably be the best soloution, but I'm not knowledgable about what the proper practice for dealing with personification, snowclones, etc. is.
Thanks. [[King]] was missing the sense, which I have added, with "cash is king" in the usage example. Please feel free to improve it. I am not sure that it qualifies as a snowclone. Similarly, I am not sure that that's something for you, which I recently added, is a snowclone or a valid entry. DCDuringTALK12:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because the thing that is king could be uncountable, I don't think the sense should be defined with "one", so I changed it to "something" for now, but there is probably a better word that I can't think of. Otherwise a very good way of putting it. It made me realise that the use could have other forms such as "the king of times of financial panic is cash", so I am now quite certain that it is deserving of the stated sense it now has. I threw a link for preeminent in there, to fit in with the senses that have a few links.
Regarding that's something for you, I think there are two seperate meanings to consider. The first is the "that's __ for you" (whose meaning you've got there) and the other is "that's something for you", which I'll give an example of. Person A delivers some news to a group including Person B, whom a specific part of it is good for. Another person upon hearing of this news could say to Person B something like "Well, that's something for you.", stressing "that". It might be a bit dated or the like. I don't really know whether either of these should be put in or how it should be done, so I don't think I should touch it.
¶ Does this term deserve to be marked as a “misspelling”? It is actually consistent with the Latin ascendant ‘intitulare’. There are also a lot of hits on Google‐Books from works dating before the 19th Century which contain these forms. Although these spellings still have currency today, they are probably discouraged now. I really believe that entry needs to be re‐modified, but how should it look? Should there be any Usage Notes? --Pilcrow07:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
¶ Actually, I think its currency can be defended as “clearly widespread use”, here are some results on Twitter.com and some results in Google Groups. Although if it is really necessary, I can attempt to provide direct citations. --Pilcrow07:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. One way to do it would be: # {{context|archaic|_|or|_|nonstandard|lang=und}} {{alternative form of|entitle}}. I definitely wouldn't call it a misspelling. Ƿidsiþ08:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
¶ That is acceptable. I (or someone else) could make that modification if there are no objections any time soon. --Pilcrow21:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This word is spelled "crimenetly" in the definition.
All 3 quotes spell the word "crimeneNtly".
Which is correct?
Thanks. — This comment was unsigned.
No it isn't, and no they don't. All three quotes use "criminetly". The word itself is a variant spelling of criminently (whose three quotes use that spelling). Our entry for crimenetly (another variant) also has two quotes with that particular spelling. SemperBlotto16:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The entry on the great phrase "faute de mieux" sorely needs a pronunciation, preferably one with sound. If, faute de mieux, characters are the only way to express the pronunciation, I will appreciate it.
I'm not sure where to put this, but I hope this isn't completely the wrong place.
This is not a major issue, but just for the sake of accuracy I have to note that the order of declensions differs in Serbian and Croatian, even though the seven declensions are the same and for the most part are identically formed (the languages were, indeed, at one time a single language, Serbo-Croatian, and there is good reason for that). Namely, I noticed in the article on the word "mašinerija" (machinery) that the order of the sixth and seventh declension was locative, and then instrumental, which is correct in Croatian, but in Serbian and Serbo-Croatian (which formally no longer exists but is generally more similar to the now-Serbian than to Croatian) the correct order is instrumental, and then locative.
Like I said, this is not a big issue, but as I have great respect for all internet-based resources of this kind, I felt the need to simply point it out.
Dragana, native speaker (Serbian)
It's hard to imagine that nobody has brought this up yet, but I couldn't find it anywhere so here's the question:
What are the inclusion criteria for chemical names? sodium chloride is a sum of parts, which the average person could probably (and correctly) interpret as being a combination of sodium and chlorine, something like w:Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine is also a sum of parts but slightly more abstract, the average person might not immediately understand how a liquid could by asymmetrical. IUPAC names have their own non-English grammar (the morphemes aren't words) so it would be more difficult to argue that w:1-Bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethylhydantoin is a sum of parts. And one can't even argue that there is no common usage, as the above compound is used to keep pools clean.
The rules for single words (no spaces) is the same as for all other words. For terms containing two or more words (separated by spaces) the situation is better than free-for-all, but not always well defined. For salts (such as (deprecated template usage)sodium chloride) we tend to allow their inclusion, but don't go out of our way to add all the possible combinations. The result is that we tend to have only the most common ones, especially those used as reagents etc. We allow all acids (e.g. (deprecated template usage)stearic acid) whether common or not. The number of organic compounds is close to infinite, and we tend to allow only those that are known to exist, and are in the literature. Personally, I don't like including ones with long formal names with numbers and stereochemical letters etc. Apart from that, we tend to play it by ear. SemperBlotto14:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea on the boundaries, but I've always thought the most useful entries were those that "translated" modern terminology to and from common terms and obsolete/dated/archaic terms. Clearing up ambiguities deserves some consideration in setting priorities for one's efforts. DCDuringTALK15:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Today, I discovered your site. I followed the instructions to create an account. Then I created an entry - a noun - and the preview looked exactly right, so I saved it. Then I logged out.
I waited about 2 hours and logged back in to my account. When I look in contributions - I see there are zero. When I search on my word, and variations thereof, I get nothing.
Did your website reject the word? Is there a lag time before a word shows up? Is this a Fictionary instead of a Wiktionary? unsigned comment by User:RDAnchorage00:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
¶ Is it true that there is a headword-line template available for plural forms of English noun? I am quite curious to see it. --Pilcrow16:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
¶ I would personally rather not simply bolden the entry terms for the headword‐line; it would be like using numerals instead of hash signs to number definitions. Is there an acceptable alternative? --Pilcrow22:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being my favorite dictionary website (really, the only one I use), I was looking around on the tools here for something and saw that we don't have it. I think a type of search on the website where you can search for a word and add some kind of blank where any letter can be substituted. There is something similar at http://www.crosswordsolver.org/, but their database is nowhere near as large as Wiktionary's, so I thought maybe if we don't have something like this already, we should see if it could be made. It would be a huge help, and I think may become something useful for a lot of people.
I could elaborate more if needed. Is something like this possible?
Thank you,
Giovanni
This has been suggested before. The problem is that ? is a valid character, and doesn't represent anything but itself (the question mark). Mglovesfun (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Mglovesfun
Hm. Would it be possible at all to use a different character (possibly "*", or "_"?), or, to maybe be able to make a special page with some kind of input like the crosswordsolver.org one?
¶ If I re‐create my user‐page, could I have it deleted whensoëver I want, or will it be kept forever regardless of my desire? --Pilcrow22:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can get an administrator to delete it. Its history will be preserved but only visible to administrators, as with all deleted entries. Equinox◑22:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
¶ I think somebody is going to come up with another excuse as to why they will not delete my page, then others will concur and keep it up forever. I doubt I am generally well‐liked here anyway (I could check, but that might be called attention‐seeking). --Pilcrow00:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are you referring to with the term “that”? Anyway, since user‐pages are not personal, I think re‐creating my page will just keep it stuck here forever, since it is not simply ‘for’ me. --Pilcrow21:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
calligriari ??? I am looking for the correct word/spelling for a practitioner of the ancient art of WRITING. Not that of a scribe or beautiful writer(calligrapher), but of an artist of the use of words, combining the arts of storytelling, poetry, myth, etc. into their work. I am not sure if it is of Latin, Italian, or some other origin.
People these days usually archive their old topics, but as far as I know your talk page belongs to you and you can either remove topics to an archive or just delete them. The only no-no that I am aware of is trying to manipulate the comments for purposes of deception or fraud. I see people deleting topics from their talk pages that they don’t want to keep all the time. As long as nobody complains that you’re deleting something for unethical reasons, I think you can delete any topics you like from your own talk page. —Stephen(Talk)03:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I tried to extract topics, I got reverted without my consent. I consider this particular modification to have been intrusive and inconsiderate because it disregarded my own feelings, and I do not want to guess whatever the time‐limit is until discussions may be extracted and risk getting blocked. ¶ Regardless, I do not understand why you use the term ‘delete’ since only administrators can actually delete content, rather than simply reverting or extracting it. If I could actually delete content in my talk‐page history, I would, but that could require community consent, which seems extraneous and ridiculous for someone’s personal issues. --Pilcrow05:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, contentious discussions and significant discussions of policy affect not only the owner of the talk page, but the other participants in the discussion, and often the entire community. If you left a notice that you would be away from your computer for three days, it would be perfectly reasonable for you to delete the notice on your return. But a discussion that impacts other editors or affects the community should be kept at least for a month after the matter is closed. After that, you could archive it. If you wanted to deleted it, it would be common courtesy to let anyone who might have an interest know in advance so that they can copy it to their own archives. By deleting a contentious discussion so soon, it has the appearance of trying to conceal the comments to the disadvantage of one or more of the other parties. If this is not as clear to you as it is to me, you should adopt a policy of keeping everything for, say, six months. If the discussion is dead for six months, you should feel at ease about moving it to an archive or, if it really bothers you, deleting it. In the reverting action that you have complained about, Dan Polansky is an ordinary editor just like you. He is not an admin. His revert and his explanation for it should be accepted as friendly but needed advice from a more experienced user. Absolutely no reason to consider it intrusive or inconsiderate. It was inconsiderate of you to delete it so soon, as it had significance to the other participants, and Dan was just try to show you the ropes. —Stephen(Talk)07:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, don't delete threads while they're active, but do as you wish with anything else. Though I do archive my talk page, I suspect that nobody actually reads the archives. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The page's history itself serves as an archive, and the only difficulty is finding the last edit before a discussion died. So for large talk pages, archives are useful but for smaller ones like my old one or Pilcrow's, they are not really necessary or useful. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should only administrators be able to edit it, should everyone except new and unregistered users, or should everyone? And the same question for moving it.—msh210℠ (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to remove some entries from Wiktionary:Requested entries (German) which are not citable apparently (or which are utter nonsense). My idea was to list them on the talk page with some explanation, and then wait a month or so before actually removing them (if no one objects). Would that be okay? Longtrend15:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The term "lady of light virtue" as referring to a prostitute. I am serious, it exists. It's just a bit long, was wondering whether phrases like that also belong in the wiktionary Cilibinarii17:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
¶ Is the ph digraph and its phoneme (as in: ‘philosophy’) generally utilised in Spanish? I noticed that there are Google hits for terms like phantástico, but they are outnumber’d by alternative forms like fantástico. Is the ph digraph archaic, “pedantic”, or some combination? Does its usage vary among any kind of Spanish dialect? --Pilcrow01:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, English/Greek ph is an f in Spanish. Online you will find all sorts of humorous Spanish misspellings, including words with the c replaced by the foreign letter k. Ph is not archaic or pedantic, it is foreign. No Spanish dialect uses it. Only some people who are trying to be funny use it. There are similar phenomena in many languages, including languages that don’t use the Roman alphabet. Russian "comedians" are fond of misspelling Russian words, inspired by the early 1337 artists and others who were busily doing it to English words. —Stephen(Talk)10:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, verb forms certainly should not be offered as Spanish rhymes. Virtually every verb has these forms and everybody knows about them. Sometimes you have to use them to rhyme, but it is only acceptable if the verb is really required for that meaning...otherwise, using verb forms to make easy rhymes is considered childish. Besides that, I see on that page that the syllable counts are completely messed up. Under "two syllables", some have three. Under "three syllables", one has four, one has five.
Besides that, Spanish rhyme is different than English rhyme. Commonly in Spanish rhyme, only the vowels of the last syllable (masculine rhyme) or the last two syllables (feminine rhyme) are considered. The consonants are ignored entirely. Therefore, emoción rhymes with corrió; and Esteban rhymes with sea. It is not intuitive for English speakers to find Spanish rhymes, but Spanish verb forms are absolutely a no-no. —Stephen(Talk)22:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read Spanish. In assonant rhyme, the rhyme begins with the final stressed vowel in the line and includes all the following vowels. In the case of corrió and emoción, that is simply the final o (masculine rhyme). If you recall reading El Cid, it was written using this kind of rhyme. I studied Classical Spanish poetry for a couple of years at university, but that was almost fifty years ago. —Stephen(Talk)00:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So , do we need to use a "different" namespace like Rhymes:Spanish:Assonant:-ea (e.g for mesa, era, fea, etc.) and Rhymes:Spanish:Consonant:-antʃa (e.g for plancha, mancha, etc), or assonant rhymes can't be added to the Wiktionary?
In my opinion, Spanish needs to have both Assonant and Consonant rhymes added. I don’t know how to write bots and programs like that, but I think it should be possible to write a bot, macro, or subroutine that would find assonant rhymes. Spanish is so regular that if a program is given the rules (there are not very many rules), it should be able to go through the Spanish index and divide all the words into assonant rhymes. But I don’t know how to do programming, so I can’t do it. I don’t think there is any source anywhere that gives Spanish assonant rhymes, so it would be extremely useful. —Stephen(Talk)18:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Created a new entry, certain that it's malformededit
See breaking bad I made this so that the en.wp article could link to the phrase. I'm a much more active Wikipedian than Wiktionarian and I'm usually just plain lost on all the mark-up here, but I tried--honest! If anyone wants to fix this entry and citation for me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. koavf06:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting us started. At the very least we will have added a distinct sense of (deprecated template usage)break, which may originate from the sense of break in "breaking" horses or from "lucky break". If we keep the expression, we would want the "lemma" form: break bad. I have found various citations illustrating usage from before the airing of the TV show. DCDuringTALK13:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<non-yelling>I actually think flexion is the normal spelling even in the U.S. (But Firefox's spell-check rejects both flexion and flection, so maybe it's not a common enough word for any spelling to be considered "normal"?) Can't comment on the other words, though, except to say that some of them are very rare regardless of spelling.<non-yelling> —RuakhTALK01:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
During the last 150 years, the "ct" spelling has taken over from the older "x" spelling in most of these words, but perplexion and fluxion seem to have retained the "x". I don't know why. For all of the others except for "flexion/flection" , I would ask "why are they spelling the word with the old spelling?". In a few cases there might be a good reason. Dbfirs09:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there such a template that allows one to cite a movie? I have a good line in mind that I believe perfectly illustrates the word in question. Thanks, --The Evil IP address12:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no specific template in Category:Citation templates, but the one for video {{quote-video}} is good because it fits with the idea of making sure that the quote is recorded on durably archived media. Unaided human memory is not very reliable. Also, the author of a line spoken by an actor is only rarely the actor. Wikipedia can often provide the author(s) of the screenplay. DCDuringTALK13:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[after e/c] I don't know (or care) if there's a template for it, but you can certainly do it. One way you might format it is like this:
2011, Rye Terr (writer), Derek Terr (director), A.K. Terr (actor), Trying for an Oscar (movie), Production Productions, at 1:10:
Kara K. Terr: We'll have to word it to make it sound unimportant.
(Mostly that's just modeled on the way we cite a book. I included the writer and director because they're the analogues of a book's author; I included the actor because in everyday practice people tend to refer to the actor when citing a line from a movie.)
English terms get a definition and may have a translation section. Foreign terms (such as ЗМІ) only get an English translation (instead of a definition), but no translation section is allowed. The editor who clean your article up did not understand Ukrainian, which explains the mess. I have fixed it now. —Stephen(Talk)22:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the 2nd sentence an appropriate answer to the 1st one? Does the word "where" imply space, rather than time, making the question ambiguous? --Daniel23:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is an appropriate answer. In three dimensions, "where" implies space; in four dimensions, it can imply "time". If the question had been, "when would you go", it would have been understood as "when would you leave for your trip". The answer to "where are you in time?" cannot be "Germany" or "London", the answer is today, now. If you were asked "if you could time-travel, where would you go" and you replied, "I would go to France", people would think you had not heard or understood the question. —Stephen(Talk)04:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I completely agree. I agree "I would go to France" is the wrong answer to "If you could time-travel, where would you go?". But I think it's the wrong question; if someone asked me that, I might answer "I would go to France in the Middle Ages" or the like. If I wanted to ask someone what time period, or date, he'd go to, I'd do so in so many words. But I may be in the minority on this.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly, no. The 'j' contains the fricative 'dzh' (sorry, but I don't know how to type these non-Latin characters), so the same caveat as in example #1 should apply to #4. Ken
That template in particular indicates in its documentation that it must be substed. I have no idea why it so indicates. In general, a template need not be substed unless its documentation indicates as much. Most templates should not be substed when used in non-talk pages.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Answered If you are blocked from a wiki and create an account on a different wiki, is that violating a policy? Meaning, say, I create an account on WikiMedia, got blocked, and made an account here, would that be illegal? (I apologize if I placed this in the wrong place, however it says "Newcomer's questions" above.) Aneditor since 8.28.2011.02:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not illegal. Lots of people do it. The thing is, you have to avoid the mistakes of the past or you may get blocked again. On the other hand, there are some users who are blocked on one wiki for political reason who may be perfectly welcome on another wiki for other reasons. This is why blocking actions affect a user only in that one wiki that blocked him. —Stephen(Talk)03:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I assume so. Someone creating a template has a choice to capitalize the first letter, or all of them, or none of them, or some weird set of them (like only the penultimate). The most natural choice seems to me to be to capitalize none of them, because it's easiest to type. You seem to think capitalizing the first is more natural: why? (Note that some of our template names are capitalized: one reason is to designate a pseudonamespace, as for the RQ: temnplates and the R: templates.)—msh210℠ (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'll find wikis differ in many respects. I don't know what you mean by your last sentence (both it and formal are opaque to me). Do you mean people there were more concerned with form than with function? You may be right, as they always capitalized template names despite their being more difficult to use that way.—msh210℠ (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That’s for our experimental "liquid threads" messaging. If you don’t want to see it, I think you can get rid of it by adding .lqt_watchlist_messages_notice {display:none} to your skin.css. —Stephen(Talk)02:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a proposal in the process of being drafted. But many (I think most) of them are actually abandoned as far as drafting goes and either (a) largely accepted as policy or (b) not accepted as policy. It's impossible to tell which is which by looking at them (except for the ones that announce that they've been rejected, which some do IIRC), which is a problem. If you're wondering about the acceptability of any particular "draft policy", ask in the beer parlor.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would not be tolerated here. It is an activity that has nothing to do with Wiktionary and does not improve or advance Wiktionary in any way. —Stephen(Talk)06:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For inflected forms of nouns, adjectives, or verbs, we use "noun form", "adjective form", and "verb form". I would say that forms of cardinal numbers such as jednego would be a "numeral form". —Stephen(Talk)11:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Stephen. What about for the ordinal forms, like czwartej? Do you suggest that these be classed as numeral forms too, or ordinal number forms or ordinal numeral forms? I'd be inclined to call them adjective forms. Whatever is decided, they are very useful to include here, as they are used to tell the time in Polish. --P.officer12:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Czwarty" is a numeral in Polish, so by analogy, its forms should be in the Category: Numeral forms. These are not adjectives. There are five inflected parts of speech in Polish: nouns, verbs, pronouns, numerals and adjectives, so there should be five "form" categories. Maro21:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've known of the phenomenon for many years, but I'm reminded of it now. In a movie I'm watching, someone seems to pronounce St. Paul's as /'sɪnpɔːlz/. Another example is St. Clair /ˈsɪŋklɛər/. Shouldn't we have an explanation of varying pronunciation of Saint? D. F. Schmidt05:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't know phonetic symbols. However, there does seem to be a difference between US and UK pronunciation of (deprecated template usage)Saint when part of a placename or building etc. In the UK, it is pronounced "Sint" and the stress is on the following name, whereas in the US it is pronounced the same as the noun and the stress is on the word itself. SemperBlotto07:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So... can we get another pronunciation there, with explanation of when and where it's used? I'm not knowledgeable enough about it to do it myself, as I'm American, and I rarely encounter such Saint– names in dialog. D. F. Schmidt16:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been coming across the words "exploitate" and "exploitated" in newspaper and online news articles, especially those originating from Australia or India. The writers obviously mean "exploit" or "exploited" but have changed the spellings to sort of "create" new words, so to say. It would be interesting to find out if the words are being used anywhere else, or are the newest examples of cocksure, well (or 'highly') educated but semi-literate journos creating new words! These seem to be the newest additions to the phenomenon called "Indian English". Vive l'Inde (and Indian journalists as well)! V.K. Sharma.
I'm not personally aware of any Web sites that meet this criterion. That's why we don't generally accept words that are only on Web sites, and not in other sources. Equinox◑19:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember there was a vote (or maybe it was just a BP discussion?) a little while back about whether or not we should have translations in form-of entries (friends for example has them) and I can't remember the results or find the vote/discussion anywhere. Can someone please help me with this? Ultimateria23:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... and if you type "communique" without the accent, you get two links to the correct spelling. Only one click is required. Dbfirs09:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Affectionate place in my heart" sounds wrong to me, because the metaphorical "place" isn't what is affectionate. I can see it in a handful of Google Books results though. Equinox◑20:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{help| I would like to include the word Hyderabadi as Hyderabadi is a word use to refer a person, who resides, born, belongs from parents/ancistors or choose to reside in Hyderabad, India.
Kindly find these references which proves the world Hyderabadi.
Multicultural History Society of Ontario,Encyclopedia of Canada's peoples[1], university of toranto press, 1999, translation of original by Paul R. Magocsi, →ISBN, retrieved 07/august/2011, page 684
“Common Expressions: Hyderabadi Urdu”, in (Please provide the book title or journal name)[2], 2011, retrieved 9 September 2011
... but whichever one we choose, we will upset some people. We really need a way to be inclusive of all varieties of English. No-one wants to go to a dictionary to see the correct spelling described as "alternative form of" an incorrect spelling for their variety. Dbfirs13:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
¶ I just want to add links for the extra alternative forms, but should not somebody simplify some content firstly? I am getting a bit impatient.--Pilcrow01:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend that we keep both entries until we devise a way to show both spellings in a single entry. The American entry is older by nine minutes, but the British spelling goes back at least to 1641. Dbfirs00:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It’s two different things. Harassment means that you’re doing it repetitively and seem unwilling to stop. Intimidating behavior might be trolling that includes calling someone racist, sexist, or obscene names, or threatening someone with injury or humiliation. —Stephen(Talk)05:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Help with a word that means 'unity among opposites'edit
Hello there
I am working on a pro bono project to come up with a name for an organization that 'unites opposites'. By that I mean they address issues that range from regional to neighborhood, from macro level to micro level, from developers to homeowners - and I want to convey that scope in the name if we can come up with the right word... asking for input.
Good suggestion, but no "opposites" implied. The "unity" extension would be understood better in America than in the UK where we would just read the Latin as "from many". No criticism intended because I can't think of a better suggestion! There is already a charity called "Unitas" and I can't see a way to sensibly bring in "oppositūs" unless you like the rather clumsy Unitoppositūs. Dbfirs13:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, his clarification of the meaning was that "they address issues that range from regional to neighborhood, from macro level to micro level, from developers to homeowners," which does not suggest any opposition to me. —Stephen(Talk)13:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, that's more "many" or "extremes" than "opposition". Perhaps I should have suggested "Unitextremīs". I wasn't intending to cricicise your excellent suggestion. Dbfirs13:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Dbfirs - now you've got Flight of the Conchords in my head, only with the words Unitoppositūs hippopotamus (c.f. their Hiphopopotamus vs. Rhymenoceros sketch).
@Everyone - As implied by others, I really don't think any single word is going to convey what the requester wants, unless it's some borderline-silly mishmash word. And, as noted, I'm not sure we have enough information. If the requester is still reading this, could you provide any more context? What does your organization do, more specifically? Is it purely a forum for discussion? Does it have any clear policy goals? This could help us come up with a more fitting name. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig15:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am researching for some information on Genetics (Biological side). My question is, how do you know if you have a dormet cell that pertains to an
addiction or other type of dizzies? Can you be tested for it without triggering it.
I've described a few related troubles/issues on my brand-new personal talk page (don't know yet how to properly refer/link to it). How to make the right folks read it? Please read and/or advise. Wjmoeller09:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'd better. An edit like this with no edit summary is a poor practice IMHO. Given your past history of dubious edits, you in particular would do well to give edit summaries. Furthermore, "(I hate myself.)" as in this edit is an edit summary to be avoided: summaries are not there to capture your emotional state but rather to state what you are doing in the edit, such as "clearing the page". --Dan Polansky06:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Polansky, the removal of bytes already confirms that I blanked the page. I did not include a proper summary because I did not think anybody would care about what I do with my talk page and there is no reason why they would, hence the minor marking. Even if I did include edit summaries, there is no way you would ever trust me; you hate me. Adjecting summaries with every edit is tiresome and is not obliged by this project, I mean, if not everybody will use summaries, why should I?
I think edit summaries are worth the effort, I find them extremely helpful when I am flipping through the history of a page trying to discover when a certain piece of content was added or removed. If I can spot immediately in the edit summaries that someone I trust made the change then my work is probably done. If not I have to look at every diff until I find the change which can take a lot of time on pages with 50+ edits. - [The]DaveRoss10:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to look at every diff, of course. Just look at every (say) twentieth version, and see if the change in question has been made already. When you've narrowed it down to between two diffs twenty apart, then look at the version halfway between them to narrow it further, etc. This is probably what you meant, but I thought I'd clarify for those who might not know this.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondered if the word thretch existed..told my fella to clean out my ear with his tongue and he repied you want me to thretch you. is this such a word and if not can it be created? thanks — This comment was unsigned.
Usually slang is at least in Urban Dictionary or findable on Google, but I couldn't find this one anywhere with a quick search attempt. Equinox◑23:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, a 'communist' is a member of a commune. If as in France most people live in communes, then by definition most French people are communists. If the word is currently deemed pejorative in the US or if the meaning I use is deemed obsolete, how and when did it become a pejorative term and how and when did it become obsolete?
From the late 19th century through the 20th, communists, anarchist and radicals were actively persecuted in the US with fervor equivalent to 'witch hunts'. This had dire consequences for the union movement, it was reflected world wide, and led to demise of the IWW.
Has a semiotic or ideological strategy rendered the commonplace use of 'ist' obsolete here? Is it the case that originally in France, 'communist' meant 'to do with local government' and that in the Australian example, the Communist Party of Australia should appropriately be the 'Community' party?
Thank you, but to say “Many words change meaning over time, not necessarily because of their political implications.” is limiting.
For example, in trying to assume a holistic view of language use, I hope that a semiotic approach will include the symbolic and psychological as well as the ‘political’. It is true that languages are symbol-systems, imparting meaning by alternating between specific or general views of things. Here, we are concerned specifically with the meaning of the word ’communist’ but other symbolic mediums such as colours or flags, also serve to convey meaning. In Chinese culture, for example, the colour ‘red’ has connotations of ‘good’ which is quite different to many other cultures. During the Chinese Cultural Revolution calls made to have road-traffic-lights changed, where ‘red’ signified ‘go’, attracted derision in Australia. On the other hand, the early Chinese revolutionary catch-cry, to rally around the Red Flag, was semiotically alluring.
In English language etymology, the word ‘communist’ obviously owes much to the French language and historical situation and for example, the word ‘communard’ is used to describe members of the Paris Commune in the 19th century. The begging question to me is whether the word ‘communist’ has exactly the same real-political meaning to French people, as it has in places like the US or Australia, where it is pejorative.
We did get the word from the French. They used communiste from 1769 in our sense of "commoner" (common land), but from 1840 the word was being used in France for adherents to the theory. The post-classical Latin "communistae" was used in the 1500s, but did not lead to the modern word (according to the OED). The non-pejorative sense is not completely obsolete, but would require clarification to avoid misunderstanding. Dbfirs16:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The changing use of the word ‘communist’ cannot be divorced from the background of material-social change. For example, the development of capitalism in Britain involved appropriation of ‘common‘ land through the Enclosure Movement; involving politically directed legal changes that ultimately determined how people were organised, and what choices they had in the lives they led. Perceptions of society also changed. Reorganisation of production and distribution of goods and services involved changing scale, at the same time a promoted sense of individualism grew at the expense of common identity. Of course the sorts of material-social changes that happened in Britain also took place in Europe, reflecting the unique possibilities for change various localities availed. Furthermore, confusion of the actual meaning of the words ‘community’ and ‘communist’ in countries that use Romance Languages such as English and French, have social consequences. According to Alice in Wonderland, a word means exactly what the speaker wants it to mean; except, we know communication is a guessing game where words are loaded with ambiguities that make interpretation difficult for a message recipient. Further to Freud’s notion of the human mind in some aspects working like a boiling cauldron, neurologists describe that there are countless possible synaptic connections between neurons in the brain, and we see there is plenty of scope for capricious use of words to serve ideological purposes. Hence my wonderment that the word ‘communist’, with its etymology linked to a multitude of words expressing the socially-benevolent has turned into a descriptor for the socially-destructive.
IMO archaic or possibly obsolete. Be careful about the definition though. A "race of Indians, who are both perfidious and Expencive" isn't one that costs a lot to purchase. Equinox◑00:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Am I actually wanted here? I do not get the perception anybody respects me. I do not understand why I have not been permanently blocked by now. --Pilcrow04:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pilcrow!
Are you expecting some kind of positive feed-back? My impression is: editors expect that other editors are doing good work here -- if someone actually is doing good work here, there will be no feed-back (otherwise there will be complaints). So this might give the impression, that nobody cares about your contributions.
Hey! Still fed up about life? Don't worry, you are very much wanted here. However, I think you should take a short break to get your thoughts sorted a bit. Just know that nobody here would block you for anything. -- Liliana•13:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
¶ I insulted somebody twice and used profanity. I think that would justify my bloque, since administrators can pretty much freely bloque anybody for any reason and insults are certainly not encouraged here. --Pilcrow20:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I told you before that this isn't really a problem, sure, it's happened, but that is history now, it is time to look forward in life. Who knows, maybe someday, once you've gathered enough experience, you might even become an administrator! -- Liliana•20:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This might be simply because your user talk page is, well, yours. Other people might not read what's written on there, and if someone writes an unwarranted comment, there simply might not be anybody who notices. This happens, it is not a problem with you or your editing habits. -- Liliana•20:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a nurturing environment in the normal course of events. Praise is scarce, mostly limited to the kind of thing that most contributors couldn't do themselves, the benefits of which they appreciate. Most of us are just soldiers, not heroes. DCDuringTALK18:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pilcrow said in his user page once: "In spite of the harassment I have received, quitting this project is not as simple as I anticipated." That kind of seems like a love–hate relationship. I hope it (the relationship) gets better in the future. --Daniel20:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison, Wikipedia has a stronger focus on showing care and gratitude for its contributors. They even have those heart buttons at the top of user talk pages and things like barnstars. Last time I checked, some people here did not like the idea of introducing barnstars to Wiktionary at all, because it would get in the way of just working. (among other reasons) Apparently, editing Wiktionary is not the best way to feel loved. Maybe you should get a puppy. --Daniel20:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Pilcrow No not sarcastic. I suppose the thing is, when users are doing things right, I don't leave messages on their talk pages. It's when they do things wrong that they get messages. Seems the last time I edited your talk pages was in June, so that's four months of good edits. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What Mglovesfun said is right. Silence = Approval. It's like everyone sending messages of "Good work!" everyday, except we use the language of silence to say that. Just understand it. --Daniel20:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
¶ Well, silence just looks neutral to me. I am not asking for people to constantly shower me with praise, it is just since I (might) have OCD I keep thinking about my mistakes I can’t fix so I feel useless about that. It is not easy to move on. --Pilcrow21:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Well, now you know that silence ≠ neutrality. These are the rules.
Feeling constantly disappointed about oneself, regardless of actual merits, is perfectly common and normal. Arguably, it's even better than the absolute alternative - feeling constant pride and self-righteousness about oneself, regardless of actual merits.
Still, inaccurate pessimism is bad for you, so let me play psychologist and suggest rethinking your opinions about yourself and your actions. I don't know exactly what you think; I don't know how you come to conclusions. I just know enough to say that some people in this world would rather look for confirmations of their own impressions rather than considering alternative reasonings.
In context of an unpleasant self-image, it would be like saying "I know I am a bad person! What bad things have I done today?" instead of "What am I? Bad or good? Let me analyze each decision separately."
After all, if someone is very inclined to feel disappointed of himself in any event, even a "shower of praise" probably wouldn't help in long-term. --Daniel21:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...which says that there's no special rule for them. That is, if they're attested (uses, not mentions), we keep 'em. Otherwise, not. (Well, there is an appendix: that's special treatment of a sort.) So by all means bring he to RFV and if it fails (which it most likely will) remove it.—msh210℠ (talk) 05:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. They were RFVed and failed, and then brought to RFD because people didn't want them deleted espite the failure at RFV. And RFD decided to delete them. but that decision only applies to the RFVed ones.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course we keep them in they can be shown to be used. I wondered if we kept them even if they couldn't be. Thanks, both of you. :)
My first few searches of Usenet show that some of these might be attested (I've found two citations of "spoke DE", "speak DE"). Not "he", though. - -sche(discuss)20:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that they can be attested, we just haven't done it yet. In some cases like he you might have to sort through a few million hits, perhaps more, and surprisingly enough, nobody has bothered yet. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do I remove (and avoid) automatically-added categories?edit
Hi, I created mvg (first article here on Wiktionary), which is an acronym for a common phrase ("best regards") as it is written in Dutch. (The acronym is often used via email and instant messaging, thus considered Internet slang amongst Dutch speakers.) Unfortunately, I must've done something wrong when creating the page, because it has automatically-appended categories for English which I can't see how to remove. Would someone kindly tell me what I screwed up and how to avoid doing it again? :) THANKS! --Bllix23:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, almost all templates appearing in a language section other than English need to have an explicit lang= parameter. These create automatic categories in the correct language. While there I made some other changes, which may not comport with normal Dutch practice (to which I would defer) and which may contain errors as Dutch is not a language I know at all. DCDuringTALK00:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If an English verb ends in ‐in’, should it be marked with {{eye dialect of|}} or should I keep utilising {{present participle of|}}? --Pilcrow04:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, but that's exactly how I would define the word. It was once a neologism, now largely forgotten, but perhaps there is a combination of tags that expresses the idea more clearly? Would "dated" be better than "archaic"? Dbfirs00:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would tag it "invented" (or just "rare") and explain in a usage note that it was coined (as a neologism) in the 1800s. It's certainly not a neologism anymore, even if it's uncommon: I don't think the recent uses are coining it anew, I think they either are reviving it or are examples of continuous, infrequent use. - -sche(discuss)00:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think put the info on its coinage in the etymology section (after all, it is etymological info). Archaic as a tag sounds good if true.—msh210℠ (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of any adjectives that would sound natural in that situation; "flat book" is the only phrase I'm coming up with, and that doesn't make any sense. I guess to me a book lying down like that is just a book, whereas a standing or leaning one would require an explanatory adjective. You could use a longer phrase "book lying on the [surface]" etc. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 21:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What occurs to me is "on the table" or "on the desk". In the kitchen, you will find a book on the table. Pick it up and read it.
However, if you are contrasting it with a book that is standing up, as on a library shelf, then you could say "lying flat": I left the books lying flat on the shelf. Do not stand them up. —Stephen(Talk)02:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be particular about which side is touching the ground, then: The book is lying face-up on the floor (front cover is visible) or the book is lying face-down on the floor (back cover is visible). Jamesjiao → T ◊ C02:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(There is a picture with the legend "stroke order" for 火, but it doesn't work - not animated. I found a stroke order GIF file elsewhere that should be used, perhaps in a smaller resolution: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E7%81%AB-order.gif ).
I'm not sure how to go about doing these improvements myself. These are the first two entries where I noticed missing stroke-order info.
Hi, can I get some other opinions on the etymologies proposed "Likely by analogy with a vagina and how it is used by others for personal satisfaction", and "Likely by analogy with a bitch, in the female sense of inferiority, submission."? Can they be improved, are they decent?Lucifer06:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I kind of meant, that the bitch and pussy in those words have their own origin meaning weak or effeminate, maybe I worded it in a confusing manner?Lucifer00:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be the only person who gets irritated by this user adding things he assumes or makes up but can't verify, or edits poorly (like at be a man where he misplaced inflections, which themselves are questionable - I don't think I've ever seen a conjugated use of the phrase) and then makes excuses for it. — [RicLaurent] — 12:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make it up, it was an educated assumption and based on what Equinox stated about the origin of bitch and pussy pretty logical and not just made up by me. Maybe I just didn't write it an a way that effectively communicated it to you and the universe hates us.
There are enough false folk-etymologies already on the internet, without having them created specially for Wiktionary. The first part, stating the separate words is fine, then, perhaps, we should just clarify which sense where appropriate. Dbfirs07:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a group of one-syllable words ending in /ə/ (je, que, le, etc., also including la) that must contract to d', etc. before a vowel. Words that are made from these terms also behave like this, like puisque. There is also a group of set terms that have apostrophes because of etymology including aujourd'hui and presqu'île. I don't really know anything about old/middle French so I can't answer your second question. —Internoob00:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the policy on using the {{compound|x|x}} template for two word compounds? To me it seems odd that "coalmine" would use the template and "coal mine" would not, and I believe ''[[word]]''+''[[word]]'' is also unacceptable? So how should this be resolved?Lucifer00:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, "coalmine" would use the template and "coal mine" would not. And do not use [[shoe]]+[[polish]] (you’re talking about the etymology section, right?). Instead, modify the PoS line: {{en-noun|sg=[[shoe]] [[polish]]|es}}. Then anyone interested can click on each separate word to see its etymology, if available. —Stephen(Talk)12:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is that coalmine would be considered a compound and categorised in Category:English compound words while coal mine would not. The difference between these two is only a matter of spelling, they are both the same term and are pronounced the same. If you asked in speech 'is coal( )mine a compound?' what would the answer be? I would say yes, because it's comparable to older spaceless compounds and the compounds in other Germanic languages. The practice of writing a space in English compounds is fairly recent and it's not done in older compounds, nor was it done at all in Old English. —CodeCat14:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to ask yourself "is coal mine a word?" before you could categorize it into any category whose name includes "words". coal mine is not a word, it is a term. -- Liliana•15:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But is the difference between words and terms really so sharp? The fact that there is confusion about whether to write a space or not indicates that what some people would call one word, others call two. Perhaps the best approach would be to rename the compound words category to compound terms, so that this ambiguity isn't a problem. —CodeCat16:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Term" is a hypernym of "word" in normal English when used in this subject area by those hoping to be understood by normal English speakers. "Wiktionary" is not a usage context that allows us to redefine the central senses of terms we use in the user-facing parts of this project. It's bad enough to bend our criteria for inclusion to accommodate MWEs that are not idioms via argument based on translation targets, mere collocations, and "coalmines". To make life even more confusing for any actual users who may stray in our direction by confounding the most common English meanings of "words" and "terms" for the convenience of a point of view seems to me to be showing at best indifference and possibly contempt for them. DCDuringTALK18:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I am from Germany and have got a simple question: could you give me a well-formed (not coll.!) example sentence which includes "informations"? Thanks! --87.167.251.24322:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We do not normally use informations in the plural in English. Most people would say that it is always a mistake. However, in technical legal terminology, the plural exists (but it does not mean information or data, it means legal reports or statements of criminal activity brought before a judge):
I'm not familiar with the "fain" adjective, only the adverb — though we do have both on Wiktionary — but I looked on Google Books and there was no text saying "fain luck", except a single book, and in that book it was a scanno for "fair luck" as I described. Equinox◑22:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's likely :), just that it's a possible phrasing. I haven't found any non-scanno instances of use either, not even on the open web. If Gymsport was being literal about "heard" (i.e. in reference to a spoken phrase), the fain part might have been (deprecated template usage)feign, depending on the context. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig23:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone! I'm new to Wiktionary editing and not quite well aware of the policies (especially of those concerning deletion of content).
In the Portuguese section of the deixar entry, I noticed some problems with the examples given. The first one ("Deixa para lá!" - Leave it there!), not only does not properly reflect the meaning of the verb "to leave", it also has an ambiguous translation (at best) - "Deixa para lá!" means "nevermind that!". The second one, a quote from a Harry Potter book, is incomplete and therefore unable to illustrate the context of the verb usage.
I'm not sure of how I should act... any guidance will be welcomed :) --SourceCode13:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing "Deixa para lá!" literally means "leave it there" when translated as never mind. Perhaps Daniel Carrero can provide the rest of the sentence for the second citation. No reason not to replace the first sentence though, as it's an invented sentence, not a citation. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yes, it is a made up example and it literally means "leave it there!". the problem is that it doesn't reflect the meaning of that word... it sounds quite out of place. --SourceCode13:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you find a bad translation, just fix it. I agree, deixa para lá means nevermind that, or let it go. For the Harry Potter quote, you could add more of the quote if you want, or you can replace it with something else that is more helpful. Or you could do both, add more of the Harry Potter quote and also add another example. Examples do not have to be quotes from literature such as Harry Potter...if you can write the language well, then you can make up your own examples, such as "Leave the car keys on the table when you leave." —Stephen(Talk)14:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I feel more confident about editing now :). I corrected the first one but the quote is a more complicated subject. It seems to be a good example, but the sentence is incomplete (the verb itself asks for more). I did't want do just delete it, but I also don't know the rest of the sentence. --SourceCode14:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that book is not available online, so there is no way to get more of the quote without purchasing the book. So we either have to keep the quote the way it is, or replace it with something else. There is one other possibility...this quote was placed into the entry by Daniel Carrero. Maybe he has the copy himself and can add more of it. —Stephen(Talk)16:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's the question of 'value' versus 'validity', something can be valid but add nothing to the project. At least in theory; I'd say that every entry which is both valid and accurate adds at least something to Wiktionary. Alternative forms aren't always straightforward; realise for realize is pretty obvious, but what about yssue for issue? Furthermore, the inflections and/or pronunciations may not be the same for all forms. Or one form may be regional. Instead of explaining this in the 'main' entry, we explain this in the 'alternative form' entries themselves. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.... both seem to say "an intended action or a goal". I thought I could find a distinction, but I'm not sure now. In Acts, when they were minded to take that action, was it their plan or did they purpose to do it? As a noun, purpose seems to have a higher motive or to be more intense than a mere plan. Dbfirs14:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to clarify something, and this can be applied in general to the issue of frequentatives. I originally put the Romance descendants meaning "to sneeze" under sternuo because there wasn't a separate page for the frequentative, sternūtō, from which they actually derive, but after someone else made that page I recently moved the descendants to it and removed them from sternuō. But now someone else re-added some of the words to sternuo (e.g. French éternuer, Italian starnutire) which actually derive from the intermediate form, sternuto (which is now a lemma, so I assume they go there). It's not right to have them listed under both, is it? This goes for other frequentatives or iteratives in general too; should words be listed under the direct source or on the page of the original verb? (if they are two different verbs; I'm not talking about infinitives and forms of verbs) Word dewd54316:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the first one includes some hidden control characters. In the URL, the currently-existing-but-funny entry shows up as fēng%E2%80%8Bdù%E2%80%8B, and the now-non-existent-but-looks-more-valid entry shows up as fēngdù. Was the text you used when creating the page copied and pasted in from somewhere? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig01:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should say somewhere that control characters, unless they're orthographically used in a language (like ZWNJ in Persian), should never occur in page titles. -- Liliana•21:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both have an inclination to commit crimes, but to put it in simpler terms - a sociopath commits crimes, but generally stays within the framework of the criminal world, whereas a psychopath has no rules, be it in the normal society or in the criminal world, so consequently they tend to be shunned by other criminals for their unpredictable behaviours. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C21:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
¶ I am surprised nobody is complaining to me recently, since I am adding entries for a language I do not understaund. Are any of you reviewing my French additions? --Pilcrow13:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I have been looking through Google, Wikipedia and Wiktionary for "System Capture" without any joy.
Which has staggered me quite frankly.
I believed it was a well understood and used term.
Is it not???
Is there another name that encompasses this?
System Capture - meaning any system, such as a bureaucracy or organisation, where the original objectives have been corrupted or subverted by those working within the organisation.
Typically to advantage and privilege the existing status quo.
Examples of this include:
Palace Eunuchs: Ottoman Empire.
Mandarins: Chinese Bureaucracy
British Civil Service (Are you being served - TV program)
The two words seem to be used in several different ways, but I haven't heard your usage. I can't think of a single term that fits your subversion description. Did you mean "Yes Minister" for the British Parliamentary System and Civil Service? Dbfirs21:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
six across: Entice
five letters, so far I have second letter "i", last letter "t".
six down: Was exited
seven letters, second and third letters in, fifth,sixth and possible seventh letter, led.
Can I get to a thesaurus from here? never know how to pronounce that
thank you, tildestildestildestildes
Anthony G or dinograv64@wikipedia.org
We don't have a very complete thesaurus unfortunately. 6d is probably BUBBLED (I assume you meant "excited" by "exited"). 6a could be TEMPT if your I is wrong. Equinox◑21:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TEMPT was my thought for six across, too. But if you're right about "excited", then six down must be TINGLED: Anthony gave _IN_LEd, and six across and six down have to start with the same letter. —RuakhTALK22:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeking a word that is analogous to "illustrate", in the sense of the more generic "exemplifies", but uses an aural metaphor instead of a visual metaphor.
For example, one could say "The dance performance illustrated Mr. Cunningham's adventurous artistic sensibility". What word would one use to say, "The concert performance (exemplified) Mr. Bluiett's contributions to the Third Stream movement fusing European Classical and American Jazz music." ???
Because it is an anagram, not an antonym. It is the same letters that make up admettent, but it is a different word. It’s a kind of puzzle that some people are interested in. If you are interested in antonyms, ignore anagrams. —Stephen(Talk)23:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have experienced for 2 weeks "vertigo" dizziness, room whirling around it goes and comes could you please give me some advice. My doctor gave me an EKG blood tests, and Cat Scan all normal?
The words borrowed from foreign languages should be pronounced in their original form shouldn't they?
The pronunciations of words like Sanskrit are wrongly mentioned if the above is to be strictly followed and they need to be revised, do advise. — This unsigned comment was added by Rockin291 (talk • contribs) at 10:11, 18 December 2011.
Loan words in English are rarely pronounced as they are in the original language since English, like any language, has a limited number of sounds that can be used to pronounce words. Anyway, Wiktionary's aim is to describe how words are used and pronounced in real-life, not tell users how people think they should be pronounced. ---> Tooironic09:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about how people think words are pronounced but how they are in their nativity you know. Please clarify whether you are saying the pronunciation should be as it is in English or should be changed to its native form. And anyway as you said sounds in English are quite limited. Rockin29101:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "how they are in their nativity". Like I said, we describe how words are pronounced in the target languagein real life. E.g. genre in English is pronounced /(d)ʒɒnɹə/ whereas in French it is pronounced /ʒɑ̃ʁ/. You can listen to the audio files on the pages for clarification. ---> Tooironic03:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary aims to be descriptivist. As such, we explain definitions, inflections, pronunciations, etc. as they are actually most commonly used, not as certain people think they should be used. English speakers have a tendency to Anglicize the pronunciation of pretty much everything, so the primary pronunciation given on English entries is usually the common Anglicized pronunciation. In situations where English speakers do occasionally use the "foreign-sounding" pronunciation in English speech, we can list that pronunciation in the entry alongside the Anglicized pronunciation, as we do in the entry Paris, for example. --Yair rand05:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever you use the word 'should', an argument becomes purely subjective. If you want my subjective opinion, it is no, we shouldn't always pronounce loanwords as they are pronounced in their original language. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to bring up my favorite example, bona fide, which I've always heard pronounced as if it were "bonified", but then I noticed that bonified is an actual word. Is there some way to cross-reference it so someone who guesses the spelling after hearing "bona fide" won't be misled? Chuck Entz06:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for your opinions. And Mglovesfun, you are quite right, using "should" made it subjective, would you please share your unbiased or objective opinion then, would appreciate it if you do so. Rockin29105:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Mglovesfun, but I do want to weigh in to say that borrowed words are, not should be but are, generally pronounced using the inventory of sounds in the borrowing language. So honcho#English, naive#English, or tortilla#English are all pronounced differently from 班長(hanchō), naïve#French, or tortilla#Spanish. Sometimes the differences are minor, as with these examples, and sometimes the differences are so extreme that the borrowed word becomes unrecognizable to speakers of the originating language, such as McDonald's as pronounced by most folks in the US, and マクドナルド(Makudonarudo) as pronounced by most folks in Japan. -- HTH, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig18:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, occasionally one finds that some words retain their original pronunciation, but "borrowed" means that the foreign word becomes a new word in the borrowing language, and so usually acquires a different pronunciation. Some people attempt to preserve the original pronunciation (if they know it), but they fight a losing battle. Dbfirs19:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With a language having a long history, such as w:Sanskrit, changes in pronunciation also complicate things: the "i" in the word Sanskrit is from a sound not reconstructed for ancient pronunciation by most linguists, but that has been common in India for the past few centuries. It's not just Sanskrit- each European language seems to have its own way of pronouncing Latin, which is different than the way it is believed to have originally been pronounced (see w:Latin spelling and pronunciation and w:Traditional English pronunciation of Latin). There are similar issues with Hebrew and Greek, as well. Wiktionary seems to avoid the issue for Sanskrit by giving a transliteration rather than using a truly phonetic alphabet such as IPAChuck Entz06:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for a context label that marks an entry as stylistically "exalted" or "sophisticated" (the German word I have in mind would be gehoben, if that helps). Does it already exist? I can't find any appropriate label. Longtrend16:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand what you're looking for, I think the usual English term is "learned" (as in "a learned borrowing") — but it's not used as often as, in my experience, its counterparts in some other languages. French reference works seem to have no qualms labeling every third word a "mot savant", but you don't see that so much in English ones. —RuakhTALK22:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... and zeptomole is attestable, of course, as a countable number of atoms or molecules. Can you supply a good definition (other than 10-21 of a mole)? Dbfirs19:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The definition that you give seems to be both accurate and precise to me. There are hundreds of hits for the term on Google books, and only about 10% of them are mentions. SemperBlotto20:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that we have inconsistent coverage of these is that they were not created in a systematic way. Individual entries were created by individual editors, including some for terms that were not attestable outside of lists of mentions. Eventually we had some discussions on the topic that resulted in the decision to soft-redirect the rest to an appendix. The appendix contains information that should allow any person to determine the meaning of any SI prefix and unit combination, but we may still have entries for those common enough to meet the CFI. Therefore, if zeptomole meets the CFI it should have an entry rather than a soft redirect, and any editor is welcome to create that entry. Conversely, if zeptogram or zeptosecond is unattestable, they should be redirected to the appendix. bd2412T16:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In several Germanic and Romance languages, although not usually in English, the infinitive is also used as an imperative, in positive but especially in negative sentences. This can often be used in a more generic and less direct way than the real imperative. Compare these sentences, all of which essentially mean 'do not disturb':
Dutch: niet storen
German: nicht stören
French: ne pas déranger
Spanish: no molestar
Italian: non disturbare
In all of these languages this formation is productive from what I can tell. Not so long ago there was an ad on Dutch television that used this construction very visibly. The catchphrase was: Ik zeg, doen! This means 'I say, do (it)!' but uses the infinitive doen and not the imperative doe. I have been wondering about this for a while now and I would like to know how this kind of formation originated. Is it a form of ellipsis that became productive in its own right? Was it used in Latin or in old Germanic languages? And what about languages outside Germanic and Romance? Does anyone know? Thank you! —CodeCat00:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not used in Russian. In German, I think the negative imperative with the infinitive is most common, but in Spanish, they readily use the infinitive in positive sentences, particularly in technical materials such as manuals, instructions, and directions: agregar dos cucharaditas de sal gruesa (add two teaspoons of salt). However, in Spanish an author may prefer the regular imperative, while in German, the infinitive imperative is sometimes almost obligatory. But it is not done at all in Russian. Around the Balkans, those languages tend not to use the infinitive for anything, but they must use finite verbs for every case. There they use a phrase like "that you do!" instead of "do!"
In French it’s also very common even in positive contexts. In French, the infinitive usually is pronounced the same as the imperative anyway, and the only differences are in the spelling and in the positioning of some other words like object pronouns and negatives. —Stephen(Talk)00:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that the Italian usage is very old. Latin did not have negated imperatives, if I understand it correctly. You may know that famous frase Noli me tangere ("don't touch me"). Italian doesn't have negated imperatives, neither, so they have no other choice. Non mi tocca is wrong, non toccarmi would be correct.
In German, the infinitive construction has the "advantage" that the speaker doesn't need to address the sender, so the command or recommandation becomes more general and more impersonal. It is elliptic but it is not clear what the basis is of this eclipsis: nicht stören < du darfst/sollst/solltest/... nicht stören, Sie dürfen/sollen/sollten/... nicht stören, man darf/soll/sollte/... nicht stören etc. Besides that, the infinitive form usually is shorter than the imperative form. --MaEr14:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least in Catalan, the negation particle no must always appear before the verb, but because the imperative is always first, the combination becomes problematic. So instead the subjunctive is used as a negative imperative: toca'm "touch me" but no em toquis "don't touch me". Presumably Italian has this problem as well, but Dutch and German don't because negation is through a sentence adverb which behaves differently in word order: raak me aan and raak me niet aan (from the verb aanraken). When using the infinitive the Catalan sentence would be (no) tocar-me and in Dutch mij (niet) aanraken. I don't know how it works in French. —CodeCat14:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You think that syntaxis forces the Catalans to use infinitives instead of imperatives in a negation? I would rather assume that this is Latin heritage, at least in Italian. Catalan toca seems ambiguous to me, it might be an imperative as well as an subjunctive (at least the table at tocar suggests this).
I'm not very experienced in French but I remember that famous slogan Touche pas à mon pote. This should be an ordinary negated imperative. So in this case, the Latin tradition ceased, and French seems to allow negated imperatives. --MaEr14:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I meant is that it forces the use of the subjunctive instead of the imperative. The imperatives are always placed first with the object clitic placed afterwards, so for the reflexive verb dutxar-seno et dutxa is ungrammatical unless it's supposed to mean "he doesn't shower you" (then the verb is 3rd person indicative) and no dutxa't is always ungrammatical. The subjunctive dutxis-te with the object pronoun placed after is also ungrammatical. The Catalan imperative has its own form in the 2nd person and the other imperative forms are identical to the subjunctive, but the difference is again in the word order: dutxin-se! "they must shower!", while the subjunctive would be (que) es dutxin "that they shower". —CodeCat15:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish is like Catalan, the negative requires either the subjunctive or the infinitive: tócame, no me toques. In French, you can say either "ne pas toucher les fruits" (infinitive) or "ne touchez pas les fruits" (regular...note that toucher and touchez are pronounced alike, but the negative pas is in a different location). —Stephen(Talk)13:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
google search result for wiktionary entry "upright" returns blatant sexual terms not referenced in wiktionary entry; e.g. "cunt"edit
do google search on term "upright"; wiktionary result as follows "upright (comparative more upright, superlative most upright) ... breast and the ringers [SIC] of his right hand were jammed inside her cunt along with his upright penis..."; click to see entry; that string not found within entry--at least not that I saw--so couldn't fix--did not search source, do not know search algorithm, do not know much html, and find instructions on updating wiki stuff unhelpful. Best instruction was the one telling user how to enter THESE entries, which says to end with three tildes and then a particular type of timestamp--which one can then go to wikipedia to look up, only to go round robin among recursive definitions NONE OF WHICH GIVES YOU AN EXAMPLE OF FORMAT or what the he*l time you mean. HH:MM:SS?? Military? Interplanetary? Who knows. 99.120.20.3108:04AM EST
He is talking about the quotation in upright that reads, "Then he raised her and turned her around and as she pumped from a sitting position his left hand palmed her left breast and the fingers of his right hand were jammed inside her cunt along with his upright penis." If you google upright, you find that the Wiktionary hit shows this: "upright (comparative more upright, superlative most upright) ... breast and the fingers of his right hand were jammed inside her cunt along with his upright penis. ..." —Stephen(Talk)13:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before the recent flurry of editing of the entry, the insertion of the citation was the last edit made. Is that how Google determines the thumb content? DCDuringTALK15:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it had no effect. Googling upright still evokes this listing from Wiktionary: "upright (comparative more upright, superlative most upright) ... breast and the fingers of his right hand were jammed inside her cunt along with his upright penis." —Stephen(Talk)08:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google doesn't find this in my searches, but perhaps it knows I don't regularly search for these words? Can we not find a better illustrative sentence? Dbfirs13:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you looking at the Google upright hit about 7 items down that is labelled upright - Wiktionary? I don’t normally search for such words either, but I still see "upright (comparative more upright, superlative most upright) ... breast and the fingers of his right hand were jammed inside her cunt along with his upright penis." —Stephen(Talk)15:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm not a fan of censorship, but I agree with Dbfirs in wondering if this is really the best quote to illustrate the meaning of the word. If we want to point out that a penis in particular can be upright, I'm sure we can find something modern that doesn't reference a multiply penetrated cunt. bd2412T17:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Google takes the first and the last parts, eliding what's in between. The simple solution is to change the order of the quotes so the controversial one isn't the first or the last.
I've taken the alternative step of replacing the citation with one that I hope will be less controversial (except to Creationists). I would also question sense 2, though I understand what was intended. Doesn't upright refer to the orientation rather than the comparison? Dbfirs16:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
moved from Wiktionary:Feedback
I read of volenteers going out and installing Wikipedia on stand-alone computers in schools - we have a primary school in Madagascar with no internet connection and will be interested in English, French and Malagasy dictionaries. We also teach computer classes for our children. Could you help? Kind regards Andries de Jager
I suggest you getting yourself some sort of dictionary software. Wiktionary is web-based; ergo the Internet is a requirement. A dump of this dictionary is not going to help your school much and will become outdated soon. Good luck finding one. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C04:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I join Wiktionary? Why does anyone join Wiktionary?
It won't make me happy and it won't make me money. The process of finding definitions and adding them to Wiktionary is tedious, repetitive and there is no reward. If I contribute to Wiktionary it won't make me happy now and it won't make me happy later. Sure you could say that the benefit is that I'll learn new words, but I can also learn new words by reading a dictionary and not contributing to Wiktionary.
I do love language and literature but if I join Wiktionary it'll just waste my time; time that I could spend doing more rewarding things. Is there really any reason for me to join Wiktionary? I haven't been able to find the answer in any of the Help: or Project pages, maybe you can direct me to a canned answer.
--67.71.36.23307:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC) (for now. maybe.)[reply]
I would like to know what an annuity is, in detail. What does it involve. What kind of investments are in it? Is an annuity like a stock or bond? Just exactly what is an annuity and how does it work? Thank you. — This comment was unsigned.
I wanted to edit the text that shows up when adding "vro-2" to one's babelbox (it currently simply says "Võro — keskmine tase", instead of the normal "This user..." format, and "keskmine tase" is in Estonian, not Võro) -- but I can't find where the actual template is located, to edit it. Help? — Jeraphine Gryphon02:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that something is wrong with the babel extension. You will see the same problem on my user page with ht-2. It says on the extension manual page that it is backward-compatible, so it should display the Template:User vro-2, but it doesn't for some reason. —Internoob05:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for the phrase "keskmine tase" and it is nowhere on this wiki. I just noticed that a number of other languages are incorrect as well, and I recall making them correctly some time ago. Apparently the messages are coming from a centralized source such as Commons or MediaWiki. —Stephen(Talk)06:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could fix it this way: In your Babel coding, replace "{{#babel: et|" with "{{Babel|et|". This way, it should use the templates that we have written here, such as {{User vro-2}}. —Stephen(Talk)06:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I don't know. There's {{pih}} for Norfuk-Pitkern as one language, and then there's separate codes {{cpe-nor}} and {{cpe-pit}} for Norfuk and Pitkern, respectively (even though the latter is never actually used). For all intents and purposes the two codes should be identical, but I'll try to start a discussion to merge them as that is really silly. Don't let that stop your work, though! -- Liliana•07:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Answered If you are blocked from a wiki and create an account on a different wiki, is that violating a policy? Meaning, say, I create an account on WikiMedia, got blocked, and made an account here, would that be illegal? (I apologize if I placed this in the wrong place, however it says "Newcomer's questions" above.) An editor since 8.28.2011. 02:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Annuity on Wikipedia.Wikipedia . DCDuring TALK 18:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
