text:
User talk:Szyx

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * Wiktionary Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to start a page
 * Our layout policy (nicknamed "ELE")
 * Criteria for inclusion (nicknamed "CFI")
 * Wiktionary Sandbox (a safe place for testing syntax)
 * What Wiktionary is not
 * FAQ

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

—Ruakh TALK 17:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I've reverted your change to About French, as it was mistaken. —Ruakh TALK 17:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You say so. --Szyx 03:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

interwiki links
You don't need to, as there's a bot that will do so automatically. (Nothing wrong with doing it AFAIK, but you're wasting your time.) —  msh210  ℠  20:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Szyx


text:
旅人

Noun

 * 1)  traveller
 * 2)  itinerant
 * 3)  common people
 * 4)  official

Etymology 1
Compound of.

Noun

 * 1) one who travels: a traveler

Usage notes
For the sense, the tabibito reading is the most common in modern Japanese.

Etymology 2
Either an alteration of tabibito above, or a compound of. Compare the formation of,.

Noun

 * 1)  one who travels: a traveler

Etymology 3
* → * →

Compound of.

The term appears in various older compounds with a root form of. This form is never seen in isolation, and it often undergoes further phonetic changes to combine with preceding vowels. Compare the formation of, from naka + udo; , from shiro + uto; , from kuro + uto.

Noun

 * 1)  one who travels: a traveler

Etymology 4
* → * → →

Alteration from tabiudo above. Compare the formation of, from naka + udo; , from shiro + uto.

Noun

 * 1)  one who travels: a traveler

Etymology 5
Compound of.

Noun

 * 1) one who is constantly going from one place to another:
 * 2) a migrant worker
 * 3) an itinerant, especially someone like a gambler, mountebank or peddler

Etymology 6
From later compound. Compare modern 🇨🇬 reading lǚrén.

Noun

 * 1) in ancient China, an official title, referring to a commoner in an official government position
 * 2) one who travels: a traveler

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: 旅人


text:
tatie

Etymology
Shortened form of ; compare.

Noun

 * 1)  potato

Derived terms

 * tatie pot

Noun

 * 1) auntie

title: tatie


text: ομοφυλοφιλίας

title: ομοφυλοφιλίας


text:
Talk:Temple in Jerusalem

Temple in Jerusalem
It say it is in Jerusalem; with is all the "accuracy" needed. It is a dictionary def; readers can as always go to the pedia entry for lots more information.

This entry fails CFI anyway; and probably should just be deleted out of hand. Robert Ullmann 17:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right about the encyclopedic content: the entry doesn't need to say what the TiJ was the seat of. if it says anything, though, it should be accurate. I'll remove that info altogether (unless you have). I doubt it fails CFI: do you think it's not attestable or not idiomatic?—msh210 ℠ 17:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

 * It isn't idiomatic, it is SoP, it isn't attributive; it is an encyclopedia title. (Pyramid of Cheops? :-). It is useful in at least one definition (presumably why you created it), but that could link to the 'pedia. But I have no problem with it being there, let's just evade the "is Jerusalem part of Israel or Palestine" (either ancient or modern, in either case) issue. It isn't like there are other Jerusalems. (There are, but not likely to be confused ;-) Robert Ullmann 17:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Just note that it's different from the Pyramid of Cheops in that it's not the Temple of Jerusalem but the Temple in Jerusalem which sounds more like any old temple in Jerusalem (but doesn't mean that). Anyway, I think you'll be satisfied with my last edit to the entry; otherwise, fix it, and I'll leave it alone unless I consider your fix egregious (not likely).—msh210 ℠ 18:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Temple in Jerusalem


text:
たびびと

Noun

 * 1)  traveler

title: たびびと


text:
User talk:Msh210/Archive/Hebrew roots

Well then,
How does this look, then? http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%A9&diff=3202159&oldid=3047252

Thanks in advance, --Connel MacKenzie 22:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Only thing is that the "make use" sense, while its root is שמש, is not conjugated as that three-letter word (in any person, tense, etc.). So while there should be some mention of the word on the page שמש, it shouldn't be as the word שמש (not that you put it there). What Ruakh and I have sort of decided at talk:שמש is that there should be a page for the root, possibly ש-מ-ש, which should list all of the terms derived from the root, but without (full) definitions; the page שמש would then (as in English) list all (and only) words spelled שמש. So the "make use" sense would be at השתמש rather than שמש, but would be linked to from ש-מ-ש. And שמש would have "See ש-מ-ש" atop it. That's some of Ruakh's ideas and some of mine I've listed; neither of us agrees with all of them, but it seems a good compromise. The only question I haven't addressed is: as you know from the page       שמש, the same word in different constructions (binyanim; e.g., hitpael and piel) has different meanings; and each each construction has a full conjugation table full of words. Each of those words can certainly have an entry ("past-tense, second-person, feminine, plural form of...") but the question is, "form of" what? In other words, where do we put the canonical form of each root-cum-construction? Ruakh says to put it at the past-tense third-person masc., and I have to admit that's traditional, but it seems so arbitrary. It makes more sense to me to put it at the infinitive (not the "to-" infinitive but the bare infinitive), except that certain constructions don't have an infinitive at all (which helps to explain the traditional system of using the past-tense form). So that question is slightly open, although I suppose we'll wind up using Ruakh's suggestion. This is probably a wordier response than you sought, but that's the risk you take in asking me something.   But the short answer is "good and thanks".—msh210 ℠ 02:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

 * That seems to be a recurring problem. We don't treat English words that way, though.  That is, we could use traditional dictionary-style "lemmas" with all inflections simply listed as "forms."  But we don't.  For abstract language elements, we do need a consistent way of saying "this doesn't mean anything on its own; it is only used to construct derived terms."  In English, we call those prefixes and suffixes, then define what they (partially) mean, anyhow.  For CJKV, we have "Particle" which fills a similar role (but some might argue, poorly.)  I don't think Ruakh is likely to be rational in any such discussion though...certainly not if I broach the topic again.  I don't think he views his cemented-in-place notion (that the traditional way is the only way) as even being inflexible.  The Wiktionary way to address these things has been by spelling then by =Etymology=.  As much as I dislike the multiple etymology structure, it does prevent the impossible situation of having two (or more) =Verb= heading sections arranged incorrectly as he suggests.  If we re-think the "multiple etymology" approach for English (perhaps restricting it to homophones, or inverting the hierarchy of the structure) then it would make sense to follow along in other languages (as he inadvertently suggests on that talk page.)  But being inconsistent, for the sake of being inconsistent, just means that bots and English readers will be lost whenever encountering a Hebrew root.  In summary: I don't know where to go from here, on this topic.  But thank you for reviewing my potentially controversial (can-o-worms) edit.  --Connel MacKenzie 03:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I think I'm always rational, but you may disagree. ;-)  I'm O.K. with your edit there; more work is certainly needed, but the existing format had serious problems, and your version is no worse, so if it makes you happy, that's just peachy-dandy. I think I'm fairly flexible about various possibilities discussed sanely, but neither excluding Hebrew roots, or calling them something like "prefixes" or "suffixes" or "particles", is really an option; when you insist on these, we're outside the realm of "discussed sanely". (BTW, when you insist that ELE cannot expand to support headers needed for other languages, and further, when you claim — as you have before — that someone proposing a new header must be doing so in an attempt to destroy Wiktionary — do you not consider yourself inflexible?) —Ruakh TALK 18:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with your system, Connel, of identifying the root and binyan (construction) only an etymology section: that's consistent with English words' entries. Like Ruakh, though, I'll have to insist on having entries for roots. Not because they're used per se, but because (a) it's traditional to mention them when discussing words, (b) people will look for them, (c) it's a way to relate words like 'make use" and "serve" that are related in form (same root) and often in meaning, and (d) we have, as you mention, such things in other languages (things that meannothing on their own but are used to construct words). (Note that roots are still being used to construct words: e.g., there's a new word (in a new binyan (construction)!) used nowadays — hitputar ("be asked to resign") — which is formed from an existing root.) Like Ruakh, though, I it makes no sense at all to call them "prefixes" or "suffixes": only "root" makes sense as a header. (Well, "triliteral root" also does, but some have four letters, so we'd need another header.)—msh210 ℠ 16:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Please keep personal comments on BP or somewhere, both of you. This talk page is not for "I don't think Ruakh is likely to be rational in any such discussion" or "when you insist on these, we're outside the realm of 'discussed sanely'" or "I don't think he views his cemented-in-place notion... as even being inflexible" or "do you not consider yourself inflexible?". Thanks.—msh210 ℠ 16:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry. I'll behave. —Ruakh TALK 19:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

 * It's true that the masculine third-person singular past tense is an arbitrary tradition, but so is the choice of the infinitive. The infinitive seems a more natural lemma to you because you're a well-educated English speaker; but less-well-educated English speakers frequently add -ing entries here as lemmata (apparently because it's the most noun-like form in normal speech; consider something like "Fooing is like barring, but with a baz instead of a bip"). If the argument is that the shortest/least-affixed form should be used, then the masculine third-person singular past tense makes exactly as much sense as the bare infinitive in most cases, and more sense (as you've noted) in the cases where there is no bare infinitive. I've heard it said that the really least-marked form is something called the "infinitive absolute", like (which you might recognize from Shir ha-Ma'alot) and, but these forms are incredibly rare for all but a few verbs, so I don't think we'd serve anyone by lemmatizing them. —Ruakh TALK 18:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a brief comment: What you, Ruakh, are calling the "'infinitive absolute', like " is what I meant by "the infinitive (not the "to-" infinitive but the bare infinitive)". That form exists, I think, for all binyanim for which the "to +" (l'-) infinitive exists.—msh210 ℠ 05:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, but I think you're confused about something … the bare infinitive (also called "infinitival construct" and "gerund", but "bare infinitive" is IMHO the best and clearest name) in this case is . (The to-infinitive is .) As I said, the bare infinitive is exactly as short and un-affixed as the masculine third-person singular past tense (never shorter or less affixed), with the additional problem that it doesn't exist for two binyanim. (That said, this isn't necessarily a fatal deficiency, as no one's forcing us to follow the traditional binyan distinction — for example, we could call m'fu'élet the "feminine singular passive present tense and passive present participle of pa'él". So I'm really not arguing that we can't use the bare infinitive; I just don't think the benefits are that great, and it has all the major drawbacks that come with bucking tradition — violation of user expectations, inconsistency with the other Wiktionaries, internal inconsistency due to editors unfamiliar with our standard, etc.) —Ruakh TALK 15:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right: I am confused about that, primarily because haloch is such an odd word. For most words (at the risk of being wrong again), the haloch form and the lechet form coincide: shamor, bakesh, hikanes, hitpalel. (I guess "ayin-vav" words in kal, like mot and shir and ba, are exceptions also.)—msh210 ℠ 16:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Both forms are quite rare in Modern Hebrew (except insofar as the bare infinitive exists inside the to-infinitive), so I'm not actually terribly familiar with them. and  are my stock examples because they are actually used (the former in phrases like "round trip", the latter in phrases like "planet"). I think they usually differ for pa'al (kal) verbs, where you have (e.g.) shamor vs. sh'mor; but in pi'el at least, they are the same. (I really don't know about the other binyanim. And even with pa'al, I'm not completely clear on the whole thing, as one version of the Fourth Commandment uses shamor as an imperative, as in "shamor 'et haShShabbath l'qad'sho", but in Modern Hebrew we use sh'mor, as in "shmor merkhak", and I don't know what the story is here, or whether it's related at all.) Incidentally, we've been saying the to-infinitive contains the bare infinitive, which is mostly true, but slightly false in that the sh'va na' in a normal pa'al bare infinitive becomes a sh'va nakh in the to-infinitive, which then induces a dagesh kal in a following begedkefet consonant, as in m'khor "sell" → limkor "to sell". —Ruakh TALK 19:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Msh210/Archive/Hebrew roots


text: tabibito

title: tabibito


text:
bedeau

Etymology
, from, from , from , from , from , merging with , from , from , from. Akin to 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬,. More at.

Noun

 * 1) verger, beadle

title: bedeau


text: cross country skiing

title: cross country skiing


text:
User talk:Msh210/Archive/Translation tables

Translation tables
I appreciate your position at Votes/2007-10/Lemma entries that non-lemma entries should direct readers to the lemma entry where they can find additional translations. Do you also think that translations into non-lemma target forms should go into that non-lemma English translation table? If so, which forms should go into that table? All of the forms into which the non-lemma English term can be translated or just the target lemma? Rod (A. Smith) 17:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I do not understand your question: I think you'll have to reword it. The way I read (reed) your question, with an example, is: "I understand your position that the entry words should direct readers to the entry word for additional translations. Do you also think that translations of words should go into the translation table under the entry words? If so, which forms should be in that table: all translations of words or just translations of word?" But I highly doubt that that's what you meant, so please clarify.—msh210 ℠ 21:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

 * If you speak Russian or some other declension-heavy language, you example will work, although it's not worded as I intended. "all translations of words" is right if it means "each plural form of the translation of the lexeme word(s) into languages that have plurals and each form in languages that have no plurals" but "just translations of word" should be changed to mean "just the translations of the lexeme word(s) into the target lemma forms".  The ideal example would not have one-to-one translations from English to the target language, though.  What languages do you speak?  Rod (A. Smith) 23:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

 * English and a bit of Hebrew. (See the user-language categories on my talk page.) But, assuming I understand your most recent post here correctly, I understood your first one right too. The reason I doubted it is: Why would you include translations of word on the page words? No, include translations of words.

 * Just to make sure I understand you correctly: You were asking whether the page words should include verbum, verbi, and verbo or verba, verborum, and verbis, right? (See verbum.) Well, the latter. Hope this clarifies.—msh210 ℠ 21:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

 * That's close to what I meant to ask. For singular nouns, though, we list just one form of each translation.  People sometimes call that the "lemma" form or the "citation" form.  To simplify our vocabulary, I'm calling it the "main" form for the foreign lexeme.  In Latin, the main form of the lexeme verb(um|ī|ō|a|orum|īs|...) is verbum:.  So, word just lists verbum.  We intentionally do not list verbi: or verbo:.  I wondered whether you would want us to show verba, verborum, and verbīs or just verbum.  If you would prefer to give the multiple plural forms in the translation table, would you also change the singular entry translation table to give all three of the singular Latin forms?  Note that the number of foreign forms expands greatly for verbs, easily requiring dozens of forms for a single foreign lexeme.  Rod (A. Smith) 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Oh, I see. Well, definitely any translation on the page words should be of words. As to whether we should include only verba or also verborum and verbis, I guess it would probably depend on language (and part of speech and perhaps the individual word's declension class or whatever it's called): perhaps in Latin it makes sense to include only the nominative, but perhaps in Estonian it makes more sense to include the nominative and illative or something. Likewise, maybe the page went should have only the past-tense, third-person, singular as its, oh, say, Hungarian translation, but all numbers and persons and both sexes as its Hebrew. Whatever makes most sense in the individual language. Guided of course (or not of course, but guided anyway) by considerations of space and neatness: if a language has forty-eight possible mood-person-tense-sex-number-etc. combinations for a particular word, you will not want to include them all unless you really need to. Really needing to, in this case, would follow from language-specific considerations, again.—msh210 ℠ 18:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Hmm. so you would like each language project page to make its own independent decision about which forms to include in the translations tables, with contributors for some languages choosing to list multiple forms but others choosing just a single form.  Is it just me, or is that really confusing for both readers and contributors?  Rod (A. Smith) 18:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

 * It's not confusing for readers at all in my opinion. It is confusing for editors, but not much. It's a simple matter to check an About Language page, or the Translations page, to see what to do. And if an editor "messes up" and puts in too much translation, that's fine, too.—msh210 ℠ 15:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not an editor of Hebrew entries, because I don't know enough about Hebrew. So, in my role as a reader, I wouldn't understand from the list described below whether each of those entries in the translation table is a different lexeme or a different form of one lexeme.  Rod (A. Smith) 16:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, each would have a little gloss near it "third person" etc. That wouldn't tell you, though, which of them are forms of the same lexeme. I suppose that is important information, and we need a way to capture it.—msh210 ℠ 16:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The way we handle it today is by just listing the “main” form of the foreign lexeme in English translation tables. Readers then know that each listed term is a distinct translation (as opposed to a distinct grammatical form that may or may not be used depending on the grammatical context).  Translators then click through to the foreign entry to determine which grammatical form to use in their particular situation.  Rod (A. Smith) 16:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, I know.  That's why you started the vote (that led to this discussion) in the first place. We were looking at alternatives to that.—msh210 ℠ 17:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. :-)  There's no rush, of course, but I look forward to your suggestion for improvement.  Rod (A. Smith) 17:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 * No need to wait; my and opiaterein's respective prospective formats are at Wiktionary talk:Votes/2007-10/Lemma entries/words.—msh210 ℠ 20:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Ah. There you gave the third person singular masculine past tense in the translation table.  So, if I understand you, you'd have contributors from each language choose one form to represent each of the usual English inflections.  For verbs, then, each language would have a form chosen to represent our simple past tense, one to represent our past participle, one to represent our present participle, one to represent our third person singular present tense, and one to represent our infinitive.  Right?  Rod (A. Smith) 20:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 * No. Sorry for the ambiguity. I meant to have a number of such tables, corresponding to different persons, etc. (Although I'm not sure opiaterein's system isn't better.)—msh210 ℠ 20:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the clarification. Please let me know whether you would change anything about the Translations section below, which illustrates how I think you are suggesting to format translation tables.  Rod (A. Smith) 22:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 * It's okay, but I think I like opiaterein's system better, actually.—msh210 ℠ 16:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are refering to opiaterein's system of "drop downs within the drop down", I think that's how I've formatted it below. Do you have a different take on it?  Do you find it easy, as a reader, to determine whether there is a Hungarian translation anywhere in those nested tables?  Rod (A. Smith) 20:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

 * What I'm referring to is below, under the heading "Further translations". Maybe my calling it opiaterein's is a misattribution. (I'm not sure why you switched (or seemed to switch) to discussing a lemma in listing your translations under "Translations", below; I've switched back to a non-lemma form.) Note though that each language's editors will decide how many of its translations will go in the table, using readability, inter alia, as a guide.—msh210 ℠ 20:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Ah. Thanks for the clarification.  As for your perception that I switched to discussing a lemma, that's not the case.  When I said, "the amount of work involved to add a new lexeme", I meant, "the amount of work involved to add each of the forms of a new lexeme".  In any event, you are no longer advocating that format, so it's irrelevant.  In the system you support, then, each language in the translation table shows a miniature conjugation table for each of the translated lexemes.  To show where each new lexeme begins and ends, readers just note the repetition of a tag, like "first person singular".  The second such tag would indicate a new lexeme.  If a language has no inflections that correspond to that of the English headword (e.g. like Chinese), the reader is directed to the English main (lemma) entry.  If a language has too many forms to fit well into the table (e.g. like Spanish), only a few forms are listed, omitting the others.  Presumably, you would also similarly expand the translation table in the main (lemma) English entries, because "speak" isn't just the infinitive, but also the second person singular present indicative, the first person plural present indicative, the future subjunctive, the imperative, etc.  Right? Rod (A. Smith) 21:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I've been thinking about that last point, and I'm not sure, but my thoughts are as follows. Logically we should include all those translations s.v. speak if we do so (m.m.) s.v. spoke. Otoh, I suspect most people who look up speak will want to know what the lexeme means, not what the word (the second-person present tense, e.g.) means; they look up speak after coming across speaking or speaks (or, of course, the second-person present speak) and knowing a bit about how words are conjugated in English; or they look up speak after coming across speak (the bare infinitive) in an ESL book or the like. There will be of course some who look up speak (the second-person present) wanting to know what it means in their language, but I think that these will be fewer in number. Cluttering the page with multiple translations will merely confuse.

 * To put it in other words, s.v. spoke it's necessary, if we're to have translations at all, to have multiple ones (as how do we choose?); and it's necessary to have them so as to avoid making users go from entry to entry to look for their word. But s.v. speak it's not necessary to have so many, and they confuse.

 * The other user of the translations table is the native English speaker who wants to know how to say speak (second-person, masculine, singular present) in Hebrew. Thee ideal would be to have this translation s.v speak. But if we have the lemma form in the translation table s.v. speak, the user can then check that entry for the conjugation table; this is merely one extra step, and I think that this extra work for the user, while regrettable, is not as bad as having too many translations s.v. speak.

 * That logic ("one extra step is better than too much clutter") does not apply to the entry spoke (or other non-lemma entries), however. There, there are two extra steps. The foreign-language speaker looks up spoke, finds "past tense of 'speak'" and "see translations under 'speak'", looks up "speak", find translations into his own language, and then must extrapolate to his own language's past tense. (The two extra steps are looking up speak and extrapolating the translation.) The logic of "one extra step is better than too much clutter" also doesn't apply to spoke because, unlike s.v. speak, there is no lemma form of the translation to include, that the other forms are cluttering up. That is, s.v. speak, including non-lemma translations clutters up the lemma translations, obscuring them; s.v., spoke that's not true, as all the translations (if any) are non-lemma; so it's okay to have them.—msh210 ℠ 21:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Wait, you'd seriously want went to list halakhti, halakhta, halakht, halakh, halkha, halakhnu, halakhtem, halakhten, and halkhu, as well as hafakhti, hafakhta, hafakht, hafakh, hafkhu, hafakhnu, hafakhtem, hafakhten, and hafkhu, as well as nine forms for every other translation? The sad thing is, even if we could keep on top of all this, we still wouldn't be giving every possible translation, as we'd be omitting the 12 "haya `ose" forms per verb, let alone all the vav-hahipukh'd future-tense forms, all the pausal-pronunciation forms, and all the direct-object including forms. (Actually, some of those we can get away with excluding on the grounds that they translate to more than just "went", but still.) —Ruakh TALK 20:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

 * In truth Hebrew was just an example in what I wrote above, and I didn't have it specifically in mind. But since we're discussing it: Yes, seriously. Nine forms is not that much. And as to the additional forms: "Haya holech" means "would have gone" or "used to go", not "went", no? Pausal pronunciations don't exist in past tense afaIk. The vav-hahipuch'ed future-becomes-past is not used with a pronoun (e.g., וָאֵשֵׁב but never *ואני אשב or *ואשב אני) and so are translations of "I sat" not "sat". (This argument doesn't apply to the vav-hahipuch'ed past-becomes-future words.) And the direct-object-including forms, as you mention, are certainly not translations of the bare past (or any) tense.

 * But more to the point: according to what I wrote above we'd leave it up to individual language users, and maybe Hebrew will wind up without many forms (or without many forms for specific parts of speech).—msh210 ℠ 15:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Regarding your question: "He'd learn to read if he went to school" → "Haya lomed likro im haya holekh l'vet sefer.". Regarding pausality, hipukhativity, etc.: O.K., I'll take your word for it: my Biblical Hebrew is read-only. :-)   Regarding the part that's more to the point: O.K., fair enough. I just think that even if we do allow non-lemma translations (which I don't think we should), it would be nice for a language-neutral policy page to give some guidance, rather than encouraging large-scale (and potentially misleading)) variation from language to language. —Ruakh TALK 18:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Translations

 * Chinese: 說話, 说话 (shuōhuà)

 * Korean: 말했다

 * Korean: 말했느냐

 * Korean: 말했어

 * Korean: 말했어

 * Korean: 말했어요

 * Korean: 말했어요

 * Korean: 말했습니다

 * Korean: 말했습니까

 * Korean: 말하셨다

 * Korean: 말하셨어

 * Korean: 말하셨어요

 * Korean: 말하셨습니다

 * Korean: 말하셨느냐

 * Korean: 말하셨어

 * Korean: 말하셨어요

 * Korean: 말했습니까
 * Korean: 말하셨습니까

 * Romanian: zisei, spusei
 * Spanish: dije

 * Polish:

 * Polish:

 * Romanian: ziseşi, spuseşi
 * Spanish: dijiste

 * Polish:

 * Polish:

 * Romanian: zise, spuse
 * Spanish: dijo

 * Polish:

 * Polish:

 * Polish:

 * Romanian: ziserăm, spuserăm
 * Spanish: dijimos

 * Polish:

 * Polish:

 * Romanian: ziserăţi, spuserăţi
 * Spanish: dijisteis

 * Polish:

 * Polish:

 * Romanian: ziseră, spuseră
 * Spanish: dijeron

 * Polish:

 * Polish:

 * Russian:

 * Russian:

 * Russian:

 * Russian:

 * Polish:

 * Latin: fabulābar

 * Latin:

 * Latin:

{{trans-bottom}
 * Latin:

 * Latin:

 * Latin:

 * Latin:

 * Latin:

 * Latin:

 * Latin:

 * Latin:

 * Latin:

 * Latin:

 * Latin:

 * Korean:

 * Korean:

 * Russian:

 * Russian:

 * Russian:

 * Spanish: dicho

 * Polish:

 * Polish:

 * Spanish: dicha

 * Polish:

 * German:

 * Polish:

 * Polish:

 * Spanish: dichos

 * Polish:

 * Polish:

 * Polish:

 * Polish:

 * Spanish: dichas

 * German:

 * Polish:

 * Polish:

Note: Many more forms belong in the table above, but should serve to illustrate the required structure. Note that many languages have peculiar forms, so they get their own collapsable section. Note also the amount of work involved to add a new lexeme in, say, Spanish. The structure is so complex, it's difficult in the editing window to determine which sense and which English verb form is being translated. Rod (A. Smith) 22:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Further translations
(spoke, past tense verb) (notes on this table are above)

 * American Sign Language: see translations at speak [as Chinese, q.v. immediately below]
 * Chinese: see translations at speak [as Chinese, per you, above, doesn't inflect by tense)
 * Hebrew: דברתי ; דברת ; דבר ; דברה ; דברנו ; דברתם ; דברתן ; דברו
 * Korean: 말했다 ; 말했느냐 ; [about fifteen others for the formal, etc.]
 * Latin: fabulābar

 * Romanian: zisei, spusei ; ziseşi, spuseşi ; zise, spuse ; ziserăm, spuserăm ; ziserăţi, spuserăţi ; ziseră, spuseră
 * Spanish: dije ; dijiste ; dijo ; dijimos ; dijisteis ; dijeron

OK. Based on your "one extra step is better than too much clutter" principle, I modified on the dev server and created some entries for the forms of "to talk" to demonstrate the potential for sharing a translation table between the inflected forms of an entry. in that environment now accepts some arguments to show the translations in different grammatical forms, based on  . In http://wiktionarydev.leuksman.com/index.php/talked, the shared translations are shown with  . Using a system like the one there, editors can choose to share translation tables among the various inflected forms of an English lexeme. Each use of in the translation table corresponds to a distinct foreign lexeme, but editors can choose to show inflected-form-specific versions of the foreign lexeme to match the grammatical properties of the English headword. In the examples there, I wrote the inflected translations as decir, but that could easily also be decir if the editor feels there is enough space in the table. Each of the links, though, goes to the main (lemma) foreign entry, which hopefully has the most complete information about the lexeme. What do you think? Rod (A. Smith) 02:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(Note: the colors there are crazy. Don't worry about that. Rod (A. Smith) 02:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

To address the MediaWiki transcluded section editing problems, I now have also changed on the dev server. As shown at talk and its various inflection entries, if a   argument is given,  shows an "[edit]" link in the main namespace that allows editors to edit the shared translation table. It also shows editors a notice in from the template namespace, explaining that the table is shared by inflections of the main entry. Hopefully that makes sense. If not, please send any comments/questions/suggestions my way. Rod (A. Smith) 23:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Have you seen http://wiktionarydev.leuksman.com/index.php/talks et al.? Rod (A. Smith) 03:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I glanced at it soon after you mentioned it here, saw it was complicated, and told myself I'll get back to it. I haven't done so yet. I still hope to. Sorry.—msh210 ℠ 17:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


text:
Talk:נשים

נשים
Are you sure about this? I really could have sworn the construct form was nashot — there's a dorm on the Technion campus that's dedicated to nashot kakh-v'kakh, and an episode of one of the Law and Order series mentioned the phrase nashot khayil as meaning "women of valor" (so, apparently the plural of eshet khayil). —Ruakh TALK 02:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Just my two cents, I thought that both were valid -- nashot being used far more often than nashim, but still. --75.28.22.235 02:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Oddly, the form given there is neither nashot nor nashim … —Ruakh TALK 03:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

 * See and  (where the "intitle" restrictions are to restrict to Hebrew texts (i.e., to exclude the Babylonian Talmud, etc.)). It seems very likely from those pages that n'she is the only form in older Hebrew.—msh210 ℠ 17:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Hmm. Perhaps all these parameters should support a value of, that would direct readers to the usage notes section? —Ruakh TALK 08:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Or allow multiple pl and cons parameters — e.g., pl and pl2, cons and cons2 — with an explanation parameter; so that pl=foo|plnote=jocular|pl2=bar|pl2note=archaic would yield (plural foo, bar ). Or does that make the templates just way too complicated?—msh210 ℠ 07:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Conceptually, that would be awesome. In practice, the code to do that well would make my head reel. Any simpler thoughts? :-P   (Alternatively, we could make Robert Ullmann do it for us, heh.) —Ruakh TALK 08:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

 * hmmm, think that would be at least a pint. Going to be in Nairobi soon? Need a precise specification. Note that doing it is easy, making in understandable to those who have to use it is not so easy. Robert Ullmann 22:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:נשים


text:
User talk:Msh210/Archive/Abbreviation header

Abbreviations
Are you still interested in abbreviations (or do I have you confused with someone else)? You were unhappy User_talk:DCDuring/2007 with the abbreviation-type PoS headers, a sentiment I share. Let me know your level of interest, current thoughts, etc. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was never "interested in abbreviations" more than in other entries. I was merely opinion-holding about their headers. And, yes, I still am: I still think, as I did when I wrote you, that the Abbreviation header (or similar) should not be used when another is good. Why do you ask?—msh210 ℠ 17:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I had been working on Ullman's list of notcounted entries and a lot of them were abreviations. I had just been putting wikilinks in to get them counted, but noticed how defective they were as entries: no differentiation by language (many are Translingual) or by PoS, headings not consistent, etc. I am loath to go too far in working them over without someone else who is "intested" and provides either support, constructive criticism, or at least another view. It does seem to be an area that should be rationalized a bit and the PoS idea is certainly important to that. But there are other projects that have my interest, too, like working over the 130,000-article WikiSpecies database for new entries, getting Translingual templates, and exterminating English-language transitive/intransitive verb headers (of which low hundreds still remain despite the category being empty). DCDuring TALK 22:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * When I add abbreviation entries, I put in a proper POS header, if applicable. But I'm loath to change existing headers, especially en masse, inasmuch as I think people disagree with us regarding the use of Abbreviation and the like as headers.—msh210 ℠ 16:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should ask for a run of those entries that are in both the abbreviation category and a non-noun/prop noun PoS category and collect such instances. That would at least provide evidence for the case for change. I wonder if there is any good material on such concerns in any reference or text book for lexicographers. DCDuring TALK 17:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence.—msh210 ℠ 17:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I took your point about the lack of support at the moment for any change in the use of the Abbreviation templates in lieu of real PoS headers. I thought that evidence that there actually was a problem that could not be swept under the rug would be useful in changing people's minds. I believe that many editors believe that almost all abbreviations are nouns (including proper nouns). Having evidence that there were, say, 200 abbreviations that had other PoSs might be useful. I don't want to locate and record cases myself. Some of your work and possibly the work of others might be captured by processing the XML dump. QED. OTOH, how many do you think you have identified and so marked so far in your efforts. My own contribution to date is certainly fewer than 10 entries. Perhaps some of the IM/Internet abbreviations are a good place to look for more. DCDuring TALK 19:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure how many I've done, but adverbs that come to mind are AFAIK, AFAICT, IOW, OTOH, and IINM; verbs, ITYM, ICQ, IM, and ROFL; and other non-nouns, IANAL and LOL. Those are just the Internet-based abbreviations. A dump might not be useful, because many of the relevant entries will not be listed as verbs (etc.) at all. (If what we're looking for is merely intersection of categories, we can use CategoryIntersect, anyway.)—msh210 ℠ 19:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


text: clam shrimps

title: clam shrimps


text:
clam worm

Noun

 * 1) A polychete worm,.

Translations

 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Finnish: Alitta succinea -lajin nivelmato
 * French:

title: clam worm


text: clam worms

title: clam worms


text:
näkyleipä

Noun

 * 1)  showbread

title: näkyleipä


text:
näköaisti

Noun

 * 1) vision, visual perception

title: näköaisti


text:
moucheron

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) gnat, midge
 * 2)  kid, nipper

title: moucheron


text:
näköaivokuori

Noun

 * 1)  visual cortex

title: näköaivokuori


text:
näköharha

Noun

 * 1) optical illusion; mirage, hallucination

title: näköharha


text:
näköhermo

Noun

 * 1)  optic nerve

title: näköhermo


text:
näkömuisti

Noun

 * 1) visual memory

title: näkömuisti


text:
näköyhteys

Noun

 * 1) visual contact

title: näköyhteys


text:
nälkälakko

Noun

 * 1) hunger strike

title: nälkälakko


text:
nälännäkö

Noun

 * 1) starvation

title: nälännäkö


text:
närkästyä

Verb

 * 1)  to become offended, to get huffy, to be in a pique

title: närkästyä


text:
närkästyttää

Verb

 * 1) to offend someone

title: närkästyttää


text:
näsäviisas

Adjective

 * 1) cheeky, smartass

title: näsäviisas


text:
rikkiviisas

Adjective

 * 1) cheeky, smartass, pedantic

title: rikkiviisas


text:
viisastelija

Noun

 * 1) smartass, wiseguy
 * 2) pedant

title: viisastelija


text:
прости

Verb

 * 1)  to excuse, forgive, pardon

Interjection

 * 1) sorry
 * 2) excuse me

title: прости


text:
näyteikkuna

Noun

 * 1) shop window, show window, display window
 * 2) showcase, show window

title: näyteikkuna


text:
näytäntökausi

Noun

 * 1)  season

title: näytäntökausi


text:
näännyttää

Verb

 * 1)  to exhaust to deprive wholly of strength, to weary or tire out
 * 2)  to starve to deprive of nourishment

Related terms

 * nouns:
 * verbs:
 * adverbs: ,

title: näännyttää


text:
näytönohjain

Noun

 * 1)  graphics card, video card
 * 2)  graphics processing unit

title: näytönohjain


text:
näyttöruutu

Noun

 * 1) screen of a computer etc.

title: näyttöruutu


text:
nälkiinnyttää

Verb

 * 1)  to starve someone

title: nälkiinnyttää


text:
nössö

Etymology
Possibly from.

Noun

 * 1) wimp, sissy

title: nössö


text:
nöyrryttää

Verb

 * 1)  to humble

title: nöyrryttää


text:
nöyrtyä

Verb

 * 1)  To humble oneself.

title: nöyrtyä


text:
nöyryytys

Noun

 * 1) humiliation

title: nöyryytys


text:
nöyhtäinen

Adjective

 * 1) fluffy

title: nöyhtäinen


text:
nöyhtäytyä

Etymology
From.

title: nöyhtäytyä


text:
nöyhtääntyä

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to become fluffy, to become like or filled with fluff

title: nöyhtääntyä


text:
nöyristellä

Verb

 * 1)  To fawn, truckle.

title: nöyristellä


text:
deklinacja

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  declension
 * 2)  declension
 * 3)  magnetic declination
 * 1)  magnetic declination
 * 1)  magnetic declination

title: deklinacja


text:
nöyristely

Noun

 * 1) fawning, truckling

title: nöyristely


text:
nöyrtyminen

Noun

 * 1) submission
 * 1) submission

title: nöyrtyminen


text:
nöyrtymys

Noun

 * 1) submission

title: nöyrtymys


text:
neuvokas

Adjective

 * 1) resourceful, inventive, crafty

title: neuvokas


text:
neuvokkuus

Noun

 * 1) resourcefulness

title: neuvokkuus


text:
koniugacja

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  conjugation
 * 2)  conjugation
 * 3)  conjugation

title: koniugacja


text:
neuvola

Etymology
. Probably.

Noun

 * 1) child health clinic

title: neuvola


text:
neuvonta

Noun

 * 1) advice, counseling
 * 2) help desk

title: neuvonta


text:
neuvottomuus

Noun

 * 1) helplessness

title: neuvottomuus


text:
neuvostoarmeija

Etymology
From 🇰🇲.

Noun

 * 1) the Soviet army

title: neuvostoarmeija


text:
neuroottistua

Verb

 * 1)  to become neurotic

title: neuroottistua


text:
neurokirurgi

Noun

 * 1) neurosurgeon

title: neurokirurgi


text:
nenä-äänne

Noun

 * 1)  nasal

title: nenä-äänne


text:
nenänvarsi

Noun

 * 1)  bridge of the nose

title: nenänvarsi


text:
pacjent

Etymology
, from. See 🇨🇬 for more.

Noun

 * 1) patient

title: pacjent


text:
pacjentka

Etymology
From.

title: pacjentka


text:
nenäverenvuoto

Noun

 * 1) nosebleed, nasal bleeding

title: nenäverenvuoto


text:
nenäkkyys

Noun

 * 1) cheekiness

title: nenäkkyys


text:
nenäkkäästi

Adverb

 * 1) saucily, cheekily

title: nenäkkäästi


text:
nettisivu

Noun

 * 1)  web site

title: nettisivu


text:
civils

Noun

 * 1)  civil engineering

Usage notes
The word is normally plural in construction, and is mostly used in relation to the infrastructure of transport networks and projects, particularly the maintenance of existing structures or the design and construction of new projects.

Noun

 * 1) civilian person

title: civils


text:
przepiękny

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) very beautiful, gorgeous

title: przepiękny


text:
przeogromny

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) very large, immense

title: przeogromny


text:
skorokoro

Adjective

 * 1) Worn and ragged beyond its years, usually used to describe a vehicle.

title: skorokoro


text:
porsą

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1) piglet

title: porsą


text:
hyytää

Etymology
. Compare 🇨🇬.

Verb

 * 1)  To freeze.

title: hyytää


text:
staropolski

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) old Polish
 * 2)  Old Polish

title: staropolski


text:
entää

Etymology
From, probably borrowed from (compare 🇨🇬).

Verb

 * 1) to fly to move in air or quickly

title: entää


text:
uncomplicate

Verb

 * 1)  To remove complications from.

Synonyms

 * See simplify § Synonyms

Antonyms

 * complicate

title: uncomplicate


text:
lintuharrastus

Noun

 * 1) birdwatching

title: lintuharrastus


text:
staropolszczyzna

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) Old Polish

title: staropolszczyzna