Scope: This page is for requests for deletion of pages, entries and senses in the main namespace for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested. The most common reason for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as "green leaf". It is occasionally used for undeletion requests (requests to restore entries that may have been wrongly deleted).
Out of scope: This page is not for words whose existence or attestation is disputed, for which see Wiktionary:Requests for verification. Disputes regarding whether an entry falls afoul of any of the subsections in our criteria for inclusion that demand a particular kind of attestation (such as figurative use requirements for certain place names and the WT:BRAND criteria) should also go to RFV. Blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed.
Adding a request: To add a request for deletion, place the template {{rfd}} or {{rfd-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new nomination here. The section title should be exactly the wikified entry title such as [[green leaf]]. The deletion of just part of a page may also be proposed here. If an entire section is being proposed for deletion, the tag {{rfd}} should be placed at the top; if only a sense is, the tag {{rfd-sense}} should be used, or the more precise {{rfd-redundant}} if it applies. In any of these cases, any editor, including non-admins, may act on the discussion.
Closing a request: A request can be closed once a month has passed after the nomination was posted, except for snowball cases. If a decision to delete or keep has not been reached due to insufficient discussion, {{look}} can be added and knowledgeable editors pinged. If there is sufficient discussion, but a decision cannot be reached because there is no consensus, the request can be closed as “no consensus”, in which case the status quo is maintained. The threshold for consensus is hinted at the ratio of 2/3 of supports to supports and opposes, but is not set in stone and other considerations than pure tallying can play a role; see the vote.
Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it was deleted), or de-tagging it (if it was kept). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFD-deleted or RFD-kept, indicating what action was taken.
Striking out the discussion header.
(Note: In some cases, like moves or redirections, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFD-deleted” or “RFD-kept”.)
Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.
I spent a few minutes looking at the entries they made and comparing it to the source, for anyone interested. I'm inclined to say that they're innocent, or they at least didn't rip all of them. As for what to do, I think a more experienced editor should weigh in.
асп vs. "N. English: horse. Tojiki: асп. From: Tajik."
The editor in question added a lot of bad entries and was quite uncareful; we know for a fact that some are copied from that site. We also don't have anyone equipped to assess whether they're correct. Unless such a person appears, I think we may have to delete them to be safe. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds02:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I think they should all be deleted as well, but also because Yaghnobi should be written using more accurate Latin characters. Using Cyrillic is nationalist propaganda claiming that Yaghnobi as closely related to Tajik, which is unquestionably not at the case. --Victar (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
After looking a bit more, I agree with you guys... I shouldn't have been so quick to judge (in favor). Side note: some of the etymologies had straight up zero links 😕 – Gormflaith (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks User:Gormflaith for looking at the entries in more detail. If this is agreed upon then, then they ought to be deleted sooner rather than later, as once the data is re-used by Wikidata under a different licence I think it will be impossible to delete, won't it? @MetaknowledgeKaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
If it's decided to delete all of this user's Yaghnobi entries, note that some Yaghnobi entries were not written by this user, so look at the edit history before deleting. - -sche(discuss)20:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
I don't know how easy it would be to program a bot to do that, and DTLHS may not have time to write one, but if we all look over a few entries a day we can get this knocked out in a month or so. I've started going through the entries in Category:Yagnobi lemmas, removing the ones I can't find evidence for in books (I am using Google Books to check for English or Russian books that contain the word and its gloss in those languages). - -sche(discuss)03:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
I would have to look at the page histories of all Yagnobi entries to see that Rajkiandris actually touched the page, unless you have a list already. DTLHS (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
To echo what I wrote before, all the Yaghnobi entries should be deleted. Using cyrillic is nationalist propaganda taken from the site Rajkiandris sourced. --Victar (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
I've found references attesting Yagnobi words in Cyrillic script from at least as early as the 1970s; based on that and Guldrelokk's statement above, your claim seems overbroad. I don't have a problem with romanizing those sources/entries if it is felt that the Latin script is preferable, though. I can go ahead and move/recreate the entries I've found attested in Latin script straight to Latin script entries. - -sche(discuss)17:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
@-sche: Mirzozoda from the Tajik Academy of Sciences is the spearhead behind spelling Yaghnobi using Cyrillic, an otherwise unwritten language. The modified Tajik Cyrillic alphabet he uses was invented by him, but it is completely inept at properly representing Yaghnobi phonology. He also asserts that Yaghnobi and Tajik are closely related, which is demonstrably false, harkening back to my nationalist political propaganda comment. --Victar (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
I've gone through the ёs, аs, бs, вs, дs, еs, жs, гs, иs, яs, ғs, ӣs and ԝs and removed the ones I couldn't find other references for (which was most of them, about 50 entries so far). - -sche(discuss)05:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
Russian. These are not suffixes: the preceding а is a part of the verbal stem. It can be a suffix on it’s own or another а-final suffix like -ывать(-yvatʹ), but in any case it will be present throughout the inflection. The participle suffix is just -ущий(-uščij), -ющий(-juščij). Guldrelokk (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Speaking of metanalysis, I've always wondered whether our analysis of nouns ending in -ание was right. Don't these always come from a-stem verbs? If yes, I think we should consider parsing описа́ние as описа́ть + -ние, the same way we parse Latin words ending in -atio as "a-stem verb + -tio"; see interpretatio for example. I only know of two cases of a genuine -atio suffix: gradatio and *coratio; are there similar counterexamples in Russian?
I think the problem we're having is that native speakers tend to naturally think of the а being part of the ending and not the stem, when historically it's part of the stem. --WikiTiki8917:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it's a problem unless/until it's being misapplied in word-formation (or, in this case, conjugation). Are there people who misconjugate non-a-stem verbs?
May I suggest moving it to -щий? The correct decomposition of such a participle is, for example указ-ыв-аю-щий. The stem is указ-, followed by a imperfective modifier -ыв-, followed by the infinitive suffix -ать, which is conjugated to 3rd person plural -ают and trimmed to -аю, followed by the participle ending -щий. Otherwise, all of the following would have to be created: -ащий, -ящий, -ущий, -ющий. These are not different forms of the same suffix, but different conjugation classes of the base verb. Nonetheless, I do agree that initial а/я is not part of the suffix. Quaijammer (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Guldrelokk Let's think this through before just deleting these suffixes. My motivation for -аемый is that for many verbs, the passive participle suffix clearly replaces the infinitive suffix, e.g. терп-е́ть -> терп-и́мый, ма́зать -> ма́ж-емый, hence the same could be said here, e.g. уваж-а́ть -> уваж-а́емый. This is the same reason I prefer to treat -ание(-anije) as a suffix, parallel to -ение(-enije), rather than having two suffixes -ние(-nije) and -ение(-enije) that behave in non-parallel ways. Since I've been the main person working on adding etymologies, you'll find lots of words with etymologies that reference -ание(-anije) , and so it's not so simple to just delete that suffix. -аемый doesn't have so many words referring to it but we should maintain consistency of analysis. Benwing2 (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: But compare терпим and уважаем. Verbs that drop the stem-final а, like писать(pisatʹ), пишем(pišem), do not have this participle at all, so there is simply no way to treat а as part of the suffix: it would be plainly wrong. Guldrelokk (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
To the active participle: note how писать(pisatʹ), пишу(pišu) has пишущий(pišuščij). So to summarise: -ющий(-juščij) only occurs after а when the stem invariably has it. Whenever it is possible to ‘replace’ the vowel, it does that. Thus, in уважа-ющий -ющий is clearly suffixed to the stem уважа-, which has no allomorphs altogether: if it could drop its а like писать(pisatʹ), it would be уважущий(uvažuščij). On the other hand, -емый(-emyj)only occurs after those stems in а which have no allomorphs altogether: for other verbs of the first conjugation the corresponding participle does not exist. So again, уважаемый is clearly уважа-емый, because if уважать(uvažatʹ) could lose its final а, it wouldn’t have a passive participle.
I think that -ание(-anije) is a way harder and a very different question. I’ll need to think a lot about it. But the participle suffixes I requested for deletion are unjustifiable: removing them will not change anything globally. Guldrelokk (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
As per my reasoning in the section above, I suggest Move to -мый(-myj). The е/и is governed by the 2nd person plural conjugation of the verb (-ем/-им). It is not part of the participle suffix. Quaijammer (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
I find that "anh hai" is used outside of the family context as well; I am yet to find analogous ways of using the other "family relation + hai" expressions. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latin. This together with inodiatus and perodiatus are taken by L&S from Forcellini (edit: on another look odiatus doesn't occur even there; the other two words do). However, in Forcellini itself it says "word to be removed from the Dictionary, occurs only in Not. Tir. p. 77." This is what it's referring to: as far as I can tell, it's a manuscript/codex of Tironian Notes shorthand, and is indeed the only place I've found those words in. I don't know if misreading or scribal mistake is more likely. The words themselves reflect presumable proto-Romance forms (e.g. odiato) based on the verb odiare which doesn't exist in Latin. Those forms cannot derive from odīre - the perfect participle from that would have been *ōdītus or *ōssus. Unless someone can provide dictionary entries for those words from Medieval Latin dictionaries or cite examples from medieval texts, I think it's fair to conclude that the editors of Forcellini have mistakenly included them (forgot to remove them), whence they've found their way into L&S, but are not actual Latin words. Perhaps they have a place in the newly-emerging proto-Romance section.
I just tried searching odiatorum and easily found a result; I haven't found anything legitimate for an inflected form of inodiatus, however. I'm not sure whether we should reject something only found in the Tironian Notes in any case, and perhaps they would be better to keep with an appropriate label. Also, for the future, this is the wrong place to post this; WT:RFVN is the forum where you should post entries that you doubt the existence of. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds21:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
I've found exactly 2 attestations of odiatorum in google: one is this 1591 edition which is corrected to exosorum in later editions; the other I haven't found corrections of. archive.org has been somewhat more productive, showing for instance a quote from what I gather to be a book by a 19th century Italian historian Pietro Martini - which I haven't been able to find - quoting an unidentified parchment. Another is this from ~1700. The word odiatus, as I've made clear in an edit, is absent from the edition of Tironian Notes I've linked to (presumably corrected to odietas as a marginal gloss of odiosus), the word inodiatus has 4 alternative readings, perodiatus one. Ernout, Meillet has this to say, marking odiatus with an asterisk. The words are not in De Vaan. This dictionary follows Forcellini with the same single (and apparently false) reference, and so do some other minor dictionaries.
Here's another article conjecturing that the form odiare must have existed based on that same codex as well as the Romance forms - however, as we've seen, the form isn't truly attested even there, and Romance points to proto-Romance, not to Latin. "Neue Formenlehre..." gives what seems to be a comprehensive list of all attested forms in pre-Medieval Latin, neither odiare nor odiatus are among them - the -ia- forms are presumably subjunctives, whose very existence by itself precludes a verb odiare from appearing. That said, inodiare at least does seem to have inscriptional evidence and is listed. Looking for perodiare will be a bit too much for me right now.
I think this should be enough evidence from me. However, I'd also like to raise a methodological question: if a word that is expressly ungrammatical in Classical terms, is attested during or after the Medieval Period a couple of times with dubious manuscript authority, and corresponds to or is indistinguishable from a proto-Romance form, can be included on wiktionary as a properly Latin entry, then I have to wonder - firstly, what's the point of having the Vulgar Latin category (whose name I take a big issue with and whose link doesn't appear to be working, but never mind)? And secondly - does this mean that I can add a Latin word (naturally marking it as "contemporary Latin" or the like) found in the personalised dictionary, or simply in the writings or speech, of some modern Latin-speaking circle or internet venue? How about a random PDF file with computer vocabulary floating around the net? Is being found on the Latin wikipedia a solid enough ground for inclusion? Certainly it would be more useful for a modern Latinist. Do medieval Latinised Germanisms and Gallicisms such that abound in all those early medieval laws quality as Medieval Latin? What about their corruptions that are firmly-attested by several manuscripts? Last, but by no means least — does Nutella Nutellae and other macaronic Latin qualify? I know this might seem like it's going well beyond the scope of this discussion, but I suspect the answers to this latter part might instead be at the very core of our apparent disagreement over the inclusion of the words in question. By the way, I'm henceforth including the alternative conjugation of odio into this discussion. Also, should we continue this here, at RFVN or at some other place? Sorry, I'm very poorly familiar with community pages. — This unsigned comment was added by Brutal Russian (talk • contribs) at 17:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC).Reply
Attestations from Vicipaedia or the like do not suffice. The question for mediaeval and modern Latin has been whether a single durably archived use or mention suffices (as it does for classical words), or whether three independent ones should be required. I support the latter position, and we have applied it with some success: it avoids words that just one person coined for, say, Harrius Potter, but still allows in words that seem like "bad" Latin but occur in multiple manuscripts and might reasonably be something that someone would come across and want to know the meaning of (like sewera). My viewpoint therefore leads me to be very inclusive of anything that may be classical (if there are several proposed readings, we can include them all with explanatory labels), and exclusive of things written after the Late Latin period unless they meet our more stringent requirements. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds20:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Regarding "WT:RFVN is the forum": If OP's opinion is that words only attested through Tironian notes should be deleted, it would be an RFD or BP and not an RFV matter.
Regarding "random PDF file with computer vocabulary floating": That's probably not durably archived (WT:CFI). And even if it were, there would be the mentioning stuff (such as "should maintain a list of materials").
Regarding CFI, types of sources (Tironian notes, manuscripts, editions) and types of Latin: 1. Tironian notes, manuscripts and older editions (if they aren't clear misprints or misspellings) should be okay for attestation. There can be labels and usage notes to note such things. 2. Even Contemporary Latin obiously is an LDL too like so many others languages and no constructed language as for example Esperanto. And why shouldn't Latin Harry Potter attest Latin words, when other Harry Potter versions can attest words for other LDLs (e.g. Scots, Cymric or West Frisian)?
It’s a good question what we do with well-attested manuscript corruptions that have creeped into literature. fariō(“salmon trout”) (whencever people are so sure about the meaning of this hapax) has even been borrowed into English though in Meillet’s and Ernout’s words “sans doute graphie fautive de sariō” (from long ſ to f as it seems). Imho using {{n-g}} and saying what kind of corruption (with what likelihood, if applicable) a thing is is a good idea (even in Medieval Latin “odiatus” is a soloecism). There are lots of examples for ancient languages, considering Semitic languages too, where occurences of “holy” scriptures are corrupt but only later found to be so etc. Because why shouldn’t we if we include misspellings? Traditional dictionaries write things like “so in the Ms. XYZ” (funny if juxtaposed with the three-quotes criterion, and tricky with the templates). Or we need a layout similar to {{no entry}} for corruptelae. You need to let your creativity work. Fay Freak (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Interesting, I've checked the Latin misspellings category and only one item in there can be said to be a misspelling, the hypercorrection pariens for pariēs (the status of nasalisation/nasal in this environment and its timeline seem to be unclear). Other items that aren't abbreviations reflect genuine alternative morphophonetic forms, even if -acius for -aceus is likely to be at least in part a result of phonetic developments. What criterion defines those alternative forms as misspelings? In some non-literary corpora, the rate of omission of the final -M can be well over 50% (data from Adams 2013) - this hardly qualifies for a misspelling any more, but the language of those inscriptions is undeniably Latin. Late inscriptions and early Medieval texts still identified as Latin (even if with reservations) consistently fail to distinguish between the Accusative and the Ablative; Medieval Latin always spells -e- for -ae- in the 1st declension. Why do we not supply these and other things as alternative Late/Medieval forms? Certainly it looks like that's what has been dome in the case of the alternative conjugation of odio, only there a whole paradigm has been made up, apparently on the barely-extant evidence of just the participle - one can walk away from wiktionary falsely convinced that all of those forms are good Latin. Even if we were to confirm that paradigm with more than the current 3 New Latin attestations (+1 emended one) of the participle, I think it's beyond doubt that the form is an erroneous back-conversion from a Romance language for the properly Latin invīsus — and it's in this connection that I've asked about macaronic language, because the only difference here is intention. Would 3 attestations of a macaronic word give it a pass?
It looks like the misspellings category is currently being used as the generic dump for any non-standard form that's either attested or doesn't foreshadow Romance forms, and thus cannot be filed under the reconstructed namespace. This doesn't seem like an optimal solution to me, but filing them under for instance "Medieval Latin" doesn't seem a much better option - indeed, hence my objection to the inclusion of odiatus etc under such a label. I think we need to somehow draw a clear distinction between forms current and accepted in some period and unambiguous corrigenda, non-literary (inscriptional etc), or as of yet unsettled or competing usage (modern Latin vocabulary). For entries currently residing under misspellings I would suggest "Non-literary form", an equivalent of "Dialectal form" in other languages, with a way to specify place and period. For solecisms like odiatus, including those found in dictionaries on shaky or wrong evidence, as well as corruptions, I agree with the above proposal — there has to be a way to clearly indicate the non-acceptance of the former and the corrupted nature of the latter. And I don't think we can have an "alternative" conjugation like that without every form's page indicating its essentially fictional nature — unlike the 1st conjugation there are 2 pre-Medieval attested forms of the 3d conjugation odere - yet those aren't sufficient grounds to make up a whole new conjugation for the verb either. If anything, the reconstructed space seems like just the place for those. As for odiatus, its most solid attestation is a species of midge called Culicoides odiatus — perhaps that's what the page should be provisionally reprofiled to. ♥Brutal Russian (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Incorrect uncontracted forms of Ancient Greek verbsedit
Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
I think the following uncontracted forms of ἀγαθοεργέω(agathoergéō) created by RexPrincipum, are incorrect. This is the fault of Module:grc-conj, which currently gives some uncontracted forms if you set the dialect to Koine rather than Attic. But Koine contracts in the same way as Attic, thus ἀγαθοεργοῦμεν(agathoergoûmen) not *ἀγαθοεργέομεν(*agathoergéomen), ἀγαθοεργῶσι(agathoergôsi) not *ἀγαθοεργέωσι(*agathoergéōsi).
Hi, I've seen your comment, but the thing is that, as a rule, these verbs also contract in koine, they still appear in their uncontracted forms throughout the corpus of text, although rarely. But do correct me if I am incorrect, I am not the most experienced. RexPrincipum (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
The dual was completely extinct by the time of Koine, wasn't it? If so, then setting the conjugation template to |dial=koi should suppress the dual column, and all the entries for dual forms of Koine-only verbs should be deleted too. —Mahāgaja · talk11:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
In ἀγαθοεργέω, non-contracted -οε- in the middle of the word looks wrong in combination with contracted endings. My edition of the New Testament reads ἀγαθουργῶν (2x contracted) in Acta 14.17. Akletos (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago9 comments6 people in discussion
See WT:Beer parlour#Old-English-pseudo-prefixes. I went through all the Old English prefixes and identified those that I think aren't true prefixes, i.e. they're just the first part of a compound word. I identified two categories: (1) those I'm pretty sure aren't true prefixes, (2) those I think aren't true prefixes but I'm not totally sure. They are:
I think "ful(l)-" exists as an uncommon verbal prefix (that is, it can behave like a prefix by being unstressed when attached to a verb). In present-day English "fulfill", at least, the main stress is on the second syllable, and this may also be the case for "fullfyllan" (I haven't found a reference yet for this specific word). Another "ful(l)-" prefixed verb is fuldōn. Some of the sources I've looked at distinguish between a few different types of elements that can be prefixed to verbs; e.g. Minkova 2008 says that niþer- is a "particle" (p. 24).--Urszag (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
When the meaning of a combination H + T is a specialization of the meaning of T, in which H serves as an attribute defining the specialization according to the meaning of free-standing H, then this is almost certainly an ordinary compound. This is most obvious when H is a noun. Lacking a generally agreed-on definition of when a morpheme is bound, we cannot hope to have a watertight criterion for separating the wheat from the chaff, so we need to proceed with some boldness. Not deleting will mean we harbour very many false prefixes. Deleting will mean we perhaps lose a few – probably not a big deal since the analysis of HT = H + T is not wrong. So I advocate to Delete all except those H- for which an argument can be made – like for ful- above – that some term HT is not an ordinary compound. (Since twi- is very likely a true prefix, it would not be surprising if an argument can be made that þri- is actually also a prefix inherited from Proto-Germanic *þri-.) --Lambiam09:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I have emptied the categories for the first group; there were only a few entries to change. If no one objects, I'll delete the first group of prefixes in a few days. Benwing2 (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
We have all- and even- and self- as prefixes in modern English, and some languages either predecessorial or related to Old English, which might suggest that eal-, eall- and efen- and self-, at least, might be real prefixes. - -sche(discuss)00:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
For some reason in linguistics (Indo-European linguistics at least) adpositions and adverbs when compounded are considered affixes, but other wordtypes aren't. I don't know how that tradition arose, but changing it would certainly require a policy discussion. (It could be done for example the way it has been accidentally done under aġēn, but that would require a lot of changes in a lot of languages.) In that context, @Benwing2 what you've done above seems sensible to me, as most remaining prefixes are considered prefixes in cognate languages. Anyway, this can be closed, no? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don’t see the benefit of deletion, neither for the collective of editors nor for the users. Panthera onca is not some obscure species that you only find mentioned in specialized scientific literature, and we can provide an etymology for the epithet to the curious user. --Lambiam12:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
That's not separate: the species was first described by Linnaeus under the name Felis onca, then was transfered to the genusPanthera, which automatically changed the name to Panthera onca. It would be like treating the name on someone's birth certificate and their married name as two different occurences of their given name. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
Translingual. Entered without any definition, just a description of what the glyph looks like, visually. In the wording of CFI, terms have to "convey meaning".__Gamren (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
“Incomplete infinity” is a concept that is discussed in the literature.[1][2][3] I have no evidence,though, that the symbol ⧜ is, or has been, in actual use with that meaning. --Lambiam13:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
No; as of the July 20th dump, we have mainspace pages for for 42,300 code points (out of 143,859 according to Wikipedia). — Eru·tuon04:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
As I said on the RFD for -lendingen: This isn't a suffix, it's just the result of applying -ing (second sense) to a word that ends in land, with attendant vowel change. It is silly to analyze islending as is + -lending ("ice + -lander"); it's Island + -ing (Iceland + -er).__Gamren (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Gamren: The reasoning for deletion seems incomplete to me. On the one hand, there is the question about whether -lending technically is a suffix. On the other, the vowel change cannot be presumed to be trivial; it is not like vowels can be changed willy-nilly in Norwegian. The information that -lending rather than -landing is used in demonyms and similar words should be stored somewhere in the dictionary; and given that an official Norwegian dictionary has an entry for -lending, my starting point is that we should have an entry for it here as well. --Njardarlogar (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it should be deleted either, the fact that it is in the dictionary is reason enough for me to keep it. Also it's pretty convenient to get all the derivatives containing -lending from this page. The Norwegian Academy Dictionary also states that it is in fact a suffix, as seen on the entry for "flamlending" on naob.no, though they don't actually have a separate entry page for it. I am in the process of sending them a list of words missing from their dictionary, and will include -lending. Supevan (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
As I said on the RFD for -lendingen: This isn't a suffix, it's just the result of applying -ing (second sense) to a word that ends in land, with attendant vowel change. It is silly to analyze islending as is + -lending ("ice + -lander"); it's Island + -ing (Iceland + -er).__Gamren (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Albanian. Tagged but not listed nearly two years ago with the reason "It is misspelled; the correct spelling is dëgjoj". We do have an entry for dëgjoj, but degjôj is labeled {{lb|sq|Gheg}}, and there's a citation for the inflected form degjôn, so I suspect this is a valid spelling for Gheg dialect if not for the standard language. But I know virtually nothing about Albanian, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion. Pinging @HeliosX, PlatuerGashaj as the creator and deletion proposer respectively. —Mahāgaja · talk10:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
In Dhurata Ahmetaj's song, the verb is pronounced like this only the first time during the first minute. You can search the song online if you like to review its pronounciation. It can be noted that the rhyming word "preokupon" is pronounced here with the vowel [e] too but the pronunciation of the second verb can't be altered because of that only. HeliosX (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
It will be highly difficult to establish this spelling in writing because Gheg is nearly always written without any circumflexes and often without the diacritic of the schwa letter. HeliosX (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
All of them were created by my bot several years ago, based on Module:ar-verb. When I created that module, I did a careful analysis of hamza spellings based on several sources. I documented my findings in detail in w:Hamza, where they still remain. I don't think I made any mistakes but you never know; this particular area of Arabic spelling is very hairy, and there are disagreements among different authors. The IP apparently thinks spellings like تسوءوا are more correct. If you look at what my module generates, you'll see it generates both spellings, and lists the IP's preferred spelling first. The dual spellings are intentional, since there is author disagreement in this case. Am I right or is the IP right? Benwing2 (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I was taught that following Quranic orthography, it was valid to write the hamza without a seat for e.g. سَاءُوا(sāʔū), but that doesn't even seem to be one of the options presented. That would be to avoid two wāws in a row, but for MSA usage where that rule is not generally applied, the wāw should be used as a seat instead. I don't know of any justification for using a yā', but based on w:Hamza, I would guess that it follows the trend of certain medial hamzas being typeset with yā' as the seat rather than seatless, even if not historically justified. So the IP is seemingly right from a prescriptivist perspective, but given that we're descriptivist, I don't see a problem with keeping anything attested (maybe labelled in some manner). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds06:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: The w:Hamza article mentions Barron's grammar books. I've got his 501 Arabic Verbs. The third-person masculine plural past active ofجَاءَ(jāʔa) is given only as جَاؤُوا(jāʔū) (not جَائُوا(jāʔū)) but the third-person masculine plural non-past active indicative is given as يَجِيؤُونَ(yajīʔūna) (not يَجِيئُونَ(yajīʔūna)).
A Student Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic by Eckehard Schulz, however gives يَجِيئُونَ(yajīʔūna).
As far as I recall I've seen the forms with ء(ʔ) only in older Quranic writing. I've never seen hamzas preceding a short or long u in the form of ئ(ʔ), but ؤ, as mentioned by Anatoli. --Z14:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
It is يَجِيئُونَ(yajīʔūna), because i takes precedences before u. As no i vowel environs those third person male past plural forms they cannot be written with ئ(ʔ). If in some Arabic country the opposite is considered permissible, I plead ignorance; search engines even hardly find forms like شائوا and correct to شاؤوا even if in ASCII quotation marks. Forms like شائوا should be removed from the conjugation tables at least owing to undue weight. Following experiences like on Talk:هذا we have to expect that Arabic grammars also contain wrong forms. Fay Freak (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
No kasra or ى around the glottal stop, then it can't be ـئـ. These are basics in Arabic orthography. No damma or و around the glottal stop, then it can't be ؤ. Some words are acceptable to be spelled with either, but in the eighties, one of the Arabic language academies (in Egypt?) favored the ء on the line for some words over ؤ that was commonly used, e.g. دؤوب (traditional style); دءوب (newer style). — This unsigned comment was added by Mahmudmasri (talk • contribs) at 20:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC).Reply
Keep -- The mere fact that it's possible to write it as ansein and then label it as superseded or historic or whatever means we should keep it. There's no need to play games with ourselves. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 10:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The entry ŋó is simply a rendition of Suyá. The spelling ŋó does not follow any established orthographic conventions for the language (it is taken from Guedes 1992, which uses its own ad hoc conventions and is in general not a very reliable source on the language). I was unable to move it because the page ngô already exists. Degoiabeira (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Delete. I don't really see any value in keeping ad-hoc phonological transcriptions when we can lemmatise at the established orthography. Thadh (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete ... we have this same problem with a few other languages, like Abinomn, where in some cases it's not clear what the proper spelling should be because two transcription methods overlap. But in this case, it's clear that ŋó is <ngô>, so I would move the word to the new spelling. —Soap—10:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
So... I ask that these kinds of entries be deleted, because they contain a postposition, which is hard to translate in English as one word. Currently have found four words: ანგელოზი-ვით, აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ, აღმოსავლეთ-ის-ა-კენ, მათ-თვის. Now 1st can be translated as "like an angel", second and third "towards east", fourth as "for them; by themselves..." and other nuances the postposition carries. I don't think it's proper to have these forms on Wiktionary, since the pages would pile up and bad translations would arise. Just study grammar... I haven't actually looked whether this qualifies at all by the Wiktionary rules, so I'mma ask y'all. For comparison to other languages, these forms are kinda like if Korean 미국에서(migug-eseo, “from America”) entry existed. I'll also ping @Dixtosa, Reordcraeft. Additional questions if we decide to delete them... would there be an easier way to actually find them? -Solarkoid (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Our concepts of SOP and words aren't all that good at dealing with agglutinative languages. A few precedents I can think of are "-que" in Latin and "'s" in English (forms with both of which are deleted as they're clitics that can go on syntactically-unrelated words), prefixed prepositions in Hebrew (prefixed forms excluded by Hebrew community consensus), and case endings in highly inflected languages such as Latin and Finnish. Latin accusative can be used for toward, ablative for away from, and locative for at. I'm not very familiar with Finnish cases, but there are a variety of cases with prepositional meaning. Then there are the long and complex German compounds that native speakers consider SOP, but that the overall community decided to keep. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ye that's understandable, to be honest. However, additionally the thing is, none of the postpositions listed there: 1) Can mean anything on their own 2) Aren't considered as cases by anyone; none of them were given names. Akaki Shanidze, a well-respected Georgian linguist, considered things like -ში(-ši) cases, since 1) they didn't show the case marker 2) they could be isolated as a case per meaning (like Locative case). Georgian, like any language, deals with postpositions like word-case marker-postposition, where pp can either be a isolated one or suffixed. -ვით(-vit) means "like (close to in shape, size, features...) for example, შესახებ(šesaxeb) means 'about' and is spaced. But like, I don't know what to do with them. I guess since Hebrew excludes the prefixed prepositions and Korean also does that with their "markers", there should be no need for ones in Georgian, since they don't just change meaning for one word or another, they're systematic. I'll look at different responses, see what other people think. Also see if Dixtosa responds, he hasn't been active muchito. Thank you for your answer. -Solarkoid (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
I partially agree. Forms like ანგელოზი-ვით can be deleted, but there are so many non-lemma forms for other languages, I doubt we should make it our priority at this point. When it comes to words like აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ (eastward, eastwards), I think we can keep them. These words are useful when it comes to navigation, whether on foot or by sailing a boat or flying a plane. All in all, we should look at the usefulness of each entry and not delete them in broad sweep. --Reordcraeft (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Honestly just because it has a one word translation in English using -ward doesn't mean it should be an entry in Georgian. I have more problems than imprecision in definitions. Typically, inflection of would be used for cases or conjugations and others, but not postposition. What inflection are you going to specify აღმოსავლეთისკენ as? LOCATIVE? Locative is a case, so is Ablative and others, so unless proven or discussd to be a case (like in case of -shi, -ze cf. Shanidze), you can't just assign them values like that. As for further problems with აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ: It's like so unnecessary. -k'en is a suffix for movement towards something. ANYTHING at that. You can select any noun and damn straight it'll work because it's a postposition. It is suffixed to a noun in genitive case, so, imho, keeping cases is fine and is in good will, while keeping postpositions is just unnecessary UNLESS you have linguistic proof that it can be considered a case. Also for "These words are useful when it comes to navigation" Well they can be built as easily by a person learning even a little bit of grammar as useful it is. Since there is no exact rule on agglutinative languages here, I think it's for community's best interest to deem such entries impractical, because they are so easily guessable from the root word. Unless you prove me that every little bit has to be here in this dictionary, then let's add entries like მიკაქალ, პაკა, ბაი, ოკ, სახში, ტვალეჩი (ngl last one kinda deserves an entry) since they are so widely used. Also მხოლობითი which I've heard far more than მხოლოობითი but is not attested in a dictionary. However: for Mingrelian and Laz these are cases and should be treated as such, but that's for future and they are clearly cases, so I'm not going to bring that here. I feel like I'm in court. Nothing further, Your Honor. Also I'm partially going off from Korean entries here too. @Karaeng Matoaya In your expert opinion, should entries like 엄마처럼/엄마같이 (not saying sole, dictionary words like 쏜살같이) and 왼쪽으로 be created? I'm asking you because it's kind of the same matter here, though y'all view those as particles instead. But I kinda have that problem too with some entries having -ც. -Solarkoid (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think what Solarkoid is trying to say here put very simply is that this is SOP, since these postpositions can be attributed to any noun by exactly the same method. This seems to me to be as SOP as any monoword compound can be, but with an enormous amount of entries to be created. Is there any point of not deleting them (for example Georgian speakers or learners not being able to recognize the suffix being a postposition)? If not, then a strong delete from my part. Thadh (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, there are good reasons why we should not delete them. Someone may want to look it up, wow. That someone is probably neither a native speaker nor a learner though because it is pretty easy to guess any postpositional form from two basic forms (genitive and plural). But, have you ever looked up a word in a language you knew nothing about?
I think WT's objective should not be to include any variant of any word that anyone could find anywhere. The reason to delete this is so that it doesn't fill up the mainspace with words that can be deducted very simply. This isn't different from any SOP except for the fact it doesn't use a whitespace. Why not add whole sentences in Scriptio continua? Thadh (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Dixtos, Wiktionary has this convenient little feature called "words containing..." under the search if the word you're looking up isn't an entry. We could even do redirects to the main entry where they can open the inflection table and see it for themselves. Like look up the word "დიდედისთვის", which doesn't exist, and it will tell you, that the word "დიდედა" contains the word, so I still stand by my opinion, that it doesn't matter. And if they can't find it that way still, let's just let them add it to entry requests, add main entry and add a redirect even. Redirect has to be discussed still, but we'll see. -Solarkoid (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Given the small number of languages using this script and their being limited to a relatively small area, the risk of overlap with words in other languages seems pretty small, and the likelihood that at least some Georgian editors will be able to spot it seems pretty high. That means you can be much more liberal with redirects than for scripts that are widely used by lots of languages with no connection to each other. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
@Hk5183 Sense "to have sexual intercourse with". It doesn't seem lexicalized to me, and AFAICT it's quite rare, too. Looking cursorily, I found one cite, and there is another on DDO, both of which seem like nonce euphemisms by romantic authors (Femina is a women's magazine). ODS lists a large number of minor semantic variations, but not this one.__Gamren (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
I personally have never encountered this meaning in reading (only in DDO), so I cannot attest to it's usage. I agree that it is not at the core of the word's meaning, so delete it if you think best. Thanks! Hk5183 (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion
1. This was created as "Mon-Pali"; Ungoliant changed the header to Mon, but did so in error: it's Pali. 2. This is a phrase used in a Buddhist context. However, it's not lexical as far as I can tell. @Bhagadatta —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds05:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Create Pali entry, keep and soft-redirect as Burmese script form of said entry. This is a major set phrase in Theravada Buddhism and should be kept just like 南無阿彌陀佛／南无阿弥陀佛 (Nāmó Ēmítuófó).--Tibidibi (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Tibidibi, Metaknowledge: Thanks for the info. Just to clarify, should the Pali soft redirects be added in addition to the preexisting lemmas or should the Mon entries be converted into Pali soft redirects? Because if we do that, then these entries will lose the pronunciation and etymology etc as they should be at the main entry.
Anyway I think we should keep the phrase entry and keepဘဂဝတော(bhagavato) and အရဟတော and deleteနမောတဿ because namotassa has no meaning or relevance which cannot be gauged from its constituent parts namo (homage) and tassa (to him; dative) and thus does not warrant an entry. Also deleteသမ္မာသမ္ဗုဒ္ဓဿ for the same reason. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)09:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Bhagadatta, I think we can keep the audio in the Latin-alphabet Pali entries, just labelled as {{q|Thai Mon pronunciation}}. Pali is read differently by every Theravada culture, and ideally every Pali entry would have a transcription or audio for the traditional reading in every Theravada country. (This can probably be automated, but I know very little about Pali.)
As far as I know, we do not say lone portion of the verse anywhere; no one says "namotassa" or "bhagavato" etc in conversation except mantra. Each portion should be split into their relevent words. And in the end, they are pure Pali language, not Mon language. --Octahedron80 (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Tibidibi: You mean for every province, don't you? This sound clip is representative for neither Burma nor Thailand. I suspect you would need an entry for every lowland SE Asian L1, and quite possibly for British and Californian English L1s. And do you really want an entry for every inflected form? A regular masculine noun has 16 forms, and a verb has about 80 masculine participial forms alone! RichardW57 (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Bhagadatta, Mahagaja: The word boundaries are not as clear-cut as one would like. The majority choice seems to be for "sammā sambuddhassa" to be one word, but its written both ways in Latin script and in Thai script. Now, "namotassa" is a sum of its parts in the same way as "coalmine" is. But, if it is to be translated as "homage to him", it makes sense as a univerbation. Keeping it as a unit is common (but not the majority choice) in Burmese script text on the web, and I notice that my Tai Khuen Pali sample writes it as one word. Determining word boundaries is awkward - sometimes it is clear that spaces are mere aeration! RichardW57 (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Tibdibi, Bhagadatta, Mahagaja, Octahedron80 I wonder if this phrase might be 'multilingual'. It's rather like hallelujah and allah akbar. I've just found another example. In the Burmese-authored English language web page [6] which says in a throw away remark that နမော ဗုဒ္ဓါယ သိဒ္ဓံ(namo buddhāya siddhaṃ, “Homage to the Buddha; Success!”) (or is is it 'homage to the completely enlightened one'?) is Mon. The contexts for it are associated with Burma and Cambodia. I think it's Pali, but I'm not sure it isn't slightly substandard Sanskrit. (The form of 'buddhāya' looks wrong for Pali to me, but perhaps I haven't mastered the rules for the choice of dative singular form.) I have found the phrase in a larger Pali context, and the first two words carved in stone in Sanskrit. RichardW57 (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
If "Standard Arabic" is defined chiefly in terms of the case system, the conjugations, and the traditional grammars that come with both, one may find very many "dialectal" words that become "standardized" by adding the appropriate case markers when used, and with them whatever productive combination-forms and derivational patterns in the vernaculars, such as this very segment. Since its function is recognizable and it is fairly productive, I do not see why it cannot be classed as a "suffix".
The whole "informal" tag for Arabic entries, which I have been trying to remove gradually, albeit with some resistance from disgruntled IP's, is to me utterly absurd: the employment of the case system itself strips any supposed "informality" from speech, regardless of the lexicon. How could a word like بُوسَة(būsa) be "informal" when declined in the manner characteristic of speeches and books? And, to me, the use of this segment is analogous to it. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Roger.M.Williams, Fay Freak: The term بَلْطَجِيّ(balṭajiyy) is borrowed from Eastern dialects to MSA. The suffix is nonexistent in Standard Arabic whatsoever, which is the opposite of the prefix كَهْرُو(kahrū) in that it is productive and largely used. The suffix جِيّ(jiyy) can't be considered as such just because it is found in some borrowed words from dialects or other languages. Should we consider تِلِ(tili) (in تِلِفِزْيُون(tilifizyūn), تِلِغْرَاف(tiliḡrāf) and تِلِفُون(tilifūn)) an Arabic prefix because it is found in some borrowed terms, even though it was never treated as such in the borrowing language? — Fenakhay(تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت)22:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
The distinction between the dialects and the literary language is very often blurred when vernacularisms are "adjusted" to fit in the conjugation and declension systems. You are speaking of "MSA" and the "dialects" as if they were almost antipodal (perhaps like Chinese and Swedish), but if you scour through modern news articles and opinion pieces, you will probably notice that very many of them are written in some "standardized vernacular", while some have whole paragraphs that are entirely composed in the syntax of the vernacular. The more starkly "dialectal" elements are interrogatives and other like particles, and when those are excised, you end up with a composition that is lexically "dialectal" yet grammatically "standard".
So my question is this: is this segment used in vernacular and/or literary formations on the model of the borrowings? If yes, then I deem it to be productive in some language. The question whether this language is the literary language or a dialect assumes that the two do not spill over each other at all. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I doubt it is under no circumstances. It probably pops up too often in literature, though then not being as unmarked as it is now labelled (probably jocular? one hasn’t labelled it so on the other hand because it would be misleading because in basilects it is normal). Some words containing it are clearly part of the general standard, though one would have to seek examples where it’s not only by surface but the formation has taken place in literary use. بَلْطَجِيّ(balṭajiyy) clearly is manifestly general Arabic but not formed in it. Fay Freak (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I changed the label to lower case, but the generated category contains only the one term so this is still a one-off solution as currently implemented. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Wow, what a clutz! I'm wondering though, why is it that the current alias substitution works even tho it's still different from the "Pre-classical" of the category field. Is it that the first letter only is case-insensitive? Why does categorisation even care what's written in the label if the category is unchanged?? Brutal Russian (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Brutal Russian: I thought you would understand: The dataset is called post-classical. To this argument of labels the aliases have to be mapped; of course everything is case-sensitive. display makes that all appear uniform. Fay Freak (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fenakhay, sending these to RFD is not an appropriate way to handle an entry that obviously exists. In general, we should avoid bulking up a forum like this this with entries that obviously shouldn't be deleted. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds18:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Lean delete, which religious titles to include and which not can be difficult because there are many metaphors and allusions involved, but this one is rather straightforwardly descriptive. So it is closer to Holy One of God (imo excludible) than to Lamb of God (imo includible). ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Speaking from a background that leaves me rather ignorant of much of Islam, I can only guess at what or who "Allah's Messenger" would refer to -- Might this be an angel? Any of the prophets? A specific prophet? I don't know.
In other words, I agree with Mahāgaja's point, and I cannot agree with Fay Freak's contention, that "[i]t's always the one relevant in the narrative of the religion in question" would mean any English speaker would perforce understand this in a sum-of-parts manner.
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This construction isn't really a word (not in Dehkhoda), and the attempt to treat it as a verb has produced the convoluted usage notes. The relevant information is now contained in منتظر#Usage notes, which I think conveys the information rather more succinctly.
Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments4 people in discussion
All of the entries for Barngarla on Wiktionary follow the standardised spelling (as specified here), except for one entry kawu, and two other entries kauo and kawi that specify themselves as alternate spellings of kawu. The version of this word with standardised spelling can be found at gawoo (and possibly also gabi). The Barngarla Language Advisory Comittee prescibes that Barngarla should be written according to the modern standardised spelling. These other spellings are not part of any sort of obsolete spelling system, but rather are just arbitrary spellings that some linguists used to transcribe Barngarla words prior to the modern spelling standardisation. Therefore I propose that these entries be deleted. --AndreRD (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
I looked into the situation here. The Barngarla language fell out of use by 1964, but has recently been revived thanks to an effort spearheaded by Ghil'ad Zuckermann, a linguist. Apparently Zuckermann himself developed a new orthography for the language. There are plenty of old pre-1964 texts with attestations (at least mentions) of Barngarla words not written in Zuckermann's orthography, but the evidence suggests these writers were using ad-hoc orthographies and there was no written standard. I suppose the most logical thing to do is to delete these old ad-hoc spellings - otherwise we'd clutter the dictionary with all sorts of one-off spellings for all kinds of LDLs. Do we have a common practice in these situations? This, that and the other (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Of course, Wiktionary is not paper. Incidentally, while we are at it, should we get these pre-1964 texts burnt? A sane compromise is to by default require 2 independent mentions with the same spelling if there are no examples of use. --RichardW57m (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The sense 'well-gone' (perpetrated by @咖喱饭) currently (26 June 2021) given for Pali sugata is either covered by 'faring well' or needs separate senses. "Well-gone" is not proper English in this context, but clearly a literal translation. --RichardW57 (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Could, but let’s not make it come that far. WT:COALMINE also has exceptions. Readers have no meritorious interest that these compounds be included, a requirement for any inclusion. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
"Readers have no meritorious interest that these compounds be included"{{citation needed}}. While the formation is trivial (language name + Wörterbuch), i see multiple points for inclusion:
It's "all words of all languages". These are words.
And they are single words, no multi-word terms or "spaced compounds". So for non-native there's also the problem of properly dividing Englischwörterbuch into it's parts.
The sections shows which terms exist, and which do or might not. (e.g. Klingonwörterbuch and Klingonischwörterbuch do not exist.)
Englischwörterbuch (etc.) could be both: 1. A monolingual, purely English dictionary like OED, or 2. a bilingual English-German/German-English dictionary. Maybe also 3. a bilingual English-French/French-English dictionary (same with other languages), but that might be trickier to attest.
There's no reason for exclusion, SOP doesn't apply.
There are two general problems, but that are general problems, and WT's bad entry layout is to blame:
Many terms are both derived terms and hyponyms (e.g. Englischwörterbuch is derived from Wörterbuch and a hyponym of it). So properly they would have to be listed twice (like in Haus). An additional section "Derived hyponyms" would reduce repetions. (And as for "Derived hypernyms", "Derived synonyms", "Derived antonyms": there aren't as many as there are derived hyponyms.)
It would be sufficient to only have "Englischwörterbuch(“English dictionary”)" inside of Wörterbuch. (As for the ambiguous meaning, there could be a general usage note or it could be added.) Then people could also find it and its meaning, and there would be no need for an (almost) useless entry.
It's unfortunate that this is framed as a deletion discussion. The basic issue is that this is a Hyponyms section in an entry, not a list of all possible dictionary entries with the element "-wörterbuch". Yes, those would all be hyponyms, and CFI doesn't forbid entries for them (however useless most of the entries would be), but all single-word members of Category:German lemmas (69,246 entries) and Category:German non-lemma forms (211,074 entries) are hyponyms of German Wort- it's "all words in all languages", not "all words in all Hyponyms sections".
I would argue that including terms with -wörterbuch in them in this section is unnecessary clutter- no one who knows what a hyponym is would have any trouble determining that these are hyponyms, and anyone with any sense could figure out how to find them without consulting this section. In a case like this, the Hyponyms section should be reserved for terms that aren't so obviously marked as hyponyms, and if all possible hyponyms include -wörterbuch, then there shouldn't be a hyponyms section. After all, with thousands of languages having German names, it would probably be physically impossible to include all possible hyponyms- so any list would be incomplete. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Does WT:SOP (and more broadly WT:CFI) really pertain to the individual entries of such sections of articles? I thought it only applied to articles as such and it is thus fine to create permanent redlinks in such sections. Fytcha (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Keep. There's no clutter (the section is collapsed by default) and they would just be moved to Derived terms instead of Hyponyms so where's the benefit? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 09:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Remove. It's true that Wiktionary is not paper, but stuff like this is rather useless. I single example in the definition section would suffice. A lot of the ones under derived terms can also go in my view. Having size of a dictionary as a derived term of dictionary would be bananas. Wörterbuchgröße is not much less so. But we can argue about that. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
This is a tricky one to analyse. There are 784 raw Google hits, but the problem is that killing an elephant for its ivory is exactly what the poachers do, and examples referring to that would be straightforward SoPs. --RichardW57 (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep. I've found a quotation that clearly isn't about elephants. Unfortunately, it's about the killing of Rama VIII (the current king's uncle), from a book that's banned in Thailand. It does, however, clearly show the use of the abstract 'noun' of the idiomatic phrase, so as with the request above we need a clearer explanation of why the abstract noun from the idiom should be excluded. The example shows the noun as the object of a preposition, ถึง(tʉ̌ng) (or a verb acting like one, depending on your taste in grammar). --RichardW57 (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago7 comments7 people in discussion
RFD of the noun section: "a sign for or representation of four", "the value four, e.g. as a score" and "(uncountable) a group of four". Unremarkable variations on the numeral definition that don't deserve a separate noun section. ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Comment. English four, German Vier and Italian quattro also have a listed noun sense. Deletion of the noun section will also remove the information that this is a de word that has a plural on -en. --Lambiam19:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Keep. I added examples, all three noun meanings are remarkable enough and frequently used. I don't think deleting them would be any useful — NickK (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Nick, here. Removing these can cause ambiguity when one comes upon the use cases that would otherwise be provided.
A vicar apostolic has usually been ordained and consecrated as a bishop and stands as such in the apostolic succession, so they may perform the sacrament of holy orders. They do not represent a bishop other than the Pope. A vicar acting as the representative of a Catholic diocesan bishop is usually not themselves a bishop; they have vicarious administrative or judicial powers, but not sacramental ones. --Lambiam15:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
It's a choice to strip out tremata. We don't have to do that for Latin. I agree that @Benwing2 made a mistake in not discussing this first, but I abstain on the actual issue of undeletion. We do need to have a discussion that decides the fate of these entries for good. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds20:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@AG202 Thanks for resurrecting this. Personally I think the forms with diaeresis should remain deleted, but I will defer to the Latin community as a whole. However, I oppose undeleting unless we remove the stripping of diaeresis in Module:languages/data2. Benwing2 (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
I have no idea why we have a Latin entry onomatopoeïa as a soft redirect to onomatopoeia – and even also a category solely dedicated to this weïrd spelling – when, in its absence, users searching for the trematized form will be led directly to onomatopoeia. The alternative form is, moreover, senseless, since ei cannot be monosyllabic, so there is nothing to be disambiguated; we also have no entry deïnde. IMO we are better of without it. I merely brought this up as a counterexample to the statement that it is not possible to link to a Latin page with that name. --Lambiam13:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
"since ei cannot be monosyllabic": it can, e.g.
"dĕindĕ, and abbrev. dein [...]—in both forms ei is monosyl. in the class. poets; as dissyl., [Late Latin source]) [...]" (L&S)
"is, ĕa, id [...] dat. ĕï, in ante-class. poetry often ēi [...] ei, monosyl. [...] dat. and abl. eīs or iīs, also īs, [...]: eis, monosyl. [...]" (L&S)
@Kutchkutch: I guess you're thinking that I selectively nominated some of them; not like that, I actually got some urgent work so I had to stop my rfd nominations in between. Above I've made the list of my nominations so far, I'll add more to it since this isn't all, there are more sops there. Do you think any of those in the above list is non-SOP? Svartava2 (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Kutchkutch I already told you that the above list is incomplete, I'll add more to it later. I'm not convinced they should be kept just because they're common and useful in speaking. If one encounters, say, समर्थन करना (assuming they don't know the meaning), and knows about the verb करना, it's only natural that they would look up for समर्थन rather than the whole since it isn't idiomatic with a non-SOP meaning. Obviously there have been terms that have been deleted due to them being SOP despite their commonness. Svartava2 (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Svartava2: Thanks for the clarification. So assuming समर्थन करना is deleted, it should not appear in the derived section of समर्थन and could be featured as a usage example at समर्थन, right? The entry for समर्थन already has a usage example for X (को) समर्थन देना, and X (को) करना X (का) समर्थन करना could be added alongside it if coverage for समर्थन करना is still needed. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Kutchkutch: right, it shouldn't appear in the derived terms of समर्थन but no problem in giving it as a usex. its entirely up to the editor if they want to add that but I would probably not do that because करना is possible with almost anything. i would instead prefer to make a usage note at करना. (p.s. it would not be […] को समर्थन करना it'd be […] का समर्थन करना) Svartava2 (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Svartava2: The copy-paste typo/error is exactly why that information should be featured/added to समर्थन with {{+posto|hi|का|means=to}} even if समर्थन करना is deleted .
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Should the same 'policy' extend to Urdu (Special:WhatLinksHere/کرنا) and other languages, or should the editors of those languages decide/be pinged?
@Kutchkutch: I'm mainly concerned about Hindi and Urdu SOPs (I also tagged a few Urdu pages) but yes I think this should extended to other languages. the editors of those languages shud be pinged because they'd obviously know better. Re: that information should be featured/added […]— I don't think so, since it's (mostly) directly translated into english; eg का आदर/समर्थन करना = do respect/support of, की सहायता/प्रतीक्षा करना = do help/wait of, से नफ़रत करना = do hatred from, पर आक्रमण करना = do attack on, etc. with adjectives it's mostly को - को बेकार करना, को अलग करना, को हासिल करना, etc. —Svartava2 (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
[object] का आदर/समर्थन करना - to respect/support [object]
[object] की सहायता/प्रतीक्षा करना - to help/wait for [object]
[object] से नफ़रत करना - to hate [object]
[object] पर आक्रमण करना - to attack [object]
although the meaning of each postposition is debatable, it might be helpful to show which postposition (का/की/को/से/पर) goes with which word using {{+posto}}:
The purpose of {{+posto}} is to show which postposition (case/विभक्ति) goes with which term. If there are entries of the form X करना, {{+posto}} would go on the definition line. However, if there are no entries of the form X करना, how would this information be displayed? As you said with adjectives it's mostly को, this information may not be needed.
@Kutchkutch Re: it might be helpful to show which postposition (का/की/को/से/पर) goes with which word using {{+posto}} — but it is obvious. I know English translations which we obtain directly by translating the Hindi are kinda weird — "to do support of X" because of the existence of verbs like "support" so it's generally directly said "to support X" — but that doesn't change the fact that it directly translates. friend's help = मित्र की सहायता, मित्र की सहायता करना = to do friend's help = to help […] friend. So it is obvious. Svartava2 (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev: Then, even the Persian category is full of SOPs. I don't think their entries in other dictionaries should bother us. The problem with SOPs is just that one can have endless list of FOO + करना and it is certainly not feasible/worthwhile to include ALL such combinations where they can be derived from its components. —Svārtava[t•c•u•r]08:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Svartava2: I understand the concern but we don't have any limitation on the number. Deleting them will remove useful information from users. Japanese verbs, which are simply formed by FOO + する(suru) have been handled - please see Category:Japanese suru verbs (currently at 8,244 entries, far from complete). Unless someone provides a way to incorporate करना(karnā) into a template for compound verbs (e.g. noun + "karnā" to form a verb in the same entry) and converts existing verbs to use that structure, the entries should be kept. Knowing which FOO can form such compounds is also important to users. Is the number of Hindi "karnā" verbs less than 500? --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)08:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
P.S., I would support a new structure (similar to how Japanese suru-verbs are handled) on the verbs listed above, also for Persian "kardan" verbs. The list should be checked carefully, of course for pure SoP's (case by case) or where it's more than just (one) "FOO" + "karnā". --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)08:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev: Can you show which important information will be removed if we delete all these? If it would be specific, i.e. if only a certain terms could form compound verbs with "karnā", I would agree with you to keep these; but it isn't so, because ANY term can form such compounds. Only a few terms like डाउनलोड करना appear non-SOP to me, because if SOP, it would be [(object) को] डाउनलोडेड करना([(object) ko] ḍāunloḍeḍ karnā) (using accusative case) = to make (object) downloaded or [(object) का] डाउनलोड करना([(object) kā] ḍāunloḍ karnā) = to do downloading of (using genitive case). So such terms should be kept, but others deleted. —Svārtava[t•c•u•r]08:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Svartava2: Which important information? All of it! You want to remove verb entries with their English translations. I am not convinced that any FOO can form FOO + "karnā" pair and work, even if the combination can be predictable and easily understood. Published bilingual dictionaries provide the pairs - they don't need to be split into separate entries as they are. Entries can be centralised by their main parts but this work needs to be done. This work was done (after discussions) before Category:Japanese suru verbs came about. This is not very different, believe me, if you may not be familiar with the Japanese grammar.
@atitarev: well then, can you provide a single example of a FOO which can't pair with karnā? I'm saying, ANY combination would work and grammatically etc. be correct. It may be rare or unattested but it would work. —Svārtava[t•c•u•r]08:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Svartava2: If you're so confident about this, I may soften the position but it still doesn't feel right (I said "I lean on keeping"). We are denying users a huge number of common verbs, which they can find elsewhere. Perhaps an enhancement to headwords should be added, like "can form a verb ("meaning"). In any case, some replacement/substitute should be thought out (not an RFD discussion) or a descriptive appendix. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)09:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev: I like your solution for these using an appendix page with detailed rules, exceptions, examples, usexes, quotes, other dictionary entries, etc. etc. Then these entries could be deleted/soft-redirected to the appendix page. The appendix page could be linked from the page करना itself. Maybe I should start working on it. —Svārtava[t•c•u•r]09:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Svartava2: I have created a very simple Hindi template {{U:hi:karnaa}}, which can be added to every term, which uses करना(karnā) under "usage notes". I've added usage notes to the first word on your list - समर्थन(samarthan) (which forms the RFD'ed समर्थन करना(samarthan karnā)). The template, wording and parameters can be improved. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)10:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Svartava2, AryamanA, Atitarev, Kutchkutch Let's please slow down a bit. This is not the first time this discussion has happened. In September 2020 we had the same discussion esp. between me and Aryaman, and decided to keep compound verbs involving करना. Unfortunately this discussion is no longer in RFDN, and I don't know where (if anywhere) it moved to; I think User:Justinrleung archived it, perhaps a bit too aggressively. But it's in the history, see [7]. I originally was the one nominating for deletion but I have changed my mind based on the fact that the translations are often not obvious, e.g. for शर्म करना (which literally means "to do shame") it's far from obvious to me why it means "to be embarrassed, to feel ashamed" and not "to embarrass, to shame". Aryaman also pointed out that in cases like डिलीट करना, the first component has no meaning by itself. Benwing2 (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung It looks like it moved here: Talk:कपड़े पहनना. I absolutely would never have found this; this suggests we may need to rethink the concept of archiving RFD discussions. I wonder if we shouldn't instead have RFD separated by month, similarly to the Beer Parlour. Benwing2 (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: Well, they're always archived to the talk page of the relevant entries, so that if someone were to create something that was deleted before, they would easily be able to access the reasons why that particular page was deleted. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }02:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hi all, long time no see. Thanks for the ping @Atitarev. I think this list of proposed deletions is absolutely unacceptable. I have not read all of the discussion but I will references points that stood out to me. Here are my arguments for the retention of conjunct verb entries:
It is not predictable which verb will combine with a noun/adjective to form a conjunct. The most common are करना (transitive) and होना (intransitive), but other ones are possible as well, and sometimes these two common ones are not both possible.
Syntactically, these constructions behave as units. You cannot separate the noun/adjective from the verb like you can with objects (which have relatively free word order), and you can't put case marking or determiners on the noun component. This makes it totally different from phrases which can easily be tested to be SOP.
Often their meanings are non-compositional, i.e. not immediately obvious from the components. For example, ठीक करना(ṭhīk karnā) can mean "to repair, fix" which is not clear from just ठीक(ṭhīk, “okay, fine”). So this is useful for learners.
Borrowed English verbs are meaningless without the verbal component in the conjunct, as Benwing pointed out. I have no idea what the part of speech of e.g. डिलीट(ḍilīṭ) would be in isolation, nor how to define it.
As KutchKutch pointed out, the case marking of subjects and objects to these conjunct can vary. Some like गुस्सा होना(gussā honā, “to be angry”) require a dative subject, and it's not obvious whether one has an accustive, genitive, locative, or comitative (से) object. Especially for learners, this is useful information, and I strongly disagree with what Svartava claimed in their reply to KutchKutch.
To add on to the last point, many Hindi dictionaries list these conjunct verbs under the noun/adjective they are formed from, only due to lack of space and convenience to the reader. We do not have space constraints so it's nice to have full entries for these with all our goodies (e.g. conjugation tables, IPA, etymologies for unusual conjunct verbs), as well as sufficient linking and short glosses in the "Related terms" section of the noun/adjective component entry.
Also, here are some examples of nouns that cannot take the light verb करना(karnā): सुबह(subah, “morning”), ज़बान(zabān, “tongue”), धोती(dhotī, “dhoti”), जेब(jeb, “pocket”), आर्यमन(āryaman, “my name”). You can't just throw it on any noun/adjective. Even if you could, the other points (the case marking/meaning is not obvious from components) is sufficient reason to keep.
So yes, strongly oppose these proposed deletions. (These apply to Persian as well btw.) Why would you want to remove entries when there are still so many more to make in these languages? I'm pretty sure the arguments I have outlined are a good rebuttal to the claim that these are SOP--there are special properties of these constructions that require a full entry to describe. The templates like {{U:hi:karnaa}} are going to lead to loss of this useful information, and moving stuff to appendices will make it basically inaccessible for lay users. —AryamanA(मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)05:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@AryamanA: Thank you for joining the discussion. I was worried that no Hindi speakers expressed their concern and assumed it was OK by them to delete all those compound verb entries. I am sure @Svartava2 will have more to say on the subject.
Then my suggestion to incorporate करना(karnā) into the entry without it still stands. Please examine the Japanese entry like 勉強(benkyō). Please not it has two sections - noun and verb (with their translations and inflections). The verb section includes the する(suru) part, which is attached to the noun and acts pretty much as Hindi करना(karnā), et al. Do you like the idea - to do the same or similar to Hindi entries? Also calling @Benwing2:. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)05:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev, AryamanA This sort of approach is possible but I'm not sure why it's preferable to the existing approach. If there is concern that speakers will look for an expression like ठीक करना(ṭhīk karnā) under ठीक(ṭhīk), we can put ठीक करना(ṭhīk karnā) under ==Derived terms==. I for one would not expect to find ठीक करना(ṭhīk karnā) under ठीक(ṭhīk), and it seems strange to me to list 勉強(benkyō) as a both noun and verb when it's really only a noun. In English, for example, we list take on, take in, take out, take aback etc. as such instead of as subentries under take or on/in/out/aback. Also keep in mind that in Hindi there are multiple possible light verbs that can form compounds of this sort; करना(karnā) is only one of them. See Category:Hindi compound verbs by base verb. So for example for ग़ायब(ġāyab) we'd have to have subentries for both ग़ायब करना(ġāyab karnā) and ग़ायब होना(ġāyab honā), and in some cases there would be several subentries. Benwing2 (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@AryamanA, Benwing2, Atitarev: I have not nominated the English loanword + करना entries for deletion, for exactly the reason you have stated above. For ठीक करना(ṭhīk karnā), it is basically equivalent to "make [object] fine/okay/in good condition" so that term strikes me as an SOP. Regarding the examples you pointed out of nouns which won't go with करना: yes, it is indeed illogical to say, for example, जेबकरना(jeb karnā), but is it really impossible and grammatically wrong? Even if we soften it for the noun ones, then too the adjective ones should be deleted. I'm more on the fence for keeping entries like आरंभ करना(ārambh karnā) because it's an exception, being used more frequently with को(ko) (accusatively) rather than का(kā) which would be correct grammatically and more directly translatable: "to do आरंभ(ārambh, “start/beginning/commencement”) of"; so there's a deviation. —Svārtava[t•c•u•r]07:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
It is relevant to consider that these verbs are fixed collocations which translate as single words in English, and this is English Wiktionary. There's a difference between saying any adjective like नया, अच्छा and ग़लत with करना than with these fixed ones. As for the nouns, it is worth noting that since Hindustani verbs are a closed class, any verbs that are loaned from Persian, Arabic and Sanskrit are verbal nouns compounded with करना or another verb. Similar verbs in Persian and Turkish have entries on the Wiktionary. RonnieSingh (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@RonnieSingh: My point of any adjective stands, and it is inclusive of the above adjective you point out above. I'm going to prove it with quotations:
5 साल ही उसको कार्यकाल मिला था, लेकिन वह अपने राज्यकाल में ये दो चीजें अच्छी करके गया था।
5 sāl hī usko kāryakāl milā thā, lekin vah apne rājyakāl mẽ ye do cījẽ acchī karke gayā thā.
He got tenure only for 5 years, but during his reign he had made these two things good.
2021 September 11, “BIHAR NEWS: परीक्षा में गलत ढंग से मार्किंग पर कई छात्र फेल, मेडिकल छात्रों का PMCH वाइस चांसलर के खिलाफ प्रदर्शन”, in news4nation.com[8], archived from the original on 19 December 2021:
उनका कहना है कि सही उत्तर को गलत कर दिया गया है।
unkā kahnā hai ki sahī uttar ko galat kar diyā gayā hai.
They are saying that the correct answer has been made/done wrong.
So yeah, I stand by my earlier statement: every adjective can go with karnā, even if it be illogical, senseless, but grammatically correct with the accusative को. —Svārtava[t•c•u•r]11:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Actually thank you for proving my point with examples. As I was saying using an ordinary adjective with करना isn't the same as using an adjective like ठीक, जारी or साबित. With adjectives that appear in fixed constructions, there is a specific meaning to the verb, while with other adjectives it's just a transitive inchoative of the adjective. Since no direct idiomatic translations of them exist, you translate them into English as "to make wrong", "to make good", "to make new", but verbs "to repair", "to issue", etc. exist. I'll remind you that this dictionary is in English, so, for example, while looking for, say, जारी on Wiktionary when used with the verb करना in context of say currency, one might not directly understand from the adjectival meanings listed under the entry. This may lead to a mistranslation. RonnieSingh (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Ronnie Singh: If, for example, साबितकरना(sābit karnā) translates into English as one word, it does not in itself merit inclusion despite being SOP. "make the currency in issuance" = "issue the currency" so make in issuance/in force = issue, so the former is usually not used or uncommon but the literal and SOP equivalent of जारीकरना(jārī karnā). Such SOP expressions of adj + karnā are used all the time in Hindi, but it is just that an English phrase like "prove the (object)" is much more common than "make the (object) proven" which directly translates into Hindi as: (object) कोसाबितकरना(ko sābit karnā), so there's obviously no idiomaticity. —Svārtava[t•c•u•r]15:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Svartava2 The word साबित is hardly at all used adjectivally, and used very much more commonly in the set phrase साबित करना. In fact, it would be even idiomatic to say साबित {की गई, हो चुकी, हुई} बात rather than just साबित बात to mean "a proven thing". As for जारी नोट "current note(s)", it does not mean the same thing as जारी हुए नोट which means "issued notes". By your logic, the English entry make right shouldn't exist because it's a make + adj construction and thus an SOP. RonnieSingh (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@RonnieSingh: I do think make right shouldn't exist as an English entry and I've RFD'd it. जारी means both "in issuance" and "in force, current, in use". Here are some examples of साबित outside of करना/होना verbs used adjectivally:
Note that all of these exist in the translingual section already. I see little to no value in having language-specific entries for these; the only language-specific data is the pronunciation which could surely be derived from the letter name and the number entry. See also Wiktionary:Requests_for_cleanup#A1. --Fytcha (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
I created these entries while I was alphabetically creating entries from the Norwegian dictionary, where these are present. I think they are useful as they have the Norwegian pronunciation + some link to Bokmålsordboka, Riksmål dictionary, Norwegian lexicon and Wikipedia. Some of them even have other definitions, A4 has a definition unrelated to the paper size for example. Supevan (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
There may be language-specific aspects (pronunciation, inflections). We currently have no entry for Dutch, but note that the entry A4 at the Dutch Wiktionary gives a gender and a pronunciation and lists plural and diminutive forms as well as several derived terms. --Lambiam11:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Well, in practice these terms are attested in all modern languages in use by societies with a need for office supplies, so the entry could eventually become quite long, with endlessly repeated etymologies and definitions. The orthography, etymology, definitions, and related terms are common to all languages, while inflections, pronunciations (of little importance for this set of terms, as Fytcha says) and derived terms differ. There are good arguments for creating all the language entries as well for merging them up to a single Translingual entry; I tend to prefer the latter approach. I like the way the pronunciation section is set up at Homo sapiens, for example. This, that and the other (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete @This, that and the other I agree with this in principle. Is there a precedent for having things like gender and inflection in various languages in a table in the Translingual entry? A translation section is also desirable, as not all languages use A4. In Dutch for instance, the common term is A4'tje. @Fytcha Indeed, this should be discussed more extensively elsewhere (or has it already been?) —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@This, that and the other: It's an interesting idea and I'm not per se opposed but I think the idea of allowing different pronunciations in a translingual entry should be discussed in a BP first because I can see why some would oppose it. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
An interesting case. Viewed alone it is SOP, but the fact that this term is apparently only used in Northern Vietnam is an interesting and important detail that would be lost if this was deleted. This, that and the other (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep. If there is a choice of two semantically appropriate phrases, but only one is in use, I would say it's not sum-of-parts. —Soap—10:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Created by @Crom daba. The inclusion should be based on the usage. We don't create entries for "phonetic respellings" but we have (frequent) misspellings, alternative forms, etc. If the usage can be verified, the entry can be kept but as {{alt form|mn|баярлалаа}} or {{misspelling of|mn|баярлалаа}} --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)06:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Crom daba, LibCae, Fytcha: Still unresolved. It may not be just a "phonetic respelling" but a "common misspelling" (because it's how it's how it's pronounced). If this spelling is attestable, then it should be kept but needs a change of the label. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)01:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the ping. It's a question (like with Old English vs modern French, etc) of whether we want diacritics in the pagename, or only in the headword. They're frequently provided in linguistic reference materials, but my understanding was that they weren't required in ordinary writing (like with Old English macrons etc), so I created the pagenames without the diacritics. However, "linguistic reference materials" outnumber "ordinary writing" (which is often now consciously linguistic, coming from revitalization efforts, etc), so there's also a case for going ahead and putting them in the pagename. I recall this coming up before, in a discussion about whether modules should strip diacritics from links. Looking now, I see the module says the decision was "Don't strip diacritics from entry names, per WT:Grease pit/2020/May." So I guess these should be moved/merged to the diacritical forms or deleted. - -sche(discuss)20:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Kercha (2012) gives the forms четыри, четверо and штыри as forms of the numeral "four". AFAIK, Rusyn orthography is pretty phonemic, with a three-way contrast ы-и-і. I'd say send to RFV. Thadh (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2, Thadh, ZomBear: Sorry, can't help with this. I lost my Rusyn dictionary. On "четверо" I wonder if it's a noun with the sense "four people", rather than a numeral "four".
Trying to find what is right in Rusyn can be frustrating as different authors can use very different words and spellings. There are multiple standards but it seems to be no standard. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)02:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
It does exist in Classical Syriac but not as a lemma. I believe @Antonklroberts is referencing its non-existence in Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, in which he would be correct. I'll clean the article up and remove the deletion template. --334a (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete if not speedy; different number system does not mean that it isn't decipherable by its components and it isn't one word. —Svārtava (t/u) • 09:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Normally I think CFI's allowance for deleting numbers is too strong, but in this case if you have any idea what a lakh and a crore are, the expressions "ten lakh" and "ten crore" are completely transparent, so I am not opposed to deletion. Benwing2 (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Rishabhbhat, Svartava Would you consider any of the following uses to be idiomatic/figurative for 'very large number' rather than the SOP meaning?
जानकारी के अनुसार आज जिले भर के बाजारों में लगभग दस करोड़ों की खरीदारी हुई।
दस करोड़ों की लागत से बनाया आधुनिक तकनीक का डबल लेन ब्रिज में पांच सालों के भीतर ही दरारें पड़ गई।
योरप में कितने ही ऐसे कला-प्रेमी पड़े हुए हैं जो उनमें की एक-एक तस्वीर के लिए दस-दस लाख पौण्ड तक देने को तैयार हैं।
बाकी दस करोड़ों की आबादी में कितने ही बूढ़े, कितने ही मरीज, कितने ही डाकू, कितने ही भिखमंगे, कितने ही साधु शमिल हैं।
ऐसा गोल्डन लिफाफा दस लाख लोगों को भेजा गया है।
मारुति सुजुकी गुजरात प्लांट में दस लाखों कारों का उत्पादन हुआ पूरा
सौ करोड़ रुपये से कम बिक्री-राशि की दशा में निकटतम सैकड़ों, हजारों, लाखों अथवा दस लाखों या उनके दशमलवांशों में पूरा करके दिया जा सकता है। (ii) सौ करोड़ रुपये या उससे अधिक बिक्री राशि की दशा में निकटतम लाखों, दस लाखों अथवा करोड़ों या उनके दशमलवांशों में पूरा करके दिया जा सकता है।
ये कार्यकर्ता आने वाले नब्बे दिनों में हर दिन दस लाखों बिल्डिंग्स में जाकर लोगों के स्वास्थ्य की जानकारी लेंगे
खत्म होगी मुसाफिरों की मुसीबत, हाईवे के लिए दस करोड़ों राशी स्वीकृत
@Kutchkutch: Even in these sentences, in the first one - लगभग दस करोड़ों की खरीदारी हुई - the use might not be figurative: it translates to nearly ten crores of purchasing. I don't think that even the figurative use for "large number" should be enough to keep it because in any case it would translate to "ten crore(s)" even when figuratively and the meaning (from the components) and figurative use is obvious. —Svārtava (t/u) • 03:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Kutchkutch: Yes, whenever a term is deleted as SOP, I always relink its translation to its parts (instead of removing it) as every sysop should, so nothing would be lost there. The question only is whether this term merits a full entry by itself. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 08:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep. It seems like a compound term hyperonymous to שבת with a slightly different meaning (more formal?). The Torah uses this word as a synonym to שבת. Correct me if am wrong on this one. Tollef Salemann (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago8 comments6 people in discussion
German, not a real prefix. Supposed derivations are instead compounds with wieder. Many compound verbs with wieder can actually be written with a space, even in the infinitive. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Comment: On one hand, lemmings have this one: de.Wikt, DWDS and a number of books refer to the google books:"Präfix wieder-" / google books:"prefix wieder-"; I also see books which refer to its OHG predecessor as a google books:"Präfix widar" / google books:"prefix widar" (though some of these seem to have a different idea of what a "prefix" is than us). OTOH, analysing words formed with it as compounds seems to work. One book says there were cases where the semantics were different, at least in OHG, as in widerfahren vs widar fahren=zurückfahren, but that seems to correspond to modern wider vs wieder so it's still not clear we need wieder-. Meh. - -sche(discuss)19:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Fytcha: The requirement for something written together is traditionally lexicalization, the having become an idiom. A circumstance to be memorized by input and hence occasionally to ponder about when writing if you are not sure whether you just invented an SOP combination or it is a rarer idiomatic combination, I have experienced specifically in using wieder. So all of wiederentdecken, wiederkehren, wiedertaufen have been SOP terms of adverb plus verb at some point—until the point that people picked it up, which of course differs by centuries: you might see that that literal sense of kehren for instance is now tendentially archaic while wiederentdecken belongs to an era of oftener inventions. So none has been formed by prefixation. Correct is {{univerbation}}. Fay Freak (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep. This is definitely a prefix in my opinion, it's pretty much synonymous with re-, which is pretty much only used with Latin-based loans, and wieder- is used instead with native words. It's not the same as just using "wieder" as a separate word, it can be pronounced differently (the prefix is stressed when separable) and can have a different connotation or meaning. Wiederkäuen ('ruminate') doesn't mean the same as wieder kauen ('chew again') (käuen doesn't exist on its own), wiederholen ('repeat' or 'bring back') doesn't mean the same as wieder holen ('bring again'), wiederherstellen ('restore') doesn't mean the same as wieder herstellen ('manufacture again'), wiedergeben ('render, portray, reproduce', also 'give back' which seems to be missing from the entry atm) doesn't mean the same as wieder geben ('give again'), etc. Wieder as a separate word can be 'back (to its original state)', but I believe this is only used with words like herunter or aus indicating the state to return to, and not used before verbs. There are some cases of separable wieder- verbs with the 'back' meaning, which can often end up with 'wieder' at the same place in the sentence as if it was wieder (with the meaning 'again') on its own, in these cases, when the latter is intended, it may be expressed like schonwieder or malwieder to distinguish this. Er gab es mir wieder ('he gave it back to me') from wiedergeben vs Er gab es mir (schon) wieder ('ge gave it to me (yet) again') from wieder and geben. These separable verbs may sometimes be spelled with a space like wieder geben, but I'd say it is rare, and usually these are spelled without a space; specifically with this meaning 'back', whereas the meaning 'again' is a separate word and not a separable prefix. And there are also words with wieder- that are inseperable, like wiederholen in the sense 'repeat', where wieder on its own would often be placed in a different position in the sentence and have a different meaning. Just like words like um and über, it can be used on its own, as a separable prefix, and as an inseparable prefix, and we do consider um- for example a prefix. Unlike fremd- and recht-, wieder- is commonly used, both in various established terms with specific meanings, and also productively attached to other verbs. A few uses of wieder, such as wiederwählen may be considered a univerbation (is separable and has pretty much the same meaning (?) as wieder wählen), but most are not in my opinion. Tajoshu (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Iff the money sense has a different etymology and only occurs as Mäuse, then as Fay Freak says, it belongs as Mäuse, since it's then only coincidence that it's spelled the same as an inflected form of Maus. Even then, it'd be helpful to have ===See also=== * Mäuse(“money”) at Maus, since for someone who sees it in a text and knows Mäuse is (normally) the plural of Maus, there's nothing to suggest the semantic info is at Mäuse this time as opposed to it being like Dublonen, Groats, Guineen, Zechinen, Galleonen (in Harry Potter), etc, etc, where even when the plural is what one has encountered in a particular text, the singular is where one looks to find the definition. - -sche(discuss)21:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep and undelete the literal sense in Joan of Arc. The deletion of the person sense from Joan of Arc was incorrectly justified. In Talk:Joan of Arc, we can read "Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. Articles about the specific places and people belong in Wikipedia" as the justification for deletion. But this does not mean there can be no senses for people, only that the senses should not describe the people in encyclopedic manner. The quoted sentence also refers to places, and under the incorrect interpretation of the sentence, we would also need to delete senses for places from place names, which we do not want to do and have not been doing. It was further said that "Most terms in Category:en:Individuals are not entries about individuals but about terms named after individuals", which is not obvious to me and even if it were true, many of the entries there are for specific individuals, e.g. Aristotle: "An ancient Greek philosopher, logician, and scientist (382–322 B.C.E.), student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great." We did see some efforts to get rid of senses for specific individuals in the past, but that never achieved anything like consensus; see e.g. Talk:Xenocrates. And in Talk:Joan of Arc I do not see 2/3-consensus for deleting the literal sense, so the closure does not appear correct as for consensus either. In Talk:George VI I do not see the required 2/3 supermajority for deletion either. WT:NSE does not require us to delete Joan of Arc's literal sense, from what I can see. As pointed out elsewhere, we have other multi-word names such as Jesus Christ, Alexander the Great, Darwin's Bulldog, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Mary Magdalene, Robin Hood and I have just checked that they contain senses for specific people. “Joan of Arc”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows support of multiple lemmings, so we can even use WT:LEMMING as an arbitrary aid. Thus, the deletion of Joan of Arc person sense contradicts the usual interpretation of the part of CFI quoted for the support for deletion and contradicts common practice shown on very many of the entries in Category:en:Individuals even if not all of them, and contradicts WT:LEMMING, which can help us when we feel undecisive about what to do as part of WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
As for WT:NSE's "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic", "of Arc" is neither a family name nor a patronymic, so this does not apply. The notion that we exclude all person senses from multi-word person names was refuted above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Revisiting this a bit late.
From the WP article at w:Joan of Arc, particularly the #Name section, my understanding is that the of Arc or d'Arc portions of the name are in fact patronymic, at least as understood by the chroniclers who first recorded (something like) this version of her name roughly 24 years posthumously.
The EN entry at Joan of Arc currently has no proper noun sense, only the figurative sense -- which seems correct to me inasmuch as I understand the policy at WT:NSE.
The JA entry at ジャンヌ・ダルク(Jannu Daruku) currently has only the proper noun sense -- which seems like an entry we shouldn't have?
Keep the figurative senses of these entries, at the very least (I'd have no objection to keeping the literal senses either but whatever approach we take should be consistent across entries). If attestability is in doubt then RFV is the appropriate forum to discuss that, so it's not relevant to discussions here. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The suffixes -li/-lı/-lu/-lü and -siz/-sız/-suz/-süz can be added to any Turkish noun to form adjectives meaning “with ...” and “without ...”. For example: şekerli kahve = “coffee with sugar”; şekersiz kahve = “coffee without sugar”. IMO there has to be a specific reason to have entries for such adjectives, such as that they have a specific idiomatic meaning (tatlı = “sweet”, not the regular “having taste”), or that there is a dedicated corresponding English adjective (ünlü = “famous”). --Lambiam17:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
If we go based on these 2 rules we'd have to delete a lot of pages. Maybe mirror other dictionaries. {{R:TDK}} has the +-li form for some fruits, for example. Mainly those used as flavouring or in bakery. To my surprise they also have abajurlu and abajursuz. Then I came to discover that there's lampshaded. --Whitekiko (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm not supportive of the argument behind this deletion. Because Latin has such a well-understood morphology, we have a practice of including the complete set of inflections for Latin words even if some forms are not directly attested. In the case of abambulō, these are the only possible perfect and supine forms; if attestations were encountered, there is no doubt whatsoever that these would be the forms in use, not only in terms of this being a first-declension verb, but also as a compound of ambulō. Moreover, there's no semantic reason why the verb would lack a perfect or supine stem. Therefore, the forms should be kept. This, that and the other (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep because, these being the expected forms as TTO says, they are also the forms that do get used when an author needs to use the verb in the perfect: here are three (1800s) cites of abambulavit. (Many Google Books hits for forms of abambul- are actually scannos of obambul-, but these works have ab-.) - -sche(discuss)06:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep per TTO and because it does seem to be attested, I can find uses of abnatavit, abnataverat, abnatavi (starting in the 1600s, but that's in part because Google Books doesn't include much earlier stuff so one would have to search elsewhere for it) and dictionaries going back to at least the 1650s mention abnatavi when enumerating the forms of abnato. - -sche(discuss)05:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Translingual, supposedly meaning the ISO 3166-1 three-letter code for Great Britain (the island).
This is factually wrong, because GBN is not defined in ISO 3166-1 (which gives 2 and 3 letter codes to all countries). The codes for the UK are GB and GBR, and no mention is made of Great Britain the island anywhere.
It also can't be a member of the related standard ISO 3166-2, because those codes all refer to subdivisions of countries and follow a strict pattern, which in this case would be GB-GBN.
I spotted that (and the table on Wikipedia that actually says GB-GBN) but didn't want to overcomplicate the original request because I have a feeling that Wikipedia's wrong. I think they mention the codes EAW, GBN and UKM in the remark "for completeness" because they're in the (now obsolete) UK standard BS 6879 that ISO 3166-2:GB is based on, but they haven't actually been incorporated into the ISO standard. In any event, GBN alone is clearly not correct. Theknightwho (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Ah, that makes sense. I found various uses of GB-GBN in the wild, but given the power of Wikipedia it's quite possible they all originated with a Wikipedia editor making the same misconstrual I made. This, that and the other (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
They're not used in any dialect I am personally familiar with, and they were added by a non-native speaker I know who was adding words from a vocabulary list that is somewhat dubious. The question of whether a word that is attested in Standard Arabic may be considered to be attested in the dialect is a difficult one with no clear answer, because Standard Arabic vocabulary may be borrowed when specificity is required, as in the case of "arm" and "temple (of the head)". But I argue that they don't have any currency outside of those settings. (Note that this is different from terms labeled as "formal", which may be borrowed from Standard Arabic but are valid in the dialect and have the function of elevating the register of speech.) I would basically argue that just as we have started using Arabic dialect language sections on Wiktionary to include dialectal terms (instead of trying to accommodate them within the Standard Arabic banner), it doesn't make sense to use the dialect sections to accommodate all Standard Arabic terms that could be conceivably used in the dialect, which is nearly an infinite list. AdrianAbdulBaha (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Mahagaja: Because every German (and Romanian) adjective can be used as an adverb without morphological change. It's not insightful and just needlessly clutters Category:German adverbs as well as the adjective entries. It is also more or less de facto policy to not include these (seeing that we have 1.8k adverbs and 13.7k adjectives). Further, no major German (or Romanian) dictionary includes these conversions as separate adverb entries. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
WT:CFI is actual policy, and it says "all words in all languages"; this is a word in a language. On the other hand, CFI says nothing about excluding completely predictable derived forms without morphological change. We're not paper, so we don't have to worry about saving space like major German (and Romanian) dictionaries do. —Mahāgaja · talk11:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
I don't mind them being there, and it might be useful to add quotes under a more appropriate heading, instead of lumping everything together. – Jberkel11:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
I agree with this principle for German, but in this individual case I am not sure whether it has not sufficiently detached in development, for many sloppy speakers interchangeable with sehr(“very”). Rightly we also list derbe(adverb), and also others linked on Thesaurus:sehr. Fay Freak (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Worth noting that the majority view among grammarians is to not consider adverbially used adjectives to be adverbs but adverbials:
w:de:Adverb#Alternativen:_Das_„Adjektivadverb“: "Die soeben dargestellte Auffassung, dass die adverbielle Verwendung eines Adjektivs keinen Übergang in eine eigene Wortart Adverb bedeutet, ist in der Sprachwissenschaft heute deutlich die Mehrheitsmeinung.[11]"
@Fytcha It's probably worth defining what adverbial means in this sense, because the current definition doesn't explain what distinguishes words like this from adverbs. There is also the separate question of whether all adjectives can be used this way. Theknightwho (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
2016 December 17, Peter Eisenberg, Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik[10], Springer, →ISBN, 6.1 Abgrenzung und Begriffliches, page 204:
Kein terminologischer Glücksfall ist das Nebeneinander der Begriffe Adverb und Adverbial. Meistens - aber längst nicht immer - wird Adverb als kategorialer, Adverbial als relationaler Begriff verwendet. Wir folgen diesem Usus und gebrauchen ›Adverbial‹ synonym mit ›adverbiale Bestimmung‹ als Bezeichnung für eine syntaktische Relation (s.u.).
As to whether all lexical adjectives can relationally be converted, the following book argues no:
2016 February 16, Wolfgang Imo, Grammatik: Eine Einführung[11], Springer-Verlag, →ISBN, →OCLC, page 78:
Dafür spricht auch, dass alle Adjektive attributiv verwendet werden können, aber nicht alle Adjektive auch adverbial oder prädikativ. Das Adjektiv klein kann z.B. nur attributiv (das kleine Auto, der kleine Junge etc.) oder prädikativ (Das Auto ist klein. Der Junge ist klein.) verwendet werden, nicht aber adverbial (*Das Auto fährt klein. Der Junge läuft klein. etc.). Adjektive wie monatlich oder jährlich können nur attributiv (das monatliche Erscheinen der Zeitschrift; die jährliche Feier) oder adverbial (Die Zeitschrift erscheint monatlich. Die Feier findet jährlich statt.) verwendet werden, nicht aber prädikativ (*Die Zeitschrift ist monatlich. ?Die Feier ist jährlich.).
If such categories are necessary, then your original assertion that these adverbial forms are 100% predictable is no longer the case. The 2016 passage suggests that such exceptions are common. Am I right in thinking these generally correspond with English adjectives that can be suffixed with -ly, or are they far more common than that?
To contrast, every English noun can be used attributively and every English verb has a gerundive form that conjugates in the same way as the present participle. That's why we exclude those forms, because they're inherent to what it means to be a noun or verb in English. That reasoning doesn't seem to apply here. Theknightwho (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho: My first post was not that clear, apologies. What I wanted to get at with that part was semantic predictability: almost all adverbially used adjectives mean exactly what you'd expect them to mean (hence, they're predictable); the ones that have gained additional semantics in adverbial usage (e.g. schnell) are of course to be included.
I did assert that every adjective can be used adverbially but, looking back, that's not even all that important of an argument. The most striking argument is that the majority of grammarians don't consider these forms (adverbiale Adjektive) to be adverbs.
Also, contrary to what is claimed in Wolfgang Imo's book, I'm currently not convinced that klein cannot be used adverbially.
2014 January 29, Melanie Thomas, Taking a Punch at the Queen?: Die Darstellung von Königin Victoria in den Karikaturen des Satiremagazins "Punch" 1841-1901[12], Tectum Wissenschaftsverlag, →ISBN, →OCLC, page 97:
Russell wird im Punch durchgehend winzig klein gezeichnet.
Yes, none of these in either German or English are adverbs.
The manner specifically of eating has no bearing on it being healthy (you can eat like a pig and it would be equally healthy), rather it is the subject categorized as healthy, the one who eats has a healthy attitude towards nutrition and thus eats healthy food. In Latin it would be in the nominative, apparently covered for Latin by German Wikipedia as Participium coniunctum and for German as Prädikativum#Freie Prädikativa, leading us to the term depictive as correctly categorizing their syntactical function.
I suppose the reason one cannot say *Das Auto fährt klein. Der Junge läuft klein. etc. is the same as why one cannot say *The car drives small. The boy runs small. – what would it mean? --Lambiam08:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Fytcha @Fay Freak Having looked at these again, they seem to be used with copulative verbs, so as Fay Freak says, the adjective describes the subject. Cars might not be able to drive small, but one can certainly drive unsteady, perhaps after going large. As well as depictive and resultative, they can also be inchoative. Theknightwho (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete – in general we do not include such entirely predictable uses. In Dutch and Turkish too, it is a property of the language that adjectives can be used adverbially without morphological change, meaning in a ... way. For example, o güzel bir şeydir means “that is a nice thing”, and aferin, çok güzel yaptın means “bravo, you have done it very nicely”. --Lambiam 08:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC) — PS. In English, adjectives can predictably be used as nouns for a collectivity of people: The people have three worries: that the hungry will not be fed, that the cold will not be clothed, and that the tired will not get rest.[13] In almost all cases we do not have the corresponding noun entries for adjectives. (However, we do have this noun sense for rich and poor, and also for hungry, in the latter case without indication that it is grammatically plural. We do have a noun entry for cold, but it is not this collective sense.) At least for Turkish, several verb forms can predictably be used adjectivally: meyve olgunlaşacak “the fruit will ripen” next to olgunlaşacak meyve “the fruit that will ripen”; bu meyve olgunlaşmaz “this fruit won’t ripen” next to bu olgunlaşmaz meyve “this fruit that won’t ripen”. --Lambiam09:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep. In general, I'm not a fan of the idea that predictable or formulaic (non-SOP) entries should be removed for that reason alone. The overwhelming majority of plural forms are easy to guess, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have entries. The same applies here. Binarystep (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Delete per Fytcha. Binarystep (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Lambiam Bad example, because those show predictable being used as a noun, and we can even see the plural predictables. In fact, predictability is a total red herring here and should not be used as a basis for deletion: the real reason why extrem is not an adverb is because it never actually describes the manner in which a verb is done. If the water “runs red”, that doesn’t make “red” an adverb, because it refers to the water, not the manner of running. The same applies here, because it’s used with copulative verbs. This also applies to your Turkish example - ripen is a copulative verb in English, too. Theknightwho (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Maybe “regular” is a better term. But if the grammar rules of a language state that adjectives can be used adverbially without morphological change, then it is predictable that such regular uses can be attested. The point with predictable was that this is another example of the regular use of a term as another part-of-speech (here noun) than the most typical one (here adjective); that this boundary transgression is possible is not an exception but an instance of a general rule. The use of PoS labels on Wiktionary is a bit loose; we assign adverb to in brief and under the influence, while these are prepositional phrases most often (but not exclusively) used adverbially. And we label the verbal phrase come in from the cold as a verb, verb phrase being explicitly disallowed. I don’t get your point about olgunlaşmak; I don’t think it is copulative, and certainly not in these examples, where there is no complement. --Lambiam17:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
The example was poor because it doesn’t hold true for English. You cannot use every adjective that way, even if it might be obvious what it means in certain circumstances. In any event, you’re ignoring that these German examples are copulative uses, because they describe the subject.
@Binarystep: It's not "that reason alone". The most important reason is that adverbially used adjectives aren't adverbs (i.e. don't belong to the lexical category of adverbs) per the majority view of German grammarians as I've already laid out above. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete. To paraphrase others' arguments- if grammarians do not regard these forms as adverbs, and if they are entirely predictable adverbial uses of adjectives, it doesn't make sense to mark potentially several thousand adjectives as adverbs. An exception can be made for cases where the adverbial usage has developed new senses. Nicodene (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
On one hand, Duden has it only as an adjective and I believe those who say that German grammars traditionally treat these only as adjectives. On the other hand, one needs an adverb if one wants to enter the near-synonym sehr, which is never an adjective. Compare Thesaurus:sehr, which lists pure adverbs such as äußerst and adjectives+adverbs such as ungeheuer. How do you enter an adverb-thesaurus link into an adjective-only entry extrem or adjective-only entry ungeheuer? de:extrem lists äußerst as a synonym and even a definition of an adjective sense; that looks odd. And de:extrem translation table is incomplete in so far as it does not include any -ly translation yet that is applicable if this also covers adverbial usage. Furthermore, if it is true that "nicht alle Adjektive auch adverbial [verwendet werden können]", then one cannot say this is an exact analogue of English attributive use of nouns: each noun and gerund can be used attributively without modification. I don't think we are listing English adjectives as synonyms of English nouns. As for "semantic predictability", that's not particularly relevant since -ly adverbs are perfectly semantically predictable from their base adjectives. As for English "the hungry", our poor entry does have a noun section for "the poor". Since not every adjective can be used adverbially and since true synonymy does not hold between adjectives and adverbs, having separate adverb sections contrary to German grammatical tradition has considerable merit. About adverb vs. adverbials, I would say that what these grammars are saying is that all adjectives are so readily used as adverbs that it makes no dictionary sense to document them as such. The question whether they "truly" are "adverbs" probably means almost nothing: they behave like adverbs, and the rest is a matter of conventional treatment. From looking at Category:German adverbs, what is being discussed here seems to be a proposed change to a widespread previous practice, impacting possibly hundreds of entries, and "we don't have these null-morpheme, 100% predictable conversions" seems contradicted by observation: we do have these and they are not 100% predictable since not all adjectives produce adverbial behavior. Some examples from "f": feige, fachlich, fassungslos, figürlich, fleißig, förmlich, fragend, freudig, and furchtbar. I say keep in RFD: it makes no sense to delete hundreds of entries via individual RFDs. This needs to be adopted as a policy change via a proper channel so that one can then start removing these adverb sections in volume without RFDs. Our de facto policy so far has been to allow these adverb sections, and the nominated entry is no lone outlier. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
If one dislikes categorizing them as adverbs, one can put them into a separate category such as "Adverbial adjectives" or "Adjectival adverbs" and use a dedicated template for the purpose. That's an easy fix. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Reduplication in Basque is a regular process which can be applied to virtually all adjectives. In all cases the reduplication of [adjective] means "very [adjective]", so this expression is certainly not idiomatic.--Santi2222 (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Any Turkish verb can be made into a potential “to be able to ...” by adding a suffix to the stem. This suffix can be combined with many other suffixes, such as for the passive and causative, giving a combinatorial explosion of completely regular potential forms. In this case the entry does not even have a definition, so I think it can be speedied, but in general I feel such words, formed in a highly synthetic and agglutinative language by regular suffixation, with completely predictable meanings, spelling and pronunciation, should not be included as separate entries. Ideally, we should instead have a “word decompiler” or “word study tool” (see WT:Beer parlour/2022/January § Should we have entries for Turkish predicative forms?), which may be useful for many languages. --Lambiam14:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I still remember a phonetics class at UCLA 35 years ago where Dr. Bright gave a word from an American Indian language having 13 consonants and no vowels. He translated it as "I saw those two women come this way out of the water". If one only has experience with Indo-European languages, one can remain blissfully unaware of the lexical black hole that agglutinative languages represent. Basically, subjects, objects, adverbs, prepositions, auxiliaries, and a plethora of particles can all potentially be part of the same word, depending on the language. And these aren't languages with no spaces: although there are certainly a number of one-word sentences in such languages, they still have lots of multiword sentences in a structure that any European would recognize. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Lambiam: For reference, I am against deleting infinitives that have been derived with the reflexive, reciprocal, causative or passive interfixes. A Turkish grammar that I used to use had a special name to group these four together. The argument basically is that these are (sometimes) unpredictable. The causative is morphologically unpredictable whereas the reciprocal is sometimes semantically unpredictable (think konuşmak), and an interfix -İn- is unpredictable in that it's not clear whether it is the reflexive or the passive. They also feel a lot more like new words to me (unlike the negative or potential infinitives). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I agree that these should in principle be includible, but we should discourage adding rarely seen verbs such as öldürtülmek and sahnelettirmek (which have incomprehensible definitions; and what is an “intrusive” form?). Where does it stop? Why not sahnelettirilmek, sahnelettirilişmek, ...? So to be included, they should still be attestable. --Lambiam17:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Lambiam: Yes of course, attestability is a prerequisite. I am, however, in favor of retaining these forms so long as they're attestable because for me they don't fall into the same bucket as -Abil. And I don't think I've ever heard "intrusive form". — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Based on precedents above. Might be more controversial as they're more common and somewhat "standardised" for what use them. I'd prefer them deleted. —Svārtava (talk) • 16:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, it seems a bit strange to delete terms as common as these while keeping stuff like YWb. Not saying we should delete YWb, but m/s in particular feels lexicalised. I can’t quite put my finger on why, though. Theknightwho (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
We find m/s used without further explanation in articles written for a general audience, not just in the scientific literature or science magazines, so the unwashed masses are assumed to know its meaning. --Lambiam09:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
m/s² was originally at ㎨ (the single Unicode character); I moved it to m/s² because of the RFM now archived at Talk:㍹. If we want to keep the Unicode character but not the string, then maybe we should simply move it back to its old name and not delete anything. —Mahāgaja · talk08:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Presumably, a “single term” means here, “a term that is written without spaces”. This is obviously a problematic criterion for languages that are traditionally written without spaces. Is 中華民國國旗歌 a single term? It also “favours” more agglutinating languages. IMO, Tietoyhteiskuntapuolue is not part of the Finnish lexicon and should not have a dictionary entry. --Lambiam15:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
But you also can write them together and then WT:COALMINE, literally the same thing as Standard English pluralizing -s. Or are these cases adduced aslope for the coalmine rule? Fay Freak (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak What do you mean by “adduced aslope”? I’m inclined to agree, though. Taking Ben’s statement that all plurals work this way, that suggests dem may have lexicalised as a suffix - and I don’t think the presence of a space is particularly relevant in deciding that. However, if it’s just a clitic (e.g. if it can be used after noun phrases that don’t end with a noun, which doesn’t apply to English -s as it still attaches to the noun), then I agree we should delete these. Theknightwho (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho: I mean or meant (if I can reconstruct the thought of two months ago) that the coalmine rule is not wholly formulated towards these cases and may have a restricted scope which these examples miss: Compounding words is not the same as expressing the idea of a plural by which ever means a language does it. But even if this be so, as you see, the (unwritten) principle or ideal of consistency or consequence we adhere to is still capable to persuade us to include the noun forms in Category:Jamaican Creole noun forms in as much as we include English plural forms. So one may split my argument into two arguments; but the reason I connected this to the coalmine rule is that indeed there are languages using plural morphemes the combinations with which we do not include (somewhere in CJK?)—in the end it all still depends on how one reads texts and how likely one is to look up combinations therefore. Fay Freak (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak I do agree with you that consistency is important - though I suppose the principle behind my previous comment was that we can exclude “forms” that aren’t actually modifying nouns, but modifying noun phrases (which may end with something else, like an adjective, or a noun which is semantically subordinate, and therefore not the thing being modified). Compare the English plural, which always modifies the noun itself (e.g. “man on the streets”) with the clitic -'s that modifies the noun phrase (e.g. “man on the street’s”): the plural refers to multiple streets, but the possessive marker is referring to the man (who happens to be on the street) - even though it’s attached to the word “street”. It’s even more obvious if you then compare “men on the street”, where the plural doesn’t even come at the end of the noun phrase, with “man’s on the street”, which cannot function as a noun phrase at all. If dem acts like -'s, I don’t think we should have these terms that include it - even if they are used without a space sometimes. Theknightwho (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
These are just sequences of other suffixes, not morphemes on their own. See -r, -or, -er, -ar, and finally -na. Having these is akin to having an entry for, say, "-ians" in English just because words like Canadians or Newtonians exist. — This unsigned comment was added by Glades12 (talk • contribs) at 09:31, 19 July 2022.
Previous discussions of similar things seem to have mostly resulted in redirecting them (Talk:-ogony) or deleting the "compound suffix" sense but keeping a sense if it's sometimes added as a unit (Talk:-ren, see also Talk:-ieren), unless there's something unexpectable about the combination, like spelling (Talk:-innen) or pronunciation (-icity). Could we redirect these to the -na-less forms (-r, etc) or is it better to delete them entirely? - -sche(discuss)22:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
-na attaches to singular form (foto+na) or attaches to plural form (hundar+na) or (katter+na) or (pennor+na) or (silor+na)
Because any of those can be considered as either 2 chained suffixes, or only one suffix. If they get deleted then this will be a precent for other entries, since most likely there are other suffixes that can be cut apart if you try sufficiently hard. Last but not least, entries lile fervojo and ketidaksempurnaan can exist although even those can be disassembled. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
For the record, I know nothing about Swedish except that it had some kind of suffixes for definiteness/plural, so this -arna entry directly helped me. I think the entry is still helpful. 137.205.73.2910:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
KEEP?. Them suffixes are good to have in mind while comparing them to other Scandinavian languages. Also, even when they are combined of two parts, they do create a new meaning consequently used in Swedish noun conjugation. Tollef Salemann (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, you're right. But you must not forget, if you take a look at the -ɳ- sound in these suffixes (am not speaking about southern Swedish pronunciation!), this sound is corresponding to Norwegian -n- sound in the same suffixes (not in Norwegian dialects with palatalization or guttural r). Otherwise, they ain't so important, and, as i may humbely reckon, they are infact a sum of parts, as your saying. May we also wait what @Mårtensås and @Alla tajders are thinking about it. Tollef Salemann (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
A separate "-arna" entry is helpful to language learners since they won't have to know that it's "-ar" + "-na" to look it up. Probably not that many people who learn the suffixes from those entries though, so no strong opinions from me.
I think it should be made clear that the suffixes are compound if they're kept. Risks adding to confusion otherwise, if people get the idea that "-arna" is separate from "-ar" and "-na." I added etymology to -arna just now. Alla tajders (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
These suffix combinations can still be kept in mind even if their Wiktionary entries are deleted. Advanced search can be used to find entries that have been categorized in two or more "terms suffixed with..." categories for a given language. Voltaigne (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep, because in many dialects and older varieties of the language these are merged, and not analyzable in this way. Thus in Värmland tösera 'the girls' = standard töserna, older Swedish fiskaner 'the fishes' = standard fiskarna, somewhat archaic fiskarne. It's just useful to have separate entries for them. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Proto-Norsing ᛭ Ask me anything20:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The OP did not claim the term was not attested (which is what RFV is for), but solely that it contradicted an etymology in some unspecified way and that the alteration was non-standard. The latter point is not an issue arguing against inclusion – while there is no standard for alterations, many observed alterations are in some way anomalous, such as the unexplained shift from -o- to -e- in Esperanto tendeno, borrowed from English tendon. That is not an RFV issue. We should try to avoid internal contradictions, but absent an indication of what the claimed contradiction is, it is difficult to discuss it, but this too is not an RFV issue; etymologies should be discussed in the Etymology scriptorium. I think we should close this for failing to present a rationale. --Lambiam12:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Cepyita added a number of Burmese language entries (see below) that I am not familiar with as a Burmese speaker. They also do not exist in the cited reference (Myanmar–English Dictionary on Sealang.net). Please advise on whether these can be deleted:
@Lambiam: What do you mean with "move"? A redirect? I can't see the use of it. That entry is misspelled, why keep it?
That cuneiform spelling is not listed in Kūsu because I usually only give the nominative (which would correspond to the entry). Phonetic cuneiform spelling are just given as examples anyway, I don't try to be exhaustive. — Sartma【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】13:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Lambiam, @Theknightwho: 𒆳𒆪𒋛(Kūsi) is the genitive of 𒆳𒆪𒌑𒋢(Kūsu). We don't even have inflected Akkadian entries at the moment, so it makes no sense to give their cuneiform spellings. We didn't even cover the basic vocabulary...! Akkadian cuneiform entries are not a priority at the moment, so I'm not creating them. But you're more than welcome to go ahead and do so yourselves.
@Sartma Do you have the gadget enabled in your preferences? It makes certain links go green, and if you click on them it automatically generates the page for inflected/alternative forms.
WT:ACCEL can explain much better than I can, but in essence it automatically generates the appropriate {{form of}} on the definition line. Setting it up involves adding some extra parameters to the {{l}} templates in the {{cunsp}} template that tell it what to put. It's pretty straightforward once you've done in a couple of times, to be honest. Once it's done, it's literally a two-click process to create the page. Theknightwho (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Typo made by page creator, misspelling of சாரம்(cāram), reference attached is not leading up to any page. After looking up on dictionaries, none of them seem to have this form of the word and nor is it a rare misspelling.
This request seems to have been made in response to Mahagaja rejecting a request for a speedy deletion, with the suggestion that an RFV be made. Instead, this RFD was made by @Emmanuel Asbon. --RichardW57 (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Action. Since then, the page has been renamed from ஸாராம்(sārām) to ஸாரம்(sāram), which can be found in a dictionary, as recorded on the page. If the decision here is 'keep', then the RFV will ultimately result in the deletion of what is now a hard link. --RichardW57 (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
I disagree. YYA-sopimus is short for ystävyys-, yhteistyö- ja avunantosopimus, not the other way round. We have alternative spellings of many other terms even if they can be described somewhere else. A dictionary is made for users. If someone sees term A in a text, how helpful is it for them if the term is "described" under term B? Keep. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
YYA-sopimus being short for the full form is correct, but we can just link to Wikipedia from the template. This is done a lot in English entries (just one example: NBA). — SURJECTION/ T / C / L /05:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Did you know that the Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948 wasn't the only agreement of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance the Soviet Union made. In fact it had similar agreements with many other countries. On top of bilateral agreements the Warsaw Pact was officially a Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance. Thus, the term does not refer to individual agreement but to a type of agreement. I edited the text of the entry accordingly.--Hekaheka (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, but I have never seen "ystävyys-, yhteistyö- ja avunantosopimus" used to refer to anything else than the Finno-Soviet pact and cannot find any such usage either. — SURJECTION/ T / C / L /18:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Old Mon.
The essential problem is that the author misencoded repha in the page title as <RA, ASAT> instead of <RA, ASAT, VIRAMA>. I have moved the file to the correct name, and am requesting removal of what was the residual redirect. To show what was happening, I have copied the original content from အကုသလကရ်္မ္မပထ to အကုသလကရ်မ္မပထ before making further modifications. It is အကုသလကရ်မ္မပထ whose deletion I am requesting. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
An additional complication is that the author was User:우습게, who has been banned as a 'sockpuppet' of User:咽頭べさ 'Dr Intobesa'. Is there any point in opening communication with him via the Mon Wiktionary to seek his approval to the deletion? Communication with him has not been entirely fruitless. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
@RichardW57: Both user accounts have not been blocked from editing their talkpage (yet), so you could try communicating with them there. At this point, I wouldn't presume they know much more on the topic than you do to be honest. Thadh (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'd be interested to know if the buah word meaning fruit is more often used with this than with others. If not I'd say that we could just delete this and move on. —Soap—09:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
A Nahuatl word for which our sole sample sentence spells it as two words, and which seems like it would be sum-of-parts even if the spaceless spelling was an acceptable alternative. Also, does Nahuatl have geminate stops? Thanks, —Soap—20:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
It seems that the distinction between ichtequi and ichtecqui is gemination, so I can believe the spelling is accurate, but this still seems like the very sum-of-parts thing we look for in other languages as a rationale for deletion. However, if we delete this, we probably need to point out on the ichtecqui page that the final vowel rotates to -a when it is juxtaposed in this fashion (maybe it's the genitive case marker?) Thanks, —Soap—09:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Turkish. The definition is wrong but the correct interpretation is simply -n- + -de; -n- also combines with the other case suffixes so this is best documented in just one location, at -n-. @Anylai as the creator. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
What about -y-? I saw AZ suffixes with the postvocalic forms so I did the same but in TR schools -y is also taught as an interfix, a "glue letter". Should we delete the postvocalic forms and create -y-?
Latest comment: 11 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Swedish.
The adjective obegränsad(“unlimited”) is formed as o-(“un-”) + begränsad(“limited”). By surface analysis it can instead be interpreted as the past participle of the verb obegränsa(“to unlimit”). However, that verb is seldom (if ever) attested. Most likely the page was created as a misunderstanding. I suggest that it to be deleted for that reason. Gabbe (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete as they seem to be transparent formations from the word for the nationality followed by the word for language. If there are any exceptions ... e.g. if fransuz can mean the French language by itself but ingliz cannot mean the English language by itself .... then we can handle that on the individual entry pages for the exceptions, so i would still vote delete in that case. —Soap—09:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Please delete all pages under Category:Thai rhymes EXCEPT the page Rhymes:Thai. We will use rhyme categories instead that they do not need to be updated. Another reason is that Thai word list take lots of memory for transliteration; it cannot handle thousand words in one page. Octahedron80 (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Aearthrise, thank you for showing the reference. I put it in τρίπα αλά βενετσιάνα. I am trying to look for further instances, I found this in a tweet "όπως κ να το κανεις ακουγεται καλυτερα ετσι,σαν την τρυπα αλα βενετσιάνα που οπως λεει κ η αρωνη,ειναι πατσάς με σαλτσα ντοματα" (with υ instead of ι). FocalPoint (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Pretty old but since it hasn't been closed I'm commenting. It is mentioned in an academic publication regarding an endangered idiom, I think that's enough attestation in this case. Antondimak (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Comment – This is not a number, numeral or ordinal, but a phrase whose meaning (if it can be attested) is opaque. What, precisely, is a potentially valid rationale for its deletion? --Lambiam17:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep – The usage of countdown phrases is language dependent, often opaque, and sometimes even in dispute (such as 1-2-3, whether to go on 1 or on the beat after)—the kind of phrases that need a dictionary entry to be understood correctly. This one is in no way different than ready, aim, fire, other than the constituent parts being numbers. The numbers in this case don't even mean anything numerical, they're being used for sound and familiarity. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep per Lambiam; I don't know how I would feel about the Russian equivalent of "three, two, one" (which is at least obviously counting in a sequence), but "three hundred, thirty, three" is definitely opaque, the meaning/use is not guessable from the parts IMO. - -sche(discuss)23:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Normalizing spellings is not outdated at all. It's easy to find recent works that normalize spellings, e.g. Fulk's A Comparative Grammar of the Early Germanic Languages and Ringe & Taylor's The Development of Old English. All dictionaries that I'm aware of do it, including wiktionary.
As far as it being "misleading": has anyone come out and said, "I was misled"? Or is this hypothetical? I talk to people who study Old English all the time, and no one has ever complained that the normalized spellings on wiktionary caused them any problems. In fact it makes looking up words easier, since you can often tell what the normalized spelling of a word will be by glancing it at, whereas idk how anyone's supposed to predict which alternative spelling is gonna be prioritized for each word if the normalization is done away with. Some words appear with dozens of different spellings.
In fact, requiring all spellings to be attested, and not just all words, would cause huge practical difficulties. Presumably this would have to go for every inflection of a word, since those are supposed to have pages too and they're automatically linked to on the mobile version of wiktionary. That greatly multiplies the number of spellings that have to be checked for attestation and the number of new reconstruction pages to be created, to the point where the category for reconstructed words will be unusable or the same declension tables will be full of different spellings from different dialects, depending on which ones are attested. It's a ton of work just to make the site inconsistent and unwieldy. Not only that, but I'm pretty sure there is no source that lists every attested spelling of every word, so the task is not just onerous but impossible. Much better to just keep the normalized spellings. Hundwine (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I find normalizing the spelling of these types of vowels to be misleading or potentially misleading. (I certainly don't have an issue with normalizing the spelling of letters with the same pronunciation, such as ƿ > w, ð > þ). To give a specific example, even with the disclaimers at ielf, I didn't realize that that form is alleged to be completely unattested until reading the following statement in The Meanings of Elf and Elves in Medieval England (by Alaric Timothy Peter Hall (2004): "Nor is *ielf, the i-mutated form of West Saxon */æulβi/, attested (the form <IELF> on coins being an epigraphic variant of <ÆLF>: Colman 1992, 161– 62; 1996, 22–23); the absence is worth noting because ielf is frequently cited in grammars and dictionaries" (page 212). I wonder whether the same applies to derivatives such as ielfisċ or ielfcynn, which do not even include any disclaimers. Even if this word is a special case, the fact that the form ælf could be "borrowed into West Saxon at an early date" indicates that this kind of inter-dialectal borrowing was possible. I wonder whether this kind of issue is particularly likely to occur with "ie", which seems to be pretty limited in terms of actual attestation (I think it only occurs in Early West Saxon)?
I don't mind normalised spellings either, but we need to decide one way or the other on this. There needs to be consensus. If there were simply ONE attested form as hīersum (and 10 of another spelling), I would have made the entry as hīersum, heck that IS the most etymologically perfect form. But other editors have pulled me the other direction. Please, let us decide on one and stick with that. I edit across multiple languages, and I cannot keep track of micro-preferences for each. Leasnam (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Please delate the page -zki (and it feminine version: -zka)
In Polish, there is one ending -ski, but it shifts some consonant cluster to -cki (when the last letter represents some voiceless consonants in our alphabet, e.g. Sopot + -ski = sopocki) or -dzki (when the last letter represents voiced consonant, e.g. Łódź + -ski = łódzki) -- both are pronounced the same.
The only reason that English Wiktionary has 3 forms, is because it has also 2 forms for -izna (-izna, -yzna) that also depends on the last consonant before it.
There is no "special" -zki ending in Polish language. And the link to the page should be for -dzki.
There is the difference (both pronounced the same) between: Francuzki 'French women' (Francuz 'French man') and francuski 'French' (adj.).
If your language has a word with -zki, you should add it as part of that language, because in Polish -z- here is a part of the digraph in -dzki.
Delete. I'm only now noticing we've had -zki instead of -dzki from the very beginning, but I'd be inclined to change it per the request if we're to analyze either as separate from -ski. I don't really see how -zki can be the voiced allomorph of -ski; the -k- devoices the preceding obstruent, so it never is actually voiced, and given together with the -d- stem it constitutes the digraph dz, making it pronounced identically to -cki, it makes no sense to analyze it as separate (nor have I seen others do so prior). Hythonia (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I was wrong about the sonorization, but -cki and -dzki still aren't suffixes: in both cases the real, underlying suffix is -ski. That -s- is written differently when next to a dental doesn't change that fact; it's simply a spelling feature. So: keep -ski, explain everything there, and delete the rest. PUC – 13:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
FYI the general practice is to keep entries for allomorphs of suffixes and soft-redirect them to the canonical form. This is done in several languages. Benwing2 (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Why? We have go to bed. This is the Finnish equivalent to it. This is the type of saying one might want to look up in a dictionary - in other words it is a useful entry. It does not matter if many verbs can be combined with "nukkumaan": this is by far the most common way to express "go to bed" in Finnish. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Why? We have put to sleep. This is the Finnish equivalent to it. This is the type of saying one might want to look up in a dictionary - in other words it is a useful entry. It does not matter if many verbs can be combined with "nukkumaan": this is probably the most common way to express "put to sleep" in Finnish.--Hekaheka (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Middle Persian. These two terms are supposed to be in the Book Pahlavi script, but it hasn't been encoded in Unicode yet. As such, they're using codepoints that haven't been assigned. I suspect they're using suggested codepoints from some kind of application to encode the script, but the document Unicode link to from their roadmap doesn't have them. Not that it matters much, as we wouldn't be able to rely on mere applications anyway.
I should stress that this is very different to the situation we had a few months ago with some Kaktovik characters. Those were added a few months before Kaktovik was added in Unicode 15, but after the codepoints had been finalised (meaning they were very unlikely to change). Book Pahlavi hasn't even been accepted into Unicode yet - and may not be for several more years - so the whole block might end up somewhere totally different; nevermind the fact that the characters within it are very likely to change, too.
It's just not tenable for us to have entries like this, as they're essentially unusable.
Sadly, unicode approval of Phlv got derailed from when I created Module:Phlv-translit, while communicating with Roozbeh Pournader. I would move it under my userspace but "Scribunto" content is not allowed on page, so please just keep for now. Delete the two entries though. -- Sokkjō21:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Sokkjo You can put modules in your userspace by prefixing them with User:Sokkjo:. Technically it's still in the module namespace, but the software treats it like it's your userspace anyway. Theknightwho (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete and salt. That sounds like a bug in Pywikibot - my guess is that it’s set to assume all control characters are bad titles, when in fact that only applies to the C0 codes. That being said, allowing C1 codes as titles is probably a bug in the first place - this was flagged way back in 2006, and it’s still not fixed: [20]. I’d normally be ambivalent about having them, but since they’re almost certainly useless, we should get rid of them to stop any technical problems they’re causing. Theknightwho (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't think that's true. The correspondent of "jotakin" in your example is "mitä"? There's always a pronoun in partitive, except in case of "eri". --Hekaheka (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Czech. This is imo incorrect, or at least unnecessary. Looking at the definition, it feels like someone took the English prefix mis- as a starting point and tried to make Czech fit it.
Voting delete but perhaps if someone more knowledgeable than me votes otherwise I might listen, but I am basing this on Polish niedo-, which is a pseudo-affix. Vininn126 (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree and this is good to know. I personally would be appreciative of having the option to know this is a misnomer. Perhaps listing it as a misnomer. Another aspect, if zne (actually 2 stacked prefixes) is removed as a (single) prefix, and then I search "czech words beginning with zne", would these "double prefix" words not populate? just a thought. 75.201.24.415:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
We have Lomboy as an English surname from Cebuano, Leblanc as a German surname from French, and Zaldarriaga as a Cebuano surname from Basque. If these are possible, why not this one? It is more likely, though, if attestable as a Cebuano surname, that it should be defined as a Cebuano surname from Afrikaans. --Lambiam19:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Many non-canonical (i.e. not native or from Spain) family names permanently have made their way into the Philippines via migration or intermarriage. I have mentioned the well-known Tausug family name Schuck in a related discussion. This is not a matter of "weil nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf", but we need solid attestations. The creator of these entries (@Carl Francis) still owns us a proper explanation about what motivated them beyond their stupid comment ("This is stupid") in the Beer Parlour[21].
Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Translingual. This is used in Internet slang to indicate that the user is grinning. However, the enclosing < > symbols can be replaced with * * or even ( ). Furthermore, any word (or sentence) can be used in a similar manner (common examples include the unabbreviated <grin>, <facepalm> and <sarcasm>, see also the list at * *). I've added an identical sense to g#Noun, so this entry is now a sum of its parts (g + < >). There is also German *fg*(“cheeky grin”), which could probably be moved to fg. Einstein2 (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
We have an entry for insurance policy (insurance contract is a synonym-of entry), and there are several translations there themselves worthy of an entry.
We don't have an entry for rental contract or lease agreement, but imo we could. Although they probably wouldn't be protected by THUB in its current version, gathering translations there (Frenchcontrat de bail for example) could still be useful.
SOP - yeah, in Finnish it is, but it is not self-evident nor easily or in fact at all guessable that this is water dog in English and not a "bird dog that fetches from water" nor a "from-water-fetching bird dog". One important function for an interlingual dictionary is to help people find foreign-language equivalents for precise (even if they are SOP-) terms in their own language. Unless you can come up with a better way to tell to the users that this term actually translates as "water dog" into English, I would keep it. Are we writing the dictionary for actual users or for some other purpose? --Hekaheka (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Czech. SOP, meaning is "Ancient Roman law". (We could have any number of similar terms referring to specific cultures, and all would be SOP.) Benwing2 (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Czech. Although defined as "nylons", in Czech this just means "nylon stockings", whose meaning is a transparent SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Czech. "Financial statement", for which we don't have an English equivalent in Wiktionary, which strongly suggests this is SOP. I have created závěrka, and one of its meanings is "(financial) statement". Benwing2 (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
We normally allow pages for inflected forms. If the rule for Arabic is different then Wiktionary:About Arabic should have an explanation of the policy. Or do you mean it should simply be defined as an accusative case and not as an adverb? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Whoever created this page was probably imitating the orthographic norms of 19th century Croatian and NDH (1942—1945). The problem is that in this word 'ie' is not correct according to those norms, cf. the NDH orthographic manual – it's just ljepota. The form may have been used somewhere before the 19th century, but without an attestation that's just speculation, there's no attestation even in the JAZU dictionary. — Phazd (talk|contribs) 01:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak Fair enough. I must however question whether noting the endless variety of pre-Vuk/-Broz spellings of BCMS has any value at all, even for professional linguists. — Phazd (talk|contribs) 18:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 months ago12 comments5 people in discussion
It appears that some 1,350 words in this language use a transcription system that is, to put it lightly, completely made up. The guide for the transliteration (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Ubykh_transliteration) given has no basis in Ubykh literature and in the user talk pages you can see these editors discuss what letters are used for the transliteration.
The only writing system this language has used in recorded history was the Turkish Latin alphabet and a transcription system based off of this snippet is in the back of A Grammar of Ubykh (ISBN-10: 3862880508) which can be visually shown here. ~ Burned Toast (talk)
You’re not wrong. This was done on the basis that it’s used by Ubykh revivalists, as it’s an extended form of the Abkhaz alphabet, but I’ve not actually seen anything that suggests it’s actually in use. @Thadh, Apsaros1921? Theknightwho (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
This is an unwritten, extinct language. The language is attested in scholarly works, each using a different transcription system. There is no standard. We can choose whichever system we want and even devise our own one as long as the spelling normalization rules are clearly documented. Vahag (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Piggybacking on this comment, since Russia generally doesn't generally have a high tolerance of non-Cyrillic writing systems (to put it mildly), most languages will eventually develop a Cyrillic orthography one way or the other, if any is developed at all. The only exceptions to this I can think of are Finnic languages and communities in Siberia whose mainstream counterparts live outside of Russia. Hence, if we are to create a writing system based on the fact that the language is undocumented, since Ubykh was spoken on the territory of Russia, I indeed believe it's best to devise a Cyrillic-based orthography. Thadh (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
However, most ethnic Ubykhs live in Turkey since the Caucasian war with the Russians (1864). Sure, it could make sense to base it off of Cyrillic since their native land is modern day Sochi but most of them live Turkey or other places that use a non-Cyrillic writing system. Burned Toast (talk) Burned Toast (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
In that case I don't see any problem in adopting a different kind of orthography. I was making general statements more than anything else, since I'm not familiar with Ubykh myself. Thadh (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
The ethnic Ubykhs have forgotten their language. We can choose Latin to make it easier for them to study their ancestral language. Or we can choose Cyrillic for consistency with all the other Northwest Caucasian languages. It doesn't really matter. These things are usually decided by the active editors of the language. Our only active editor is Apsaros1921 and he prefers Cyrillic. Vahag (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
The issue in this case is that the most recent publication of Ubykh literature has Fenwick state that the language has three vowels, which contrast in quality not length: [ɐ ɜ ɨ]. The entries use a very old dictionary with a transcription system (which the user has based his off of) which can't accurately describe the language as it includes vowels that don't exist - such as /oː/ which has been rejected by everyone else in the field - or excludes consonants from words that should exist. So none of the entries are correct on two points. If we are going to include any Ubykh at all, we should include a citation to A Grammar of Ubykh since it is the most up-to-date work in the field. Burned Toast (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, we should call them digraphs. As soon as the template supports that option, they should be corrected. But that's not reason for deletion. (I started a tech request on how to deal with this, but there haven't been any responses.)
Before I discovered the template, I'd write "A digraph in X orthography", but for consistency the template should be used. kwami (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Kwamikagami If someone creates a separate template for digraphs, then I'll support their addition (together with "dzi" which is considered a trigraph by some authors; also, e.g. PWN counts them as separate lemmas and provides definitions for them), but for now let's delete them. Shumkichi (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, though for English (and Irish), 'digraph' is a fuzzy category, and not all cases are as clear-cut as ph. (ti, for example.) Things are clearer in most other languages that have them. kwami (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Lushootseed uses accents over vowels to mark stress in dictionaries and such, but are omitted during regular writing. For example the entry for saliʔ in the dictionary (Bates et al. 435) is sáliʔ rather than saliʔ. I am fine with Lushootseed entries on Wiktionary either incorporating accents (which is proper, but potentially misleading for those not educated in Lushootseed) or dropping them (which is less proper for a dictionary), as long as there is consistency. I guess it depends on the precedent set by other languages with optional academic stress markers (like Hebrew?) but I don't know what that is here on Wiktionary. PersusjCP (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm also happy to follow whatever seems to be in suit with other such projects, but can say that the vast majority of Lushootseed entries so far have been made without stress markers. When I started adding Lushootseed entries, I did my best to follow what the majority of the pre-existing entries seemed to go with beforehand.
I'll also add that stress is different from dialect to dialect. The Bates-Hess-Hilbert dictionary doesn't mark the difference between Northern & Southern dialects in terms of stress, & while we can try to determine based off the speakers cited in the example usages, it's hard to say which the markers usually follow (although much of the dictionary treats Northern as the standard, we can't assume, & it isn't clearly stated). The inconsistency of stress, & the fact that we don't currently make the clearest distinctions between Northern & Southern except as marked in entry text, leads me to think that the accents might be overly misleading & best dropped. CedarForest14 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
My personal preference would be to omit stress markers, like you I agree it is misleading, as I often see people copy-paste Lushootseed with the markers included. Sadly there isn't much precedent for either online, however in my personal experience working with the language, the stress markers were omitted. I think either works as long as there is consistency. I'm fine with moving all the Lushootseed entries to not have stress markers. Like you said, I think they could have a place wherever dialectical differences might be marked, which really isn't part of many entries as of now. PersusjCP (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@PersusjCP@CedarForest14 Hey folks, I also agree that accents should probably be dropped in page names for the same reasons. Although, maybe we should include them in the pages themselves somehow? They may differ across dialects, but recording the accents from the Bates et al. dictionary would be really valuable.
The pronunciation section has that information as part of the IPA, so there is really no need. We can make different entries in the pronunciation section for different pronunciations, if it is spelled the same. Different spellings should probably be their own pages though, under alternate forms. I'm going to start moving pages to have no stress markers based on this discussion. saliʔ should not be deleted, either. PersusjCP (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Here's why: what I have seen is that in a word where a vowel is followed by "y" (for example bôyun and oynamaq), the "y" is dropped and replaced with vowel length (so oynamaq becomes "ônamaq" and "bôyun" becomes "bôun"). In the case of "bôun", this becomes"bûun" because of diphthongization. Xenos melophilos (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
User:TheDaveRoss edit-warring over removing deletion tags, refuses to follow procedureedit
Latest comment: 8 months ago16 comments5 people in discussion
Rather than contributing to the edit-war, I'm reporting it here.
The instructions on the deletion tag are that, if DR contests the deletion, they should file an {rfd} or {rfv} and ask for review here.
The reason for the nomination is that there is no content apart from the Unicode data. DR agrees that is reason for quick deletion, but argues that mathematical symbols should be exempt. They give no reason why there should be an exemption.
These entries may actually be harmful, as many Unicode names are misnomers. If the "definition" blindly repeats the Unicode name, we risk mis-defining the symbol. At the very least, if we can't devise a definition ourselves, there should be a link to the WP article that covers the usage. If we can't identify usage, we have no way of knowing if the Unicode name is accurate as a definition. Also, if the name is e.g. "circulation function", as one of them is, and we independently link 'circulation' and 'function', then we have a fake definition, because this mathematical usage is not covered under our entry for 'circulation'.
(In fact, when I changed the link to the phrase 'circulation function', making it clear (by being a red link) that we don't actually have a definition for this symbol, DR reverted it to the fake definition.)
All of which means these articles should be deleted, unless someone is able to verify/correct/cite them.
So if they can be verified, we shouldn't delete them? I sure wish we had an established process that other editors could use to verify... and if only there were a template to request verification... Vininn126 (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Even if they can be verified, they're not intelligible definitions. They provide the reader no understanding of what the symbol is actually for. I've cleaned up a few, but I've never seen most of them. If we have an article with an empty/fake definition, it should be deleted. RfV templates sit for months with no action. There would be almost zero effort involved in recreating these articles, and meanwhile we haven't lost any information (the Unicode name is visible when you check a character with a red link). kwami (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
So that gives you the right to subvert the entire process, instead of trying to rewrite a definition to make it better/check if it's real? We don't do that for anything else, I don't see why these should get special permission. Stick to the process like the rest of us. Vininn126 (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I *was* following process. DR is the one subverting it, by refusing to follow the straightforward instructions on the {d} tag. I'm already doing their work for them.
As I said, I have rewritten definitions in some cases. But in most I have no idea what I'm talking about, so it would not be appropriate for me to add some garbage and pretend it's a definition. That's the problem I'm trying to fix. kwami (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
There is a long-standing custom to not use {{d}} if the matter is not clear and has to be discussed. You were told numerous times that this was the case here, yet you continue to use the template. Stop making others do your work for you and start using {{rfv}} and {{rfd}} yourself! Thadh (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Um, this thread is from a month ago. Where have I done this in the past month?
Also, if the instructions for how to use {d} are wrong (as multiple people have now said they are), you might consider correcting them so they do not mislead people who do not have inside knowledge. kwami (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
The documentation seems straightforward and accurate to me? "If there is any possibility that the entry should maybe be retained for any reason whatsoever, then use {{rfd}} instead." —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
The template itself says that if you believe it should be kept, then you should change it to rfd. Evidently that is incorrect, or at least that is what people have been saying. kwami (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't see what is incorrect or misleading here. The notice on the template serves to inform anyone who comes across it that they can change it to an RFD if they challenge it. That does not contradict, and rather reinforces, the convention noted in the documentation that if you perceive any chance of it being challenged in the first place you should save people's time by not using it in the first place. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Thadh: I'm sorry, but I think they're going to have to be picked off one-by-one. I suspect that even the three path integrals (⨖⨑⨐) are not going to be bunchable, and the Southfork symbol (⅄) is probably on its own. The modulo two sum ⨊ is probably exactly what it says, but finding evidence may be difficult. (I think it comes from a use of ⊕ as sum modulo 2.) --RichardW57m (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
'Keep'. The definition 'transverseintersection' works fine for the intersection of one-dimensional submanifolds of a two-dimensional manifold. I've referenced the general definition under transverse. We ought to add the verbal meaning 'to [[intersect]] [[traverse]]ly', but I can't find an acceptable quotation for that either. --RichardW57m (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
The moratorium on editing these has not been lisfted.
You mangled my definition. I said that looking up the words of the definition worked in one case, which I suppose is the prototypical case. It should actually work well now - those who need the definition should have enough background to at least vaguely understand the definition in Wikipedia. The term is not limited to one-dimensional submanifolds of a two-dimensional manifold.
I've found some examples of use - Quiet Quentin delivers some, and Google yielded https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01166. They're a bit esoteric, but they're showing usage, and it looks as thought the meaning is indeed as non-specific as 'thermodynamic'. So here are three quotations from Quiet Quentin, to be added when the moratorium is lifted:
2020 March 4, Gary A. Mabbott, Electroanalytical Chemistry: Principles, Best Practices, and Case Studies, John Wiley & Sons, →ISBN, page 165:
CONTROLLED POTENTIAL METHODS 165 Equilibrium conditions Net reduction Ox + ne Red Ox + ne Red y g ren e Reactants Products e e r F ΔG f ⧧ = ΔG b ⧧ = ΔG o ⧧ ΔGf⧧ = ΔGo⧧–αnF(E–E°ʹ) ΔGb ⧧ = ΔGo ⧧ +(1–α)nF(E–E°ʹ) Reaction coordinate[…]
2020 November 22, J. Chris Slootweg, Andrew R. Jupp, Frustrated Lewis Pairs, Springer Nature, →ISBN, page 147:
The kinetic C6H4 (AH⧧ parameters extracted for the formation of 1-NMe2 -2-B(Ar)(thiophenyl)- AG298 = 19.9 ± 1.1 kcal‧mol–1; AS⧧ = − 30.9 ± 3.1 cal‧mol −1 K−1; ⧧ = 28.4 ± 2.0 kcal‧mol–1) are in agreement with the computational data[…]
2022 April 17, Jianwei Xu, Ming Hui Chua, Ben Zhong Tang, Aggregation-Induced Emission (AIE): A Practical Guide, Elsevier, →ISBN, page 649:
6 Schematic graph of the two nonradiative decay channels NR-VR and NR-MECP (A) BDP-1A and (B) BDP1G with the Gibbs free energy of activation ΔG⧧, the nonradiative decay rate constants, and the corrected quantum efficiency.
In modern spelling the spelling with th is correct [25]. Formerly, until 1995, a certain amount of leeway was given to spelling variants, explaining the instances with just t. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
No, I'm not sure. In the official spelling of 1954 (the first Groene Boekje) it was an accepted alternative form, but I see that in the 1995 edition it was removed. --Lambiam15:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
The argument is identical. Compare modern klädde av barnet ("the mother undressed the child") versus barnet klädde av sig ("the child undressed itself"). No fundamental change in meaning. Gabbe (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Chinese Pidgin English. SoP: one (=English one) + piecee (classifier). The same construction is valid for other numerals, for example:
examples
1862, 唐景星 [Tong King-sing], 英語集全, volume 4, marginalia, page 65; republished as “Pidgin English texts from the Chinese English Instructor”, in Michelle Li, Stephen Matthews and Geoff P. Smith, editor, Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics[26], volume 10, number 1, 2005, pages 79-167:
米其地快都卑士 *mai5 ki4 di6 faai3du1 bi1 si4 makee divide two piecee divide this into two
1862, 唐景星 [Tong King-sing], 英語集全, volume 6, marginalia, page 43; republished as “Pidgin English texts from the Chinese English Instructor”, in Michelle Li, Stephen Matthews and Geoff P. Smith, editor, Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics[27], volume 10, number 1, 2005, pages 79-167:
合吉地⿱竹厘卑時毡地文甘顚拿 *hap6 gat1di6 li1 bi1 si4 zin1 di6 man4 gam1 din1 naa4 hap got three piecee gentleman come dinner 3 gentlemen dine with me
1862, 唐景星 [Tong King-sing], 英語集全, volume 6, marginalia, page 33; republished as “Pidgin English texts from the Chinese English Instructor”, in Michelle Li, Stephen Matthews and Geoff P. Smith, editor, Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics[28], volume 10, number 1, 2005, pages 79-167:
合吉昔士卑士林安黎科卑士𠲟忒記巴臣治 *hap6 gat1sik1 si6 bi1 si4 lam4 on1 lai4fo1 bi1 si4 gen6 tik1 gi3 baa1 seon4 zi6 hap got sixee piecee room only four piecee can takee passenger 6 rooms but only 4 to spare
1862, 唐景星 [Tong King-sing], 英語集全, volume 6, marginalia, page 32; republished as “Pidgin English texts from the Chinese English Instructor”, in Michelle Li, Stephen Matthews and Geoff P. Smith, editor, Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics[29], volume 10, number 1, 2005, pages 79-167:
昔士地卑士文輝卑士烏文 *sik1si6 di6 bi1 si4 man4fai1 bi1 si4 wu1 man4 sixty piecee man five piecee woman 60 males and 5 females
I think the reference (Gow) is correct in interpretating this as "one" for the purposes of a guide book, but from a linguistic point of view it's simply sum of parts. – Wpi (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Definitions 1-3 seem idiomatic to me. Definition 2, in particular, is invaluable for non-native speakers, since the component parts of "sen paremmin" have nothing to do with "or/nor". 91.154.77.9908:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's just literally "I can't speak English any better than Spanish". I don't think it explicitly states that the speaker doesn't speak Spanish, it's just implied in the same way it would be in English. Thadh (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
My point was less the example sentence, more the definition. There are some cases when I would translate "sen paremmin" as "or/nor". As such, I think the definition here is helpful. 91.154.77.9916:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
In what case could you translate it as "or"/"nor" but not in the more literal way? That a specific combination of words can be idiomatically translated as something in English doesn't mean it's idiomatic in Finnish too. — SURJECTION/ T / C / L /17:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to go through and remove the 'delete' tags that I added for the articles that, thanks to you, now have some content, but per above I don't see any problem in you doing that yourself. kwami (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Content and quotation added. The quotation demonstrates the mark, but it's translation and transliteration need some expert attention. --RichardW57 (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Shan. @Kwamikagami requested deletion on the grounds of 'no comment'.
Keep. I've added a comment. I've found the same text in several orthographies on p315 of Sai Kam Mong's 'the History and Development of the Shan Scripts', and I may be able to use that for quotations if the need arises. Unfortunately, I don't have much faith in the typesetting of the book. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
(Translingual section)
Supposedly translingual when the entry is actually for Burmese. RichardW57m asked about this kind of edit at the Beer Parlor, and was told that the 'translingual' header is for translingual items, and that words/letters of specific languages need to be under the header for that language. Yet he continues to edit-war over the issue, calling for a "ban" of anyone who attempt to correct his abuse.
Burmese belongs under 'Burmese'. Since this entry already has a Burmese section, the 'translingual' section should either be deleted as redundant or turned into a translingual section. Easiest to delete it and let someone create a proper translingual section in the future if they wish.
BTW, I have tried changing these bogus sections to proper translingual ones, only for RichardW57m to revert me. This isn't a confusion over what "Burmese" means, e.g. of the country of Burma or of the Mon-Burmese script -- he admits that means specifically the Burmese language and alphabet (ဇ is the 8th letter of the Burmese alphabet, but may have a different sorting order in other Mon-script alphabets.) These are supposedly "translingual" because of the Burmese Army. kwami (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep. It is the Burmese script representative of the 8th letter of the Brahmi alphabet, which originally represented a voiced unmurmured oral stop (and its descendants prototypically still do) and we are confident that it is the 8th consonant letter of the Burmese, Mon, Pali and Sanskrit alphabets. As there is currently a moratorium on editing single character entries, here are some examples for its translinguality:
These languages are using the same letter! The letter is best known for its rôle in the Burmese alphabet because the Burmese conquered Burma prior to its conquest by the British, with a massive dimunition in the rôle of Mon. The domination is also demonstrated by the use of the ethnic name of the Burmans to denote the territory in English (and Thai พม่า(pá-mâa), for that matter). --RichardW57m (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
public opinion arguably involves an idiomatic expansion of opinion (senses 1 and 2), given that strictly speaking an opinion can only be formed and held in the mind of an individual. public opinion is a shorthand for the opinions of individuals considered in aggregate. Voltaigne (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't be so orthodox. We have entries for their English counterparts and they are not more idiomatic than the mentioned Finnish entries. As we are not limited by the physical limitations of a paper book, it might be better to have ten per cent too many entries than ten percent too few. What about a REDIRECT? --Hekaheka (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, we don't have an English entry for since then. And I don't understand the "we can have more entries because we're not on paper" argument. We could easily get an entry for "X door" for every color X because "we're not on paper", but that's not how the policy works. — SURJECTION/ T / C / L /13:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not saying it's not SOP (I'm on the fence; let's add it as a collocation at least), but I think your argument isn't good; if anything, it would seem to indicate that stosunek płciowy and stosunek seksualny are pleonastic. I suspect that sense of stosunek arose by ellipsis from stosunek płciowy / stosunek seksualny. PUC – 10:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
As far as I know, the full designations are shortened in speech because it has been perceived as indecent to talk about sex, so the noun without attribute could only mean the same as the noun with attribute after the wieldy term has been established. Thus German Verkehr is entered in dictionaries as “euphemism” and the like. This one though claim to not stand for sexual intercourse but for sexual relation in general, so you hear Verhältnis in old films said with a certain tone for Liebesbeziehung, and even English affair apparently also shortened “euphemistically”. So why do we even have sexual relation? Or as another obvious example, French fille, of which not the most transparent compound term would be SOP to mean “prostitute”, likewise German Dirne if one opines that written-together terms can still be SOP, because the shorter term in this meaning is only secondary. (WT:JIFFY.) Fay Freak (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I believe it might depend language to language - one can see evidence of stosunek being the original metaphor and later collocations being added - I wouldn't exclude it being under influence of other languages however. Agree with PUC it should at least be a collocation. Vininn126 (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
In English one can say that two people are “having a relation”, which is usually understood to be romantic and to include (probably, but not necessarily) sex, but also hanging out together socially. This also applies to “having a long-term relation” but not to “having a good relation”; when someone states they have a good relation with their boss, there is no romantic connotation. If one says two people are “having a sexual relation”, it implies that this is not just “sexual intercourse” (the first definition given at stosunek płciowy), but repeated sexual intercourse during an extended period. The connotation that they are hanging out together socially is absent. I don’t know how this is for Polish, but if it is similar, the term is a SOP. --Lambiam06:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't trust what it says about cultural differences: this was created by an Indonesian IP who was convinced that finding ads in any language with floor listings made them qualified to add translations and entries for those languages. To give you an idea, here they're explaining Finnish floor numbering to a native speaker. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I thought if would be a good idea to create the page بمن, as you can also find لمن, عمن, ممن. Why should it be deleted? Mbursar (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have mixed feelings on this one - on one hand it seems SOP, on the other it seems lexicalized. Furthermore, I suspect that it's usage in psychology might mean it has a specialized meaning? Unsure. Vininn126 (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion
For all I could find, this isn't even an idiom with a particular meaning, but literally just the phrase "if it is ice", which I doubt needs its own entry. Similarly, I would've requested the deletion of the entry buzla (whose definition was given as "with [a/the] [piece of] ice"), if the word didn't also have the meaning of "sea ice", which is why I simply rewrote it.
If someone like Orexan could give their opinion or enlighten me on usages of the word which would make it worthy of an entry, I would appreciate it. — This unsigned comment was added by Trimpulot (talk • contribs) at 09:30, 15 October 2023.
Delete. You can do this for every Turkish noun and adjective: susa = “if it is water”; peynirse = “if it is cheese”; parasa = “if it is money”; iyise = “if it is good”; ... You can do this with countless other suffixes: sumuş = “it is apparently water”; peynirmiş = “it is apparently cheese”; paramış = “it is apparently money”; iyimiş = “it is apparently good”; ... Or: suydu = “it was water”; peynirdi = “it was cheese”; paraydı = “it was money”; iyidi = “it was good”; ... These suffixes can be combined in many ways: sumuşsa = “if it is apparently water”; peynirmişse = “if it is apparently cheese”; paramışsa = “if it is apparently money”; iyimişse = “if it is apparently good”; ... sumuşsaydı = “if it was apparently water”; ... And: sudasa = “if it is in the water”; sudasaydı = “if it was in the water”; suyumdasaydı = “if it was in my water”; ... There is no end to it; just take a look at how many Turkish suffixes there are. --Lambiam10:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Orexan Yes, unfortunately the user who created this had no common sense and systematically created entries (and templates!) for just about everything that popped into their head (they created English and German entries, too). Over 900 of the pages they created have been deleted, and I suspect many, many more will be once someone can manage to go through their contributions [30]. Between this user and an IP who insisted on making up unattested replacements for the loanwords that normal speakers use all the time, based on words from other Turkic languages, there are no doubt mountains of garbage scattered all over the place among our Turkish entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I support the proposed mass deletionas well as the deletion of the corresponding categories. I'd like to allow, though, for retaining the occasional term that just by itself is not inclusion-worthy but is a homograph of a Turkish terms that is. --Lambiam13:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete can't find any instance of use except by rekhta dictionary. SOP as, सहीफ़ा(originally: book/writing; in islam: divine scripture) + ख़्वाँ (reader) कालमैत्री (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Namely if you look at the usage notes/alt forms of the Polish entry, you'll see that the pronouns can vary widely, meaning we can "boil" them away, leaving us only with "pokazać". I believe this is the same for English. Furthermore, English "show" as in "threaten" can be in the past tense as well. So the broader subject is "the Polish and English forms should just be at the verb". Vininn126 (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
This word does't exist in Greek, it's not in use. Only a couple of machine-traslations for the term "brain fart" are to be found, and a translation suggestion in a forum. ——Chalk19 (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho I don't really know how the deletion procedure goes on en/Wiktionary. Anyway, the Greek lemma, a copy of the aforementied article on Greek Wiktionary, has been deleted for the reasons I provide. ——Chalk19 (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I also don't think it's idiomatic (like "the big man" can refer to anybody, even if it has some common and concrete sense amoung a group). But I very disagree that it is not exist as a sense. The phrase is very common, especially amoung the younger generations. Tollef Salemann (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Chẳng bao giờ = never. Components (possible): chẳng + bao giờ = not + when. It's not SoP, so maybe idiomatic.
I checked đoạn văn again and it was somewhat SoP.
As for ghi bàn, the defition isn't currently in the word "ghi" (write) (or it's there but it's hard to tell without examples). So either add the definition there or keep this. Duchuyfootball (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Bao giờ also means “at some unspecified time”. (Most question words in Vietnamese have this use.) Negating this gives “at no time”. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don’t know much about sports, but it seems to me ghi bàn is indeed rather idiomatic, so we can keep this. For chẳng bao giờ and đoạn văn I still vote delete. I guess that settles it? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
In Bulgarian, a verb can have a verbal noun derived from it, which in turn can form its own plurals and behave like a noun in its own right. Some of these, such as the ones that end in -е(-e), are able to form the plural form by adding -та(-ta), e.g. бране(brane, “picking, gathering”) + -та(-ta, plural suffix) → бранета(braneta, “pickings, gatherings”). In some cases, they can further be made definite, with the prefixed meaning "the", by suffixing -та(-ta) again, e.g. бранета(braneta) + -та(-ta) → бранетата(branetata, “the pickings”).
However, sometimes, forming the plural is done with the -ния(-nija) suffix instead, and the -та(-ta) suffix is invalid or rare. In the majority of cases, it's -ния(-nija), although there are also times when only -та(-ta) is acceptable. Now, we have recently discovered that there are a lot of entries that were created by mistake using the -та(-ta) rule, many of which by User:ArathVerbFormBot (see бушуванетата) once upon a time. User:Chernorizets sifted through many of these candidates, and we found almost all of them were not worth keeping. As a result, the following ~800 pages, all malformed -та(-ta) plurals and their definite forms, have been found to be in need of deletion (all are totally empty besides the bad Bulgarian content.): User:Kiril kovachev/RFD BG Verbal nouns. If you need to delete these using a bot, I also have them listed in plain text (no wiki formatting, each word on its own line) at User:Kiril kovachev/RFD BG Verbal nouns/plain. Thanks very much, Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 23:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Scottish Gaelic. No uses found. Colin Mark's dictionary appears to be the source of the spelling, with all successive mentions likely able to be traced back either to it, or to Wiktionary itself. Several other dictionaries mention apracot as the correct spelling; a move may be preferable to a deletion. Qwertygiy (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago13 comments5 people in discussion
These entries are riddled with so many errors (in formatting, matters of fact, referencing, transliteration, and other matters) that it would take more work to fix them than to nuke them all and start from scratch. See comments by various users at User talk:Loukus999. In my opinion, not worth trying to salvage. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 09:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Vorziblix, Surjection, Fay Freak Where was the {{rfd}} warning to hint that repair work should not be started? As a partial aid to anyone else tempted to start fixing them, an at least partial list is:
This was was prepared as a list of entries with language ':Egyptian:'. Formally, the countdown to deletion has not started yet, though they were vanishing as I typed. --RichardW57m (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
If someone competent in Egyptian wants to create valid entries with correct content, that would be great, but as pointed out above and as I (unaware of this RFD) independently noticed and posted at RFC, the entries Loukus999 created had so many errors in formatting/layout and content/notation that it'd be about as easy to create good entries from scratch as to fix everything wrong with the entries that existed. - -sche(discuss)20:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@RichardW57m: Hi! I concur with -sche above; also see my response at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2024/January#Bulk_Deletion_of_Hieroglyphs. From sheer practical considerations, putting a warning on every single one of the entries in question (there are literally hundreds of them) would be impractical, and at least in my opinion a waste of time that could be better spent on building actual content, considering how little time and effort the original creator of these pages spent on them — almost all the material is just crudely copy/pasted out of Egyptian lexical entries that I made, and often doesn’t belong at the hieroglyph entry in question at all (e.g. all the references are wrong, all the descendants sections are wrong, most of the definitions are misformatted or outright wrong because they’re mindless copy/paste jobs, all the ‘transliterations’ are wrong...). I recognize that it’s not ideal and could be seen as out-of-process; if you want any of the entries in question restored, or want to discuss further before any more deletions take place, we certainly can. I just don’t think there’s anything to be gained from trying to fix these entries when practically everything in them needs to be totally rewritten anyway. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 20:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vorziblix: What was wrong with the new headings? I agree that most of the descendants sections would need rewriting or deleting on a subsequent pass (there are Meroitic descendants for a few of them), and the statuses as phonogram needed massive revision, for which I was at least sorting out the biliterals as I fixed the headers.
As there were less than 200 entries with the colons in the language, it looks as though the headings were at least getting better as Loukus999 progressed.
@RichardW57m: Nothing was wrong with the new headings; unfortunately, the same cannot be said for all the other content under the headings, which would still need to be totally rewritten. The problem with the copy-pasting wasn’t copyright (as mentioned on my userpage, all content I add is released into the public domain, and I claim no copyright whatsoever over it); rather, the problem is that no effort was put into making sure the copied content belonged on the new entries being created. For instance, all the references in each hieroglyph entry were good references for the particular Egyptian words they were originally copied from, but often had no relevance whatsoever for the hieroglyphs they were being copied to. The descendants sections are another such case; none of them belonged on the hieroglyph entries, since they were listing descendants for particular words, not hieroglyphs. This confusion of words and hieroglyphs ran through the entirety of Loukus999’s entries and is also visible in such things as the misconceived ‘transliterations’ present in many of these entries.
If you’d be willing to fix all these entries thoroughly, rewriting them with reference to actual scholarly sources, I could certainly restore the deleted content for you; just let me know. Again, though, I really don’t see what you would gain compared to just re-creating the entires from scratch. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 13:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vorziblix: I was planning incremental fixes, so the headword lines would probably be fixed in one pass, and the descendants (largely by deletion) in another. It is arguable that there should be an explicit redirect from the words to the transliterations, though again the descendants as words would belong at the main lemma.
The main references I would be using are those I know have access to, Gardiner and Allen, and templates were already set up, but not filled in. Additionally, the headings seemed to be free of typos, apart from the inappropriate colons. I hadn't worked out what to use for the biliterals - I was considering just using a Wikipedia list, though fleshing them out with examples appealed to me.
Unfortunately, I don't think I can commit to reworking about 150 hieroglyphs - I have too many stalled Wiktionary projects - fixing Mon entries, Welsh numbers, Sinhala script Sanskrit, Tai Tham Visuddhimagga, and I'm currently trying to set up Tamil script Sanskrit, which is currently mired in an unresponsive Unicode Technical Committee - there's an issue with the Unicode non-Standard. --RichardW57m (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, first time rfd and I forgot about this step. Thank you for adding for me! A couple of those are also not properly normalized to academic Early West Saxon Ythede Gengo (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I forgot to check "chōkaku" instead of "choukaku"; but in that case, as I said before, おきなわ already has a rōmaji transcription page at Okinawa, so this page should just be deleted after all, I think Ythede Gengo (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Old English: "sword's edge"
This seems SOP, even though it's used metaphorically/poetically- more of a collocation than something lexical. This is just one of many possibly-SOP phrase entries that @Wuduweard has created in Old English, Old Saxon and Proto-West-Germanic. I'm nominating just this one to make sure there's consensus in order to avoid disruption if I'm mistaken. If we do decide to delete, there are many more where this came from. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, the reason I created these is that these collocations seem to be reconstructable formulae often limited to poetic contexts, though that is definitely debatable. I'm fine with them being deleted if there's consensus. wuduweard (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Acehnese. Nominated for speedy deletion with rationale "not a lemma, it’s two being combined. From ‘jak’ (obsolete spelling: djak) and ‘woë’". Ultimateria (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Ultimateria: In general, I don't see how this automatically stops it also being a word. Additionally, will a user automatically recognise it as two words? Keep, but open to dissuasion. --RichardW57m (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This is a half-line from the Hávamál and only attested there (source). It is sort-of idomatic, but it's not a fixed expression. Nor is it semantically complete, the poem continues listing other things and when one should praise them (e.g. a woman when she is married-off, a frozen river when one has crossed it and so on). @Mnemosientjeᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Proto-Norsing ᛭ Ask me anything03:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete, had assumed the phrase recurred elsewhere but if it only occurs there then the entry should not have been created. A big part of the Edda is gnomic, doesn't mean that all of those verses should be added as proverbs. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 08:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Like this. On desktop with the old lay-out, you go to their user page and click “User contributions”. On other configurations you’ll have to figure it out yourself. ☺ MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Polish. Potentially SOP. The adjective podcałkowy is used with funkcja podcałkowa most likely the most, but wyrażenie podcałkowe is also used often in the same meaning. Aside from that I was able to find dodajnik podcałkowy[31], element podcałkowy[32], iloczyn podcałkowy[33], and a couple of others. Hythonia (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
This isn't a Welsh word. The creator of this entry misunderstood the initial element of the compound form barúg-wallt as being a stand-alone word when in fact, the acute accent is solely a consequence of its being part of a compound. (Modern spelling would dispense with the hyphen, which in turn would obviate the use of the acute, to give barugwallt.) Llusiduonbach (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
All these entries must be deleted, they are all misspelled variations of the actual term, which I have replaced with the correct entries. Akhaeron (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Akhaeron: RFV is for verifying whether the term exists in the language in question. We have entries for misspellings, but only if they've actually been in use and people might find it somewhere- that's a matter for RFV. For Well-Documented Languages we don't bother with rare misspellings, but this is a Less-Documented Language. RFD is for cases where it may exist, but issues like WT:SOP or WT:BRAND mean it would inherently not be suitable for an entry whether it esists or not. If no one finds sufficient evidence of usage that meets WT:CFI, it gets deleted. Also, there's no need to put an {{rfv}} template here (I removed it)- that goes in the entry so people know it's been challenged. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment: what about as part of expressions such as (but not necessarily limited to) 24/7/365? I've never seen it written like this, but I've heard it, and I can certainly imagine someone wondering what "365" means out of context. Specifying it as shorthand for "every day of the year" might be useful, and we do have a separate entry just for 24/7, so I think perhaps an entry for "365" is justified, although the current entry doesn't really explain why. Of course, this year it could be 366—but nobody uses "366" to mean "every day of the year", and I think that helps explain what distinguishes "365" from other numbers that could, but don't usually possess lexical meaning. P Aculeius (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Is this a joke or a hoax? Apart from the attestation issue, I'd need to see a solid reference for the etymology before I can consider taking this seriously. --Lambiam18:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Finnish.
I don't think we should have entries for nonstandard suffixes. I'm not opposed to entries for words that are actually used, like tahalteen if properly labelled. But we should not give a non-suspecting user the possibility for misunderstanding that this suffix could be used generally as replacement for -llaan (which we don't even have). --Hekaheka (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wiktionary isn't a dollar store Kielitoimisto. -lteen is a common and productive suffix, and should be included. -llaan is SOP, in my opinion. brittletheories (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho thanks, I'll remember that. It should be deleted rather than converted (which I have already done for other Middle Welsh mistakenly marked as Welsh), for the same reason that Latin amō goes on the page amo rather than getting a separate page. Arafsymudwr (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Redirected. I felt free to do so because two of them were my creations. But why don't some of their English equivalents go down the same drain? I can clearly see why never is there: it's a single word - but not yet? --Hekaheka (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello, if one checks page page 220 of Slovinzisches Worterbuch Volume 1 by Friedrich Lorentz (1908), the word for "two" is spelled dvã and not "dvȧ̃". I imagined is that the errors have occurred because "ã" and "ȧ̃" are at times difficult to distinguish in this source. I have so far found three Slovincian entries spelled incorrectly. ElkandAcquerne (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Lorentz's two volume dictionary is the primary source for this language. The "dvȧ̃" spelling just does not exist is the issue here. Users who add Slovincian forms just need to be careful they are reading if the words are spelled with "ã" or "ȧ̃". ElkandAcquerne (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
(Even with Sobierajski's spelling it's dva (with an accent marker) instead of dvȧ. There are still other issues to be resolved about Slovincian's orthography. (but even through it all this entry will likely be deleted). Vininn126 (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I guess I need to double check each Slovincian entry to see if it spelled correctly per Lorentz. There are bound to be more errors. Also, I can double check all of the Proto-Slavic entries as well which have Slovincian words that do not have have their own dedicated entry/page. What would be the best way to proceed? Should I mark all the words with actual pages which are misspelled as I did with dvȧ̃? ElkandAcquerne (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@ElkandAcquerne Slovincian is in a very odd place at the moment. I am currently working on the Wikipedia article because Lorentz gave way too much detail and we need to give something different. In the end we will probably end up moving tons of entries to the new spelling. If you want to keep up, I recommend joining WT:Discord where me and someone else who works with Slovincian are discussing how to handle the language. Vininn126 (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the orthography in Lorentz is rather of phonetic nature. It would be nice if there were an orthography that aligned more with Kashubian or Polish. I am not sure if there is any attempt by Slovincians today to revive the language and what orthography they would use? Maybe then I should hold up checking every Slovincian word in Wiktionary until something is decided. When I happened to notice Slovincian forms were coming up in Proto-Slavic, I was double checking the spellings for accuracy is how I came upon more thorough editing. Again, I will admit the distinction between "ã" or "ȧ̃" in the digital version of Lorentz can be taxing and I often have to check several times that I am seeing the correct one. ElkandAcquerne (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@ElkandAcquerne We are not bound to Lorentz's phonetic transcription by any means. This is exactly why I am working on a version using Sobierajski's notation, or a modified version of it. I encourage you to look at the About Slovincian to see more. Vininn126 (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've moved this to the correct forum, @Mkpoli. In future, please use the little plus button on the RFV or RFD notice, which handles this automatically. It also makes sure the title follows the correct format, too. Theknightwho (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Eh, weak delete and convert to a collocation (even though it is a strong collocation and PWN only lists podchytliwe pytanie). Vininn126 (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete. I don't see PWN listing the entire phrase. The definition there does begin with "o pytaniu: ..." (i.e. "of a question: ..."), but that doesn't preclude the adjective's usage with different words. And sure enough, WSJP shows its usage with test, zamek, zadanie, and oferta, with more to be found in the NKJP corpus. Hythonia (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126: I don't see it on the sidebar when looking up either "podchwytliwy" or "pytanie". Regardless, though, that thesaurus functionality includes what seem to be non-lemmas at times, and it should probably not dictate standalone inclusion in a dictionary. Hythonia (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
This seems like a set phrase to me. There's no other way to communicate the same command to a formation of soldiers. The English transmission is missing, though. Keep. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
According to our definition (which seems a translation from the Vietnamese one in Hồ Ngọc Đức’s dictionary) this refers specifically to verdure planted to make cities and the like greener. That would make it idiomatic. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
[Middle] Tamil.
I have no clue whether we should treat Middle Tamil as a separate language from Tamil and Old Tamil, but this isn't the way one would do it. All the language codes are "ta", so all the categories say "Tamil". As it stands now, Middle Tamil is treated on Wiktionary as a variety of Tamil, so we shouldn't have entries under a separate Middle Tamil header Chuck Entz (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 25 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Lithuanian. Rfd-sense: Vocative singular (slỹva) of 'slyvà'.
The lemma, which we name using the nominative singular, 'slyvà', and the vocative singular, 'slỹva', have the same orthogragraphic form, 'slyva'. Therefore, we should not give the vocative singular and the lemma entires in the same section, just as we have no entry for Latin ablative singular mēnsā next to its lemma mēnsa(“table”). --RichardW57 (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 25 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I disagree that this page should be deleted because it is an orthographical error; omitting the trema on ë in written Albanian is certainly informal, but it is very common and not any more wrong than it is in Russian, yet alternative spellings of words with ë in Russian are maintained on Wiktionary MaxenceLE (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 22 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is not really a definite form. It's essentially some of parts: an adjective with the definite article, "the first". They are just written as one word. In Hebrew, the definite article ה can be added to almost every noun and adjective, it's mostly consistent in orthography, and it's not considered a grammatical form.
Latest comment: 17 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Turkish.
To me it makes very little sense if any. Correct: many nationalists would like to clean up loanwords in some specific language. Pretty soon we may decide to kick "PUTIN'" out of Russian. Rational? Not necessarily! — This unsigned comment was added by 64.114.129.169 (talk) at 02:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC).Reply
Latest comment: 19 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Finnish.
Looks sort of SOP-ish to me: in English it could be any combination of unsportsmanlike/unsporting + conduct/behaviour, probably more. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Finnish.
I added this a few years ago as it appeared in Finnish Wikipedia and some other word lists as synonym of amerikanmäyrä(“American badger”). I have taken a closer look and it seems that it is an error. The other word lists have probably copied the error from Wikipedia. Karkaju, if anything, should mean wolverine or glutton (Gulo gulo). The word carcajou is a loan to French and English from an Algonquian language in all of which it means "wolverine"[37]. The word has apparently been further borrowed to Spanish and Portuguese where it also means "wolverine". RAE does not mention it but it is in the Spanish Wikipedia article of wolverine[38]. As there is no evidence of actual usage of the word "karkaju" in Finnish, neither as "wolverine" or "American badger", it should be deleted as soon as the procedures allow. It has already been deleted from the Finnish Wikipedia. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's technically an RFV matter - and, to be honest, an open question whether non-lemma forms that are only theoretical should be allowed to exist if they are not technically incorrect. — SURJECTION/ T / C / L /21:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete, actually has a more general meaning than “travel agency” I believe. I do think công ti trách nhiệm hữu hạn and công ti một thành viên should be created as they have a specific legal meaning. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
