User talk:Metaknowledge/2019

The following discussion has been moved from the page User talk:Metaknowledge.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

This page shows conversations on my talkpage from 2019.

soy boy

Metaknowledge my dear fellow, in sincere love I highly suggest you respect and heed the clarification for accuracy in that etymology section. Everyone could learn from it, both men and women. Xenoestrogens are the Roman leadpipes of our era.--Sigehelmus (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's be clear: you need to stop editing that entry. You are not the first (and will not be the last) editor around here who is capable of perfectly productive edits but has a strong opinion about a particular topic that conflicts with the neutral and fact-based enterprise of writing a dictionary. The solution is for you to leave that entry to others. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

So when you leave a water bottle in the sun for an hour and it has a funny sweet taste, you think that has no effect on your body that could be negative?--Sigehelmus (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussing this with you (and it's not relevant to the entry's etymology). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

For your own good by my own agape, here are the fact based studies for you to review just to start, from NCBI itself: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=xenoestrogens

Screw the entry, if for nothing else you should see for yourself for your own benefit. Or do you want to be infertile and get cancer, inter alia?--Sigehelmus (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you missed the bit above where I mentioned that I'm not interested in discussing this with you. Please stop posting on my talk page unless you want to discuss something relevant to the dictionary. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

So be it, shame on me for having earnest concern. Good day. I will sincerely and innocently presume your intentions are purely benign, of course. Not like people skeptical of xenoestrogens would listen to a wiki anyway, pssh.--Sigehelmus (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Xenoestrogens aside, I have to point out as a historian of Late Antiquity that the "lead pipes" theory of the 'fall' of Rome is utter bollocks. (If your post wasn't meant to be taken seriously, please ignore this..) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The lead pipes are actually a remarkably good analogue for xenoestrogens. They both have some negative health effects, but those effects are marginal and wholly irrelevant to the civilisation as a whole. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hahha, can we turn "shame on me for having earnest concern. Good day" into a meme please? Equinox ◑ 14:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

catchphrase

On the subject of memes, explain your regular vandalism here: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=catchphrase&oldid=prev&diff=51686129&diffmode=source. Lysdexia (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not a synonym, it's a hypernym. A catchphrase is only a very small part of the range of things a meme can be. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

So he didn't care to edit appropriately either time instead of click out the work. However meme says "that is transmitted verbally". catchphrase refers to the same level concept. Lysdexia (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please note the word "or" in that definition. That opens it up to other things that aren't "transmitted verbally". There's nothing inherently verbal about a meme in either definition- unless there's some verbal aspect to rickrolling that I've missed. Chuck Entz (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(Don't edit my indent levels; I deliberately don't increment replies so that the whitespace doesn't eat commentspace but keep the indent level where I enter the thread, and may use different indent levels within the same comment for quotations.) The other clause refers to expression which is included in phrase, one of which admits rickrolling:

From Late Latin phrasis (“diction”), from Ancient Greek φράσις (phrásis, “manner of expression”), from φράζω (phrázō, “I tell, express”).

1. A short written or spoken expression.
2. (grammar) A word or group of words that functions as a single unit in the syntax of a sentence, usually consisting of a head, or central word, and elaborating words.
3. (music) A small section of music in a larger piece.
4. (archaic) A mode or form of speech; diction; expression.

Lysdexia (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I can almost hear the semantics screaming from being stretched beyond recognition, but I know you sincerely and deeply believe in your own infallibility- so I won't waste much more time on this. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Michigan pronunciation of theater

I'm not sure I understand why you reverted my addition in the first-place, as it's certainly a common colloquial pronunciation of the word, especially in Michigan, well-documented at that. As such, I'll revert your rollback upon the addition of a complimentary audio-file. Учхљёная (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

You haven't shown a great track record, so I was suspicious, but the addition of "nonstandard" and the fact that what you recorded does match the IPA is enough to satisfy me. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

If we are going to have a Michigan pronunciation, I would think we would also have a Southern U.S. pronunciation, which (to mix phonetic styles a bit) is something like Θee-ATE-ər. bd2412 T 21:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I've also heard a few Americans pronounce this with ~2 syllables, like /θeɪ(ᵊ)tɚ/ (someone mentions this here). No idea if it's specific to some particular region, or worth including. - -sche (discuss) 22:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I hear myself use a 2-syllable pronunciation, no marked diphthong, but I'm no good at IPA. DCDuring (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

About "boyfriend" pronunciation

Hi, you reverted my edit on the page [boyfriend], and I am not agree with the reason you gave, which was: "That's just a simplified version of the same transcription we already have", so in my opinion what I wrote was not a simplified version, it was indeed another pronunciation, because it lacked of the second stress. So in my opinion it should be accepted.
By the way in that page, in the recording they pronouced boyfriend in that way. More over in the page of [forvo] you can hear both pronunciations.FanNihongo (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, you're talking about the page boyfriend, right? Secondly, I think you're wrong, but I am willing to concede that I could be misunderstanding the situation, so I'd rather somebody more knowledgeable adjudicate. @Mahagaja? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to hear a difference between /ˈbɔɪˌfɹɛnd/ with a secondary stress and /ˈbɔɪfɹɛnd/ without one. It's entirely a matter of personal taste whether to show the secondary stress in that word or not, but it definitely makes no sense to show both versions as if they were different, because they aren't different. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Mahagaja and @Metaknowledge I am a hispanophone, I am learning English, and it took me a lot of time to understand the secondary stress(I mean hear it and how to pronounce it). I am someone who tries to speak English correctly, I do hear the difference, so for example when wiktionary says that the word "boyfriend" is pronounced /ˈbɔɪˌfɹɛnd/ and then I hear the recording saying /ˈbɔɪfɹɛnd/ then that pronounciation should be added. So if you Mahagaja are admiting both pronounciaations are correct then if you both don't mind I will change it as /ˈbɔɪ(ˌ)fɹɛnd/FanNihongo (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@FanNihongo: The more I think about it, the more I think that if you're hearing two different pronunciations at all, what you're hearing is /ˈbɔɪfɹɛnd/ vs. /ˈbɔɪfɹənd/, i.e. the difference is in the quality of the unstressed vowel, not in the presence vs. absence of secondary stress. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mahagaja:, Thanks for your explanation. That must be what is happening. Now that you mentioned it, I am not detecting the sencondary stress in [forvo], it is as you say. FanNihongo (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Subi

Do you know anything about Subi, a Bantu lect the ISO recently gave the code xsj? They say it is not particularly closely related to Shubi, which we merged into Rwanda-Rundi a while ago. Unless you know of a reason not to, I'll follow their suit and add the code. - -sche (discuss) 00:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@-sche, thank you so much for dealing with this year's crop of code changes. I've read about Shubi, but I'd never heard of Subi before now, and I can't find any resources. The code request form mentions an attached wordlist, but I suppose the wordlist isn't posted on the website? Absent that, the request mentions what languages are most closely related and lexical similarity, which is enough for me to think that the code is probably merited. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Proto-Altaic articles

Hey! So, the title really summarizes this, I was wondering why you deleted all the articles on Proto-Altaic reconstructions? Most of the pages were adequately sourced, and I daresay that their deletion should promote a particular side of the debate on its existence, rather than being descriptivist as this wiki is intended to be. I assume there's a thread that details this, so I'd appreciate it if you could link me to that. Thanks! -/ut͡ʃxʎørnɛja ☭/ ^{(탁ᷞ, кон-, ឯឌឹត្ស, 𐎛𐎓𐎄𐎛𐎚𐎒)}. 15:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC).

Wiktionary:Votes/2019-01/Banning Altaic. Per utramque cavernam 16:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

grimlach

Sorry for the late overhaul, which is not something I'm fond of doing. Should the obsolete sense be added to the FWOTD section as well? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: I often omit senses that I think are less interesting, but it's arbitrary. By the way, there are a bunch of Dutch FWOTD nominees that need quotes translated or other minor touchups. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll look into them. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The account you just blocked

I'm not going to go into detail, but the user you reverted and blocked is the sockpuppet of a vandal, and certainly deserved an indef block. I was wondering why they were limiting the edits on that account to one low-grade offense. Now I know.

That said, you didn't know that at the time you blocked them. I'm not going to moralize, but you do need to be careful not to let people like that push your buttons. It just plays into the power-tripping that keeps them going. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. I gave that account an indef block because they were either the same person from yesterday or the sock of someone just as immature. If you're obliquely commenting on how I "fed" the vandal yesterday, I think it was better to waste a bit of my time than to let the images sit. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not commenting on your previous actions, which I agree with. If you believed that it was the same person as yesterday, then my comments don't apply. Never mind... Chuck Entz (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

You guys talking about Wonderfool? --I learned some phrases (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

We're talking about someone blocked for using {{quote-journal}} to link to a dismemberment video, who asked for an explanation on their talk page so they could "learn from their mistakes"- someone so addicted to the cheap thrill of shocking people that they'll lie about anything. Does that sound like WF? Chuck Entz (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

After a certain number of drinks, but before a certain (larger) number of drinks, perhaps. - TheDaveRoss 13:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Kvetch

You reverted my edit on the page kvetch. You ask for support of my edit, I speak Yiddish, the origin of this word. Weitzhandler (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

That might be fine for the entry for Yiddish קוועטשן (kvetshn), (though, even there, you should demonstrate that people have actually used the word that way). This is the English entry, and you should be able to show usage by English speakers speaking English. See our Criteria for inclusion. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

schlong

So where would this go? Citations page? I still think it's a useful quote to understand the context. It's a half-mention, that's why I added brackets. – Jberkel 20:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Crappy cites or non-durable cites can go on the citations page, yes. This is both crappy (i.e. misleading) and non-durable, so there's really nothing of value besides the notability of who said it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

why did you revert my changes to Template:yi-phonetic spelling of?

I am rewriting all uses of {{deftempboiler}} to use a Lua equivalent. There should be no change in behavior except that bad parameters will be caught and all parameters of {{m}} should be supported. Benwing2 (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Already undid my revert. You did change the behaviour in this case, so I reverted in case I didn't have time to deal with it right away. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

lambón

Do you think I would or can put that? Osbri (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

What? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you think I would or can put "lambón"? Osbri (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I cannot understand you, so repeating yourself won't work. If you can't communicate in English, use Spanish. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I asked you if you think I would put "lambón"? Or "if you think it's correct to put "lambón"?" Osbri (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The Spanish word lambón is correctly spelled with the accent. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking some would put or write "lambon" or I was thinking it would be an alternative spelling. I think I would add it then. Osbri (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be an alternative spelling, but a misspelling, and it is not common enough to enter into the dictionary. Also, the entry was formatted very poorly; please see the changes. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

My bot

I have fixed the entry layout to the best of my knowledge as per WT:NORM. How do I make a few edits for you to check? Sinonquoi (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Unblocked. Please run a limited number of test edits. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 14:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Added 3 entries. Do check. Sinonquoi (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

There's still an issue that Ultimateria alerted you to. It looks fine otherwise, but @Rua should check, because she knows NORM a lot better than I do. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks ok to me. It would be useful if the user page of your bot would link to your own user page, so that people can find who it belongs to. —Rua (mew) 18:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

So do I get rid of the "extra" line at the end or leave it be? I will add a link in a sec. Sinonquoi (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

If by "extra line" you mean the ---- dividing language sections, then it should only be there if there's another language section on the page. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

accedo

What are you talking about specifically? DTLHS (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

[1] —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I actually moved that from accedere where it was added (with the comment) by BiT on 10 June 2007‎. DTLHS (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; there was no indication, hence why I pinged you. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Gallus/gallu

Why did you roll back Welsh "gallu" as a modern example of the PIE root of Latin "Gallus"? It seemed like a pertinent example.24.108.56.72 04:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It was poorly formatted, and I considered cleaning it up, but it did not contribute much, so I simply reverted it. Latin words that come from old Celtic sources do not need to reference modern Celtic languages, as if to demonstrate that the root really exists. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

{{pos a}} et al

I see you deleted these per a failed RFD, do you think it's fine to just remove their transclusions? Personally I like to remove that info when I come across it but I know many editors actively add part of speech to links. Ultimateria (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

That's really stupid of me, I thought they'd already been orphaned. Someone should just run a bot to fold them in as a parameter to the linking template. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

con#la, com#la

One of the most commonly "wanted" (redlinked) Latin terms, according to Berkel's published table, is con#la. It appears in many etymologies. Looking up con online in L&S and in the Later Latin glossary doesn't yield anything. Should those etymologies instead refer to cum#Latin or to Old Latin com#Latin? Should we have an L2 for con#Latin? I don't have ready access to the Oxford Latin Dictionary. Is there someone else I should ask about this? DCDuring (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

You can feel free to show me some examples. Where I've seen these, like in compute#Etymology, it's an error for con-. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 14:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

This search has mostly offending items. But if con- is a good entry, don't bother. I thought I remembered that we didn't have Latin prefixes because the candidate terms using them were "really" compounds of Latin prepositions and other words. I think Encyclopetey took that position. DCDuring (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

He may have thought that, but it doesn't make much sense, and luckily that is not how we operate. In any case, the etymologies will still need to be fixed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I got all the offenders in that search. There may be more, not found in that search, but not many. DCDuring (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, the com ones need to be fixed in the same way. (They should also use con-.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@DCDuring, a reminder, if you want to fix the remaining ones. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm frying other fish, eg. snapper. DCDuring (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Swahili Terms at 16 Personalities

I added a number of terms at Wiktionary:Requested entries (Swahili). --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You've alphabetised them rather oddly. In any case, I don't think they're all attestable; for example, I only see two BGC hits for mwamurishaji (and none for the plural). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

yáá

How was the IPA "yáː" wrong[2] I got it there <--Ndołkah (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's keep the conversation in one place (your talk page). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Modifi aliaj homoj diskutoj.

Saluton. Kial mi ne rajtas por modifi aliaj homoj diskutoj? Mi ĵus faris ĝin kun bona fido, por resumi la diskuton. Parenteze, ĉu ĝi kontraŭas la regulojn? FanNihongo (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It is universally considered to be very poor form. See w:WP:TPO for the guidelines which we tend to follow as well. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Understood and thanks for your answer. FanNihongo (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Removing the RFV tag on havere

Perhaps your mode is a bit more formal than others, but for every other rfv discussions whereas I have been beholden, we the editors have decided to come to a consensus about removing the rfv tag before waiting for the whole rfv process to go through. Aearthrise (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It should be obvious that the person who creates the entry has a vested interest in saving it, and therefore should not be the person who removes the tag. Moreover, just removing the tag does not suffice; the discussion must be closed as well, but even that is not done immediately after a term is cited. I have no doubts about this word, but given your (undeserved) block over this, I thought you would see how much we value preserving a functioning, transparent system at RFV. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

WHORES!

Hi. I came across the word magosha which seems to be used in South African English for a prostitute. It's not clear to me whether this is supposed to be singular or plural (I think maybe it's plural in the source language but used singularly in English) and you seem to have some background in this area. What do you think? Equinox ◑ 11:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

This is @Smashhoof's territory — we do need an entry umagosha. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't find the word umagosha in any Zulu dictionary. Googling for it does bring up a lot of results though, so it must be a newish slang term. Not sure if I should make an entry without confirming with a Zulu speaker about the meaning. Smashhoof (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, best to check with a native speaker, and that way you can get the tones right as well. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

kibe

@Metaknowledge Yes; it is sited in both the New Gresham English dictionary and that of Professor Skeat's 1911 edition, as is in Collin's Gem Welsh dictionary. Its breakdown into Welsh cib (“pod, husk”) Welsh gwst (“humour, malady, desease”) though, is too dubious to include. However, since you cannot find it in the Welsh Academy (that sites cibi for "kibe", but not as a heading) I can sympathise with your removal of it for the time being. Kind regards, Andrew Andrew H. Gray 13:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Ceto

Hi. Please have a glance at the etym, when you have a moment. The "Κητώ" (from Wikipedia) looks right. I found this German text, for instance. The following also came up in my search list, but unfortunately not in the scan snippet:

Ο Πόντος, αφού έσμιξε με τη Γη, γέννησε τον αγαθότατο και σοφό Νηρέα, τον τεράστιο θαύμανια, τον Φόρκυν, την όμορφη Κητώ και την Ευρυβίη ή Ευρυβία.

I had to use Google Translate on that, but it seems relevant enough. Thanks.— Pingku^dimmi 08:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Except that it's in (modern) Greek, not Ancient Greek. The German text looks good, though (it's a mention, but it's only for the etymology, so that's okay). Chuck Entz (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

PIE 'spleen'

Why was *sploiǵh₂ḗn deleted? It actually had a reference to an academic source (unlike most PIE reconstructions here). Who exactly decided it was a 'hodgepodge of unrelated words'? I cannot find the discussion. 178.89.16.21 12:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

WT:Requests for deletion/Non-English#Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/sploiǵh₂ḗn —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

There's no discussion of *sploiǵh₂ḗn on that page.92.242.59.6 14:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday it was archived to Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/sploiǵh₂ḗn. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Templates

Thanks for your edits, I'm still new here. I'm not totally clear on the difference between "etymology" and "inherited", if you can please explain it to me. --Shad Veyosiv (talk) 07:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Shad Veyosiv: No problem. You want to use {{inh}} for words that are inherited from an ancestral language (so Middle High German for Yiddish), {{bor}} for words that are borrowed from an unrelated language (like Russian loans in Yiddish), and {{der}} for any other cases — I use it for the old stratum of loshn-koydeshdike words in Yiddish, which aren't exactly inherited but weren't exactly borrowed either. The template {{etyl}} that you might see in some entries is deprecated and should not be used. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

majemen

I suspect this is a verb that was formed in Dutch, but do you know if there is a Yiddish verb like mayemen that means "to rain". ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was formed in Dutch. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Swahili form-of entries

Apologies, it wasn't my intention to change the way the output looks; I'll fix up anything that's broken. Benwing2 (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

No worries, I appreciate you doing the work, and this wasn't a very important error. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Politics categories

How did you chose these demonyms? E.g. "French politics" versus "Politics of France" or "UK politics" rather than "British politics"? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggested them in the BP, and nobody seemed to mind them. I chose them for brevity. If you have a good reason to change them, we certainly can. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of "[x] in/of [place]" for conflicts like Dominica/Dominican Republic, DR Congo/Republic of Congo, etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

We could special-case those as "x of place" if the categories were needed. (I somehow doubt they will have enough entries to merit it.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank You Metaknowledge

Thank you Metaknowledge, you're very kind! Aearthrise (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:טרייף

Did you see what I wrote on the talk page? --Shad Veyosiv (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but I wasn't sure what to do about it, so I thought I'd leave it to you. We obviously need the entry טרייפֿן, and then you say you've never heard forms like טרייפֿע, so maybe it's an Americanism and should be marked as nonstandard? (I don't know where you're from.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm an American, but the Yiddish I speak isn't the same one you'll hear in BP or Williamsburg... I speak "Russian" Yiddish. How would you mark nonstandard in conjugation section? --Shad Veyosiv (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I would just put a bit of text right under ===Inflection=== before the template saying something like "These inflections (are/may be) considered nonstandard." —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Drafts

Hi Metaknowledge!

I was adding {{wikiversity lecture}} to words like superconductivity when I remembered petrophysics was originally a resource that has since been conscripted into v:Draft:Petrophysics. I removed that link. Am I correct that Wiktionary does not want v:Draft:Petrophysics or any other Wikiversity Draft namespace resources linked? --Marshallsumter (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

That's correct. In general, I find most of the Wikiversity links to be of low quality, so I would advise you only to add them if a relevant Wikipedia entry does not exist. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

motor

Every Romance language dictionary says that their word for motor comes from Latin motor, motoris. Isn't that an adjective? Ultimateria (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a noun to me, which is consistent with the etymology. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

kepos

As I was creating the word "kepos" as a plural noun and third-person present singular verb form of kepo (an alternate spelling of the Singlish term kaypoh), I encounter this message:

Warning: This page has been protected so that specific rights are needed to create it. The latest log entry is provided below for reference:

   05:58, 8 August 2012 Metaknowledge talk contribs protected kepos ‎‎[create=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) (Counter-productive edit warring) (hist) (thank)

Please consider reopening "kepos" for the stated-above meaning. Thank you. THE IMPERIOUS DORK (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@THE IMPERIOUS DORK: It looks like you created it just fine; I suppose you're autoconfirmed by now. By the way, re kepo, please note that on the English Wiktionary, the English section precedes all other languages (except for Translingual). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

قاووش

I'm sorry, but what did you find plausible? What plausible thing did he give? All he did was to prove that he's an amateur who has no scientific knowledge of Arabic whatsoever. He's not even aware that there's a vast literature about Arabic etymology in journals, claiming that "all that could be done" is to look for an early attestation. This is grotesque. With all due respect, do you yourself know Arabic, so you can judge that he gave something plausible? He didn't. He made something up and now you say "hypothetisized", which makes it sound like a scholar came forward with this theory. What you might do is to say: Compare qafas, Persian qafas. A relation between the terms is entirely hypothetical, however. Something along these lines. I mean, sure, there's some room for speculation on wiktionary, but there must remain some standard. 90.186.72.21 01:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

PS: Also, shouldn't the very fact that he wrote all of this as if it was established fact, make your careful? Coming up with a whole story (Arabic, Persian, reborrowing, [f] > [v] > [w]) and all of it made up in his mind? I mean, even I thought there was some basis for this, but apparently there isn't. Best regards. 90.186.72.21 01:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't know really know who you are, since you haven't made an account. I spent the last few minutes looking over your edits and you seem to be pretty smart and knowledgeable, so it would be helpful if you were a known quantity. I do know Fay Freak: he's made mistakes, but he's careful and knows the literature pretty well. When he provides examples supporting the changes he proposes, that lends plausibility.

You say there's lots of work in journals we're ignoring — produce it, so we can source an etymology. Do you even have an alternative besides "unknown"? I'm fine with making the weasel words even more weaselly, so to speak, but this is the best proposal we have to work with right now. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Unscientific are always the others. So what would the journal authors have done? They would read something together and then it’s an article, that’s the philological science. Bad enough though that you cannot even read the version history consisting of merely two contributions. You would see that I have not even added it. It has been added “as if it was established fact” by @Profes.I. who is a real scholar. Maybe it is out of his acquaintance with journals. But in any case it is plausible by the reasons given. Never seen him write anything implausible, and I think much of what he writes is out of memory from literature acquaintance. And it’s the reader’s choice to weigh the probabilities or to become agitated. Many things written as established facts I cannot believe but find laudable nonetheless. So can you add at least any quotes from your copious literature ken? Fay Freak (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Reversion

Good evening, brother,

you reversion on Pashtun etmythology has some minor mistakes, including that part I had edited 3 hours ago. It was claimed there are 50 million Pashtuns out there but where is the source and the proof to base that claim? The latest Pakistani population census from 2018? represents the number of Pashtuns there with about 28 millions, plus 4 to 5 million Pashtu-speakers but of non-Pashtun origin. They also live in Afghanistan but in Afghanistan there never have taken place any population census based on identity, let alone how many people live in that country. All numbers for this country are assumptations. How you want to argue the 50 million figure? Territorial, it is not even possible to host 50 million people in all those regions and belt they populate since its too small and with minor sources providing.

cheers--Asya'dan Kurt Pençe (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It's based on CIA World Factbook estimates. Go take your prejudice elsewhere. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Please reference it and also provide source where and when CIA had taken itself a population census otherwise it will be reedited to a more accurate and neutral version--Asya'dan Kurt Pençe (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't have time to waste with you, and you clearly have no interest in building a dictionary. If you revert it again, you'll be blocked. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

FWOTD miscellanea

1. The focus week of terms derived from German is now basically ready to go; the only thing that is left to be done is getting a translation for the Italian quote. The final week of Oktoberfest (Sept. 30-Oct. 6) could be a nice choice, since German Unity Day is also celebrated in this week.
2. How useful are my occasional bulk nominations of entries with pronunciations in little featured languages (e.g. diff, diff, diff)? Typically I pick anything remotely interesting that has a pronunciation of some kind, so tell me if nominating should be more selective.
3. Are there any languages in particular on which you want me to focus my nominations? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

   Re German focus week: That's great! I do like your suggestion, and the only thing that makes me hesitate is that I desperately need to fill everything up to September, but after that I'll have more time. If we were to have focus weeks ready to go for at least one of July and August, it would be much more helpful.

   Re bulk nominations: They're moderately helpful. I like that they're there to draw on, but I also find some of them to have quotidian definitions, and I prefer to feature genuinely interesting words wherever possible, even if the interest is only in how differently they work from English.

   Re languages to focus on: Yes! There are a few contributors who tend to add interesting words that are FWOTD-ready, and spending time sifting through their contributions (or for smaller languages, the lemmas category) is very valuable, but I simply don't have the time now. Prime examples include: Mahagaja (Irish [incl. Old and Middle], Lower Sorbian, Burmese), Cnilep (Japanese), Froaringus (Galician), Allahverdi Verdizade/Ketiga123 (Azerbaijani), Bluepossum (Gamilaraay), Vahagn Petrosyan (Armenian [esp. Old and Middle]), and many others that I can't come up with right now. It would be wonderful to have more nominations ready to go in these languages (and others).

   Thank you for all your help! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

   Ek glo dat die week vir woorde wat kom uit Engels ook (byna) klaar is. Die woord in Gamilaraay het 'n bronverwysing en is miskien ook gereed. Kan jy sorg vir transkripsies vir Maori? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

   @Lingo Bingo Dingo: Thank you! I'm getting really tied up with work, so you might need to produce yet another if you want to convince me to postpone the German week to your proposed timing. The Gamilaraay is good, and I'll deal with the Maori. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

   Do you think the false-friends focus week is good to go? There are a number of nominations in LDLs and Slavic, Romance, Germanic and constructed languages. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

   There is by the way already one foreign word of the day set in the last week of Oktoberfest. Do you mind a six-day focus week with an interlude? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

   @Lingo Bingo Dingo: Pretty sure we've never done an interlude, but you certainly could (or just postpone the Hindi word by a year). Either is fine by me. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

   I've kept the Hindi term, also to avoid having two constructed languages in one focus week. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

shoterim

What are these? The Hebrew word seems to be שוטר. I can see it used apparently in English but probably for some kind of ancient/Biblical peace-keeping officer (??) rather than a modern police force. Equinox ◑ 20:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't find a clear answer on what they did in biblical times, even after struggling through the Hebrew Wikipedia page. In any case, I've expanded שוטר and I'll leave it to the Hebrew editors to improve it further and to you to decide if it's really used in English (I'm guessing it's just code-switching). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit to jugador?

I don’t see what was wrong with it, why did you do that? DemonDays64 (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The suffix here is -dor, and it is already in that category. Now, why we have both categories is probably the result of some longstanding mess that someone (not me) ought to deal with. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

While the suffix is pretty clearly -tor in Latin (save for those exceptions, which show rebracketing had already started to occur), the situation is messier in Romance languages, especially in French. I don't know how to deal with this matter. Canonicalization (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Regards

These are some bad edits (or vandalism) that simply went unnoticed:

1. 彊 - Correct romanization was replaced with incorrect one. Wrong eumhun was added.
2. 서울 - Etymological information was completely replaced by one with incorrect spelling.
3. 두음 법칙 - Usage notes is encyclopedic and not related with word usage.
4. 두음법칙 - Content duplication.

This is probably the tip of the iceberg. Much cleanup needs to be done. KevinUp (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Kevin Up, you told me like this:

@B2V22BHARAT: Okay, I've edited 心 here: Special:Diff/52840118/52840209

There is no eumhun in this format. I will erase the eumhun part. Best, B2V22BHARAT (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Kevin Up, you have also made a mistake in not correcting the wrong Yale romanization. See here:

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%EB%A9%94%EB%8B%A4&diff=prev&oldid=53586605

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%EA%B7%B8%EB%A3%A8&diff=prev&oldid=53586604

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%EB%9D%A0%EC%95%97&diff=prev&oldid=53586603

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%EB%BF%8C%EB%A6%AC&diff=prev&oldid=53586601

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%EB%8F%84%EB%81%BC&diff=prev&oldid=53586596

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%EC%8C%80&diff=prev&oldid=53586593

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%EA%B0%88%EA%B8%B0&diff=prev&oldid=53586581

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%EA%B0%88%EB%8B%A4&diff=prev&oldid=53586580

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%EA%B1%B8%EB%A6%AC%EB%8B%A4&diff=prev&oldid=53586482

This is probably the tip of the iceberg. Much cleanup needs to be done.

I followed what you did and as a result, I fell in trap, too.

For 서울, etymological information was placed in the wrong order. 셔ᄫᆞᆯ should have come first since 셔ᄫᆞᆯ was first attested in the 용비어천가. Also, I deleted 'perhaps related to Silla's capital 서라벌' part, because there was no reference.

For 두음법칙, some documents linked to 두음법칙, not 두음 법칙, so I had to move the content in here, too for the sake of readers who do not know 두음법칙.

For the usage note in 두음 법칙, I thought this information can be helpful to some readers(not you), so I have put it. Sincerely, B2V22BHARAT (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

rabban?

Chambers 1908 has this defined as "('our master') a title of greater honour than rabbi". Maybe it's an English word. Equinox ◑ 14:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I reckon it must be a form of Aramaic רבא, but I don't actually know any Aramaic. I suppose it must be English based on google books:"rabbans". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Equinox Yes, it's that word with a first person plural possessive suffix, so indeed "our master/chief/teacher". I think I might have seen it used in classical Syriac, but the form may be different in other forms of Aramaic according to this. [3] No idea whether it is a title of greater honour than rabbi as Chambers claims, not many Syriac speakers would have had rabbis in any case. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The OED only has "rabbin" - as a synonym of "rabbi". SemperBlotto (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

template:lad-noun

Can you modify this so that it accepts the mf parameter? I tried to fix it myself but I ended up breaking scores of entries in the process. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 17:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Qehath — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 21:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Romanophile, is the new standard mf or m-f? Too lazy to look at other templates to compare. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 12:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Qehath it’s just mf. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 16:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

So @Romanophile, I found the problem. {{lad-noun}} uses the generic {{head}} whereas {{es-noun}} uses its own special module module:es-headword. {{head}} uses the module module:gender and number to handle gender (and number) and that module apparently isn't smart enough as written to handle more than one gender in one parameter. (But it can handle a gender and a number. Silly shit.) It requires m and f be in two separate parameters. Which makes me a lot more angry than I would have expected it to. Presumably module:es-headword either doesn't use the gender and noun module or uses it in such a way that you only have to specify "mf." I'm not great at modules, so I don't know if I can improve this easily. For now, lad-noun is stuck with g=m|g2=f. Which, again, I find infuriating. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 21:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

My Translations

Please check my translation on femina for errors of "basic English orthography and grammar". Would it be okay for you if I regularly add attempts at translation here, I don‘t think it would be too strenuous to skim over a short paragraph once in a while and we don‘t want Wiktionary looking unprofessional, do we.
I won‘t continue this massive project of translating all the German usage examples anyway, so there will be only occasional entries. |Anatol Rath (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)|

@Anatol Rath: I don't have time to do so for the next couple of weeks, but after that, I would be happy to do as you suggest. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Why, thank you very much! | Anatol Rath (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

"sense-rhythm"

Hi buddy. Whatever did Chambers 1908 mean when they defined sense-rhythm as "Hebrew parallelism"? Is this something about Bible interpretations, or... I can't imagine. Anyway enjoy whatever you're doing in August and don't bother with my stupid comment until later. ciao, Equinox ◑ 01:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hebrew poetry tends to use a pattern where it says something, then repeats a variation of the same thought with different wording, but parallel in structure- sort of like a rhyme, but repeating the meaning/sense rather than the sound. There are example of this all over the place in the Psalms. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Okay, that doesn't seem to be conventional "rhythm" (maybe in the way that eye rhyme is not conventional rhyme) so we should perhaps have an entry, but with a less mystifying definition. Equinox ◑ 02:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Patroller

How does one nominate themselves for the patroller right, which allows to patrol others' edits? Vlad5250 (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

One doesn't. You're not even an autopatroller (meaning that your own edits have to be patrolled by others). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Julius blocked

Hehehe, see, Blotto knows what happens if you allow them to create a "harmless" user page in the first edit. (Joking really: I don't think he should delete those until there is evidence of CRIME. But it really is a damning pattern.) Equinox ◑ 18:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course there's a pattern, SB simply isn't giving enough weight to the fact that type I error (i.e. false positives) is biting the newbies, which is a Bad Thing. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi. Can I ask about this rollback? Are orphaned talk pages not deleted here? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

See the message I already left on your talk page. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Transliteration of יהוה

Hi Metaknowledge, What is your reasoning for maintaining the headword line transliteration of יהוה as YHVH? Wiktionary’s standards for the romanization of Hebrew call for the exclusive use of Latin lowercase, and while uppercase YHVH is the preferred Latin representation of יהוה in some religious traditions, that it is certainly not the case for all secular and academic literature. I think it would be more appropriate if YHVH was indicated as a customary Latin-script representation of יהוה in the notes section, which would then link to either the English entry YHWH or a newly created translingual entry YHVH. Either way, yhvh is the Wiktionary standard romanization of יהוה and it should be written this way in the headword line. Rhemmiel (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

We have frustratingly inconsistent standards for Hebrew romanisation, and they do not reflect how we normally handle case. Uppercase is indeed used for initialisms like או״ם and other odd situations, which יהוה most certainly is. I believe that capitalisation of YHVH is preferable because it is an intuitive way to indicate that nobody is asking you to pronounce something like */jhvh/ and because it is the standard I have seen, admittedly mainly in religious literature. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It’s pretty messy from what I’ve seen. Wiktionary seems to have been stuck in a deadlock for the past couple of years with the realization that a single transliteration system cannot work for every variety of Hebrew. I do wonder whether this is an indication that they should be treated as separate languages. They are already treated as functionally distinct in various capacities and transliterated as such (Modern Israeli Hebrew for main entries and Biblical Hebrew for etymologies and Semitic comparisons). To complicate things further, etymological links concerning Ancient Hebrew don’t use a strictly consonantal transliteration system (like how Wiktionary handles Phoenician and other ancient Semitic languages whose orthography do not indicate vowels), but rather the liturgical Tiberian Hebrew vocalization. While this is commonly regarded as a good approximation of fully vocalized Ancient Hebrew, it is categorically not reflective of actual Ancient Hebrew writing. Likewise, the main entries which base themselves on Israeli Hebrew are organized under the Tiberian Hebrew liturgical orthography which does not reflect the actual Israeli Hebrew forms represented in the headword line transliterations. Maybe a split back into Ancient and Israeli Hebrew would solve some of these problems. Ancient Hebrew is well suited for unpointed writing in headword lines with consonantal transliterations, and the Tiberian forms and transliterations could be included here as orthographical variants. Israeli Hebrew could then simply get rid of pointing in its headword lines and continue to use the standard Israeli transliteration system that is currently in place. I’m not sure if any similar proposals have been discussed recently. Rhemmiel (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a split does us any good, though some other Wiktionaries do it. It means a lot more duplication of effort for limited gains, and it also runs counter to the Hebrew lexicographical tradition, which reflects a culture that sees Hebrew as a unitary language. If there were an orthographic reason, it would potentially be worthwhile, but it only surfaces in romanisation. In any case, this ought to be discussed with the Hebrew editing community, which I'm not really a true member of. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think either the split does any good, it leads to duplication and that is. Also it is an ancient language that has died out in between and then been revived from the ancient state, so it cannot be that different. Fay Freak (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I have not seen problems in adding transcriptions of Hebrew myself. I just use scholarly romanization and U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT if I have stress information, no need for those pidgin transcriptions (as our Maltese editor has named them on *bayṣ́-). Tiberian is what has been revived, and Yemenite vocalization or the like is hard to access. @Rhemmiel Fay Freak (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a difference in orthography (Israeli ktiv male vs Ancient ktiv hasar?) would be the strongest basis for a split due the way Wiktionary is structured. Though I think it should be noted that entries for different varieties of Arabic are often duplicated without issue. Anyways, I'll think it through and bring it up with the Hebrew editing community if I think I come up with anything worthy of consideration. Also I love the phrase pidgin transcription lol @Fay Freak. Rhemmiel (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

lepton

Requesting source for "Coined by Dutch-American physicist Abraham Pais in 1947." DTLHS (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

See here. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I mean a primary source. We are dealing with words: just because something was discovered in a particular year does not mean that is when the word was coined. DTLHS (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The link I gave you indicated the primary source, which seems to be a paper (coauthored with Møller) titled "The possible existence of mass spectra of fundamental particles", but finding old papers can be quite challenging. I'm willing to trust the NAS memoir in the mean time. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Similarly with muon, Neddermeyer and Anderson have a paper in 1937, Note on the Nature of Cosmic-Ray Particles, but they don't use the word "muon". DTLHS (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that mistake. That should have been for mesotron; apparently it was Fermi who coined muon. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

בראשית

I saw someone had made an edit to this saying it literally meant "in a beginning" and that you reverted it.

While this is understandable, I'm not sure they're wrong. Coincidentally, I was just having a discussion about this with someone yesterday, and for "the beginning" one would expect a qamatz below the bet rather than a shva.

I was telling them that it is often translated as "in the beginning of God's creation," but they seemed unconvinced that this went along with the rules of Hebrew grammar. (I wonder if this was the person who edited? Who knows.)

It's hard to argue with the general point, that ברא is not a noun and that the shva makes it clear that בראשית is not definite. Should Wiktionary note this somehow? פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I reverted it because there is never an excuse for a bad translation. It's not a bad idea to note it in the etymology, but we shouldn't be changing glosses. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Intermediate Afrikaans textbooks

Do you know any good textbooks for Afrikaans on an intermediate level? I have a hard time finding anything aimed at learners beyond a basic level. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't. When learning a language, my goal is to advance beyond the textbook stage as soon as possible and begin reading normal literary writing with a dictionary at hand. Obviously this differs by language, but Afrikaans should be so easy for you that I'd really recommend you jump into the Sestigers or similar. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

"crucible"

I don't think the revert at "crucible" was justified, considering that edit was just including a Fahrenheit equivalent to something given in Celsius. 172.250.44.165 06:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It introduced undue and misleading precision to "translate" a temperature with one significant figure into one with three. Perhaps the entry should add "around" before the temperature. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the whitelist nomination! MiguelX413 (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Abuse of template

{{taxon}} is completely unsuited for the misuse you have made of it. Stop. DCDuring (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@DCDuring: I really don't care what template gets used, but we need something. How about a new template {{ootaxon}}? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Go for it. But that particular ootaxon does not have a well defined thing it is a member of. DCDuring (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@DCDuring: Well, you're the one who's unhappy with this "misuse", whereas I'm fine with it. So if you want me to make a template you're happy with, it might help to cooperate. (While we're at it, maybe we can handle ichnotaxa and form taxa too...)—Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The substantive problem is that the oogenus is not part of any rank or clade. I don't think that there is a parallel universe with a ootaxon hierarchy. I think that paleontologists try to place their ootaxon (genus or species) into the normal taxonomic hierarchy. So, perhaps there is some higher taxon (probably a paleontologist's clade) of crocodilians which is an accepted placement it. The Paleontology Database would be where to look, though I'm not sure they welcome ootaxa. DCDuring (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, there is a parallel universe for ichnotaxa, but eggs and form taxa are always something you can tie to a "real" taxon if you try hard enough. I think you're basically on the right track there, in that {{ootaxon}} should link to a non-ootaxon as a holding category, but also allow for a higher ootaxonomic classification, which may or may not be Translingual. The PBDB (by the way, it's "Paleobiology", not "Paleontology") does accept ootaxa, not that it's particularly complete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Earthworm

Hey- I found a scientific name for a species of earthworm discovered in Taiwan that I want to document on Wiktionary if possible- it is called "Amynthas lioujia". I don't think anyone else in the world beside me would be willing to make the Wiktionary page for this term because "lioujia" is derived from Tongyong Pinyin which is frowned upon by those who want to force us to use Hanyu Pinyin at all times. I have never made a Wiktionary page for a scientific name, and Homo sapiens doesn't seem like a good template. How should I go about making a Amynthas lioujia page? Should I make it? Thanks for any help or guidance you can give me. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I made a page for the taxon. I didn't make one for lioujia, which may not be attestable Translingually. I have a bunch of personal templates for various ranks of taxonomic names, but they are not designed for ease of use, nor are they documented. If you want to add a taxonomic name, pick a model that is close. "Close" means close taxonomically. For this one you could have tried Amynthas, then gone to Megascolecidae, based on the WP article for Amynthas. Once you use {{taxon}} (which is documented), your entry would appear in one of the categories I monitor, so I'd probably enhance the entry with external links. DCDuring (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@DCDuring, Metaknowledge Thanks for your help! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Alternative form versus Synonym

Hey Metaknowledge. Yesterday I discovered a conceptual problem that I am mulling over. As is obvious, there are a lot of alternative forms on the Gaddafi page. But I suspect that some of the alternative forms you added there may not be transliterations derived from the same dialect as the one producing the form 'Gaddafi' (apparently western Libyan Arabic). Therefore, I think some of the forms in the list could be synonyms and not bona fide alternative forms. The basis for my weak claim is 'note b' on the Muammar Gaddafi page which states in part, "The Libyan Arabic pronunciation[12] is [ɡəˈðːaːfiː] (eastern dialects) or [ɡəˈdːaːfiː] (western dialects), hence the frequent quasi-phonemic romanization Gaddafi for the latter." If even some of those so-called alternative forms are based on transcriptions from other dialects of Arabic, then they start to bridge over into synonyms derived from alternate dialects, right?

I have been thinking about the issue in the context of the Beijing and Kaohsiung pages. I currently consider Wade-Giles, Tongyong Pinyin and Hanyu Pinyin-derived forms to be alternative forms one of the other, but then I follow the current concensus in seeing forms derived from Nanjing Mandarin like Peking as a synonym, not an alternative form, of Beijing.

I am in doubt about whether or not some of the Chinese postal romanizations may be Beijing Mandarin or not. If they are, then they are alternative forms of modern Hanyu Pinyin forms. If they are not and are based on Nanjing Mandarin or other dialects, then they should be synonyms.

Also, think it is very crude to categorize the words in terms of alleged frequency of usage as is done on the Gaddafi page. My first question would be: when? As of 1950? 1960? 1970? 1980?

The alternative forms and synonyms of Gaddafi should be categorized based on the rationales behind the transliterations, no? That's just my two cents. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@-sche See above for some critical feeback on your edit from five years ago([4]). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative No, there aren’t those alternative transcription systems like in Chinese, also those vulgar transcriptions do not follow any logic anyway and their users do not know about dialectal differences. “Note b” is dubious, mostly the dental spirants becoming stops is an urban vs. bedouin feature. [ɡ] is the pronunciation of /q/ in the majority of dialects.

Rule of thumb: If it is etymologically identical then it is an alternative form. Fay Freak (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fay Freak Thanks for your reply. Oh wow, you've laid down a very strict interpretation of alternative forms here! "If it is etymologically identical then it is an alternative form." is much stricter than what I was thinking. I can abide by it, but it would lead to a different outcome than the present situation. It is absolutely irrelevant whether or not the users "know" about dialectal differences: what matters is whether or not there IS or is not a dialectical (or an etymological?) difference. If we made an English dictionary based solely on the way "the users" understood or did not understand etymology, it would be an intellectually invalid work. Also, do you agree with me on that one point I made about what I see as the silly rating system for "frequency of use" between alternative forms? I mean, who are we talking about? When? 2014? Have things changed in frequency of usage of the different spellings since then? Were frequencies of usage different 40 years ago? (Yeah, they probably were, right? So if the frequency of usage was different then to ignore that is not proper; if you want to add a automatically updating program that tells you about frequency of use on Google Ngram, that might begin to be useful.) Again, thanks for your reply --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC) (modified)

@Geographyinitiative: That’s only silly because of our reliance on Google. But for many things one just takes the data that one has. The readers of a dictionary know that its editors do not know everything exactly and aren’t able to express everything exactly, even if the editors know or could know. It must be read with a grain of salt. Fay Freak (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

How you guys allow that long-term abuser edit here

FYI

• [5] and [6]
• Hirabutor on EN WP

Seems Wiktionary is a lawless project. Yeah, restore his personal attacks and continue allowing him edit here. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

He hasn't abused multiple accounts here, although his editing record has been pretty poor; if he comes back, I imagine he's likely to get blocked. I kept reverting you because it's not a personal attack by normal definitions (including at WP) and it's generally poor form to remove someone else's comments. But neither of you edit much here, so I ultimately don't care a great deal. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: I‘d like to see a list of reasons why I‘m likely to get blocked. Just for future reports. With references, please. And what exactly do you mean with „if he comes back“? Did I ever leave this great project? —Hirabutor (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

— pinging @GZWDer —-Hirabutor (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

— pinging @TonyBallioni —-Hirabutor (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure those pings will deliver, as they weren't followed by a signature. Anyway, I already said it above: your editing record has been poor. Lots of questionable etymologies from fringe sources, which we have cracked down on more recently (e.g. by banning Altaic). And your only edits in 2019 have been reverts and arguing on talk-pages, so it's not as if you're an active contributor. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not support Altaic etymologies anymore. Neither will I use the word Altaic. What about this behavior by the way? I will have to restore all of my edits because of these vandal partners. —Hirabutor (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Outlining your linguistic views on your Youtube account, you state that Sanskrit is a Turkic language, and that the "nomadic Türks" were "close relatives" of the "Corded Ware Germanic people" living "in the Far East" with "priests of Caucasian origin".[7] There are also links to articles claiming Sumerian was a Turkic language. Seems like Altaic theories weren't fringe enough. Krakkos (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rua, might be relevant to your concern. —-Hirabutor (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Tirgil34 has been abusing multiple accounts here on Wiktionary on a grand scale. Blocked Tirgil34 socks active on Wiktionary include 1Albin2, Alpargon, At Yaragi, Drevniyk, Hun-yü, Kleropides, Sickbasa, Su4kin, Subartuli, UK.Akma, Волгаа, SibirHusky and others. His most recently discovered Wiktionary sock, Lundulaite, was globally locked two months ago. His edits here are generally confined to inserting information previously rejected at Wikipedia.[8][9] It would be unfortunate if Wiktionary was to degenerate into a playground for Turanist fringe theorists otherwise rejected at Wikipedia. Hirabutor was proven to be technically indistinguishable to other Tirgil34 socks several years ago.[10] The master account, Tirgil34, is globally locked. By editing here on Wiktionary, Tirgil34/Hirabutor is violating his global lock. Krakkos (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Krakkos: As you've been told before, this isn't Wikipedia. I don't particularly care which accounts of his have been blocked there, and if there's a global lock he's violating, then go and deal with this globally instead of wasting my time. I don't see any bad edits of his live in Wiktionary, and considering the mess you left, I certainly don't want you patrolling his edits. To repeat what I said already: if he adds more fringe stuff, I'll block him. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Glancing through a small handful of the reversions by Krakkos (talk • contribs), I see wholesale removal of content sourced to Starostin's database with edit summaries claiming various strange things. This removal is quite odd, for instance, claiming `promotion of "Sino-Caucasian etymology"` for stating that a Basque term is descended from Proto-Basque and sourcing it to the StarLing database. If this is the general quality of Krakkos's reversions, I'm appalled and dismayed. As much as I've had reason to doubt Starostin's scholarship in the Japonic realm, I fail to see how Proto-Basque theorizing could possibly equate to "Sino-Caucasian etymology"... ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hirabutor, how was I supposed to know that you've changed your mind since you last edited? As for Krakkos, that was a mess and he was warned on his talk page; I would block him as well if he continued that behaviour. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Tirgil34, the master account, was blocked permanently in September 2012. Hirabutor was blocked in July 2014. His most recent Wiktionary sock, Lundulaite, was globally locked two months ago. At his Youtube account, Tirgil34/Hirabutor/Lundulaite is as of now claiming that Sanskrit and Sumerian were Turkic languages.[11] He's still the same sockpuppeteering pseudo-turkologist he has always been. Krakkos (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Mithrasmas rollback

Unclear why you chose to rollback my edits; the reverted etymology and definition are lopsided in their emphasis. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 01:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It's because you keep reverting before LBD has a chance to respond. Be patient. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Please don't mischaracterize the situation; I made a single revert. I'd much prefer to discuss the substance of the entry itself. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 01:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

What constitutes a Proto-Bantu word?

I was thinking we should create some more clear guidelines on this. The way I see it, there are two extremes in how we deal with this:

1. a Proto-Bantu word should be found in all Bantu zones
2. any word constructed from two or more Bantu languages is a Proto-Bantu word

The first option is too strict because of course there are words that will have been lost in some zones over history. The second option seems a bit too lenient. However, it does have some merit, in my opinion. If there is a word found only in zone E and S, for example, where would we put the reconstruction? Without an established subfamily at that level, it is technically "Proto-Bantu", given that it is reconstructed from two Bantu languages, but it is probably not the same Proto-Bantu as more widespread words.

Another possibility is to compromise between the two extremes. Perhaps we can say a Proto-Bantu word should be found in at least 8 out of the 16 Bantu zones. This seems like a generally good approach, but what if, for example, a word is found in only zones A, B, E, and S? Just 4 zones is not enough to call it Proto-Bantu by that rule, but given its wide geographic spread, it seems like a valid Proto-Bantu word, which just happened to be lost in many zones.

What are your thoughts on this?

Smashhoof (Talk · Contributions) 21:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my chiming in: I would think the best criterion would be how likely a term spread by contact rather than common inheritance. The idea would be to give more weight to those combinations of zones that are farther apart- not so much in physical distance, but in lack of shared post-Proto-Bantu vocabulary. I don't know enough about Bantu historical linguistics to say whether this distinction can be made in practice, but that would be the ideal. Of course, there's always the possibility of a widespread borrowed term that was replaced by some innovation in the central areas or randomly died out in most places, but when you don't have historical data it's all a matter of probabilities, anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@Smashhoof: Counting zones is a fraught endeavour, and some are more likely to borrow than others. We might be best off applying Schadeberg's standard: an attestation in one of ABC and an attestation in a non-ABC zone is the bare minimum condition for a PB reconstruction. This is personally annoying in that I've only studied one forest language (Nzadi, zone B) in any detail, but it probably makes the most sense. We might consider adding a slightly stricter criterion on top of this requiring, say, attestation in at least 4 zones or a non-Bantu inherited cognate with Bantoid. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge I like Schadeberg's standard. It seems like a reasonable approach to take. I recently got a dictionary of Duala, so that will be helpful. Smashhoof (Talk · Contributions) 22:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Smashhoof: I don't have time at the moment, but if you like that standard, it should go on WT:ABNT (which could also use some more stuff, including the templates we use, hyphens for verbs, a brief explanation of why you can't blindly copy from BLR...). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC).