text:
User talk:Visviva/archive/2006-2007

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Robert Ullmann 14:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirects
Hi, we don't use redirects in the Wiktionary. Each form gets its own entry. Use the ====See also==== section to point to others if they aren't referenced in the definition.

 * Hmm, that page was a two-week discussion 6 months ago, and isn't policy. We ought to revise it or something.

 * The statement "we don't use re-directs" is a simplification; there are a few cases where there really isn't anything else that makes sense, and there are leftover redirects. (they also get left behind on page moves, sometimes for a long time, since those are basically harmless.

Note that we have many entries for things never used entirely on their own: prefixes, suffixes, particles ... usually an entry that you would think of redirecting is one of those sorts of things. You might look at WT:AJ to see how another CJKV language handles all the various things (if you are interested!) Robert Ullmann 19:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Kwic
What is this? --Connel MacKenzie 20:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

 * please don't use examples in the template code page itself, the s/w is not as resistant to bad recursion as one would like ;-(, I moved to talk page. Robert Ullmann 17:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

 * OK, didn't mean to cause trouble. What is "bad recursion"?  I've used the "noinclude" approach frequently on WP, and as far as I had ever known the only drawbacks arose when the template or the documentation were very large (thus bringing the total size near the transclusion limit).  Cheers, -- Visviva 18:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

 * And then someone makes some minor edit (breaking the noinclude), and the job queue gets very stuck. Look at the history of   and see why it is protected. Is just bad coding style, when it it is easy to have a test page. (Talk page or whatever). Robert Ullmann 18:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright: 붉은발슴새
If a Korean website has an English copyright notice on it, why would you think it is safe to reference? That can't be GFDL compatable, right? --Connel MacKenzie 06:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for answering my questions. No worries, I just don't read Korean, so I thought I'd ask.  --Connel MacKenzie 07:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Various Korean entries
Your input would be very welcome on my talk page at Lexically_unproper_Korean_Words Kappa 19:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation requests
If you see a word you think really needs a pronunciation, just tag it in the Pronunciation section with, and it will be added to the list of such Requests. If there is no Pronunciation section on a page, just start one as a level-3 header after the Etymology section (if there is one). --EncycloPetey 05:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This was created to be (the start of) standard POS template(s) for Korean, tell me what you think.

Is is designed to follow our general style, while allowing a bit more (languages have one standard romanization on the wikt, for Korean SK2000 Revised of course ;-) Robert Ullmann 07:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry to jump in here, but as I've written elsewhere, I'm really curious when and by whom it was decided to treat SK2000 as the standard among standards in this project. I think it should be used in Wikipedia articles, but I do not consider it any more suitable than the others for use in a dictionary, mostly because of its ambiguity both in terms of decoding (“Is this ‹ng› from ‘ㅇㅇ’ or from ‘ㄴㄱ’?”) and encoding (vague rules, no complete table, much guesswork as to how exactly [spaces, capitalisation] something should be romanised since there are no official examples to follow except proper names). Dustsucker 05:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't really know, but think it has simply been picked up by default. Personally I think a rather strong case could be made for Yale, the problem being that hardly anyone uses it except for linguists; also those little dots are kind of ugly. :-) I'm a bit more skeptical of RR transliteration, although I toyed with it for a time, since it seems to be introducing a novel system not described elsewhere (but perhaps there is an authoritative description after all) ... at any rate, I look forward to being enlightened on that score. -- Visviva 08:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Concordance progress
So how are you coming so tar on your work to make proper concordances? If you've reached a stage where data would be helpful to play with, let me know. By this weekend, I hope (knock on wood) to have finished processing a chunk of Shakespeare's Henry V. --EncycloPetey 03:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Korean noun inflections
{ { infl|ko|noun|subject: |비오리가|topic: |비오리는|direct object: |비오리를 } }

Hi, I wonder how much such Korean noun inflections as above around 비오리 would pay back. --KYPark 09:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Rephrased --KYPark 00:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Eurasian water shrew
Hi,

I noticed that you have made a Korean entry for "Eurasian water shrew" and you give Sorex daphaenodon as its scientific name. However, according to Wikipedia and my zoology books "Eurasian water shrew" is Neomys fodiens. According to same sources it lives in Europe and Western part of Asia. Sorex daphaenodon on the other hand is mentioned in Wikipedia by the English name "Siberian large-toothed shrew". I recommend Wikipedia article on "shrew" for further study. With best regards, Hekaheka 22:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks... think I fixed this eventually. -- Visviva 04:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

하는가
I expect you're right about 하는가 (instead of 한가). My information is coming from an often confusing blend of a "concise" Korean-English dictionary, a non-linguist Native Korean, and incomplete online resources. None of them are authoritative. I'll obtain a proper verb table reference before proceeding. Rod (A. Smith) 07:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Transcription, transliteration
Hi, Visviva. You're probably still working on fixing romanization of inflections where the stem ends in ㅎ, but note that the current challenges would be moot if we use transliteration. Rod (A. Smith) 16:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

 * This is true... if there is one more romanization-related glitch in the template, I may be inclined to make the switch to RR transliteration. Been meaning to do some work on About Korean/Romanization, by the way, with the goal of providing reference material and proposed Wiktionary standards for the use of each system (such standards are a particularly thorny matter wrt MR, which has at least 3 major competing versions).  -- Visviva 10:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Appendix:Chess pieces
I discovered this wonderful little translation table for names of chess pieces, and have expanded it as best I could. It still needs Korean, though. Can you help? --EncycloPetey 03:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

 * If it helps, Stephen found the written forms and transliterations. They are already on the page.  I just don't know anything about Korean to be able to set up meaningful entries. --EncycloPetey 04:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Ah, OK. I saw it looked like it had been done already, but I'm happy to help.  -- Visviva 04:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Beer Parlour translation
It took me a while to figure out what meco was saying as well ;) I think the gist is: "This is a big picture proposal, and not everyone can handle loking at the big picture, so we should stick to the smaller picture issue."  At least that's what I got from that. --EncycloPetey 06:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks... good to have a translator around. -- Visviva 17:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


What are these characters?   They display as ? in Firefox (with lots of fonts loaded ;-), and we don't have entries? Robert Ullmann 13:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Heh... I was wondering if anyone would notice. ;-) Those are 옛한글, Middle Korean characters not used in modern Korean, and therefore not included in either the standard Unicode sector for hangul or in most Korean fonts.  If you're interested, you can download a font for them here, click on the green bar.  (works on Firefox/Windows)
 * It is possible there are issues of freedom involved with these codepoints; they are in a Unicode region enigmatically labeled the "Hanyang Private Use Area." Which is to say they are in some sense not actually Unicode; although I don't know if they can be considered non-free, given that the characters themselves are certainlyin the public domain.
 * There appears to have been a small dustup about this in the early history of Korean Wikisource, with various bizarre and dysfunctional workarounds attempted (typing individual jamo and using CSS tricks to bind them together), but since then a live-and-let-live attitude seems to have prevailed. So I figured if it was OK there it was probably OK here, although if that proves not to be the case I will happily consent to the deletion of this entry (and of various 옛한글 in Etymology sections).  -- Visviva 13:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

 * The problem is that that area is re-used for each "private use". It isn't reserved for Old Korean (if it was, it would just have code point assignments.) Using the area is a hack, and a bad one: Unicode provides combining jamo to compose all of the Old Korean syllable blocks, there is a perfectly good way to represent them. Of course, it also provides standard combining jamo for all of the Modern Korean syllable blocks, but the Koreans screamed and screamed and screamed and SCREAMED until we (WG2) gave them a huge tranche of plane 0 for all of the composed blocks. It would be perfectly possible to do the same for Old Korean on plane 2 (within UTF-8, which represents all 231 character codes) but that isn't good enough. (Korean is special you see, superior to everything else ... as you can see I've seen too much of the politics ;-)

 * So we can't use the Private Use Area (although it might be reasonable for ko.wikt, pedia etc, defining it as specifically for Korean; but unpleasant because then the projects aren't using the same code). We can use the combining jamo, but then the fonts are a problem, because the existing ones assume you want the PUA to be Korean-only ... sigh. Robert Ullmann 14:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Aha... thanks for the info. I've just been sort of piecing things together, didn't have a real notion of the big picture here.  So... is there a font that will recombine the jamo properly?  Or should I try to figure out how to write one myself?  I'm not averse to the challenge, though it certainly would be one...  -- Visviva 15:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Possessive forms exclusion WT:VOTE rewritten and restarted
I have rewritten and restarted the vote, having attempted to reword the proposal to address the issues that people have raised. You may want to reread the proposal and reconsider your vote. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Language-specific "see"
I thought the WT:BP discussion was pretty clearly against language-specific templates? --Connel MacKenzie 16:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I'd seen the discussion, but it actually hadn't occurred to me that there was any connection to the Korean/Japanese case. I've put in my 2 cents; thanks for pointing it out.  -- Visviva 17:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin?
Are you interested in being nominated for Adminship? You've been around awhile and are doing some quality work in the community. The extra admin buttons could make some of your efforts a little easier. --EncycloPetey 08:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Well sure, if you feel the time is right. I hadn't been thinking about going in that direction for a while, but I'd be delighted to be considered. -- Visviva 17:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've started a vote. You'll need to go to the "Acceptance" line and add your Babel information and UTC timezone...as well as a note of acceptance, of course. --EncycloPetey 19:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy vote on brand names of products
Hi, I've started a policy vote at Votes/pl-2007-07/Brand names of products. Since you participated in the Beer Parlor discussion, you may wish to vote on the proposal. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Closest out-of-language etymon
Hi, Visviva.

Our approach is usually to show just the closest out-of-language etymon in etymology sections, and 문제 appears to have been borrowed into Korean directly from 問題. So, I altered the etymology. If I'm mistaken, feel free to revert, of course. Cheers! Rod (A. Smith) 16:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, 問題 is also Korean, of course, though like most similar compounds it currently lacks a Korean section. I suppose that we could list all hangul forms of hanja nouns as derived from the hanja form -- but I assume that isn't what you mean.  :-)
 * Are you saying that this is borrowed from Japanese, or from Chinese? I'd feel more comfortable with some sort of support for this (e.g., citations from medieval Chinese works using 問題 in the modern sense), since as with many Sino-Korean compounds it's unclear on the surface whether the word: a) was borrowed from Chinese pre-1910, b) was borrowed from Japanese 1900-1945, or c) was independently created by Korean authors based on the combinatoric rules which are the shared heritage of the the CJKV languages -- or potentially d), is a post-1945 borrowing from Japanese or Chinese.
 * The history of these words is a fascinating subject, but I lack any adequately authoritative resource that addresses these questions. -- Visviva 16:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, without documentation, the history is not known with certainty, but the two-syllable Korean word (which can be spelled in hanja or hangeul) seems to have come directly from the two-syllable Japanese word. Assuming that's so, our typical treatment in the etymology section is to show just the compound Japanese etymon (although  ignores the distinction between Japanese and Chinese etymons).  Of course, documentation is even better and could invalidate my guess about direct Japanese borrowing.  To show word histories beyond their immediate out-of-language ancestor, we usually put that in the etymon's entry and let the reader click through for those details. Rod (A. Smith) 17:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I understand the principle, but don't see how this can be regarded as a transparent borrowing from Japanese (particularly since it occurs in Mandarin as well). If I had had to guess, I would have guessed that this word originally referred to problems on the old state civil service examinations, and was adopted into medieval Korean from Chinese usage; but absent some basis for stating that, I think it's better to retain the straightforward explanation of composition, which is just as valid or invalid for one CJK(V) language as it is for another.  (Even in modern Korean it is not unusual for new Sino-Korean compounds to emerge).  I don't dispute that the word in question (and many others) may well have been borrowed from Japanese, but there is no a priori reason to assume that a reasonably intuitive compound found in two or more CJK(V) languages did not emerge independently in each.  -- Visviva 17:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Since you understand the principle of documenting the immediate out-of-language etymon, I'm satisfied. I trust your judgment regarding likely histories of individual words. Rod (A. Smith) 18:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, well, thanks. :-)  Still, I'd like to figure out where this word did come from, if possible... -- Visviva 18:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Further on this... the earliest valid cites for 問題 in the Joseon wangjo sillok that I can find are from the reign of Gojong; these start in 1896, when the term is already being used in its fully modern sense.  This still leaves the question of origins rather up in the air; there was a lot of Japanese influence in Korea by 1896, but there was also a lot of Chinese influence, in addition to a fair amount of homegrown intellectual ferment -- the term could have arisen from any of these.  I still need some form of evidence to be convinced that this was a Japanese borrowing.  When does 問題 first appear in Japanese?  -- Visviva 18:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Revised romanization confusion
Hi, Visviva. I haven't been able to find a complete reference for RRoK. As a result, I don't know whether yeokhal or yeokal is the correct transcription of 역할. Do you know of any complete reference for RRoK? Thanks in advance. Rod (A. Smith) 01:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The official specifications are in Ministry of Culture & Tourism Bulletin 2000-8, which is available in translated form here. Note the exception for nouns (actually 체언 in the original); based on this, I believe yeokhal is the correct romanization here.  I've also been in the habit of assuming that this exception extends to hada verbs formed from substantives, since the same logic would seem to apply (thus e.g. 대답하다 as daedaphada); however, as far as I'm aware the specific hada issue is never addressed in any official documentation.  Such are the downsides of a system which seems to have been primarily intended for the transcription of proper nouns. -- Visviva 02:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks. That's the most complete document I had read (probably dozens of times).  I thought perhaps another version would incluide a "New Romanization System" table before it was "simplified", i.e. one that includes "the case of assimilation of adjacent consonants", "the case of the epenthetic ㄴ and ㄹ", "cases of palatalization", and "cases where ㄱ, ㄷ, ㅂ, and ㅈ are adjacent to ㅎ".  Guess not.  Rod (A. Smith) 02:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Lanner Falcon
I would have expected the spelling Lanner falcon. Is that what you intended? --EncycloPetey 23:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I would actually prefer to spell it lanner falcon, as I don't care for the convention of capitalizing the common names of animal species; however, the vast majority of b.g.c. ang general-web hits used "Lanner Falcon," so that is where I placed the article. I'm not attached to this solution, it just seemed like the best thing at the time... Probably all imaginable alternative capitalizations should be created as soft redirects in any case.  Cheers, -- Visviva 05:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

PS - I have a question posted on your Wikispecies User page, as it pertains to revisions on Wikispecies. I've posted the same quesiton at the WS Village Pump, in case the help I need is more than you alone can provide. --EncycloPetey 23:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Administratorship
Congratulations, you are now a Wiktionary administrator. I hope you enjoy your new role and make good use of your new powers. — Paul G 13:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sysop-fishing
I object to your unblocking, without discussion.

 * 1) 11:31, December 1, 2005 SemperBlotto (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "depants" (tosh) (Restore)
 * 2) b.g.c. does not attest it (where did you dig those up?)
 * 3) b.g.c. *does* attest a different form (WT:RFV..."de-pants" may be valid, "depants" not...from May of this year.)
 * 4) Original entry was from a vandal-only account.
 * 5) Previous deletion was from a UK sysop (so it isn't just 'unheard-of in the US,' it also isn't a UKism.)
 * 6) Re-entered by a contributor who regularly makes bad entries.
 * 7) Removed again.
 * 8) Re-entered by an anon (with a "dirty IP" - probably an open proxy, or otherwise shared IP.)
 * 9) Re-entered with a false comment.  (Gee, http://www.dictionary.com which does include that dictionary, doesn't list it today.  Nor back then.)
 * 10) Trolling on my Wikipedia talk page, with egregious lies about a one week block somehow being indefinite, plus numerous false references to WP policies that do not apply here, appeals to authority, claims of good-faith edits there (so what?) with little demonstrated here.
 * 11) Apparently, fishing around, until finding you.

Don't you think a LITTLE discussion might have been warranted? What is that contributor's problem, that they can't even send an e-mail? What is their problem, that all they can do is irrationally scream at length about Wiktionary not being exactly like Wikipedia for user talk pages? (Duh: is that feature abused on WP? Almost 100% of the time, no?)

I wish for you to reinstate the rest of the one-week block and apologize. I have serious doubts about that contributor becoming useful here, when they can't even recognize: #1) what they did was wrong, #2) what I did was not in any way untoward.

--Connel MacKenzie 22:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Review: depants is a perfectly good entry; easily attested with b.g.c. (It is a scanno as well for departs, but whether that is worth listing is marginal.) Dictionary.com does list it as a valid entry from Random House and Webster's. Even if the user was/is troublesome, describing a perfectly good, accurate entry as "nonsense" is not constructive, and not in itself a basis for a block. While there may be some other basis, this entry is not it. Why the de-pants variant doesn't exist when it was clearly stated as cited in that rfv discussion is not known. Robert Ullmann 23:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Robert, thank you for your observation, but obviously (as even Ruakh didn't find cites for this when it came up in May) it is not "easily attested." Searching d.com just a little while ago (when discussing it with Muke on IRC) it wasn't - but perhaps I was looking up on of the myriad other forms.  Nonsense is a perfect description for the unattested definition proffered.  But the main point is that it was the third re-addition without cites.  Once is too often.  --Connel MacKenzie 01:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I apologize for any disruption this action may have caused. As it happens, the user is someone with whom I have had extensive constructive interaction across several projects, although s/he has expressed a wish not to be directly identified here; our working relationship was, I think, the reason s/he contacted me.  In any case, I do believe that the actions of User:24.93.170.200 demonstrate a fairly solid record of good-faith contributions to Far Eastern and other languages (which I have reason to believe are all due to the same user), to which the creation of depants is no exception.  However, I also happy to remove myself from this matter and leave it to community discussion.   My judgment was undertaken in good faith, as I believe yours (Connel's) were as well; it may well be, however, that my judgment was mistaken.  If this is the case, I am happy to accept whatever remedy the community deems appropriate.
 * I am working through limited internet access at the moment (generally with 24-48 hour gaps, although today is an exception), while I am traveling in the States. I must, therefore, ask forgiveness for not investing as much time in the matter as perhaps I should have, and in particular for failing to initiate discussion before I took action.   I think, however, that just as discussion would have been warranted for my unblocking, it also would have been warranted prior to the original block.
 * Please allow me to sketch the chain of events as I perceive them:
 * 1. User:24..., acting in good faith, adds a suspicious entry
 * 2. User:CM, engaging in his laudable work of patrolling edits, observes this suspicious activity, interprets it as blatant vandalism, and responds appropriately (removing the material and blocking the user).
 * 3. User:24... becomes upset, which unfortunately is a common response to blocking.
 * 4. User:24... sends me an email requesting advice.
 * 5. I review User:24...'s contributions, giving particular attention to depants (which is apparently the only problematic contribution from this user)
 * 6. I retrieve 3 citations for "depants" from b.g.c., among the tens available, and restore the disputed sense to that entry in what I believe to be a CFI-compliant way.
 * 7. Because no remotely blockable offense seems to have taken place, I unblock User:24..., providing an explanatory summary, reasoning that User:CM's block was probably made in good faith but hastily, and that he and other users will perceive my action to have been warranted. (*)
 * 8. Being in a rush to deal with some RL matters, I fail to contact User:CM to explain my action. (*)
 * 9. User:CM becomes upset, which unfortunately is a common and natural response to having one's actions reversed.
 * My actions marked by (*) -- viz., my unblocking of User:24... and my failure to explain myself immediately to the blocking admin -- are the only events in this chain which, in my estimation, can be considered problematic. I would be happy to accept community review for these actions, and apologize for any unnecessary disruption arising from them. -- Visviva 00:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Thank you. Apology accepted.  I (of all people) can understand RL interruptions.  Given your "timeline" of events I wish to ask you to make sure 8 comes before 7 (with some time to respond) if something similar happens in the future...I will continue to do so myself.  --Connel MacKenzie 01:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

ko-basic-adj
There are two extra }'s on the key= parameter. Robert Ullmann 14:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for this (I inadvertently thanked the wrong person in my edit summary). -- Visviva 15:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

new users
There is a very high probability that "Neverbeenkissed" and "Pizzamonger" are WF socks. Takes a CU to check if the net is Tiscali UK. Robert Ullmann 10:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * OK, thanks for the heads up. -- Visviva 10:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

burn scar..
That entry was really more Wikipedia material.. (I was busily deleting while you were moving.. ) --Versageek 05:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, I wasn't entirely sure that it wasn't salvageable, but I'm not sorry to see it go. Thanks for the note!  -- Visviva 05:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Is a parameter present?
{{ subst: #ifeq:{{{relterms|-}}}|{{{relterms|+}}}|

Related terms

}}

Robert Ullmann 17:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * That's a neat trick, thanks. In this case that was actually the opposite of what I was trying to do, but I'll definitely keep it on file.  -- Visviva 05:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Quotations
Hi,

Thanks for all the cites you've been adding to articles! Just a reminder, we don't wrap quotations in quotation marks, as the source information serves the purpose of identifying quotes, and the indentation serves the purpose of delimiting them.

Thanks again!

—Ruakh TALK 14:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Wow, a project page with up-to-date, useful information! I'd forgotten we had any of those. :-)  Thanks for the reminder.  Omitting the quotation marks seems horrifically unnatural to me, but I guess I'd better get used to it.  Sigh. -- Visviva 14:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Hey, remember that question you had about Citations: page titles?  See Quotations.  But maybe you noticed that already.

Explanation of deletion
Well, frankly, I don't know why you say that. There is nothing rude about quashing the MediaWiki generated duplication of deleted content; particularly when most of the time, it is libelous personal information. Since the en.wikt deletion logs are harvested and reposted, it is ludicrous to allow those deletion comments to duplicate the same private information being deleted in the first place. --Connel MacKenzie 18:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Hmm... I may have to eat my words. My recollection is that the last time I clicked on an "explanation of deletion" (quite a while ago), it took me to the deletion entry, as if anyone querying the deletion must be a moron who doesn't understand what deletion is.  I recall a certain amount of steam escaping from my ears on that occasion.  On the other hand, linking to the sysop-delete page is certainly not rude (although it is less than helpful), so please accept my confused apology.
 * On the broader matter, I would have to disagree. Certainly where personal attacks, privacy, or copyvio are in question, the autosummary should be blanked and replaced with a summary of the reasons for deletion ("deleted as possible attack page," etc.). But in general, if we don't explain why a page was deleted (or allow the autosummary do so for us), we are leaving the non-admin user completely in the dark.
 * It was quite frustrating for me in the past, when I would discover that an entry I was going to create had previously been deleted, but with no indication as to the reasons for that deletion... and thus no indication as to whether any entry I might create would also be subject to deletion. Transparency in the deletion process is a Good Thing.  Now, I'd have to admit I get sloppy with my own deletion summaries -- e.g. just leaving  in the autosummary without explaining the outcome of debate -- so I'm in no position to point fingers... but I don't think automated sloppiness is a good idea. -- Visviva 10:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Perhaps, but automating the propagation of libelous material is worse. That's merely one we actually have heard about.  Anyhow, no worries.  Keep up the good contributions and cleanup efforts.  (On another note, I think you understand, now, why so many of us have burned out on WT:RD/WT:RFV archiving.  Every single entry is at least a little controversial...or it wouldn't be there to begin with.  Therefore, no matter what you do, someone will be angry...for each and every one.)  --Connel MacKenzie 05:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Attributive use?
How would I identify an "attributive use" of a proper noun? Kappa 02:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, ask ten editors and you'll get eleven answers... But you know that. ;-)  I would define it as "use to indicate something other than the literal referent," often to attribute to another thing some notable property of the literal referent.  So "she went and bought a Rolls-Royce" would not be attributive use, but "these shoes are the Rolls-Royce of discount beige loafers" would be.  Or in the toponymic context, use of Chicago to denote a kind of hot dog, pizza, or blues would count as attributive use.  A Chicago hot dog is still a Chicago hot dog, even on the other side of the world. (Unfortunately, I can state from bitter experience that this does not apply to Chicago pizza.)
 * So that's my interpretation, which I think is pretty close to the middle of the road. That said, I think we might do well to scotch the entire criterion.  If a proper noun has acquired an entirely different sense, if for example "Rolls-Royce" really has become a synonym for "high-class luxury item," that sense alone should be given a full listing in mainspace, with only a nod to the literal referent in Appendix-space (or in Wikipedia).  I'm not sure that proper nouns sensu stricto (leaving aside months, language names, surnames, etc.) really belong in the mainspace at all.  We're wasting a lot of energy on these litmus tests that would be better applied to the task of writing the dictionary.  -- Visviva 03:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:English initialisms
Yes, odd, something to be fixed. The other oddity is using templates in the header line with a lang= parameter, instead of a headword/inflection line template like most POS ... Robert Ullmann 15:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

protocol droid
Going through the July RFV archive, I saw your comment about protocol droid, and restored the entry and added the cites you linked to from RFD — except that one of the cites doesn't actually seem to use the terms? (See Special:Whatlinkshere/protocol droid.) —Ruakh TALK 16:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Mass substitution
Hi DAVilla,

Thanks for all your work around here. I would really appreciate, though, if before making bulk changes to a large number of entries, you would at least wait for comment. As I've noted on RFDO, I strongly disagree with the deprecation of these templates; I find them useful for both entering and maintaining this kind of data. -- Visviva 15:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

 * This concerns comments at WT:RFDO and a few other breifly discussed nominations. The prefix templates I deleted appeared to have namespace conflicts. In retrospect there was probably no conflict, so I probably did act with haste. I didn't mean to delete anything contentious.
 * I'm sorry that your opinion was outweighed without ample response. You put a lot of thought into your comments, but know that they were not ignored. Conrad left and  because they did something "useful" in linking the correct section. I'm against even this use as implemented, although a cleaner implementation may be possible. In my opinion it would also be nice if the templates indicated meaning.
 * Personally I didn't feel like your ideas applied to the templates as they existed, and that etymologies are not standardized to the point where templates will help. In retrospect, if and  are not going to be substituted, then individual templates may make more sense. But they were not perfected at the time and I would rather not see them in such state in bulk. I would much rather see  and like templates fully developed and implemented, and Etymology become official policy first, before doing copy-and-paste jobs in the template space. Even then, it would be better to demonstrate the need with a few templates, such as the two Conrad left behind.
 * Writing this has given me some ideas, and I'm going to try them out. DAVilla 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

 * OK, no worries, thanks for responding, not sure now why I was so invested anyway. Cheers, -- Visviva 12:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Visviva/archive/2006-2007


text: Category:kn:Architecture

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

title: Category:kn:Architecture


text:
okfa

Noun

 * 1) valley

title: okfa


text: okfałi

title: okfałi


text:
User talk:Visviva/archive/2008

hinder
Happy New Year! When you have a moment, could you please add Korean translations to the entry for hinder (both verb and adjective)? This is to be another model page. Thanks. --EncycloPetey 04:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi EP, thanks for the fixes on the noun section. In re the above, I can find no support for "most hinder" or "more hinder" -- see  and, which yield only spurious hits.  So I would vote to toss these forms out, absent further discoveries... On the other hand, hindermost is well-attested, and hindermore seems to fall just short of CFI.  HTH.  Cheers, -- Visviva 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will you do the honors?  This entry is slated to be WOTD on the 8th, and I'd like it to be a showcase of what we can really do.  Most WOTD pages aren't this fleshed-out, but I like to go all the way with them every once in a while.  Any red links that you can fill before then would also be welcome.  As a model page, this is an entry I'll point people to for guidance, so having well-formatted foreign language entries off it would be a bonus.  --EncycloPetey 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW (and just for laughs) here is the entry as it looked early this morning, before a crack team of Wiktionarians was goaded into helping with this entry. --EncycloPetey 05:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 * That's some fine goading there. -- Visviva 05:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

떡
The References section was at level five, in the L3 Etymology section; the only way References can appear at L5 is to be in an L4 POS section nested in multiple ety's at L3. Should generally be L4 in the POS, or L3 at the end. ;-) Robert Ullmann 12:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, sure... if the References were at L4, they would be before the POS and at the same level, which would seem inappropriate; with the refs at the end, the direct association with the etymology itself (rather than the entire Etymology-Pronounciation-POS complex) is not clear. But I don't guess there's any way around it... and I have to accept that a human copyeditor would probably have found that arrangement just as problematic as AF did.  That's a fine bot you've got there.  -- Visviva 14:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Home Depot
I've hunted down citations for this one - could you revisit your RfD vote? Cheers! bd2412 T 17:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Proper nouns Translingual
Interesting rant. There is something stupid about having "translations" of Krushchev into different languages, especially where there are not even differences in diacritical marks. But the French usually have such marks. Could you direct me to any WT discussions about this? What is the scope of your targets for reform?

Place names seem to have too many issues. Would place names be translingual even if there were distinct etymologies in different languages? (I'm thinking about the various large lakes in North America with different names in different native languages.) And what about the politics of different names?

What about the transliteration issues? This could end up being a Quixotic (Shavian?) effort at spelling reform.

Finally, are there any templates for Translingual proper nouns to accelerate entry of taxonomic names etc.? DCDuring 16:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I missed this one. I would say that the basic three-language rule should apply across the board; a place name isn't necessary translingual, but if it can be attested in at least three contemporary languages it should be considered translingual.  That obviously applies to most Roman-alphabet place names that are otherwise eligible for inclusion.  I'd even be happy with a stricter rule requiring three unrelated languages (any proper noun that can be cited with the same meaning in Turkish, Indonesian, and French is almost certainly translingual).  Otherwise we'll keep getting more absurdities like Chicago.
 * I don't think there have been extensive discussions of the topic. The notion of marking given names as translingual did get shouted down at some point a few months ago (maybe in RFD), with several editors arguing that these should have sections for every language in which they are attested.  Which is to say, for the more common given names, virtually identical sections for almost every language (there are certainly people in Germany named "John," so I guess we should have a German section there).  I didn't understand the logic then, and I don't understand it now.
 * As far as I'm aware Translingual remains something of a backwater, with few templates and underdeveloped category structure. Templates for taxonomic names (etymology, inflection line) would be an excellent thing; if they're out there now, they aren't getting much use.   -- Visviva 16:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

spetchel
Hi. Let's talk. I posted plenty of information about spetchel. I notice that it is not under Requests_for_verification/archive under failed entries, which makes me wonder why it was deleted by you for "failing verification". The word is currently in use on wikipedia, the Glossary of North Country Words, and 22 other works which should cover the "actual use" qualification. As far as Connel MacKenzie was concerned, it was covered. What exactly is the problem with the word? --Marmoset Marmalade 16:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I also note that under the criteria for Requests for verification, "Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year." Wouldn't the word appearing in 23 books count as "usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year."? On top of that, doesn't published books that are searchable by Google Books count as "Cite, on the article page, the word’s usage in a well-known work." and usage of the word in permanently recorded media (since it is listed under such)? --Marmoset Marmalade 16:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Definitions do not count; see WT:CFI. As far as I can see,all of the genuine Google books hits, as well as the other links you provided, are from dictionaries, glossaries, and journal articles which define the term without using it.  Definitions alone are simply not sufficient for verification.  If you can find three citations of the word in actual use (i.e. something like "we're putting in a spetchel behind the back garden") then feel free to restore the entry.  Thanks for your interest in this word; if you can find evidence that it is or has been in genuine use, you shall have my lifelong respect.  Cheers, -- Visviva 23:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a goal then. :D I assume that a wikipedia entry that has the word doesn't count as one? --Marmoset Marmalade 13:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Afraid not. (actually I think it should, since Wikipedia is at least as durably archived as Usenet, but I'm very far outside the mainstream on this.) Good luck!  -- Visviva 14:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like I will have to look through newspaper articles and the like. To clarify, if I find things like web pages or the like where the word is in use, that is fine? --Marmoset Marmalade 15:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it needs to be in print or a medium of comparable durability; the problem with websites is that they tend to disappear and even the Internet Archive is less reliable than one would like. We do make an exception for Usenet; regular websites, however, are out.  -- Visviva 16:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that I will have to do a search of various local newspapers then. I have found a similar word, spetchell, which I have plenty of references for (or at least I hope I do). --Marmoset Marmalade 16:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving - finer points
Hello,

I see you've been one of the few people actively archiving sections. I'd like to note that, at least in the past, the archiving (e.g. to a talk page) meant that no soft-link is left behind...the conversation's new "home" is the relevant talk page. In particular, and  used to be the "standard" wrappers.

To help you out, I'd like to point out the benefits of allowing some automation to do the grunt work for you. By simply striking out the section title, the section can be moved out (if there have been no comments in the last 14 days.) For deletions, it is intended to be even easier: if the section title is a redlink to a valid page name, they are archived after fourteen days.

The point of the automation is not particularly to reduce the amount of work you need to do on a particular item, but rather, to consistently cross-reference these things. Each person involved seems to do it slightly differently, causing lots of broken links and hard feelings. (For example, most of RFD from 2007 was hijacked directly to new, inappropriate archive pages, with the items were still being discussed actively. Many may have been deleted or kept inappropriately, as most people - such as myself - had no way of accessing the hidden archives.  Had they been discussed before someone was being bold, the shortcomings of such an approach could have been pointed out.)

There is currently some active conversation in WT:GP regarding my new "KillBot" archiver. So far, I have RFDO and RFD closing out redlink sections and stricken bluelink sections. The idea is that once you have a disposition for an item, you can either delete the target page, or strike out the section title. Two weeks later (if you signed the item at the same time) it will get archived to wherever it needs to go. I plan on expanding it to RFV shortly. Feedback is appreciated.

--Connel MacKenzie 03:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Well this seems like a good step. BTW, that's certainly not true about RFD, unless by "active" you mean "not discussed for more than 60 days"; perhaps you meant instead to refer to the recent and very sloppy "archiving" of RFV.  -- Visviva 05:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I think you are right - the RFV was the more egregious mangling. But mid 2007 saw massive disruption to both.  --Connel MacKenzie 06:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I've heard subtle complaint from you about the de.wikt-style links to static revisions. That type of link was harder to do and was specifically requested.  It was also presented in a discussion (Jan 2007 WT:GP) as a simply superior arrangement.  I've come to accept those arguments, now that I've seen it in action.  The links to the specific revision provide a much greater context (like when someone says, "see the '#blahBlahBlah' conversation above.")  They also are 'much kinder on the database (especially in the long run.)  They also have the advantage of taking wayward comments out of the limelight - so that, for example, Ruakh won't easily be embarrassed some day by some of his more vitriolic comments.  (I guess we could ask him a few years from now.)  Specific entries are still easy to link to.  The alphabetic index makes looking up similar spellings much easier.  There is much to be said for actual elimination of old conversations; policy itself changes...comments made under one regime would seem completely absurd under another.  (For example, the WT:RFD discussions from the era before we even had WT:RFV.)  The disadvantage is that searches of the verbose text are more difficult.  But, as I just described, that traditionally has been considered a benefit, not a disadvantage (at least by User:Eclecticology et al.)

 * I'm concerned now about fine-tuning the archiving, to reduce the still-too-large backlog in WT:RFV. Suggestions are welcome.  --Connel MacKenzie 06:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Huh. Guess I missed that discussion, thanks for the pointer.  I tend to have odd and unpopular views on subjects like deletion, so I'll stop grousing about this.  As long as the discussions can still be found by those who want to find them, no irreparable harm is done.  Searchability is important, but actually it is probably more important that we have some system for closure and archiving that is followed in a reasonably timely and consistent fashion.  You are to be commended for undertaking the major effort to put such a system in place.  Cheers, -- Visviva 06:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

ulterior motive and template:quote-book
Hello Visviva -- In don't think we should reproduce quotation marks that were in the original if we are quoting from entirely within them. We aren't identifying the speaker anyway and it doesn't matter for purposes of illustrating a meaning.

As for the template, I appreciate the work you've put into it. Two thoughts: (1) I believe the URL is overkill, since all that is needed to complete a proper citation are publisher and place of publication, which could easily just be included directly in the template. (2) According to WT:QUOTE all parts of the citation line are separated by commas and the citation line even ends with a comma.

BTW, I am glad to see that links to wikipedia work from within the template (e.g., |author=Ernest Hemingway ). -- WikiPedant 06:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your detailed response. I guess I lean toward including quotation marks that are present in the original since it is potentially relevant that a construction was used a) not in the author's voice, and b) in a representation of speech.  ulterior motive is not such a case, though, so I have no objection to their removal (now that I understand the reason why).
 * Regarding the template, I think I've fixed the periods/commas issue now; there was some gunk left over from when I copied w:Template:cite book to . Somehow I never noticed that; what remains of my eyesight must be going. 8-)
 * Oops! I've always ended the source line with a colon, guess I'd better fix that.  A comma does seem awfully unnatural though... See, this is why we need templates... or why I need them, anyway.  :-)  I can never keep this stuff straight. -- Visviva 09:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

 * On point (1), I would have to disagree; I think the publisher information is almost useless (since the ISBN is already a unique identifier), whereas without a URL the citation cannot easily be verified and evaluated by other editors. Most of the time that isn't a big deal, but I've seen more than a few cases where I would really have liked to be able to check the original context.  -- Visviva 10:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

textual harassment
Still has RfV tag. Should RfVd sense go to RfV or is everyone sick of seeing it? I'd be surprised if there would be any print attestation. DCDuring TALK 17:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, I'm kind of sick of seeing it, but there may be some scattered use in Usenet and Google News archives (tho' mostly just jocose mentions or headline-writer cleverness). So it should probably go to RFV.  I'll do the honors. -- Visviva 03:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

VIP
Is VIP intended for any purpose other than for conveying helpful information from an ordinary user to someone in a position to block a user? There are, I would guess, better sources of information for actual blocks. DCDuring TALK 04:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

 * That's my understanding, yes (that it's only for reports of vandalism, and would normally be used only by non-admins for the purpose of contacting admins). -- Visviva 04:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Squiffy/Vietnamese
Does that make it a translation to be checked? Or should I just remove it? Thanks, Harris Morgan 16:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC).

 * Not a translation to be checked, because in the Wiktionary context that usually means "a translation to be assigned to a specific sense." So I would say it is probably best removed, yes (at least for now).  Users who really need a Vietnamese translation can always follow the interwiki.  Cheers, -- Visviva 16:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Korean Hanja
Would you be willing to look at User:Robert Ullmann/L2/invalid, at the line "Korean Atelaes 20:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Done now. -- Visviva 04:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks. You're the shit!  (in the colloquial "excellent" sense, not the "feces" sense).  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

German
Thank you, Visviva! I thought it was a plural, but, oh, well. Thank you for saying so.Kitty53 21:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

 * You're welcome. -- Visviva 16:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird one
WiktionaryZ vs. Talk:WiktionaryZ

When was it (improperly?) re-rfd'd? I'm not sure how I missed it. I do think, if anything, the redirect should be kept. --Connel MacKenzie 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

 * It was part of the wjargon bulk nom from last year; see Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2007/07. No strong opinion on my part. -- Visviva 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

omnisentience
Well, you got to put in all the good stuff. Sorry. I should have realized that you must have been working on it. I also enjoyed learning the word macaronic from the ety for pansentience. I'm going to speculate that I already know the etymology for that one. DCDuring TALK 15:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

 * No worries. Surprised me a bit.  It's not often I have an edit conflict before creating an entry.  Cheers, -- Visviva 15:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomic names
Animal and plant names, both taxonomic and common, strike me as a useful area for some documentation. Is there some that I've missed? Is anyone expert or interested? I may check at WP for interest. All of the component elements, at least above cultivar, would seem to have a natural place here. I'm not so sure about whether we should have every two-part species name, especially initially. It's an interesting case of "official" naming, too, where we infer meaning from the norms of the community, as prescribed by an official entity, rather than usage. How important do you think this area is? DCDuring TALK 10:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

 * It's pretty important, but not an area that has seen much systematic activity or focused discussion as yet. EncycloPetey and SemperBlotto would be your best contacts for more information & feedback.  In general I think it is accepted that all taxonomic names (that are attested in the literature) merit inclusion.  This includes binomial names, of which we have a few; however, as you say, they aren't the first priority.  Points of reference: Appendix:Taxonomic names, Category:Taxonomic names, and some old discussions: April 2005, March 2005.  HTH, -- Visviva 11:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

whisper in the wind
Thanks. Did you use WP to get context to inform your attestation search? I think I'll have to make a habit of that in cases where I am so ignorant. DCDuring TALK 11:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Not exactly, though that's a good idea... My imperfect and ad hoc process went something like this: I noticed that the Google News results for "whisper in the wind" + "wrestling" mostly referred either to some guy named "Jeff" or some other guy named "Hardy."  So I thought, 'hm, I wonder if those are different people or not' and typed "Jeff Hardy" into a web search; Jeff Hardy was the top result.    To double check, I went back to Google News Archives and searched for '"whisper in the wind" + wrestling -Jeff -Hardy' ... which came up virtually empty.  Of course this isn't absolutely probative, but it seemed like enough to go on. -- Visviva 11:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Yes, mostly I just get lucky in the course of the searches. It's getting to be just of question of how many tabs I keep open. Trying to process/improve entries quickly does make for lots of misses and incomplete improvements, whether by bot or by hand. DCDuring TALK 20:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Recreating articles
Hello, Visviva. Remember when you allowed me to recreate neugeborenes? I felt silly when allowed to do that, because on Wikipedia, whatever you created youself, if deleted, someone else has to recreate it for you. I had created neugeborenes before, and you allowed me to recreate it, and thanks for revising it. If any wiktionary article gets deleted, does this mean that even the creater of the article can recreate it? Just the thought of it makes me feel a little silly.Kitty53 20:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

 * We're not really very bureaucratic here, so I don't think we have any strict rules for this sort of thing. Entries can be recreated in modified form if they have been previously speedily deleted (this was true on Wikipedia too, the last I checked); however, there is some risk that this will be regarded as bad-faith behavior and lead to re-deletion and blocking.  In the case of neugeborenes, the article had most recently been deleted simply as the result of a move (since redirects resulting from a page move are generally deleted), and in cases such as that there would never be any problem with re-creation.  Note that recreating entries that have previously failed WT:RFD is very likely to lead to speedy deletion and blocking. In general, if you want to re-create an entry that has previously been deleted, it's a good idea to contact the deleting admin first; that helps to avoid any misunderstandings down the line.  -- Visviva 04:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Thank you. I forgot to do that.:)Kitty53 20:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

great pic for mares tails --71.254.108.151 05:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks! Of course the real credit should go to Mila Zinkova. -- Visviva 06:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
...about -  I had misunderstood what it was about. I thought whitelisted user's stuff was immediately/automatically checked. I missed the part about the prefs having to be turned on... :oops: \Mike 14:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

 * No worries; I just happened to notice it and think "I know I've seen DP's contribs getting autopatrolled." -- Visviva 14:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Visviva
i have started my own wikidictionary here is the link if your interested. http://wildfireness.wikispaces.com/ --Yukongold 03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

onset
FYI, regarding your edit summaries at onset: that's how it was in the 1913 edition of Webster's, where this entry was apparently lifted from (see http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=onset&use1913=on). I'm not sure what the story is, but <definition> <italicized surname> with no quotation is a very common pattern in that edition. —Ruakh TALK</i > 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks; I cottoned on to that eventually. I still stand by my position that it's "mysterious gunk" for our purposes, though. :-)  -- Visviva 06:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a serious guy.
Do you really think I was trying to be funny by adding the jackarse entry? I honestly thought it was called jackarse in England since British English uses Ass instead of Arse, could you please explain? 82.148.70.2 10:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and if my entry was nonsense, I apologize, I just wanted to help, like I said, I thought jackass is jackarse and still think it is in British English since arse is the British version of the word ass. I really would appricate if you could clarify for me. 82.148.70.2 10:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

 * The thing is, the original meaning of "jackass" is "male donkey," and ass in the sense of "donkey" is spelled the same way in all varieties of modern English. The Commonwealth "arse" spelling refers only to the posterior.  So "jackarse" would be a very strange coinage.  Checking  confirmed my suspicions that this does not have much (if any) usage, and is probably used only in parodies of certain varieties of English. -- Visviva 10:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, it was very useful. 82.148.70.2 14:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

treant
Does this help?

 * 1977 — Gary Gygax, Monster Manual, page 96
 * Treants are strangely related to humans and trees, combining features of both species. ...an individual treant can cause only one or two normal trees to move and attack as stipulated.

I still have this book, mostly as a result of not ever getting rid of old books once acquired. --EncycloPetey 14:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Wonderful, thanks! (and thanks also for adding the citation to the entry). -- Visviva 05:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:oko
ISO templates shoud never link to Wikipedia. They exist primarily to be subst'ed, and should link internally. --EncycloPetey 06:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Huh, must have confused it with something else, thanks. Although it does seem like the same rationale that applies to linking to WP articles in Etymology sections would also apply elsewhere ... -- Visviva 06:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Soviet
There is another sense, not hard to cite, that seems to mean "in a style or manner characteristic of the Soviet era in Russia and elsewhere in the Soviet Union's sphere of inflence (or Evil Empire)" It seems to be used relative to architecture, decor, product design, customer service, art, drama, books, etc. We are probably 40 years behind the times in not having this sense. There are periodic waves of nostalgia for those good old days, even now. I'll get to it tomorrow if you don't. And thanks for citing some of the things I RfV. Some entries just don't motivate me postively enough so that I don't do that good a job for them. DCDuring <i >TALK</i > 02:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks, and likewise. Our disinterests seem to mesh fairly well.  :-)  I definitely wouldn't question the validity of any of the senses, I'm just not sure whether they are best covered in detail under soviet or Soviet.  BTW, interesting use of take out in that last quote you added.  -- Visviva 04:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Word of the day/Nominations
Just to let you know that I moved WT:FWC to Word of the day/Nominations and it is in your User:Visviva/Watchlist.

epistemology
Hello Visviva -- Regarding the edit that you made to "epistemology" here, and your comment expressing doubt about the need for separate senses for both (a) the area of philosophy and (b) the theory of knowledge of a particular philosopher: Like you, I have have sometimes felt that the distinction seems to be overkill, although I have added some of these dual senses myself. The situation does not apply to all philosophical terms, but to the names of areas of philosophy and schools of thought (e.g., one can talk about existentialism or, say, only Sartre's existentialism). What I keep coming back to in my mind, though, is that (a) the two kinds of usage of, say, "epistemology" are not strictly interchangeable (so that the meanings are not strictly identical); (b) good dictionaries are awfully precise (and philosophers are some of the biggest fussbudgets of all when it comes to exacting terminology); and (c) these philosophical terms do tend to behave differently than similar terms in, say, the physical sciences, where we are unlikely to talk about the diverse "chemistries" of different chemists or the "biology" of just one particular biologist (although, admittedly, in rare cases we might) while this kind of talk is routine in philosophy. So I keep coming back around to thinking that it is valid to distinguish the 2 senses, especially in the case of fields of study and schools of thought within philosophy. But I have to admit I still feel a bit unsettled about this question. -- WikiPedant 17:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I gave it some more thought after that edit, and yes, I think you're right. The sense in which, for example, someone can be a "Professor of Epistemology" is very different from the sense in which one can talk about a specific epistemology.  But one thing that bothers me is something normal dictionaries wouldn't take into consideration:  this bifurcation seems to be universal.  One can speak of "Hegels Erkenntnistheorie" or "헤겔의 인식론" in German and Korean, just as one can speak of "Hegel's epistemology" in English.  That seems to indicate that the distinction is encyclopedic rather than lexical.  Nonetheless, as you say, it probably is a distinction we need to make in order to properly inform our readers.  Purism will get us nowhere.  -- Visviva 03:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Reflecting on the above, this seems like a good argument for combining the two senses, something like "the theory of knowledge, either in general or as expounded by a particular philosopher or school of thought." -- Visviva 04:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

quarrelsome
Dyslexia, vision problem, brain fart, never read a word ending in "-some" before? How did that happen? Does that tell us something about our users? DCDuring <i >TALK</i > 11:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I think this user is a VI editor, and so not a native speaker of English. Of course, given the global nature of the internet (and English) that is something we should keep in mind about our users -- most are not native speakers. -- Visviva 15:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I guess many languages don't use punctuation the way I'm used to. I'd never realized the kind of error that could lead to. Thanks. DCDuring <i >TALK</i > 16:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure about Vietnamese punctuation rules, but in general (except for the fluentest of the fluent) reading/writing a foreign language leaves fewer cognitive resources available than are present when using the L1. It's sort of like having water in your ears.  This makes complex or dispersed structures like "a quarrelsome, bad-tempered manner" more difficult to parse -- your brain has a hard time stretching all the way to the end of the phrase, and tries to chunk the expression prematurely.  That's my experience, anyway.  Arguably an important element of usability for us is ensuring that we provide simple, short definitions and example sentences. -- Visviva 16:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I've been reading dictionaries a bit more carefully lately and have come to appreciate much more what they do. Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English is an outstanding example of a learning-user-oriented dictionary. They are a great model for all the most common words (first 5-10-20K ?). We have so many, umm, improvement opportunities (MW 1913 legacy entries, excessive reliance on synonyms, no basic defining vocabulary). I firmly believe that we are writing too much for each other, our friends, and people a lot like us and not for the audience that needs us. The volunteer-wiki model gives a strong bias in that direction, I suppose. DCDuring <i >TALK</i > 18:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

-head nesting
Yes, the nesting is not necessary as the entry stands. It was an experiment motivated by by thought of separating all derivatives of -head and separating them by sense of head they were derived from. I no longer have much confidence in that being desirable. So, thanks for cleaning up the mess I'd forgotten about. DCDuring <i >TALK</i > 11:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Yeah, double-nesting is one of those things that seems a lot better in theory than in practice. Glad to be of service. -- Visviva 03:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

bunny chow
Speaking of the book citation template, I assume the page named above is not using it correctly, and needs cleanup. --EncycloPetey 03:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Done, thanks. -- Visviva 03:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dutch gender
I only saw your request today and have tried to write a piece on this rather heikel subject. Jcwf 00:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC) See: About Dutch

 * Thanks. I'm still somewhat in the dark as to what is considered correct or incorrect for Dutch entries here, but I guess that's because we don't yet have a clear standard? -- Visviva 06:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

 * My hope was to get to a better consensus. I think this wikti should adopt the Taalunie's practice. I have proposed that at the nl: wikti and got no comments [so it's law ;-) ] But then we are much smaller bunch there. Here are some people here who would not like the Taalunie's compromise, but imho they should compromise too. (In fact the Taalunie has the legal right to impose such things). I have no idea how to get a consensus here., though. Kind of hoped you could help there.

Jcwf 21:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

 * For what it's worth, I'm aware of some of the problems, from having studied Dutch formally for a semester in college and (on my own) studying medieval Dutch. If a clear proposal can be made, I would support it, but it would have to account for the inclusion of entries for older forms. --EncycloPetey 21:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree with the historical dimension you worry about and yes I think what we are now doing at nl: takes care of that. All it needs is to write f/m for words that were historically feminine but may be regarded as masculine (as they are in the North)

Jcwf 21:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Intruding
Hi, glancing through your monobook.js (it was in RecentChanges so I had too ;) - I love the idea of using the data: schema for adding CSS rules - however there is a site-wide function that will work in IE (which doesn't support data: - resist the strangle temptation)too. Obviously if you are just coding it for yourself, then there's no need to use it - and you can just ignore me as an irritating meddler. Conrad.Irwin 09:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 * That is truly excellent, thanks! -- Visviva 09:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Fan mail!
To a couple folks who've been especially helpful/nice to me during my first few weeks at en.wikt: Thanks! :-)

Snakesteuben 13:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC) (Oh, right. Anonymous greeting cards don't work with edit logs, not to mention Sinebots floating around.)

epicaricacy
I see four vaild cites, and four references, which is more than bootylicious.Evrik 19:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

 * References and mentions do not count in establishing the validity of an English word. Looking at User:Evrik/epicaricacy, I see two Usenet cites (of dubious merit), two non-durably archived cites (not generally accepted), and one constructed example (not generally accepted).  Even by the most liberal reading of CFI you are still one cite short.
 * What really bothers me, personally, is that the Usenet cites are so bizarrely constructed I find it difficult to regard them as real use. Also, the fact that so many people have wanted this to be a word doesn't really argue in its favor, as it calls any apparent use into doubt (we ran into this same problem with santorum).
 * But in any case, you should certainly feel free to continue building Citations:epicaricacy. -- Visviva 00:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

false information
What false info are you talking about? You havent' specified. 70.51.9.170 05:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I was referring in particular to the addition of PROC and PRoC as valid abbreviations for the PRC, and PRK as a common misspelling for DPRK, both of which I have removed as they did not seem to have any basis in actual usage.
 * You may have access to sources which I do not; however, searching Google Books for "proc"+"china" returned only references to various volumes of proceedings published in or about China; searching for "prk"+"korea" returned numerous works on Cambodia which mentioned Korea indirectly, but no apparent use of this abbreviation.
 * Please understand that we deal with a steady torrent of people trying to introduce false and misleading information on Wiktionary, for various reasons (or sometimes for no reason at all). In trying to guard against this, we sometimes err too far in the opposite direction.  If you have sources supporting PROC, PRK or similar abbreviations, please feel free to re-add the information I removed, with the supporting references.  Cheers, -- Visviva 06:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You win
You, my friend, win at defining antemortem. Have one hundred Internets. Macai 08:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Woo hoo! I'm rich!  :-) -- Visviva 10:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

vertuus vs vertuuus
The entry is for a 3-u version. One PoS and the cites are for a 2-u version. It will have to be moved. I'm impressed with the cites. The user has gotten a one-day block for no apparent further reason, except possibly for asking for an apology. Sigh. DCDuring <i >TALK</i > 00:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Doh, thanks. Better get my eyes checked (again).  -- Visviva 00:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I'd already gone off half-cocked about this entry, mistaking scannos for cites. DCDuring <i >TALK</i > 00:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Google books problem
I am having difficulty with using b.g.c. (not scholar, web, news, etc.). I have this bad feeling it has to do with heavy use for citing. Has anyone had a problem like this? DCDuring <i >TALK</i > 02:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * No problems here in Korea. Maybe one server is having issues? -- Visviva 02:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

고인돌
Would you take a look please? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Done. I've said my piece, and I've counted to three.  I don't seem to be dealing well with histrionics this week, though, so I will probably stay away from the discussion for a while. -- Visviva 04:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Many thanks. I'll maintain the entry as you put it.  While I'm attempting to remain civil with KYPark, I'm losing patience.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

 * On a rather unrelated note, Stephen expressed some dislike of the bolding of the transliteration in . Looking at the history, I wonder if perhaps it was put there to set it apart from the "revised" bit, which is no longer there.  Since you seem to be the primary editor of the template, I figured you should get the final say.  Would you have any objections to unbolding it?  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Unbolded, thanks; can't remember exactly what the rationale was, but it does seem unnecessarily noisy. -- Visviva 07:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

기린
Would you be willing to take a quick gander at this one? See also this. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikisaurus Project page
I've added Wikisaurus:project/improvements if you want to take a look. Amina (sack36) 06:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

stick
So, I just noticed what a beautiful piece of work stick is, and I just thought I'd let you know that I thought so. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!
—Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 13:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

 * We've missed you. You give great citation, as always. Thanks especially for molybdomancy. DCDuring <i >TALK</i > 18:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Ditto. Crœso nôl! <font style="color:darkred">†  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks all. Good to be back, though I will probably not be operating at full capacity for a while. -- Visviva 10:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

not guilty
Please take a look at this and the RfD and history. We miss you. DCDuring <i >TALK</i > 00:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

superginormous et al.
What do you think we should do about alternative forms? To me, trivial morphological transformations like adding super-, in-, non-, or un- are low value (not no value), not to say that they aren't worth a full entry, even if not yet attested. Conrad has been creating appendices for things like "unattested plurals". I wonder whether such appendices wouldn't be good homes for many rare forms built on prefixes and suffixes, too. We could perhaps then direct folks' energies to the job of finding citations for some of these. Maybe we could encourage contributors to make their cruder additions on talk pages and citations pages (if they can see them as "crude"). DCDuring <i >TALK</i > 14:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Sounds workable. IMO ideally this would have an associated template, something like  that would direct to Appendix:Unattested affixations or whatever, iff there is no entry for superfoo (or super-foo; I suppose there's no reason the template couldn't take two args and check for the hyphenated form as well).  I have no time to work on setting this up ATM, but it seems like the most Hippocratic approach. -- Visviva 06:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Beer parlour
A subject which I know to be close to your heart. Perhaps you might care to comment. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

use Syllable
"Symbol" has strong connotations in English as being something non-word, e.g. # for "dollar". And that is the way we have been using the header here. Syllable is better, (is what it is ;-) and is used for other cases; some of these (including one you already added this to) have Syllable for Han readings, and these fit together better than having two separate POS sections. (Is it a symbol or is it a syllable? ;-).

What sort of thing should we do with the template? (use class="floatright" and so forth, but what did you want to improve?)

(I'm writing here because I am staying away from all the inane POV politics in the BP; I don't even want to look at that section.)

Oh, where does the file come from? Robert Ullmann 17:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Re: Syllable instead of Symbol: +1. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 23:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 * No problem with Syllable, I guess... although my understanding had been that we use Syllable for real word-forming units with real meanings (hanja readings etc.), and Symbol for characters independent of meaning (alphabetic characters, etc.).  Of course, a Hangul syllabic block is a symbol that represents a syllable, so it all gets rather fuzzy, but it seemed more plausible to headline the qua-symbol section (where it is dealt with solely as a character) as Symbol, and the qua-syllable section (hanja readings) as Syllable.  I mean, a lot of "syllabic" blocks like 뀶 aren't real syllables in any sense -- not only do they not exist in any actual language, but they would be broken up or otherwise modified when spoken... But I can see where this is a bit too involved, and probably reflects my prejudice against these entries in the first place.
 * Not sure about the template, it just looks kind of wonky to me, and doesn't seem to fit neatly into the layout. Basically it is just a templatified version of KYPark's tables, which always looked a little odd to me.
 * The file comes from a spreadsheet, wherein one column lists Hangul syllabic blocks from 가 to 힣, the next column lists Unicode numbers (ROW+44031), and the next three columns have the constituent jamo; that's all the information that is needed for a basic entry like 앆. After a couple of initial bugs, the output appears to be clean, although I will do some more checking before any bulk upload. -- Visviva 02:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

See 점: there is no reason for this entry to have two etymologies, or two Syllable sections. The line you are generating can simply by the first line, before specific hanja readings.

I had another comment: the Usage notes section you propose adding is a lot of text for two attributes. You might just put that in the inflection-headword line for the Syllable, much as canjie and 4-corner are in the Han character headword line. (I.e. put them in that template.) Robert Ullmann 13:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I can see your point about the usage notes; still, I don't like the idea of loading up the inflection line with so much stuff (particularly since it is already loaded down with transliterations). As you say, it's not actually much text...  Maybe I should retool the navbox to include this info?
 * For an entry like 점, I agree that merging would lead to a more elegant structure. But then we end up with three classes of entries, each needing different treatment: those with no meaning of their own (e.g. 햬), those with meanings bundled under one etymology (e.g. 점), and those with multiple etymologies (e.g. 이).  I mean, I don't see any sane way to integrate syllabic information into an entry like 이 without putting it in a parallel Etymology section; while it isn't really an etymology, it has to go somewhere and it would be wrong to put it under any preexisting Etymology.  So there is already some added complexity ... And then there is the problem that if another etymology were added to 점 -- e.g. as a variant of the verbal noun 젊, or perhaps a hangulization of "germ" -- the whole structure would need to be rearranged, so that the number of Etymologies would suddenly jump from one to three.  (If this wasn't done, then the entry would end up being factually, or at least ontologically, incorrect.) So it seems like merging would just create more work, or bigger messes, down the road... or am I missing something? -- Visviva 15:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:English words suffixed with -ium
Umm... some of the words you're adding to this category do end in "-ium", but they haven't been suffixed with "-ium". Our suffix categories should contain words based on the suffix added to a root, not merely the ending visible on the word. --EncycloPetey 15:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've looked more carefully and appear to have been mistaken. Never mind. --EncycloPetey 15:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 * No worries; I agree with your point. -- Visviva 16:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Visviva/archive/2008


text: Category:kn:Astrology

title: Category:kn:Astrology


text: Category:kn:Countries

title: Category:kn:Countries


text:
silik

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) silk

Adjective

 * 1) detailed

title: silik


text: Category:kn:Time

title: Category:kn:Time


text: Category:kn:Physics

title: Category:kn:Physics


text:
shakba

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  arm
 * 2) sleeve

title: shakba


text: Category:cho:Clothing

title: Category:cho:Clothing


text: Category:cho:Culture

title: Category:cho:Culture


text:
sheki

Etymology
Cognate with 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) buzzard

title: sheki


text:
shilaklak

Etymology
Cognate with 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬

Noun

 * 1) goose

title: shilaklak


text: Category:cho:Birds

title: Category:cho:Birds


text:
shinuk

Noun

 * 1) sand

title: shinuk


text: Category:cho:Nature

title: Category:cho:Nature


text: Category:cho:Time

title: Category:cho:Time


text: Category:cho:Animals

title: Category:cho:Animals


text:
shukha

Noun

 * 1) pig, hog

title: shukha


text: Category:cho:Trees

title: Category:cho:Trees


text: Category:cho:Plants

title: Category:cho:Plants


text: Category:cic:Animals

title: Category:cic:Animals


text: Category:cho:Vertebrates

title: Category:cho:Vertebrates


text: Category:Choctaw verbs

title: Category:Choctaw verbs


text:
shukshi

Noun

 * 1) watermelon

title: shukshi


text: Category:Choctaw adjectives

title: Category:Choctaw adjectives


text: Category:Choctaw adverbs

title: Category:Choctaw adverbs


text: Category:Choctaw proper nouns

title: Category:Choctaw proper nouns


text:
shulush

Noun

 * 1) shoe, sandal, footwear

title: shulush


text: Category:cho:Buildings

title: Category:cho:Buildings


text:
premillennial

Adjective

 * 1)  Pertaining to the belief that the Second Coming will take place before the millennium.
 * 2) Occurring before, or in anticipation of, a new millennium.
 * 1) Occurring before, or in anticipation of, a new millennium.
 * 1) Occurring before, or in anticipation of, a new millennium.

Noun

 * 1) One who believes in the advent of Christ before the new millennium.

title: premillennial


text:
shuⁿshi

Choctaw

 * sh o shi
 * sh u shi,

Usage notes
Obsolete spelling developed for the Choctaw Language Dictionary by Cyrus Byington and edited by John Swanton, 1909.

title: shuⁿshi


text: Category:cho:Foods

title: Category:cho:Foods


text: Category:cho:Family

title: Category:cho:Family


text:
unsummarizable

Adjective

 * 1) Not able to be summarized.
 * Many of the writings of James Joyce are nearly unsummarizable.

title: unsummarizable


text: Category:cic:Buildings

title: Category:cic:Buildings


text: Category:cho:Insects

title: Category:cho:Insects


text: Category:cho:Geology

title: Category:cho:Geology


text:
interschool

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) Occurring or taking place between two or more schools.
 * The interschool basketball tournament was held in March.

Translations

 * French:
 * Irish: idirscoile
 * Polish: międzyszkolny

title: interschool


text: splendours

title: splendours


text: Category:cho:Biology

title: Category:cho:Biology


text: Category:cho:Materials

title: Category:cho:Materials


text:
takkon

Etymology
. Cognate with 🇨🇬

Noun

 * 1) peach

Related terms

 * takkon mas o fa
 * takkon mas o fa

title: takkon


text:
takkon chito

Etymology
+

Noun

 * 1) apple

Synonyms

 * takkon mas o fa

title: takkon chito


text:
takkonlipun

Etymology
From, with final because  is phonotactically restricted from terminating a syllable in Choctaw.

Noun

 * 1) apple

Synonyms

 * takkon mas o fa
 * takkon mas o fa

title: takkonlipun


text: Category:cho:Fruits

title: Category:cho:Fruits


text:
tałapi

Numeral

 * 1) five

title: tałapi


text:
tałepa

Numeral

 * 1) hundred

title: tałepa


text: Category:cho:Music

title: Category:cho:Music


text:
tałepa sipokni

Numeral

 * 1) thousand

title: tałepa sipokni


text:
tanampo

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) gun; firearm

title: tanampo


text:
lochside

Adjective

 * 1) Bordering or near a loch.

Noun

 * 1) The land bordering a loch.

title: lochside


text:
tanchi

Noun

 * 1) corn, maize

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) aunt

title: tanchi


text: boyband

title: boyband


text: chatshow

title: chatshow


text: boy bands

title: boy bands


text:
tạli

Noun

 * 1) rock, stone
 * 2) iron
 * 3) metal
 * 4) mineral

title: tạli


text:
tạnạp

Noun

 * 1) enemy

title: tạnạp


text: chat show

title: chat show


text: chat shows

title: chat shows


text: Category:cho:Chemical elements

title: Category:cho:Chemical elements


text:
tạshka

Noun

 * 1) warrior

title: tạshka


text:
tiak

Noun

 * 1) pine

title: tiak


text:
tekchi

Noun

 * 1) wife

title: tekchi


text:
tikshạneli

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) dictionary

title: tikshạneli


text:
tiliko

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) wheat

title: tiliko


text:
tishu

Noun

 * 1) servant, waiter

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  tissue aggregation of cells

title: tishu


text:
tobaksi

Noun

 * 1) coal

title: tobaksi


text:
tobi

Noun

 * 1) bean

Etymology
From, ultimately onomatopoetic. Cognate to dialectal 🇨🇬,. See also, ,.

Noun

 * 1) a short pipe
 * 2)  smoke, cigarette

Verb

 * 1) to be big, to be large; to enlarge
 * 2) to be great; to be mighty
 * 1) to be great; to be mighty

Etymology 2
Likely from

Noun

 * 1) skirt; female undergarment worn under an
 * 2) cloth band or belt tied around the waist to hold money
 * 1) cloth band or belt tied around the waist to hold money

title: tobi


text:
explicative

Etymology
From, from.

Adjective

 * 1) Explanatory; serving to explain logically or in detail.

title: explicative


text:
toffa

Noun

 * 1) summer

title: toffa


text:
tohto

Noun

 * 1) red elm

title: tohto


text:
kiliⁿkoba

Adjective

 * 1) green

title: kiliⁿkoba


text: off-label

title: off-label


text:
mishash

Adverb

 * 1) day before yesterday

title: mishash


text: Category:cho:Literature

title: Category:cho:Literature


text: Category:cho:Occupations

title: Category:cho:Occupations


text: Category:cho:Colors

title: Category:cho:Colors


text:
pickin' and grinnin'

Noun

 * 1)  Vigorous playing of folk or country music on a stringed musical instrument, especially the guitar or banjo, while smiling broadly.

title: pickin' and grinnin'


text: picking and grinning

title: picking and grinning


text:
nonemergency

Alternative forms

 * non-emergency

Adjective

 * 1) Not an emergency.
 * a nonemergency situation
 * 1) Not involved in emergency services, such as fire or rescue.
 * nonemergency personnel
 * nonemergency personnel

Noun

 * 1) Something that is not an emergency

title: nonemergency


text: heow

title: heow


text:
հաճախ

Etymology
From.

Adverb

 * 1) often, frequently

title: հաճախ


text: Category:French eponyms

title: Category:French eponyms


text:
Croesus

Etymology
From, from , from.

Proper noun

 * 1)  A king of Lydia, noted for his great wealth.
 * 1)  A king of Lydia, noted for his great wealth.

Translations

 * Arabic: كرويسوس, قَارُون
 * Armenian: Կրեսոս
 * Old Armenian: Կրիւսոս
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin: 克罗伊斯
 * Danish: Krøsus
 * Finnish: Kroisos
 * French:
 * German:
 * Greek:
 * Ancient Greek: Κροῖσος
 * Italian: Creso
 * Latin: Croesus
 * Persian: کرزوس,
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian: Крёз
 * Spanish:
 * Swedish:
 * Turkish: Krezüs

Noun

 * 1)  A rich person.
 * 2) * 1875, Henry James, "Benvolio" in The Galaxy 20 (2) (August 1875).
 * "Decidedly he was to be a great man, and this was not the moment for letting him go! At the same time there was something impressive in this extraordinary lapse in his eagerness—in his finding it so easy to forget his honors. It was only an intellectual Croesus, the Countess said to herself, who could afford to keep so loose an account."

Translations

 * Finnish:
 * German:
 * Greek:
 * Persian:
 * Polish:
 * Swedish:
 * Turkish:

Etymology
From.

Proper noun

 * 1) Croesus (a king of Lydia)
 * 2) a rich man

title: Croesus


text:
kaktuss

Noun

 * 1) cactus

title: kaktuss


text: muistelmat

title: muistelmat


text:
kristāls

Noun

 * 1) crystal

title: kristāls


text:
mesteño

Etymology
From 🇨🇬, from, from.

Adjective

 * 1) stray animal
 * 2) untamed, wild

Noun

 * 1) stray animal
 * 2) mustang of horses

title: mesteño


text:
dětská mozková obrna

Noun

 * 1) cerebral palsy

title: dětská mozková obrna


text:
non-progressive

Adjective

 * 1) Not progressive.

title: non-progressive


text:
muistelma

Noun

 * 1)  memoirs autobiography
 * 2)  recollection, reminiscence
 * 1)  recollection, reminiscence

title: muistelma


text: non-contagious

title: non-contagious


text:
dětská obrna

Noun

 * 1) poliomyelitis

title: dětská obrna


text:
muistikuva

Noun

 * 1) remembrance, recollection, reminiscence a person's mental picture of something happened to him in the past

title: muistikuva


text:
ochrnutí

Noun

 * 1) paralysis
 * 1) paralysis

title: ochrnutí


text:
かいぜん

Noun

 * 1)  betterment, improvement, amelioration

Verb

 * 1)  to improve

title: かいぜん


text:
yömyssy

Noun

 * 1) nightcap warm cap worn at night
 * 2) nightcap beverage drunk before going to bed

title: yömyssy


text:
peritoneale

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  peritoneal

title: peritoneale


text:
peritoneo

Noun

 * 1)  peritoneum

Noun

 * 1)  peritoneum

Noun

 * 1)  peritoneum

Etymology
, from.

Noun

 * 1)  peritoneum

title: peritoneo


text:
peritonite

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  peritonitis

title: peritonite


text:
ascite

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  ascites

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  ascites

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  ascites accumulation of fluid in the peritoneal cavity

title: ascite


text:
precollege

Alternative forms

 * pre-college

Adjective

 * 1) Occurring before, or in preparation for, college
 * precollege testing

title: precollege


text:
ascitico

Adjective

 * 1)  ascitic

title: ascitico


text:
postcollege

Alternative forms

 * post-college

Adjective

 * 1) Occurring after one's college, especially undergraduate, education
 * You need to start thinking about your postcollege life.

title: postcollege


text:
sierologico

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  serologic, serological

title: sierologico


text:
nonterrible

Adjective

 * 1)  Not terrible; decent, acceptable.
 * The meal was surprisingly nonterrible, all things considered.

title: nonterrible


text:
sierologia

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  serology

title: sierologia


text:
sierologo

Noun

 * 1) serologist

title: sierologo


text: sierologa

title: sierologa


text:
ferritina

Noun

 * 1)  ferritin

Noun

 * 1)  ferritin

Noun

 * 1)  ferritin any of a family of iron-carrying globular protein complexes consisting of 24 protein subunits

Etymology
, coined by V. Laufberger in 1934.

Noun

 * 1)  ferritin

title: ferritina


text:
harborside

Noun

 * 1) An area (especially a residential area) near a harbor (often in the form of converted warehouses etc)

Adjective

 * 1) Located on or near a harbor.
 * We met at a harborside cafe.

title: harborside


text: injectables

title: injectables


text:
nebbishlike

Adjective

 * 1) Resembling, or characteristic of, a nebbish

title: nebbishlike


text:
kuvanveisto

Noun

 * 1) sculpture art of sculpting

title: kuvanveisto


text:
Diplodocus

Etymology
From and.

Proper noun
†

Hyponyms

 * For the species see

Noun

 * 1) diplodocus

title: Diplodocus


text:
paracentesi

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  paracentesis

title: paracentesi


text:
neuroticism

Noun

 * 1) The quality or state of being neurotic
 * Your neuroticism is getting out of hand.

Related terms

 * neuroticistic

Translations

 * Finnish:
 * Greek:
 * Irish: néaróiseachas
 * Serbo-Croatian: неуротичност

title: neuroticism


text:
vierundzwanzig

Numeral

 * 1)  twenty-four

title: vierundzwanzig


text:
zweiundzwanzig

Numeral

 * 1)  twenty-two

title: zweiundzwanzig


text:
patofisiologia

Noun

 * 1)  pathophysiology

title: patofisiologia


text:
patofisiologico

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  pathophysiologic, pathophysiological

title: patofisiologico


text:
einundzwanzig

Numeral

 * 1)  twenty-one

title: einundzwanzig


text:
renina

Noun

 * 1)  renin

Noun

 * 1)  renin

title: renina


text: كس اختك

title: كس اختك


text:
prostaglandina

Noun

 * 1)  prostaglandin

Noun

 * 1)  prostaglandin any of a group of naturally occurring lipids derived from the C20 acid prostanoic acid

Noun

 * 1)  prostaglandin

title: prostaglandina


text:
ormone follicolo-stimolante

Noun

 * 1)  follicle stimulating hormone

title: ormone follicolo-stimolante


text:
ormone follicolo stimolante

Noun
(Abbreviation: FSH)

title: ormone follicolo stimolante


text:
veriura

Noun

 * 1) A fuller groove in the blade of a sword or knife.

title: veriura


text: overhits

title: overhits


text: overhitting

title: overhitting


text:
teamer

Noun

 * 1)  Someone in a team.
 * 2)  A player who teams with other players, often in an FFA match.

title: teamer


text:
first-teamer

Noun

 * 1) Someone in the first team.

title: first-teamer


text:
first team

Noun

 * 1)  The first-choice lineup of players in a team who start the game.
 * 2)  The actors who will actually appear in a scene, as opposed to the stand-ins, or second team, who take their places for the purpose of setting up the shot.

title: first team


text: teamers

title: teamers


text:
endplay

Noun

 * 1)  A tactical play in which a defender is put on lead at a strategic moment, and then has to make a play that loses one or more tricks

Verb

 * 1)  To make an endplay.

title: endplay


text: rebids

title: rebids


text: rebidding

title: rebidding


text: endplays

title: endplays


text:
midcourse

Alternative forms

 * mid-course

Adjective

 * 1) In the middle of a course
 * a midcourse assessment

title: midcourse


text: legepladsen

title: legepladsen


text: fatting

title: fatting


text: legepladser

title: legepladser


text: legepladserne

title: legepladserne


text: anears

title: anears


text:
Great Pyrenees

Noun

 * 1)  A large breed of dog originating in France and often used to guard livestock.

Translations

 * Finnish: pyreneittenkoira
 * French:
 * German: Pyrenäen-Berghund
 * Occitan:
 * Russian: пирене́йская го́рная соба́ка
 * Spanish: perro de montaña de los Pirineos

title: Great Pyrenees


text: anearing

title: anearing


text: aneared

title: aneared


text:
Talk:halli

Halli: big building/room
I was at loss to give meanings of "halli" very concisely, so there's probably some room for improvement. ¦ hyark digyik 10:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:halli


text: roaves

title: roaves


text: roaving

title: roaving


text: roaved

title: roaved


text:
týdenní

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) weekly

title: týdenní


text:
měsíční

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) monthly
 * 2)  lunar of, or pertaining to, the moon

title: měsíční


text:
roční

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) yearly, annual

title: roční


text: uniquifies

title: uniquifies


text: unloosens

title: unloosens


text: unloosening

title: unloosening


text:
trentasettenne

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) thirty-seven-year-old

Noun

 * 1) thirty-seven-year-old

title: trentasettenne


text: unloosened

title: unloosened


text: tumefies

title: tumefies


text: tumefying

title: tumefying


text:
steppingstones

Noun

 * , an alternative form of.

title: steppingstones


text: tumefied

title: tumefied


text: uncrosses

title: uncrosses


text:
uncrossing

Noun

 * 1) Movement out of a crossed position.

title: uncrossing


text:
unprosecuted

Adjective

 * 1) Not prosecuted

Usage notes

 * Frequently used with, see citations.

title: unprosecuted


text:
uncrossed

Adjective

 * 1) Not crossed (in various senses).

title: uncrossed


text:
classificabile

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) classifiable

title: classificabile


text: reprograms

title: reprograms


text: rancidifies

title: rancidifies


text: rancidifying

title: rancidifying


text: rancidified

title: rancidified


text: demaunds

title: demaunds


text: demaunding

title: demaunding


text: demaunded

title: demaunded


text: affoards

title: affoards


text: affoarding

title: affoarding


text: affoarded

title: affoarded


text: affoords

title: affoords


text: affoording

title: affoording


text: affoorded

title: affoorded


text: afoords

title: afoords


text: afoording

title: afoording


text: afoorded

title: afoorded


text:
passatoia

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) runner (long, narrow carpet for stairs or hall)

title: passatoia


text: preprograms

title: preprograms


text: preprogramming

title: preprogramming


text: preprogrammed

title: preprogrammed


text: entrammels

title: entrammels


text: entrammeling

title: entrammeling


text: entrammelling

title: entrammelling


text: entrammelled

title: entrammelled


text: misfunctions

title: misfunctions


text: misfunctioned

title: misfunctioned


text: redeposits

title: redeposits


text: redepositing

title: redepositing


text: redeposited

title: redeposited


text: infolds

title: infolds


text:
infolding

Noun

 * 1) A folding inward.

title: infolding


text: infolded

title: infolded


text: precanceling

title: precanceling


text: precanceled

title: precanceled


text: blatters

title: blatters


text: blattering

title: blattering


text: blattered

title: blattered


text:
underlead

Noun

 * 1)  A lead of a low card when holding the top card or cards in a suit.

Verb

 * 1)  To lead a low card when holding the top card or cards in a suit.

title: underlead


text: underled

title: underled


text: underleads

title: underleads


text: underleading

title: underleading


text:
monografico

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  monograph

title: monografico


text:
detská mozgová obrna

Noun

 * 1) cerebral palsy

title: detská mozgová obrna


text:
detská obrna

Noun

 * 1) poliomyelitis

title: detská obrna


text:
naptime

Noun

 * 1) The time at which one naps

title: naptime


text: naptimes

title: naptimes


text:
storytime

Noun

 * 1) The time at which a story is told.

Translations

 * Japanese: お話の時間

title: storytime


text:
neomelodico

Adjective

 * 1)  neomelodic (Describing a style of Neapolitan singing that attempts to fuse traditional songs with tales of modern life and love)

title: neomelodico


text:
jégcsap

Noun

 * 1) icicle

title: jégcsap


text: jégcsapok

title: jégcsapok


text:
seedtime

Etymology

 * compare Old Icelandic sáðtími. Compare also German Saatzeit "season for sowing seed" (15th cent. as satzijt), Old Icelandic sáðtíð "April", lit. "seed time".

Noun

 * 1) The time to sow seeds.
 * 2)  A time for new development.
 * 1)  A time for new development.

Translations

 * Finnish: kylvöaika
 * Irish: aimsir an tsíl

title: seedtime


text: seedtimes

title: seedtimes


text:
csapok

Etymology 1
From the noun.

Etymology 2
From the verb.

title: csapok


text:
cuimhnich

Etymology
From, equivalent to.

Verb

 * 1) remember, recall, recollect
 * 2) commemorate

Usage notes

 * In the sense "to remember/not forget to do something" used with the conjunction :

title: cuimhnich


text:
cuimhneachadh

Noun

 * 1) commemoration, reminiscence
 * 1) commemoration, reminiscence

title: cuimhneachadh


text:
sleepytime

Noun

 * 1)  The time to sleep.

title: sleepytime


text: obnubilante

title: obnubilante


text: obnubilato

title: obnubilato


text: obnubilati

title: obnubilati


text: obnubilata

title: obnubilata


text: obnubili

title: obnubili


text: obnubiliamo

title: obnubiliamo


text:
obnubilate

Etymology 1
Borrowed from, perfect passive participle of , from , from , ultimately from.

Adjective

 * 1)  Covered    with a ; ;.
 * 2) * 1860, (aut., ed.), “Editor’s Table” in The Southern Literary Messenger XXXI (N.S. X), p. 74:
 * "en"
 * 1) * 1860, (aut., ed.), “Editor’s Table” in The Southern Literary Messenger XXXI (N.S. X), p. 74:
 * "en"
 * "en"

- Here is the sample of [Whitman’s] obnubilate, incoherent, convulsive flub-drub.

Etymology 2
Borrowed from, as above.

Verb

 * 1)  To obscure, to shadow.
 * 2) To make cloudy.
 * 1) To make cloudy.

title: obnubilate


text: obnubilano

title: obnubilano


text: obnubilavo

title: obnubilavo


text: obnubilavi

title: obnubilavi


text: obnubilava

title: obnubilava


text: obnubilavamo

title: obnubilavamo