text:
Wiktionary talk:Translations/If present, what foreign word articles should contain

 * from Wiktionary talk:Translations Rod (A. Smith) 21:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

--Richardb 05:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC) I was told it is policy to give translations only for non-English words, not proper definitions as English words get them, and to give English translations only for non-English words. I would like to know if that's true (Paul G and SemperBlotto claim so), and if it is, for what reasons this decision was made. I can't understand these rules, strongly oppose them, and want to see them discarded as soon as possible. Ncik 04 May 05
 * The truth is, that, until very recently, there were no writen or publicised policies/ standars / conventions etc at all, of any type, in Wiktionary. Only a few people who believed they had great insight and just knew what the policy should be! Please support the fledgling Policy Development process.--Richardb 05:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I think that requires a degree of discretion. If the word doesn't translate exactly to an English word, give it a rough definition and then link to similar English words (I've seen that in a Translations section a number of times). If there is more than one sense, but each sense corresponds to an English word, then link to those instead of a definition. I'm not one to give advice on this, really, but in some ways I see it as common sense. I think the rationale behind the decision is that all foreign words should be linked to at least one English word somewhere, and writing a definition for a word that is exactly the same as one for an English word is just unnecessary, and the English word should be favoured. Am I completely wrong here? --Wytukaze 19:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with User:Wytukaze, User:Paul G and User:SemperBlotto. In general foreign words should provide wikified translation(s) rather than a full definition. I also agree that there should be a measure of lattitude for words that do not translate easily or have no ready English equivalent. I would guess that this is pretty much the consensus opinion on the topic. Kevin Rector 20:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

 *  Wow. I don't know when this decision got made, but it's clearly in opposition to everything I've done since joining the Wiktionary.  If the word is a clear cognate, it makes sense to link it to the English equivalent without adding much more, but for the bulk of most languages, we are providing an extremely limited service if we only link to translations of the word rather than providing full definitions.  Or, to put it another way, it's extremely rare that words have a ready English equivalent, even for English's closest linguistic cousins (e.g., German), and the ones that seem similar to English words especially merit attention to the differences, since the possibility of confusion is so much greater.
 * I would like to see this discussion escalated to a policy decision asap, since if it falls against my favor, then we should probably remove a good portion of my contributions.

 * The relevant history seems to be at Multilingual coordination. --Connel MacKenzie 23:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

 * In the Ultimate Wikionay ALL words will be welcome, never mind if they have a translation to any other language or not. There will be ample room to provide an English/any other language definitions of the word, but it will not require a translation to ANY language. GerardM 00:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

 *  Connel, I'm not seeing this relevant history. All I see is a list of Wiktionaries, some discussion of interwiki coordination, and some discussion of language namespaces (which I wish we were using.  I don't see the value in our current level-2 header arrangement).

 * Jun-Dai, I was responding to Ncik's question as to whether it is true or not (that foreign word should be entered only as translations: answer is yes) and the history surrounding it being in that page's history, the discussion in it's discussion page, etc. On that page, is the sentence "Each language has its own Wiktionary project, which includes translations to and from that language, and descriptions in that language" followed by a grammatically incorrect explanation (that next sentence's grammar perhaps the victim of edit wars over this point of debate?)  So, according to that sentence, we shouldn't have foreign word entries at all!  A little further down however, it describes the interwiki links (which require identical spelling of article titles, to cross wikis) therefore the reason why we do need entries for the foreign spelling of words.  --Connel MacKenzie 02:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

 *  Yeah, I did notice that pair of sentences. My interpretation of it, however, is greatly different from yours (despite my reading it several times).  It seems clear to me that the two sentences mandate that we have foreign word entries: frei-tr->free and free-tr->frei both belong in the English Wiktionary it says (as well as the German one).  This means that we need frei and free here, each pointing to the other.  What the two sentences do not make clear is that we need provide simple translations.  More importantly, the term translation is used somewhat ambiguously--even casually--and I get the strong impression that it does not stand in the way of providing a detailed explanation of the term frei in English, which could not happen without mention of the English word free by means of translation.
 * I would like to see whose sentences rewritten for clarity,. What I see the Wiktionary as, with regard to foreign words, is a source for seeing simple translations of English words into foreign languages (via translation tables, or better yet, translation subpages), and even more importantly a source for seeing explanations of foreign words in English--translations, yes, but also definitions, explanations, examples, and comments on usage.  Whether this is the vision that everyone else here has or not, one thing is clear to me: if we mold the Wiktionary as a resource of this kind, we have the potential to provide a valuable resource that simply cannot be found elsewhere.  If we limit ourselves to simple translations, then we are nothing more than a free, but fairly limited version of a poor-quality foreign-language dictionary (the good ones provide small definitions and example usages).  What the hell are we here for?  Let's provide as much usable information on each foreign term as we can, in concise, hierarchical, and digestible formats, so that someone looking up a foreign term will have as clear an idea of its usage as any non-human resource can provide.
 * As I wrote at User talk:Jérôme, Wiktionary isn't excused the need for definitions, usage notes, quotations, pronunciations, etymologies, synonyms, antonyms, homophones, inflections, references, derived and related words, and whatnot simply because a word isn't English. Uncle G 14:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Here some reasons Paul G posted on my talk page about why the current policy should be kept to which I would like to respond as follows:
 * (1) It is stated on the main page that this is the English Wiktionary and definitions of foreign words are not given here.
 * Where???? You do mean the Main page, don't you?
 * (2) This is long-established policy.
 * I don't see a problem with abolishing long established polcies.
 * (3) Other Wiktionaries give meanings but in their own languages. The English Wiktionary tells you that rouge is French for "red" (among other things) but you can only determine this from the French dictionary if you understand French.
 * I don't understand what you are trying to tell me with these two sentences.
 * (4) Giving non-English translations of non-English words opens up the way to a slew of inconsistency and inaccuracy. For example, red might list translations for French, Italian and Spanish, while rouge lists translations for English and German, and perhaps gets Italian wrong. This Italian translation is then copied to the German page, which also lists Polish and Russian.
 * Who has been suggesting non-English translations of non-English words? —Muke Tever 01:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Having wrong translations is not a problem that only affects non-English entries.
 * How am I to know that to get the Russian translation I have to go to the German page?
 * You don't know. But that way at least there is a chance you stumble over the Russian translation which otherwise wouldn't be anywhere at all.
 * Further, when a new translation is added, it must be added to (potentially) dozens of other pages.
 * Replace "must" with "should" and I agree.
 * When the Italian translation is discovered to be wrong, dozens of pages have to be checked. This is the single biggest reason for not giving translations other than English ones in non-English entries.
 * Copying and pasting translations (and other stuff) between different languages should be avoided if the person doing so doesn't know the languages he is copying to to a certain degree. This problem also exists within a language: E.g. when a user adds a wrong definition for a word and then, in analogy, gives similarly flawed definitions on the pages of morphologically derived words. So it's not that a new problem would be created if we changed the policy. We should simply discourage users to modify/create information involving a language they don't understand.
 * (5) By the same token, if definitions are included instead of translations, and a definition is added or amended on an English page, it will need to be added or updated on dozens of other pages too. More scope for inconsistency and inaccuracy, and the whole project becomes a nightmare to maintain.
 * I don't see the problem here (I have the suspicion I don't quite understand what you want to say). Since we don't link words to the meaning(s) (i.e. definitions) they have in that particular context but always to the whole page, changes there (i.e. on the page of the English word) wouldn't invalidate a link elsewhere.
 * One of Wiktionary's primary goals must be accuracy and consistency, and the current policy helps work towards this.
 * The current rules prevent accuracy since they only allow translations where proper definitions are needed.
 * Apart from that, I agree with Jun-Dai's, well articulated arguments. Ncik 05 May 2005

 * IMHO both a translation (if there is one) and a short definition should be given. (I'm doing this on la: when I can.) Especially since most words have more than one sense, and they don't always map equally: If all you do is say that Latin panis translates to 'bread', it doesn't tell you whether that can mean 'bread' in the sense of food generally (it can) or in the sense of 'money' (it can't).  Look in any substantial bilingual dictionary: in many, many entries you are given the translation, and some disambiguating term, e.g. my en-ru dictionary has: under examination: "(inspection) осмотр; (exam) экзамен; (law) допрос" —and since Wiki Is Not Paper why can't we do better than that?—Muke Tever 01:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I wonder if this debate is an example of people talking past each other? I'm not sure. Anyway, I think we have to get past the idea of a tranlation being a single link to a single word. When the translation is ambiguous of course there needs to be the latitude to describe as accurately as possible what the word means in English (I don't think anyone is disputing this). So the entry for panis should note that it means bread in the sense of food, not in the sense of money. If the word bread is ambiguous to me then I can go look it up by following the link provided. However, there is no reason for panis to say "Baked dough made from cereals" when it can say "bread; as in food".
 * Well what I meant was that panis is both "bread" as in "baked dough made from cereals" and metaphorically "food" generally, just like "bread" (e.g. "our daily bread" = "panis noster cotidianus"). To take a harder example, English rod is basically Latin virgula -- but definining virgula as "rod" doesn't tell us anything about what kinds of rods "virgula" is used to refer to... (lightning rods?  shepherd's rod? rods and cones in the eyes? Aaron's rod? membrum virile?) or whether 'virgula' has the same sense of a rod being used for disciplinary purposes (As in English "spare the rod, spoil the child").
 * Take a word with a metric buttload of English senses, like "set", then a word that translates as "set" in another language: a lot of the senses may transfer over, but likely a lot won't, and a lot will have different pragmatic uses, connotations, or whatnot... —Muke Tever 22:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * There's conflation of translation tables (WT:ELE) and definitions (WT:ELE) in this discussion. An entry for a non-English word should certainly fully explain the meaning(s) of the word, in its definitions section, and not be restricted to a one-word definition, for the reasons given by Muke.  This is what paper dictionaries do.  An (abbreviated!) example from Collins French-English Anglais-Français (1969):"falloir v imp — to be necessary, must, need, take, require; vr s'en — to be lacking, be far from; il lui faut un voiture he needs a car; il m'a fallu une heure pour la faire [... and so on...]"Wiktionary should certainly do no less than they.  Whether articles for non-English words should have translation tables is a different thing, and the two issues should not be conflated. Uncle G 14:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

 There definitely agrees to be a degree of people talking past one another here. That said, I think the real debate is whether non-English entries should have as full an entry as normal English entries. I get the sense that some here (Wytukaze, Kevin Rector) feel they should be kept as short as possible, while others--including Ncik, myself, and Uncle G feel that foreign words should have as full a definition as an English word, excepting the existence of a translation table. I'm not sure where Connel and Muke stand in this debate. The main argument for not having a translation table on non-English entries (I don't think anyone's arguing this point, but I'll say it anyways) is that the English Wiktionary is not in the business of providing German->French translations--Everything we do should either be coming from English or coming into English.

One thing Connel has made quite clear is that our policy pages are extremely unclear and inconsistent on this topic. I suggest that those of us that are inclined to do so start proposing changes to the policy pages so that we can clean them up. They are, after all, left over from much older phases of the Wiktionary when it was much less clear what the Wiktionary was going to be, so much of it should be pretty easily cleaned up, as we have pretty much decided as a consensus to at least include non-English entries, translation tables on English entries to non-English entries, etc. While we are doing this, maybe we can come to some agreement on how non-English pages should word. I've defined some policy for Japanese entries, in specific, and it would be nice if we could do the same for other languages. More than this, however, we just need more entries added - the odds of any common Japanese word being in the Wiktionary are probably less that 1 in 100. For English it's more like 2 in 3 (I'm making these numbers up, by the way).

 * If I made that clear, it was not my intent! :-)  I would like to thank Uncle G for clearing up my misconception on this topic - I was very much mired in that confusion.  I was under the impression that foreign terms' definitions were to be kept bare minimum, just as the standing convention, without understanding why.  With Uncle G's explanation (light bulb ==> on), I now get it.  Even Ncik's inflamatory opening statement now no longer seems inflamatory, only a matter of misinformation (to him) and confusion.  But still, I think a terribly verbose foreign definition is not a good idea - it should be only enough to link to an English word's particular meaning.  (That said, I'm not likely to slash-and-burn a foreign language definition...knock yourself out if ya wanna.)  Jun-Dai, did you just volunteer to rewrite that infamous paragraph (posted here for discussion first) in WT:ELE Multilingual coordination ?  :-)  --Connel MacKenzie 07:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

 * My two cents:-
 * things that should be included in a non-English word - Language, Part of speech, Pronunciation, Etymology (if different from an identically spelled English word of the same meaning), Translation (or brief description if no such English concept), Plurals and Conjugations etc, Related or Derived terms in the same language
 * things that should not be included - Translation tables, Definitions copied from (or of similar length) to the English equivalent

SemperBlotto 07:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Translation (or brief description if no such English concept). . .
 * This is the part that really confuses me. Very few foreign words "accurately" translate into English.  There's rarely an equivalent English word to compare the meaning to.  Even a fairly close word to English, like the Japanese デパート (pronounced "depāto"), which roughly means "department store" (the word from which it was borrowed), has enough of a different meaning in Japanese to merit an explanation of its own.  If, for example, you link the German frei to English free and leave it at that, you are doing a disservice to the reader to ignore the fact that the German word can mean things that you cannot appropriately translate to free in English (frei nach Goethe, for instance, refers to a passage that was borrowed from Goethe).  Additionally, there are bound to be numerous circumstances where you might use free in English, but frei would not be appropriate in German.  Rather than being the exceptions, these cases are the rule; the exceptions--being those cases where the word pretty much maps to an English word, or a couple of English words--are going to be very few in number, if indeed they exist at all.
 * Ultimately, I'm not sure what a "translation" entails, but if it is at all different from simply providing a full definition of the term in English, then I'm against it.

 * I often add a gloss to translations, so panis would read "bread (baked dough)" to make it clear that it applies to this meaning only. I think this is sufficient.

 * To reply to Ncik's reply to my comments on his page, which I have just seen here:

 * (1) It is stated on the main page that this is the English Wiktionary and definitions of foreign words are not given here.
 * Where???? You do mean the Main page, don't you?
 * Yes; I'm referring to this paragraph: "This is the English Wiktionary: it aims to describe all words of all languages, with definitions and descriptions in English only. For example, see frei (a German word). In order to find a German definition of that word, you would visit the equivalent page in the German Wiktionary (http://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/frei)." I agree that this does not reflect my point.
 * (2) This is long-established policy.
 * I don't see a problem with abolishing long established polcies.
 * True, "we've always done it this way" is not, in itself, a reason for keeping a policy.
 * (3) Other Wiktionaries give meanings but in their own languages. The English Wiktionary tells you that rouge is French for "red" (among other things) but you can only determine this from the French dictionary if you understand French.
 * I don't understand what you are trying to tell me with these two sentences.
 * If you want to know what "rouge" means and look it up in the French Wiktionary, you will get a definition written in French, which will make sense only if you understand French. The English Wiktionary tells you, in English, that it means "red".
 * (4) Giving non-English translations of non-English words opens up the way to a slew of inconsistency and inaccuracy. For example, red might list translations for French, Italian and Spanish, while rouge lists translations for English and German, and perhaps gets Italian wrong. This Italian translation is then copied to the German page, which also lists Polish and Russian.
 * Who has been suggesting non-English translations of non-English words? —Muke Tever 01:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * There are many pages here with non-English entries that translate the entry into multiple languages rather than just giving the English translation. The Esperanto page "vorto" was one such example (which has since been reduced to the English translations only - see the page history for the earlier version).
 * Having wrong translations is not a problem that only affects non-English entries.
 * How am I to know that to get the Russian translation I have to go to the German page?
 * You don't know. But that way at least there is a chance you stumble over the Russian translation which otherwise wouldn't be anywhere at all.
 * So it's better to have the translations all in the one place where people will think to look for them, namely the English entry.
 * Further, when a new translation is added, it must be added to (potentially) dozens of other pages.
 * Replace "must" with "should" and I agree.
 * When the Italian translation is discovered to be wrong, dozens of pages have to be checked. This is the single biggest reason for not giving translations other than English ones in non-English entries.
 * Copying and pasting translations (and other stuff) between different languages should be avoided if the person doing so doesn't know the languages he is copying to to a certain degree. This problem also exists within a language: E.g. when a user adds a wrong definition for a word and then, in analogy, gives similarly flawed definitions on the pages of morphologically derived words. So it's not that a new problem would be created if we changed the policy. We should simply discourage users to modify/create information involving a language they don't understand.
 * I disagree. I think people would go around copying and pasting if we were to change the policy, and then we would end up with an unworkable mess.
 * (5) By the same token, if definitions are included instead of translations, and a definition is added or amended on an English page, it will need to be added or updated on dozens of other pages too. More scope for inconsistency and inaccuracy, and the whole project becomes a nightmare to maintain.
 * I don't see the problem here (I have the suspicion I don't quite understand what you want to say). Since we don't link words to the meaning(s) (i.e. definitions) they have in that particular context but always to the whole page, changes there (i.e. on the page of the English word) wouldn't invalidate a link elsewhere.
 * The problem is twofold: unnecessary duplication of effort; and scope for inconsistency.
 * One of Wiktionary's primary goals must be accuracy and consistency, and the current policy helps work towards this.
 * The current rules prevent accuracy since they only allow translations where proper definitions are needed.
 * So include a gloss, as I mention above ("panis - bread (baked dough)"). This resolves this problem.
 * Apart from that, I agree with Jun-Dai's, well articulated arguments. Ncik 05 May 2005

 * I also support Ncik in agreeing with Jun-Dai's arguments :-) Sergio.ballestrero 09:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


text:
Wiktionary talk:Translations/Hiding translations

 * from Wiktionary talk:Translations Rod (A. Smith) 21:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

<130.120.105.237 16:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)>There exist a great many languages in the world. Any user is not interest in most of them. If every meaning of a word has to be translated in, say, 200 languages, the entry would become unreadable. I suggest you think of a means to hide all translations except user chose ones.

 * This could be very nice in my opinion, if it could be implemented. --Zinon
 * Agreed. I was going to write something along the same lines with regard to some sort of template for translations. The code is unreadable as well. Davilla 09:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes! Please! Russian is a perfect example of why this (or a complete rethinking of the layout for translations) is a great idea! 90% of the page is translations -- and I was just looking for a simple definition. Ewlyahoocom 12:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The template has just been coded. Syntax is as follows:

 * This yields the pleasing result of:

 * French: cacher les traductions
 * Japanese: 訳語を隠す yakugo o kakusu

 * Korean: 역어를 잠추기 yŏgŏ rul jamch'ugi
 * Portuguese: esconder as traduções

 * See the entry book for a more detailed example.
 * I will put a note on the main page to always use this template for entries with more than ten translations, and to consider using it for all translations.--Aaronsama 13:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

We already have a set of three templates that do the job. , and. SemperBlotto 13:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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


text:
kuvaaja

Noun

 * 1) photographer
 * 2) cinematographer, cameraman
 * 3)  graph, diagram, plot

Related terms

 * adjectives:
 * nouns:, , , ,
 * verbs:, frequentative , ,

title: kuvaaja


text:
kurkkia

Etymology

 * probably from the same root as, if the semantic development was "to poke (one's head) out" → "to peek".

Verb

 * 1) to peek, peep

title: kurkkia


text:
Wiktionary talk:Translations/Usage Notes

 * from Wiktionary talk:Translations Rod (A. Smith) 21:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

 I have peripherally argued this point before: I think that pretty much every foreign term should have a usage note. It is not enough to provide a definition; we should also provide an understanding of how a term is used and in what contexts, etc. (would it be okay to use this term in front of your friend's parents? when addressing a teacher? will it make you seem bookish? is it really popular right now? is it common?). This isn't to say that everyone starting an article should feel obliged to try and add one, but we should encourage their addition in general.

 * Wouldn't it be more efficient if you include this in the entry of the relevant Wiktionary? If not, one will add usage notes for, say, a French word. In Spanish Wiktionary, they may need to add the same usage note. In Russian Wiktionary too. Etc..

 * To my mind, usage notes should be welcome, in the concerned language and in English, in the word's language Wiktionary.

 I'm not so concerned about how this is handled in other Wiktionaries, but these usage notes should only be in English. A Spanish word entry in the English Wiktionary deserves an explanation in English of the usage of that word. Thus there would be no overlap, except in meaning, between the Wiktionaries, and that overlap is the same for all multilingual wiki projects (en.wikipedia has and should have much of the same information as, say, it.wikipedia, but in a different language)
 * I agree with this. The English Wiktionary is primarily for an English audience.  Explaining usages in the language of the word will be completely meaningless.  Similarly a person who looks up English words in the Spanish Wiktionary will want the explanation there to be in Spanish. Eclecticology 21:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wiktionary talk:Translations/Link to a PART of a foreign Wiktionary article

 * from Wiktionary talk:Translations Rod (A. Smith) 21:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

<130.120.105.237 16:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)>I'm a new foreign user, and I'm not sure this is the right place to ask questions, but I couldn't find any more appropriate place.

 * 1) How to make a link to a foreign Wiktionary entry ?

 * 2) It's frequent that an English word has several translations, according to circumstances, in another language. But each of these foreign words may also have different translations in English.

For instance, "to weigh" is usually translated by "peser" in French, but "to weigh anchor" is "lever l'ancre". "Lever" is to be translated in English usually as "to lift", but "lever la séance" is "to close the meeting", and "lever" is also a French noun: "un lever de soleil" is "a sunrise". In Cambridge Klett COMPACT dictionary, there are not less than 9 completely different English translations for "lever", plus some for "se lever" (and 6 different translation of "peser").

Of course, they may also be different translations of "lever" into many other languages than English, which will make "lever" entry very long.

What about the translations of "to do" and "faire" ? Have a look here: Translations of "to do" into French in a compact dictionary. When translating "to weigh anchor", I'd like to point to the relevant meaning in the should-be long "lever" article, not to refer the whole article.

How to refer a part of an article in Wiktionary ?

 * Of course you've chosen some of the most difficult words to translate. This is one big problem with machine translations.  You can't translate "I am hot" literally to "Je suis chaud[e]", when the intention is to say "J'ai chaud."  English will use the same construction for both meanings, and an English speaking person will understand the different meanings from the context.  "Weigh anchor" is highly idiomatic, and thus requires special explanation.  From here lever would take you to that article in this Wiktionary.  To see the term on the French Wiktionary go to fr:lever  Eclecticology 21:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 This example is not exceptional at all. Just open an English->other language, and then other language->English serious dictionary, and see the proportion of words with more than 2 meanings and translations. Such words are the large majority.


text:
ironisoida

Verb

 * 1)  To ironize.

title: ironisoida


text:
inventoida

Etymology
(see 🇨🇬). Adapted with the verbal suffix.

Verb

 * 1)  To produce an inventory.

title: inventoida


text:
Wiktionary talk:Translations/Homographs

 * from Wiktionary talk:Translations Rod (A. Smith) 21:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

<130.120.105.237 16:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)>Moreover, there are mere homographs, which are not one word. There is hardly no chance they have the same translation in any language. Some of these words may be part of basic English, others may be rare. For instance, I saw 3 words "mean" in Wiktionary now. The first one is basic, and should be referenced as such, the second is rare (I had never met it before.). The whole entry category is "English words with multiple etymologies", which, to my mind, is not a very useful piece of information. What about 3 different entries, with links between them and a message like "Warning: 2 homographs of this word".

 * Wiktionary policy is to organize by written forms, with all forms written the same way on the same page, regardless of language, etymology, pronunciation, or meaning. There is no other sensible way to set up entries that will be logically searchable. --EncycloPetey 22:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

title: Wiktionary talk:Translations/Homographs


text:
Wiktionary talk:Translations/Policy policy

 * from Wiktionary talk:Translations Rod (A. Smith) 21:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

<130.120.105.237 16:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)>Foreign word policy should be decided whith all Wiktionaries, not only the English one. If both French and English Wiktionaries include the same information in English about the same French words, it'd be a loss of time. If none of the 2 include part of useful information, it'd be a pity.

It's unclear to me whether this is supposed to be a all-Wiktionary Think tank, or an English Wiktionary one.

 * I think it is quite safe to assume that people active on other wiktionaries will in general not see this page, or know of its existence. What we would need, then, is a page on meta where all interwiktionary issues can be adressed. \Mike 17:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 It might be nice to have some cross-language policies about certain stuff here, but there's no reason that the French Wiktionary should have English information (outside of _very_ basic translation) about French words. That's the job for the English Wiktionary. Likewise, the English Wiktionary has no business holding information in French about any words.


text:
Wiktionary talk:Translations/Multilingual Meta Policy

 * from Wiktionary talk:Translations Rod (A. Smith) 21:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

 I must say I pretty much agree with everything expressed with Jun-Dai in this Talk Page. In fact, I'm a user of the Spanish wikipedia and I have taken advantage of the lack of official policies there to create several translation pages. Let me explain my line of thinking taking the word weigh from above: This way, one of the key advantages that I perceive is that the bilingual Wiktionary pages (denoted by _(xx-yy)) can be linked between the xx: and yy: Wiktionaries without involving any third language, providing much better oportunity for a user knowing both languages to review/edit the information without getting lost in 3rd, 4th, nth languages.
 * IMHO, there should be an entry for this word (say weigh) with the definition in english only.
 * Then, a different entry like weigh_(en-fr) with all possible translations into french with detailed information for each word (pronunciation, part of speech, gender) and a note of usage when needed.
 * And last, another different entry like lever_(fr-en) with all possible translations into english and the same information as above.

I know if this ever bacame a policy would mean extensive work in this Wiktionary, but I believe that the advantages of this kind of system are worth the effort.


text:
quadrare

Etymology
From, or from.

Verb

 * 1)  to square
 * 2)  to square (a number)
 * 3)  to square
 * 4)  to tally or balance
 * 5)  to be exact
 * 6)  to inspire confidence (in); to convince
 * 7)  to work; to function; to make sense
 * 8)  to suit
 * 9)  to fit in
 * 1)  to inspire confidence (in); to convince
 * 2)  to work; to function; to make sense
 * 3)  to suit
 * 4)  to fit in
 * 1)  to work; to function; to make sense
 * 2)  to suit
 * 3)  to fit in
 * 1)  to suit
 * 2)  to fit in
 * 1)  to fit in

title: quadrare


text: quadrando

title: quadrando


text: quadrati

title: quadrati


text:
Wiktionary talk:Translations/"Translations to be checked" - a proposal

 * from Wiktionary talk:Translations Rod (A. Smith) 22:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The list of pages with translations that need to be checked is building up, and no doubt there are many, many more that need to be added.

User:Eclecticology posted to me wondering whether any of these translations ever are actually checked, and I wonder the same thing.

I would like to propose that we find contributors who are experts in (or very familiar with) each of the various languages and assign to them the translations that need to be checked in those languages. If we got a large enough team together, this work could be done relatively quickly and could be kept up to date, as those involved could check the list of pages from time to time to see what new pages had been recently added.

 * When definitions change substantially, when they are split and reworded, we cannot be sure which translation still applies. But in many cases I think we throw too much away. A minor clarification does not invalidate a translation.
 * Moreover, many of the definitions have not changed at all, yet we throw them into checktrans and our arms in the air. If this is really a problem, why not just go into the history? I hate tracking down changes on large pages—the software doesn't provide any easy way to do it—but the majority of pages have very few edits.

For starters, I'm prepared to take on French and Italian. At a push, I could do some of the other European languages too. I know there are people on here who specialise in some languages (such as Finnish) so it would be great if we could drum up a team that covered all of the languages that need to be checked.

Eclecticology proposes that translations not checked within 90 days of the page being added to the "checktrans" category be deleted. I'm in two minds about this - deleting unchecked translations would help keep Wiktionary accurate, but would result in possibly correct and hard-to-come-by information being lost.

So who else would be prepared to get involved with these suggestions?

— Paul G 10:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I can help with the Japanese.
 * —Sally Ku 12:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * And I'm ready to take a look at Swedish. \Mike 12:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I can comfortably do Tok Pisin and Ga, but those are somewhat rare, if I may be permitted to understate the fact. I could probably do a decent job of German and French, and, as with Paul G, if pushed, some of the other European languages (Dutch and Welsh come to mind), though I imagine there's better candidates out there. --Wytukaze 16:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Great, it's great to see people willing to contribute to this project. At the moment the list at Category:Check_translations stands at 264 entries, and by the time I have added the words on my user page, there will be almost 350.  No doubt there are hundreds more that could be added.

 * A few questions come to mind:

 * How can we monitor this to ensure which languages have been checked on which pages? Perhaps the people volunteering to do a particular language could take a copy of the list and then work through it, ticking items off as they check the languages (or if their language(s) don't require attention).

 * How can we track down other pages that have multiple senses where the translations are misaligned with the senses, or there are no translation tables at all? One way to find the latter is to search on Google in the wiktionary.org namespace for pages that don't contain the components of translation tables.  No doubt this would generate a very large number of hits.

 * How can we encourage people to prevent the list from becoming longer, that is, to add translation tables as senses are added? Ideally, there would be a script that would add a translation table whenever a new sense was added to a page, but I think we are still a long way off from that sort of automation. — Paul G 17:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm trying to create a script to parse the Wiktionaries. Like everything I do, it is taking a lot of time, but I guess I will get there sometime.. One thing that is a bit problemeatic with the translation tables is that is hard to make the link between the definitions and the tables. The clues given next to the tables are very clear for humans to interpret, but it will be extremeley hard to parse them with a program. Therefor I would like propose to add something to both the definiitons and the translations (and maybe also the synonyms). Something like, . It doesn't really matter what is in the html comment, as long as it is the same between a definition and a translation and as long as it is never changed afterwards. So if during cleanup the definitions are reordered, the labels should stick with their original definitions. It doesn't matter they aren´t ordered. Polyglot 22:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It's encouraging when a comment that I made draws our most co-operative into seeking a solution. Bravo!

 * What makes the corrections so difficult is that these translation lists to be checked cover so many different languages, and no one person is able to do them all. For individuals take responsibility to systematically go through the entries for specific languages will be a big help.  The difficulties that Polyglot raises have plagued us from the beginning.  I've even considered giving each definition a separate heading below the POS level.  This could allow derivative forms and translations to be allocated accordingly.  I'm not about to promote the idea yet because I can't convince myself that it will work.  Perhaps, Polyglot, you could do a test page to illustrate your idea. Eclecticology 06:26, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi folks,

I adapted total to illustrate what I mean by adding tags to synonyms and translations (and antonyms too of course). For the sake of demonstration, I first assigned labels and then decided the order of the two noun senses should be reversed. I makes more sense to me to first talk about the mathematical meaning and then the economical one. Anyway, it illustrates that the order of the letters inside the tags doesn't matter. If people feel like putting numbers or some random Chinese characters that's fine too, as long as there is a clear matching between the definition and the translation group. I must say that as far as scripting a bot goes, it would be easier to have the translations and the synonyms as subheadings in between the definitions themselves. For presenting to the user it would get really messy though. Especially when there are many translations. OK, now I'll go on hitting random pages to solve the capitalization and some other issues. I kind of feel guilty for the capitalization change since I started the last vote, so now I became a bit more active again to help clean up the mess. Polyglot 08:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It seems like a sound idea. (By the way, total needed a lot of cleaning up.)  If these are to be added by a bot, then great.  I think adding them by hand would be tedious and most people would not see the point in doing it. — Paul G 16:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


text: quadrata

title: quadrata


text:
Wiktionary talk:Translations/Translation of meanings is misleading

 * from Wiktionary talk:Translations Rod (A. Smith) 22:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Just as an example, total is translated as amount -> totale and sum -> somma, when instead totale is actually a better translation for total (sum). In the other way round, total(amount) should have been translated totale, ammontare. And I am seeing this in quite a few translations. So, I think that the policy should clarify that the translation should be of the starting word in that particular meaning, not of the words used to define the specific meaning. Maybe also the way meanings are indicated should be changed, as they have apparently misled many translators. Sergio.ballestrero 09:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


text:
quadrate

Etymology 1
From, , from , past participle of , from , later , from.

Adjective

 * 1) Having four equal sides, the opposite sides parallel, and four right angles; square.
 * 2) Produced by multiplying a number by itself; square.
 * 3) * 1646-72, Sir Thomas Browne, Pseudodoxia Epidemica, book 4, ch. 12:
 * The number of Ten hath been as highly extolled, as containing even, odd, long, plain, quadrate and cubical numbers.
 * 1)  Square; even; balanced; equal; exact.
 * 2)  Squared; suited; correspondent.
 * 1)  Squared; suited; correspondent.
 * 1)  Squared; suited; correspondent.

Etymology 2
From, , from. ; compare also.

Noun

 * 1)  A plane surface with four equal sides and four right angles; a square; hence, figuratively, anything having the outline of a square.
 * 2)  An aspect of the heavenly bodies in which they are distant from each other 90°, or the quarter of a circle; quartile.
 * 3)  The quadrate bone.
 * 1)  The quadrate bone.
 * 1)  The quadrate bone.

Etymology 3
From, past participle of.

Verb

 * 1)  To adjust (a gun) on its carriage.
 * 2)  To train (a gun) for horizontal firing.
 * 3)  To square.
 * quadrating the circle
 * 1)  To square; to agree; to suit; to correspond (with).
 * not quadrating with American ideas of right, justice and reason

Etymology
From, from , from.

Adverb

 * 1) fourfold, four times

title: quadrate


text:
irregular galaxy

Noun

 * 1)  A galaxy which is has no spirals and is not elliptical.
 * The Magellanic Clouds are irregular galaxies.

Synonyms

 * IrG, Irr

Hypernyms

 * galaxy

Translations

 * Arabic: مَجَرَة غَيْر مُنْتَظِمَة
 * Egyptian Arabic: مجرة غير منتظمة
 * Catalan: galàxia irregular
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin: 不規則星系
 * Dutch: onregelmatig sterrenstelsel
 * Esperanto: malregula galaksio
 * Finnish: epäsäännöllinen galaksi
 * French: galaxie irrégulière
 * German: Irreguläre Galaxie
 * Indonesian: galaksi tak beraturan
 * Italian: galassia irregolare
 * Japanese:
 * Korean: 불규칙은하(不規則銀河)
 * Malay: galaksi tak nalar
 * Spanish: galaxia irregular
 * Thai: ดาราจักรไร้รูปแบบ
 * Vietnamese: thiên hà vô định hình

title: irregular galaxy


text:
miss out

Verb

 * 1) To miss an experience or lose an opportunity, etc. that should not be missed.
 * 2) * 2006 Feb. 17, Graham Linehan, , Season 1, Episode 4:
 * Oh my good gracious me, look at that. Whoa! Quick! What is it? I can't explain it. You're just going to have to come over here and look out this window for a while. Whatever it is, we're not interested. Well. I have to say you're missing out.
 * 1)  To leave out, to omit.
 * 2) * 2010 November 8, Meanwhile, in the TARDIS... (mini-episodes included in the fifth season of ):
 * DOCTOR (as the TARDIS is showing pictures of his previous companions): Miss out the metal dog, why don't you?
 * 1)  To leave out, to omit.
 * 2) * 2010 November 8, Meanwhile, in the TARDIS... (mini-episodes included in the fifth season of ):
 * DOCTOR (as the TARDIS is showing pictures of his previous companions): Miss out the metal dog, why don't you?

Synonyms

 * , ; see also Thesaurus:omit

Derived terms

 * fear of missing out

Translations

 * Arabic:
 * Catalan: ,
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:, ,
 * Danish: gå glip af
 * Finnish: jäädä paitsi,
 * French:, , ,
 * Galician: desaproveitar,, desperdiciar
 * German:
 * Hungarian:, , ,
 * Italian:
 * Japanese:
 * Korean:
 * Polish: ,
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian: ,
 * Slovak: zmeškať, zmeškávať
 * Spanish:
 * Swedish:
 * Turkish:

 * German:

 * German:

title: miss out


text:
qualificare

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to judge
 * 2)  to define, describe
 * 3)  to qualify

title: qualificare


text: qualificando

title: qualificando


text: Category:hi:Hindu deities

title: Category:hi:Hindu deities


text: qualificante

title: qualificante


text:
qualificato

Adjective

 * 1) qualified
 * 2) skilled

title: qualificato


text: qualificati

title: qualificati


text: qualificata

title: qualificata


text:
qualifico

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to qualify (invest with a quality)

title: qualifico


text: qualifichi

title: qualifichi


text: qualifichiamo

title: qualifichiamo


text: qualificate

title: qualificate


text: qualificano

title: qualificano


text: qualificavo

title: qualificavo


text: qualificavi

title: qualificavi


text: qualificava

title: qualificava


text: qualificavamo

title: qualificavamo


text: qualificavate

title: qualificavate


text: qualificavano

title: qualificavano


text: qualificai

title: qualificai


text: qualificasti

title: qualificasti


text: qualificò

title: qualificò


text: qualificammo

title: qualificammo


text: qualificaste

title: qualificaste


text: qualificarono

title: qualificarono


text: qualificherò

title: qualificherò


text: qualificherai

title: qualificherai


text: qualificherà

title: qualificherà


text: qualificheremo

title: qualificheremo


text: qualificherete

title: qualificherete


text: qualificheranno

title: qualificheranno


text: qualificherei

title: qualificherei


text: qualificheresti

title: qualificheresti


text: qualificherebbe

title: qualificherebbe


text: qualificheremmo

title: qualificheremmo


text: qualifichereste

title: qualifichereste


text: qualificherebbero

title: qualificherebbero


text: qualifichiate

title: qualifichiate


text: qualifichino

title: qualifichino


text: qualificassi

title: qualificassi


text: qualificasse

title: qualificasse


text: qualificassimo

title: qualificassimo


text: qualificassero

title: qualificassero


text:
ulterior motive

Noun

 * 1) An alternative or extrinsic reason for doing something, especially when concealed or when differing from the stated or apparent reason.

Translations

 * Catalan: segona intenció
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin: 不可告人的動機,, 他心
 * Danish: bagtanke
 * Dutch: verborgen beweegredenen
 * Finnish:
 * French: motif secret, ,
 * German:
 * Greek:
 * Hungarian:
 * Irish: aidhm fholaigh
 * Japanese:, 他心,
 * Korean: 배후목적
 * Ladino: ramayu
 * Macedonian: задна цел
 * Norwegian:
 * Portuguese: segunda intenção
 * Russian:, скры́тый моти́в
 * Serbo-Croatian:
 * Cyrillic: скривени мотив
 * Roman: skriveni motiv
 * Spanish: segunda intención
 * Swedish:
 * Turkish: ,

title: ulterior motive


text: handsprings

title: handsprings


text:
hellittää

Verb

 * 1) to loosen to make less tight
 * 2) to release
 * 3) to ease up to become more relaxed
 * 4) to ease up to reduce the speed
 * 5) to abate, subside, calm to lessen in force or intensity
 * 6) to break of a storm or spell of weather, to end
 * 7)  to give up
 * 1) to ease up to reduce the speed
 * 2) to abate, subside, calm to lessen in force or intensity
 * 3) to break of a storm or spell of weather, to end
 * 4)  to give up
 * 1) to break of a storm or spell of weather, to end
 * 2)  to give up
 * 1)  to give up

title: hellittää


text:
Wiktionary talk:Translations/Translation into lemma only

 * from Beer parlour Rod (A. Smith) 22:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WT:ELE says, “Do follow the translations of nouns and adjectives by their grammatical gender, if appropriate, using the templates, , and  for "masculine", "feminine", "neuter" and "common" respectively.”  I suspect some editors have interpreted that sentence as a request to provide more than just the lemma form of the adjective (e.g. here). In the languages I know of whose adjectives have gender (i.e. the Romance languages), only one form is considered the lemma, e.g. the masculine singular form. It only makes sense for the translation section to list the lemma form of such adjectives, except perhaps in rare cases where English actually has a gender-specific adjective (e.g. “blonde”) and that gender does not match the gender of the lemma in the target language.

So, should we change “the translations of nouns and adjectives by their grammatical gender” in WT:ELE to “the translations of nouns by their grammatical gender” or perhaps “the translations of nouns and adjectives (to be given in lemma form only) by their grammatical gender”? Or perhaps should we just insert a line above it to clarify that we only want the lemma form of each translation? Rod (A. Smith) 21:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, please. I don't have a specific preference for how it should be clarified, but those giving-all-forms translators are putting us giving-only-lemmata translators to shame, and I won't stand for it! :-P —Ruakh TALK 22:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I can't tell if you are joking or not. --Connel MacKenzie 23:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)  Or rather, what part of the above is intended as a joke...all?  --Connel MacKenzie 00:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

 * My point was serious, my wording was a joke. It looks wrong to give all forms of some translations and only lemma forms of others, but it's not feasible to give all forms of all translations. It also looks wrong to label the gender of an adjective, unless all of its forms are provided; after all, the adjective itself isn't (for example) masculine, it's just that we use the masculine form to represent it in the table. I'm not necessarily saying we should prohibit adding non-lemmata, but I'd like for ELE to be rephrased in a way that makes it clear that adjectives don't need to be labeled for gender. And if someone started removing all non-lemma forms from translation tables, I wouldn't be the one complaining. —Ruakh TALK 05:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I think it is very unwise to prohibit the other inflected forms. Within translation tables, that may be true for many languages, but it is not true for entries themselves.  Being inconsistent in the TT instructions may cause unnecessary newbie confusion.  That inconsistency could result in the return of contributors ripping out valuable translations of pronouns again (well, that hasn't happened in a long time, but could, with the above wording.)  Dictating "lemma form only" is a Bad Thing, anywhere, and probably far too restrictive in the long run.  --Connel MacKenzie 23:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Connel, I'm confused by your comment, “Within translation tables, that may be true for many languages, but it is not true for entries themselves.” Above, I am only suggesting to limit translations within translation tables (in English entries) to lemma forms only.  I was not suggesting to prohibit entries for the non-lemma forms.  What are “the TT instructions” and what does this have to do with translation of pronouns?  You really are trying to confuse me, aren't you? Rod (A. Smith) 00:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

 * TT = "translation table". I was saying that we do (as a multilingual dictionary) want entries for all forms of a word.  So, on the entry pages themselves, we pretty much require that the full conjugations are spelled out, wikilinked and entered.  To prohibit them in the TT seems wrong, or at least inconsistent.  The notion that they would be prohibited for nouns would lead to confusion about pronouns (and that is the example, with Ncik, that sprung to mind.)  --Connel MacKenzie 00:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Connel, I think you're missing the point of what Rod is saying. I'll provide a specific example based on my understanding. In the translation table for the English word slow, what should be given as the Latin translation?  Should it:
 * just be the lemma form lentus
 * or have all possible nominative singular forms lentus, lenta , lentum
 * or have all possible nominative forms lentus, lenta , lentum , lentī , lentae , lenta
 * or (as you suggest) have all the 36 forms listed in the table below:
 * To date, my understanding has been that when we translate in a translation table, we give the link only to the lemma, and the lemma page of the translation will carry all the necessary grammatical information the reader will need. Such detailed grammatical information does not belong in a translation table, and certainly doesn't need to be duplicated in every translation table where a word appears. --EncycloPetey 16:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To date, my understanding has been that when we translate in a translation table, we give the link only to the lemma, and the lemma page of the translation will carry all the necessary grammatical information the reader will need. Such detailed grammatical information does not belong in a translation table, and certainly doesn't need to be duplicated in every translation table where a word appears. --EncycloPetey 16:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I am consistently taking them out wherever I see them. I would greatly support such a clarification.  But indeed, it has to be clear that this counts only for translation sections. H. (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I think the gender markings should stay (for the lemmata), since it is a visual key that the word carries gender. --EncycloPetey 16:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * When a single English noun has a different translation in the target language when applied to a man and to a woman, both should be allowed in the translation table, because they may be considered as different nouns (this does not apply to adjectives...) Lmaltier 15:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. How about this?
 * Add these: (The following text was changed per suggestions from Lmaltier and EncycloPetey below. Rod (A. Smith) 23:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC))
 * For nouns, do translate only the English lemma form into the target language lemma form. If the target lemma is specific to one gender and the English noun is used for both genders or for a gender different from that of the target lemma, provide a translation for both genders.
 * For other parts of speech (e.g. adjectives, adverbs, verbs), do translate only the English lemma form into only the lemma form for the target language.
 * immediately before this existing instruction:
 * Do follow the translations of nouns and adjectives by their grammatical gender, if appropriate, using the templates, , and  for "masculine", "feminine", "neuter" and "common" respectively.
 * How does that seem? Rod (A. Smith) 18:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I just would add to the first part: If two different nouns exist in the target language depending on the gender (for the same English word), provide both. Lmaltier 06:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I altered the suggestion above to incorporate your recommendation. Comments?  Rod (A. Smith) 23:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would rearrange the wording as "For each noun, do..." and "For other parts of speech, do..." in oreder to make it immediately clear that the first sentence deals only with nouns. --EncycloPetey 15:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Rod (A. Smith) 23:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please help refine the language of Votes/2007-10/Translation into lemma only. Rod (A. Smith) 02:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Considering the TLDR problem of WT:ELE, and the fact that WT:ELE already links to Translations, I have updated the latter, merging in everything from the former, updating the examples to match current practice, and reorganizing it a bit. I did this with the idea that readers may be best served by our trimming WT:ELE down to a brief paragraph.  Readers who are further interested can click through to the detailed document.  Comments?  Rod (A. Smith) 21:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I have withdrawn Votes/2007-10/Translation into lemma only as suggested above. A discussion at Wiktionary talk:Votes/2007-10/Translation into lemma only questioned whether each gender specific version of animate nouns in gender-inflected languages should be considered a lemma (e.g. whether Spanish  and  are both lemmata).  In support of the position that the underlying lexeme is gender-neutral, I collected references, which are now at Wiktionary talk:Translations for posterity.  If anyone would like to discuss that topic, Wiktionary talk:Translations seems an appropriate place.  My plan for lemma translations is to let Votes/2007-10/Lemma entries conclude, then to propose trimming WT:ELE, modifying Translations, and approving it as policy.  Rod (A. Smith) 18:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


text: quarant

title: quarant


text: hikers

title: hikers


text:
quarantina

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) approximately forty
 * 2)  period of forty days

title: quarantina


text: prepuzi

title: prepuzi


text:
jänistää

Verb

 * 1) To chicken out, lose courage.

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to hunt hares

title: jänistää


text:
kasarmi

Etymology
Borrowed from, from older , from , either from or its source.

Noun

 * 1) barracks

title: kasarmi


text:
Wiktionary talk:Translations/Noting lemma forms in WT:ELE

 * from WT:BP Rod (A. Smith) 22:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

With the recent update to WT:AJ, we documented our common practice of differentiating the full format used for lemma entries from the abbreviated format used for non-lemma entries. We should do something similar in WT:ELE. I think the following wording reflects how we currently select English lemmata and belongs in the ==Basics== section of WT:ELE:
 * ===Lemma entries===
 * Each language may have its own traditional choice of lemma forms for various parts of speech. For English entries, the lemma form is usually the “bare” form: the singular form for nouns (e.g. word: but not words:), the bare infinitive form for verbs (e.g. talk: but not talks:, talking:, or talked:), and the positive form for adjectives (e.g. easy: but not easier: or easiest:).  With some types of words, an alternate form is the preferred lemma, e.g. the plural entry for a plurale tantum.  For other types of words, there may be no distinction between lemma and non-lemma forms, e.g. for pronouns, articles, prepositions, and defective verbs like may: that lack an infinitive form.  With such terms, all forms are treated as lemmata.  When the situation is unclear, editors are advised to use their best judgment on a case by case basis.

 * Following are guidelines for entries for the lemma form of terms. For non-lemma entries (e.g. for the plurals of most nouns), a more abbreviated format is used instead.

Is the above accurate? Is it too wordy for WT:ELE? Does it allow for enough or too much flexibility? Rod (A. Smith) 07:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Sounds good to me. But ideally ELE would address the format for "form-of" entries as well. -- Visviva 07:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I think it would be much better to avoid using the term "lemma" instead of "base form." The above doesn't read very cleanly.  But the very last phrase is concerning.  AFAIK, we welcome clarifications on the form-of entries.  (That is, tags and a gloss, examples, pronunciation, etc.)  The wording you have above, suggests those be removed.  Again, AFAIK, only the ===Translations=== section is discouraged in the "form-of" entries (and only for noun forms and verb forms.)  Is there a better sub-page for this?  Entry layout explained is far too long as it is.  It obviously fails the TLDR test for most newcomers.  --Connel MacKenzie 08:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure about "base form", because that seems easily confused with "stem" or "root". "Citation form" or "canonical form" are pretty clear, but I'm not sure either is better than "lemma".  Is there a precise layman synonym?  Rod (A. Smith) 22:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Good suggestions, Visvia and Connel. We seem to need Entry in a nutshell for the TLDR problem and the full WT:ELE for the specifics, including the details for the non-lemma formats.  My understanding is that non-lemma entries are not supposed to include the following:
 * Etymology (e.g., the entry for speaking: should not show the Old English etymons specan: or sprecan:)
 * Other non-lemma inflections (e.g., the entry for speaking: should not show the inflection spoke: on the headword line)
 * Detailed definitions (e.g., the entry for speaking: should show that it is the present participle of speak:, but should not have separate definitions “communicating with one's voice”, “having a conversation”, “communicating by some means other than orally”, “delivering a message to a group”, or “being able to communicate in a language”)
 * Synonyms, antonyms, or other -onyms
 * Translations
 * Is anyone under the impression that non-lemma entries should contain the above information? Rod (A. Smith) 18:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 * My understanding is that a non-lemma should include the following:
 * Alternative spellings (or whatever)
 * Pronunciation
 * POS header
 * Simple bold term inflection line (possibly with gender, number, etc. specific to that form but not any other inflectional forms)
 * A gloss/definition that links to the lemma and explains the relationship
 * Example sentences
 * Supporting citations
 * My understanding also is that a non-lemma should not contain other kinds of information, though I can imagine there may be exceptions in unusual situations, such as when a past tense form has an unusual etymology. Including synonyms & antonyms would get messy; consider that the antonym of whiter is less white, not blacker.  Likewise you run into problems if you're going to have synonym listings for all the inflections of Latin nouns, adjectives, verbs, etc. --EncycloPetey 23:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't think non-lemma entries usually need alternative spellings, example sentences, or supporting citations; all of those should ordinarily go in the lemma page. Conversely, I'm O.K. with a term derived from a non-lemma appearing at both the lemma entry and the non-lemma entry (say, double-dealing being listed both at deal and at dealing), and I'm O.K. with non-lemmata belonging to relevant lexical categories (like Category:English plurals). —Ruakh TALK 20:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I have to disagree strongly about alternative spellings and citations. The non-lemmae need to have separate citations listed because they are different spellings from the lemma!  In Latin, for example, the reason we know that a particular word is irregular is through documented citations of the irregularity.  It would be silly to burden the lemma page citations with all the dozens of inflected forms, and would be difficult for anyone trying to make use of the data to parse out the appropriate citation or two that supports, say, the irregular dative feminine plural form.

 * Likewise, an inflected form may have an alternative spelling that the lemma does not have. A non-lemma page should therefore have an alternative spellings section of its own.  --EncycloPetey 22:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Re: citations: Are you saying that citations for an inflected form should never appear at the lemma entry, or only that they shouldn't necessarily appear at the lemma entry? If the latter, then I agree completely; but if the former, then I beg to differ. If in the oldest known citation using a noun, it appears in the plural genitive, then I think that citation needs to be included in the entry for the noun, i.e. the entry for the noun's singular nominative form. The entry for the lemma is really the entry for the word as a whole; that's why we define dictionary as "A publication, usually in the form of a book, […]" and not "The singular form of a noun used to refer to a publication, usually in the form of a book, […]" or whatnot.

 * Re: alternative spellings: How can that be? Either the same word has multiple spellings for one form (in which case the lemma page should note that in the inflection line, inflection table, and/or usage notes), or it has multiple spellings for all forms (in which case the lemma page will have its own alternative-spellings section). Can you give an example of what you mean?

 * —Ruakh TALK 00:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I do mean that they shouldn't necessarily appear in the lemma page. I imagine that the citations for a lemma page could include the lemma form or various inflected forms, and even alternative spellings (see the citations for parrot).  However, I want to see the inflected forms backed up with at least some citations specific to that form and listed on the non-lemma page.

 * With regard to alternative spellings, I mean exactly what I say. sometimes only one or two of the inflected forms have alternative spellings but the lemma does not.  For example, a Latin word might have an alternative form for the accusative singular, but not for any of the other forms.  For example ingēns has two forms of the ablative singular, but only a single form for each of the other inflections.  I've set up the appropriate pages for ingēns, ingenti, and ingente to show how I would handle this.  Putting the alternative spelling information onto only the lemma page would cause the information to be visually lost.  In the case of some entries with multiple inflectional parts with mutliple forms (such as deus), it can be be downright confusing. --EncycloPetey 03:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

 * It seems like your approach would be less effective for deus, because suddenly deī would need to have a full-out explanation of its alternative spellings dīvi, dī, diī, and dii, (are those last two really different, or is that just a typo?) explaining which alternative spellings exist for which senses. If, instead, all the information is in the declension table at deus (as it is currently), and the entries for inflected forms all point there, then we don't need to worry about all these complicated explanations at the inflected forms; if we want to be explicit about it, we can even have dei say to see deus. —Ruakh TALK 03:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

 * As I said, it gets really confusing in the case of deus, but that's an exceptional case. There are only a handful of those in the whole of the Latin language.  For most alternative spelling issues, there are just one to three forms with alternatives (or all of them), and there's usually just one alternative. --EncycloPetey 04:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been talking to Ruakh about including definitions etc. of non-lemma entries, and I disagree quite strongly with what appears to be the current practice of simply stating the grammatical form of a word. If a reader doesn't know these grammatical terms, it isn't helpful for them to see something like "first-person singular pluperfect form of X" instead of an actual definition. For example, I'm going to use the word citisem, the first-person singular pluperfect form of the verb citi. Assuming that the reader does not know what "pluperfect" and "citi" mean, if the entry for citisem only includes "first-person singular pluperfect form of citi" they need to look first at citisem, to see the form, citi, to see "to read" and then pluperfect, to see that it means "pertaining to action completed before or at the same time as another," which honestly might not be the best definition. After all of this, without the definition "I had read," they still might not know what "citisem" means. Better I say to see as much as possible about the word "citisem" in its own entry than for it to be necessary to hop around wiktionary looking at definitions for other words. It might take more time to include all this information, but in the end it's more helpful for the readers. Sorry for being so wordy, but I feel strongly about this =) — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 18:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The reason is that we want to avoid multiple unnecessary duplication of content. Consider that the Latin adjective albus has 3 definitions and 35 inflected forms.  If we add definitions to the non-lemma pages, that's 105 additional definition lines that have to be added and maintained.  Then there are the comparative and superlative forms of all Latin adjectives, which aren't included in the count above.  Just for the forms of albus, that's an additional 42 forms with 3 base definitions.  Now multiply all that by two, beacuse the comparative of "white" in Latin can mean whiter, but can also mean "rather white", and the superlative can mean "whitest" but can also mean "very white".  It makes more sense to explain this behavior of Latin adjectives once in a single location instead of needlessly repeating it on thousands of individual entries.

 * Likewise, consider that the Spanish verb tener has 7 definitions and 61 additional inflected forms. That makes 427 additional definition lines.  And what happens when someone adds a new definition sense to the lemma?  That sense has to be added to all 71 non-lemma pages.  The same happens if an edit is made.  It makes much more sense to give the definitions in a single central location, and provide a grammatical appendix for interpretation. --EncycloPetey 18:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

 * In such extreme cases as tener, where a word has that many definitions to begin with, with even one example of how the word is translated and possibly a "see tener for further definitions" that wouldn't be a huge problem at all. That, or maybe only give those definitions which are actually used frequently. Appendices are useful, if you know they're there (which even I didn't for a long time). But still, I think that words in a dictionary should be defined.

 * Still yet, not all languages have to be done the same way. I work mostly on Romanian entries, and being that I'm one of the few people who does so, I'm really not bothered much to go back and change things in multiple articles at once if I change something that affects multiple entries. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 19:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

 * is hardly an extreme case. The example you gave—citi:—has eight definitions in the Romanian entry and presumably about a hundred forms.  To give non-lemma words full treatment in this dictionary, then, we would eventually need to maintain eight hundred definitions.  As this dictionary becomes more complete, such maintenance concerns will become the norm, not the exception.  Rod (A. Smith) 19:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

 * One option is to have the “form of” templates include a link to an appendix that explains what the grammar terms mean. Readers could then get a usable sense of the word by reading the appendix and clicking through to the lemma.  We would do readers a significant disservice if we pretend that citi: has eight distinct senses but citisem: can only be used in the sense “I had read”.  Rod (A. Smith) 19:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure where you go the hundred forms thing from. I'm not talking about a single entry for every form with auxiliary words (am citit, am să citesc). The definitions of citi on the Romanian wiktionary mostly mean "to read," whether it be music, a book or something else. Another says "to learn" or "to study" for which Romanian has other specific words, which are named directly in the definition. "A citi" means "to read" and has numerous definitions with almost the same meaning just as the entry read for English. Looking at the translation table of citi in the Romanian wiktionary entry, you'll see one word per language, with the exception of German. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 16:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

 * OK, so it seems Romanian has not a hundred verb forms, but merely thirty-five or so. For the eight meanings, though, it doesn't make sense to discount them just because there are other words for those concepts.  If citi: can mean, "to learn" or "to study", those senses belong in our entry.  So that means we would merely need to maintain 280 definitions for the various forms of that word if we give non-lemma entries full treatment.  Regardless the exact number, though, it seems wrong to use the number of forms and senses to decide whether to give full treatment to non-lemma forms.  Doing so would seem to imply a rule along the lines of, “if a language has fewer than forty(?) inflected forms for a given word class, all the forms should be given semantic definitions, but if there are forty(?) or more forms, only the lemma should be given semantic definitions while other forms should show only the gramatical relationship with the lemma.”  Rod (A. Smith) 16:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Even 35 is a bit high... verbs generally have about 26 forms (with one word, that is without auxiliaries). If I remember correctly, definitions for languages other than English aren't supposed to be the full definitions as they would be given in that own languages wiktionary. We wouldn't have "to interpret typographic indications of a map or plan and to reconstruct after them the conforms of the terrain" under citi. Words (at least in Romanian) don't generally have meanings that are completely different. Using citi as an example again, the definitions as they would be in English would all be to read, whether it be a map, a book, music or whatever. (Side note: In an entry instead of having separate definitions for each of these senses, one could just point them out in example sentences, which are much more useful anyway.) The problem with the definition of "to study/learn" is that they don't appear to have a word that means to study in the sense of re-reading something you've read before to remember it: they just have "to read". Their word for study is cognate to our word for study, but it means about the same thing as "to learn". If you asked someone "what are you studying" they would answer with what they're learning about in school. If you saw someone studying for a test, or something, and asked what they were doing they would say they were reading. Anyway I've gotten off the main point.

 * Back on the topic: All that said, as I said before, in non-lemmas, you could simply give the most basic or most widely used definitions and adding "see [whatever the main article is] for more possible definitions". This would make "maintenance", etc, a lot easier. I never meant to give non-lemmas FULL treatment, just enough so that one wouldn't have to run between 3 or 4 articles to know how to translate a certain word. Right now, with non-lemmas, I'm including pronunciation, POS, a definition (and sometimes a see also/synonyms, if there's an alternate form or something), whereas normally I'd include etymology, synonyms, antonyms, related words, etc. I think maybe people have been thinking I meant to go all out with everything included in these entries. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 18:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, regardless of the specific format for non-lemma entries, it seems that everyone agrees we should distinguish between lemma entries and non-lemma entries. The next logical step is to decide what constitutes a lemma entry and which details WT:ELE should explicitely exclude from non-lemma entries.  Rod (A. Smith) 19:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Votes/2007-10/Lemma entries and help me refine it to something we can all support. Rod (A. Smith) 23:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Votes/2007-10/Lemma entries is now open. Rod (A. Smith) 19:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The vote is clearly headed toward rejection of a distinction between lemma entries and non-lemma entries. Consider the degree of completion we might expect to achieve if contributors work primarily on lemma entries for the next five years. If we instead dilute those contributions across the various inflected forms of words, we can expect to achieve that same degree of completion in fifty years instead. I hope this community can understand how counterproductive it is to our project for us to reject a normative focus on lemma entries. Rod (A. Smith) 22:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't think anybody is saying that there should be no distinction. What kind of completion are you talking about? I don't think anybody focuses primarily on non-lemma entries. And supposing that people work primarily on lemma entries for 5 years, you still have to go back and add non-lemmas (even if you're only adding "form of" information). So what it comes down to really is the total amount of effort you're willing to put into the dictionary. Focusing on basic forms of words and for the most part ignoring their forms isn't going to help readers that aren't familiar with grammatical terms. Even then the clarification is nice.

 * Note: In the above I'm referring mostly to translations under the inflection line for languages other than English. I think providing translations, etymology, synonyms, antonyms, etc to all English entries is basically a waste of time and energy. However, having the absolute minimum amount of information in non-lemma entries, while easier to manage, is just lazy. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 00:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

 * That's pretty sensible, so long as it's clear to readers that more information can be found in the lemma entry. As this project matures, we will serve readers much better by expanding our foreign entry lemma definitions from crude one-word translations to fuller explainations of the terms' subtle nuances than we will by expanding non-lemma entries and trying to keep them synchronized.  Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that a change to the proposal to more strongly encourage brief gloss translations of non-lemma entries would sway anyone who currently has an opposing vote to one of support.  Rod (A. Smith) 02:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I've been doing it like I'm suggesting now. It never occurred to me that there would or should be another way of doing it. :-) See prietenului for one example of how I do non-lemmas. For those articles in which it's necessary, I definitely think a note should be made that there is more than one definition. The problem is how to work that in without having another subsection or something... — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 03:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

 * OK. It seems important to minimize confusion now caused by phrases like formal third person trial animate pluperfect negative perfective subjunctive.  Since the format requested by you, Robert, et al. places full grammatical description in the headword line, we should have some { {xx-verb}} templates display the headword line with a full technical jargon phrase linked to a language appendix specific to the corresponding inflection in that the language.  Since grammatical properties cannot be only in definition lines under the requested system, we will also need to repeat a given POS header, e.g.:

(unindenting) ===Verb===

 * 1) wins.
 * Él gana. — “He wins.”

Verb

 * 1) win.
 * ¡Gana! — “Win!”

 * Verb

 * 1) wins.
 * Él gana. — “He wins.”

 * Verb

 * 1) win.
 * ¡Gana! — “Win!”

A concern I have about this is that some editors have tried to merge sequential "===Verb===" sections, so we'd need agreement not to do so. Does that format seem ideal? Rod (A. Smith) 07:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

 * That's how I've always done it. :-) is what I use for the headword/inflection line. I suck at template design, so it might not be the best template evar, but it seems to get the job done. mâncaţi (needs example sentences, I know)

 * I think a template should have parentheses and  tags or something so it doesn't distract too much from the definition itself? And to repeat it every time, I don't know. That's the main thing I was worried about with such a notification. We could always just put it under ====See also==== or ====Usage notes==== with "See the lemma article, x for more detailed information" or "This word (or these words) can be translated in more diverse ways. For other possible usages"... etc.— [ ric | opiaterein ] — 15:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I dislike the above approach intensely. It would be counterproductive for Latin.  See the page/section alba.  Using the above format would require six separate Adjective sections under Latin for that word.  That would be silly.  Providing a translation for each separate "sense" would also be silly.  I've been doing Latin inflected adjectives the way alba is done. --EncycloPetey 22:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Hmm. Striking a balance here is challenging, but is it reasonable to show important grammatical properties in each headword/inflection line, gloss-type definitions in each definition line, and detailed translations within just “main” (lemma) entries?  For example, in, we could just do this:

(unindenting)

 * 1) white.

 * 1) white.

Does that seem reaonable? I don't think any fidelity is lost or any confusion introduced. Right? Rod (A. Smith) 23:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

 * More than reasonable, actually :-p I still really think the formatting should be or something, though :-D Maybe it should even be included in the form-of templates. But right now, I'm too tired to have ideas. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 03:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We can create some customization options for, but first I want to know that the overall approach has some chance of success. There is resistance from both the "list each grammatical role as a definition" camp and the "allow translations in all entries" camp, so I'm not yet sure this approach can succeed.  Rod (A. Smith) 17:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

With 3-5-1 opposing, the current vote is suspended. Votes/2007-11/Lemma entries 2 is where I will work on the new version. Following are the change so far:
 * Instead of "lemma" and "non-lemma", it uses "main" and "secondary" to describe the entries. Hopefully that makes it more clear that if any special senses exist for an inflected word, that inflection counts as a "main entry", regardless of whether it's considered "lemma" or "citation" form.
 * The "form of" information is now in the headword line, where it belongs.
 * is dropped. Instead, it recommends a brief semantic definition followed by "see full entry at... for details".
 * An example sentence and quotation are given in the example of the secondary entry.
 * Fewer sections are explicitly prohibited from secondary entries.

It's still not clear to me whether the opposition really believes we should leave translations in secondary entries like talks:. I will try to describe clearly why such translations are harmful to this project. Rod (A. Smith) 02:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I think translation tables in secondary entries are a bad idea in most cases. Plurals and stuff yeah, they're pretty harmless and easy to keep under control, but the information is just a repetition of what's in the primary entry which can be easily accessed to begin with. If you want to see the plural that bad, you can go through the primary article to the word you want. As we've seen, such tables for verbs would be a fucking nightmare.
 * Rod, do you think we should try to keep all our talk about this stuff in one place? So far we have it here at the beer parlor, on the old vote page, its talk page, and the new vote's talk page. Seems as messy as the translation tables lol — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 20:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Everything is now accessible through Wiktionary talk:Translations.  Better?  Rod (A. Smith) 17:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


text:
kesiä

Verb

 * 1)  to peel off

title: kesiä


text:
laivata

Verb

 * 1)  to ship, to transport using a ship

title: laivata


text:
villoso

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1) hairy
 * 2)  villous
 * 1)  villous

title: villoso


text:
rabbino

Etymology
,.

Noun

 * 1) rabbi

title: rabbino


text:
raccomandazione

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) recommendation
 * 2) advice (piece of)

title: raccomandazione


text:
radiologo

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) radiologist (male)

title: radiologo


text: radiologa

title: radiologa


text:
overlaying

Noun

 * 1)  ornamentation.

title: overlaying


text:
キス

Etymology 1
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1)  a kiss

Verb

 * 1) to kiss

title: キス


text:
nopeutua

Verb

 * 1)  To quicken, to become faster.

title: nopeutua


text:
radura

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) The international symbol of irradiated food

Noun

 * 1) clearing (area, within a wood or forest, devoid of trees)

title: radura


text:
nuppu

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) bud of a flower

title: nuppu


text:
silmu

Noun

 * 1) bud of a leaf.
 * 2)  lamprey

Etymology
From, equivalent to. Cognates include 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) lamprey

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) lamprey

title: silmu


text:
rafe

Etymology
, from.

Noun

 * 1)  raphe

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1) suture
 * 2)  raphe
 * 1)  raphe

title: rafe


text:
raffica

Etymology
Perhaps derived from (modern 🇨🇬). Related to 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, and 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1)  gust (of wind), windflaw
 * 2)  burst (of gunfire)
 * 1)  burst (of gunfire)

title: raffica


text:
TCR

Noun

 * 1)   a test case that must pass before software can be certified as compliant to a given standard.

title: TCR


text:
raggiare

Etymology
From. , a borrowing.

Verb

 * 1)  to cast rays
 * 2)  to shine, to blaze
 * 3)  to beam
 * 4)  to radiate, to emit radiation/heat/light
 * 5)  to radiate (light, happiness, etc.)
 * 6)  to illuminate, to irradiate

title: raggiare


text: raggiando

title: raggiando


text:
raggiante

Adjective

 * 1) shining, beaming, radiant

title: raggiante


text: raggiato

title: raggiato


text: raggiati

title: raggiati


text: raggiata

title: raggiata


text:
raggia

Etymology
, from, from Classical.

Noun

 * 1) anger, rage
 * 2) rabies

title: raggia


text:
pidättää

Etymology 1
From, equivalent to.

Verb

 * 1)  to hold back, restrain, hinder, curb; to suppress; to suspend; to retain
 * 2)  to delay, detain, slow down, hold up
 * 3)  to detain, apprehend, take into custody, put in detention, put under custody;  to arrest, place under arrest both in legal contexts and elsewhere; put in short-term detention due to reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime
 * 4)  to withhold, deduct advance taxes
 * 5)  to reserve a right
 * 6)  to absorb
 * 1)  to withhold, deduct advance taxes
 * 2)  to reserve a right
 * 3)  to absorb
 * 1)  to absorb
 * 1)  to absorb

Usage notes

 * and may sometimes be confused and used incorrectly synonymously in general language. However, in proper legal language,  means "to detain" (to take into custody for the first time if the subject is suspected of a crime), whereas  comes next and means "to arrest, (provisionally) imprison (for the time when the criminal investigation is conducted and the court has made a decision in the case)".

title: pidättää


text: raggiamo

title: raggiamo


text: raggiate

title: raggiate


text: raggiano

title: raggiano


text: raggiavo

title: raggiavo


text: raggiavi

title: raggiavi


text: raggiava

title: raggiava


text: raggiavamo

title: raggiavamo


text: raggiavate

title: raggiavate


text: raggiavano

title: raggiavano


text: raggiai

title: raggiai


text: raggiasti

title: raggiasti


text: raggiò

title: raggiò


text: raggiammo

title: raggiammo


text: raggiaste

title: raggiaste


text: raggiarono

title: raggiarono


text: raggerò

title: raggerò


text: raggerai

title: raggerai


text: raggerà

title: raggerà


text: raggeremo

title: raggeremo


text: raggerete

title: raggerete


text:
planetologist

Noun

 * 1) planetary scientist

title: planetologist


text: raggeranno

title: raggeranno


text: raggerei

title: raggerei


text: raggeresti

title: raggeresti


text: raggerebbe

title: raggerebbe


text: raggeremmo

title: raggeremmo


text: raggereste

title: raggereste


text: raggerebbero

title: raggerebbero


text: raggino

title: raggino


text: raggiassi

title: raggiassi


text: raggiasse

title: raggiasse


text:
politikoida

Etymology
(see 🇨🇬). Adapted with the verbal suffix.

Verb

 * 1) to politicize to discuss politics
 * 2) to politick to engage in politics

title: politikoida


text: raggiassimo

title: raggiassimo


text: raggiassero

title: raggiassero


text:
politisoida

Etymology
(see 🇨🇬). Adapted with the verbal suffix.

Verb

 * 1)  to politicize to turn something into a political issue

Related terms

 * (intransitive)

title: politisoida


text:
Red Devils

Proper noun

 * 1) Parachute Regiment
 * 2)  Manchester United F.C.

title: Red Devils


text: ragion

title: ragion


text:
raaputtaa

Etymology

 * see.

Verb

 * 1)  to scratch

title: raaputtaa


text:
rajoittaminen

Noun

 * 1) restricting, limiting, inhibiting
 * 1) restricting, limiting, inhibiting

title: rajoittaminen


text:
ramming

Noun

 * 1) A collision where something is rammed.

title: ramming


text: Man U

title: Man U


text:
rekonstruoida

Etymology
(see 🇨🇬). Adapted with the verbal suffix.

Verb

 * 1)  To reconstruct to create a copy e.g. of a relic; to reconstruct a situation.

title: rekonstruoida


text: repels

title: repels


text: resells

title: resells


text:
redusoida

Etymology
(see 🇨🇬), ultimately from and adapted with the verbal suffix.

Verb

 * 1)  to reduce
 * 2)  to reduce
 * 1)  to reduce

Usage notes
Not to be confused with.

title: redusoida


text:
rancio

Etymology
..

Noun

 * 1) the soft, mellow quality acquired by brandy as it is aged

Etymology
From (13th century, ), from.

Adjective

 * 1) rancid
 * 2)  old-fashioned, outdated

Noun

 * 1) rancidity

Etymology 1
Apheresis of.

Adjective

 * 1)  orange

Etymology 2
From, from.

Adjective

 * 1)  rancid

Etymology 3
..

Noun

 * 1)  each of the main meals given out to soldiers daily
 * 2)  meal
 * 3)  each of the fixed groups into which a ship's crew was subdivided for meal consumption and cleaning of the mess
 * 1)  each of the fixed groups into which a ship's crew was subdivided for meal consumption and cleaning of the mess

Etymology 4
Akin to.

Etymology
. Compare 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) spider

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1) rancid
 * 2) stale butter or cheese
 * 3) mellow, old wine
 * 4)  ancient, long-established
 * 5)  old-fashioned, antiquated, conservative

Noun

 * 1) curmudgeon

title: rancio


text:
rancore

Etymology
From, derived from 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) rancour, resentment, grudge

title: rancore


text:
puhallin

Noun

 * 1) blower, a device that blows
 * 2) wind instrument
 * 3) fan component in a condenser, etc.

title: puhallin


text:
ranocchio

Etymology
, a diminutive from, with a masculine form later becoming more widespread;. Compare.

Noun

 * 1) a small frog
 * °N, °W
 * °N, °W

title: ranocchio


text:
rapinatore

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) robber

title: rapinatore


text:
rapitore

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) kidnapper

title: rapitore


text:
ratti

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) A traditional Indian unit of measure for mass, approximately 0.1215 grams.

Etymology 1
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) steering wheel

Etymology 2
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) funnel vessel

Etymology
. Cognate with 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) night

title: ratti


text:
rebounding

Noun

 * 1) The act of something that rebounds.

title: rebounding


text: rebounded

title: rebounded


text: polymerisoida

title: polymerisoida


text:
polymeroida

Etymology
(see 🇨🇬). Adapted with the verbal suffix.

Verb

 * 1)  to polymerize to convert into a polymer

title: polymeroida


text:
chiliaëdron

Noun

 * 1) * 1689–1700,, An Eſſay Concerning Humane Underſtanding (fourth edition, 1700), book II, chapter xxix, § 13, page 204:
 * In a Man who ſpeaks of a Chiliaëdron, or a Body of a thouſand ſides, the of the Figure may be very confuſed, though that of the Number be very diſtinct; ſo that he being able to diſcourſe, and demonſtrate concerning that part of his complex, which depends upon the Number of a Thouſand, he is apt to think, he has a diſtinct  of a Chiliaëdron; though it be plain, he has no preciſe  of its Figure, ſo as to diſtinguiſh it, by that, from one that has but 999 ſides.
 * In a Man who ſpeaks of a Chiliaëdron, or a Body of a thouſand ſides, the of the Figure may be very confuſed, though that of the Number be very diſtinct; ſo that he being able to diſcourſe, and demonſtrate concerning that part of his complex, which depends upon the Number of a Thouſand, he is apt to think, he has a diſtinct  of a Chiliaëdron; though it be plain, he has no preciſe  of its Figure, ſo as to diſtinguiſh it, by that, from one that has but 999 ſides.

title: chiliaëdron


text: privateers

title: privateers


text:
have it large

Verb

 * 1)  To engage intensely in pleasure-seeking activities

title: have it large


text:
povata

Etymology
From or derived from.

Verb

 * 1)  to divine, foretell, bode

title: povata


text:
povari

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) fortuneteller
 * 2) inside pocket

Synonyms

 * (fortune teller)
 * (inside pocket)

title: povari


text: piereksiä

title: piereksiä


text:
pitkin

Etymology
Instructive plural of. Akin to 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Postposition

 * 1) along in a line with, with a progressive motion on
 * 2) along by the length of; in a line with the length of; lengthwise next to

Etymology
Instructive plural of. Akin to 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Preposition

 * 1) along

Postposition

 * 1) along

title: pitkin


text: populating

title: populating


text:
pystyttää

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to erect, put up, set up

title: pystyttää


text:
safety car

Noun

 * 1)  A vehicle employed to lead the competitors in an auto race for the duration of a few laps, with the intention of restricting their speed while a hazard exists on the circuit.
 * After a car crashed, the safety car was sent out to lead the remaining drivers safely past the site of the accident.

Synonyms

 * abbreviation
 * abbreviation

Translations

 * Finnish: turva-auto

title: safety car


text:
smeč

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  smash
 * 2)  spike

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  smash in tennis

title: smeč


text: upotella

title: upotella


text: party poopers

title: party poopers


text:
hardver

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  hardware

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  hardware

title: hardver


text: uplands

title: uplands


text:
softver

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  software encoded computer instructions

title: softver


text:
uurre

Etymology
From. Equivalent to.

Noun

 * 1) furrow, line deep wrinkle, such as in the skin of the face, especially on someone's forehead
 * 2) rut track worn in the ground, as from the passage of many wheels along a road
 * 3)  groove, striation scratch or gouge cut into bedrock by glacial abrasion
 * 1)  groove, striation scratch or gouge cut into bedrock by glacial abrasion

Etymology
From. Cognates include 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) groove

title: uurre


text:
programska podrška

Noun

 * 1)  software encoded computer instructions

title: programska podrška


text:
vaihde

Noun

 * 1) gear particular combination or choice of interlocking gears, as in reverse gear
 * 2)  switch
 * 3)  switch
 * 4)  turn instant of time between two divisions of time

title: vaihde


text:
uhata

Verb

 * 1)  to threaten menace, be dangerous (to)
 * 2)  to have a chance or risk of doing (something dangerous or negative, unless action is taken), to threaten to

Etymology
Cognate with 🇨🇬.

Verb

 * 1)  to threaten

title: uhata


text:
sprintati

Etymology
or.

Verb

 * 1) to sprint

title: sprintati


text:
unpolarized

Adjective

 * 1) Not polarized.

title: unpolarized


text:
uninterruptible

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) Not able to be interrupted.
 * uninterruptible power supply

title: uninterruptible


text:
sprinterica

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) sprinter female
 * 2) sneaker for sprint

title: sprinterica


text:
unisexual

Adjective

 * 1) Of an organism, having characteristics of a single sex (as opposed to hermaphrodites).
 * Most animals are unisexual.
 * 1) Of a species, having only a single (potentially hermaphroditic) sex (as opposed to bisexual).
 * 2) Unisex; suitable for any sex or gender.
 * 1) Unisex; suitable for any sex or gender.

Translations

 * Belarusian: аднапо́лы
 * Bulgarian: еднополов
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Czech:
 * Finnish:
 * French:
 * German: eingeschlechtlich
 * Ido: unsexua
 * Irish: aonghnéasach
 * Italian: unisessuale
 * Japanese:
 * Macedonian: еднополов
 * Polish: jednopłciowy
 * Portuguese: ,
 * Russian:
 * Spanish: unisexual
 * Tagalog: sansariin
 * Ukrainian: одностате́вий

Noun

 * 1) An organism which is unisexual.

Etymology
. Equivalent to.

title: unisexual


text:
unpunctual

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) Not punctual.

Translations

 * Finnish: epätäsmällinen
 * Irish: míphoncúil, ainfhéichiúnta
 * Spanish:

title: unpunctual


text:
pisač

Etymology
+

Noun

 * 1) printer machine used to print
 * 2) burner

title: pisač


text: oozes

title: oozes


text:
zoophile

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) A person sexually attracted to non-human animals.
 * 2) A person who in their ethical propositions puts animals on a level with humans.
 * 1) A person who in their ethical propositions puts animals on a level with humans.

Translations

 * Azerbaijani: zoofil
 * Czech:
 * Finnish: zoofiili
 * Macedonian: зоофил, скотоложец
 * Russian:
 * Swedish: zoofil

Adjective

 * 1) Preferring a beast milieu.
 * 2) Supporting policies favourable to animal lives.
 * 1) Supporting policies favourable to animal lives.

Adjective

 * 1) zoophilic

title: zoophile


text:
printati

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to print data using a computer printer

title: printati


text:
worrisomeness

Noun

 * 1) The property of being worrisome.

title: worrisomeness


text:
barbika

Etymology
From +.

Noun

 * 1) Barbie

title: barbika


text:
ummehtua

Verb

 * 1)  To get musty, get moldy, mold, mildew.
 * 2)  To get stuffy, go stale.

title: ummehtua


text:
vahtia

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to guard, watch

Etymology 1
From. Akin to 🇨🇬.

Verb

 * 1)  to guard
 * 2)  to guard

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Verb

 * 1)  to look after, watch over, guard
 * 2)  to nurse, rear, care for
 * 3)  to watch

title: vahtia


text:
uudistua

Verb

 * 1)  To be reformed, be modernised/modernized.

title: uudistua