text:
User talk:DCDuring/2011 QIII

DT/DD lists
Please see the HTML code of this small list of beverages, which contain the tags "dl", "dt" and "dd".

"dl" means definition list.

 Coffee - black hot drink Milk - white cold drink

Now, please see the code of this version of the same list of beverages, facilitated through ";" and ":", which works for MediaWiki, but not for HTML as a whole.
 * Coffee
 * - black hot drink

 * Milk
 * - white cold drink

Appendix:DC Comics contains a big definition list. --Daniel 01:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Thanks.
 * I was intrigued by the functionality of:

-- DCDuring TALK 02:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Citations and alternative forms
Hi DCD. I've noticed in some of your edits recently you're moving citations which don't match the main lemma away to the relevant alt-form page. While I think it's a good idea to cite alternative forms, I think these citations should ALSO appear -- or at any rate should also be ABLE to appear -- under the main lemma form, which would gather together citation evidence for the "word" in question rather than just that spelling. Since all the alt-forms redirect you to the main lemma, I think it makes sense to have a wide range of citations there. This also has practical uses, because for example some terms only acquired their current spelling recently, but citations should preferably reflect that a word is several centuries old rather than just 100. Similarly hyphenation of compound terms is much less common than it was 30 years ago but that doesn't mean the words weren't in use. So basically, go ahead and copy cites to alt-form pages, just I'd rather you didn't also delete them from the lemma page. Is that OK? < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 08:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely happy with it. I understand the reasoning about historical usage and the unity of the underlying semantics, but it seems to require judgment as to what constitutes the same underlying term that is not really consistent with getting a large number of contributors involved in citation. A strict rule of matching the headword seems good for attestation discipline and for current English usage.
 * This seems like yet another place where being all things to all users and all contributors is not really possible with the existing technology. Can we imagine a technological solution? Would transclusion and Javascript or php offer a solution? DCDuring TALK 11:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest that this would make a useful BP discussion? At the very least, I think it ought to be explicitly covered by some of the individual language policies.  In Latin, for example, I would expect the verb lemma to not restrict itself to citing only the lemma form, as that will severely limit options for demonstrating usage with suitable quotations.  For English nouns, I'd be disappointed not to be able to use the plural.  Now, with "alternative forms" there might be a rationale, but I still think the overall topic is worth discussiong, since I don't think I've seen it raised before. --EncycloPetey 14:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not. DCDuring TALK 15:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Parent languages
Referring to a few conversation we've had over the last 18 months, yes ISO 639-3 gives code for (and these are mainly convenient examples, not intended to be a whole list) Middle English ( and Middle French . I'm not saying that there is no distinction between Middle English and Modern English. But there's a difference between a distinction and being two separate languages. For example, there are 'distinctions' between American English, British English, Indian English (etc.) but this doesn't make them different languages. So saying that is from Middle English  doesn't contradict with the etymology . English words don't 'come from' Middle English words at all; the classification changes at a certain point. Depends on the source; some suggest about 1470, while others cite 1530. My point is really it's naïve and usually unhelpful to treat a word derived from Middle English in the same way as you would a word derived from Hindi, or Maltese or Maori. Middle English is English. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Middle English and even much of Shakespeare's EME requires translation for the vast majority of speakers of current English. Those who learn Shakespeare by reading it in a translation into their language have a better understanding of the plot and, generally, of the meaning of the words than those compelled to read it in a version close to the original. Middle English and EME are full of false friends, typical of foreign languages.
 * Why are you bringing this up now, here? DCDuring TALK 17:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Much of current English requires translation for the vast majority of speakers of current English. False friends abound. That doesn't seem like a good reason to treat (say) British English and American English as separate languages. —Ruakh TALK 19:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The extent of the differences is the issue. We treat sco as separate language, but not English dialects that don't have their own parliaments. Folks from two valleys apart in southern Germany can't be assumed to understand each other - and sometimes have different ISO codes. I think that the fiction of separate languages has value in creating, presenting, and maintaining our entries. DCDuring TALK 20:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The extent of the differences is indeed the issue, and MidE and EModE are much, much more similar to PDE than any true foreign language. (BTW, sco is more complicated than just having its own parliament: we distinguish between "Scots" and "Scottish English".) Giving Middle English its own language header may (or may not) be useful, but it's ridiculous to pretend that is not . —Ruakh TALK 20:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I'm interrupting here. I always thought that it was strange to treat Middle English, Old English, Proto-Germanic and Proto-Indo-European as 'foreign' to English. In a sense, they are the same language, passed down from generation to generation. A word like was never 'borrowed' from, it simply continued to exist in the language from one generation from the next, gradually undergoing sound and grammar changes until it ended up as the modern form. —CodeCat 19:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as we maintain separate L2 sections we need to account for pseudo-borrowings between them. DCDuring TALK 20:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Essentially, like CodeCat says, English words aren't derived from Middle English ones, they simply continued to exist when Middle English became Modern English. Which is a bit like trying to define the difference between a child and an adult. The difference between Middle English and Modern English is at best academic, in the literal sense that it's academic who try to define such things. I don't think there really are any differences between Late Middle English and archaic Modern English. They're not essentially the same; they are the same. And yes, I was referring in particular (as Ruakh says) to the edit to . Mglovesfun (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is more or less what I meant, yes. Imagine someone would have coined unworthy on 31 December 1499, then we would say "From Middle English unworthy." and give that a separate entry. Whereas if this unlucky individual had coined it instead after she woke up the next morning, our etymology would suddenly say "From un- + worthy." and there would be no Middle English section. It's kind of silly that way... —CodeCat 20:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, if she coined it on 31 December 1499, then DCDuring would have us say "From Middle English unworthy", but we would not give that a separate entry: it wouldn't meet the CFI (unless she coined it in a well-known work, of course). —Ruakh TALK 20:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For a French words that's attested in Old French like I dunno, I would tend to write 'since Old French' rather than 'from Old French', for the reasons I and CodeCat have given above. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

 * This seems to be a problem of having discrete categories intertemporally, especially when there is no gap in the written record and no signal events like total conquests, either of which may provide a natural boundary, finessing the knife's edge problems at New Year's Eve. Nevertheless language change does make languages unintelligible over time. Some have suggested 500 years as the outside limit of intelligibility over time. Shakespeare seems to be beyond the limits of understanding for current students. Le Morte d'Arthur (1485) seems well beyond the limits though it is often a source of cites for us. DCDuring TALK 23:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem also exists between dialect areas, where dialect changes are gradual and there are no definite borders between them, but dialects further apart are harder to understand than those close together. The dialect continuum of Germany and the Netherlands is a good example of that. —CodeCat 23:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I don't oppose Middle English sections, for example, I just think it's unwise to treat them as entirely separate languages merely for 'convenience', forsaking accuracy. CodeCat is also right it can apply to living languages and dialects. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless we are talking about the convenience of non-contributing users, introducing "convenience" into the discussion is making the discussion ad hominem. And, further, putting sacred "accuracy" as the antithesis of mere personal "convenience" is transparent rhetoric. I am often guilty of such things myself (speculating about personal motives etc), so please don't take this observation personally. I'm trying to reform. Engaging in public criticism of the very behavior I myself engage in leaves me open to embarrassing pot-meet-kettle retorts and, therefore, should lead me to behave better. DCDuring TALK 16:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing Categories
Hi. I notice that you are using lang=-. Should I be doing this now? Did all the cats go bye-bye? Leasnam 02:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am only doing this where the morphology is different from the historical etymology and only in Engish. The "equivalent to" wording for the morphology seems to strike the right note for putting the morphology in perspective. I am hoping to keep the suffix categories for historical, diachronic etymology. Whether we will ever have corresponding categories for the morphology I don't know. It would be hard for us to even have distinct categories for affixes with multiple etymologies (eg, -er, which has, I think, three currently productive etymologies [1, 2, and 8] and may have had others during Modern English).
 * Other ways of doing what I am doing is to use nocat=1 or for such equivalent-to derivations.
 * In the other direction, I have found it useful sometimes to use without its first parameter to give categorization while keeping flexibility of presentation, usually using  for the other components.
 * I hope what I'm doing doesn't seem controversial. I'm just trying to make the suffix and prefix categories tell one relatively coherent story. DCDuring TALK 03:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But a word like forelook:, which clearly shows the components of prefix fore-: + verb look:, will now no longer be categorised under English words prefixed with fore-: simply because the formation occurred in Middle English? This will mean that become: is no longer considered be-: + come:? This will weaken the category pages, will it not, as many good, qualified terms will be absent. Am I understanding this correctly? Leasnam 05:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's where I am going. Why does that seem wrong to you? I've always thought the prefix and suffix categories to be a jumble of things as they mixed things that occurred in English, things that occurred in Middle English, things that occurred in Old English, things that happened in French or German, and things that never happened at all. If we carve out an exception for Middle English, would we also do so for Old English? For Latin? Just for New Latin? DCDuring TALK 05:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't we want to be able to use our categories to help with questions of timing of productivity or affixes? What about spelling variations, especially in Middle English and EME? Are we just going to combine them all? With the benefit of hindsight? (Think what hindsight may have done to that odd sense of "winning".) DCDuring TALK 05:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the default expectation is that there is no time involved, and a word like winsome:, although formed initially in OE is still an example of a word in ModE with the suffix -some: and should be grouped. I would suggest that a subset category, which contains the greater level of detail you wish, be made, such as 'Modern English formations in -some', leaving the current Cat as is. Leasnam 13:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For me, Latin and New Latin would be treated equally. If an English word uses the suffix pre-: regardless where it was formed or when, it should appear under a category for words prefixed with pre-:. Leasnam 13:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * An argument in favour of categorising is that compound or affixed words often undergo sound changes differently than regular words. Even after a thousand years, winsome is still segmentable as two morphemes, and each morpheme has undergone sound changes independent of the other. In languages where sound changes affect the morphological boundary between morphemes, the changes are often undone because the morphemes are still felt to be distinguished. An example would be Dutch, which is also the Old Dutch form, but the early Middle Dutch form was , having regularly undergone the change ft > cht. This was undone quite soon however because the word was still understood as drif- (from ) + -t (abstract noun suffix). —CodeCat 14:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Your lang changes
I am starting to revert your additions of lang=-, as I disagree with them, I doubt that you have gained consensus for making these changes, and I find it unlikely that you will gain such a consensus. See also, and .--Dan Polansky 08:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If the categories are going to remain a stew, you should probably also start work on all the other ones that I never touched: those that have no prefix or suffix categories but have prefixes, those that have ridiculous prefixes and suffixes. We may as well reduce English suffix categories to the state of languages that don't have the potential to distinguish morphological and historical etymologies. DCDuring TALK 12:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, "outlive" (from Middle English outliven, equivalent to out- + live) is prefixed with "out-", and "fatness" (from Middle English, from Old English fǣtnes, equivalent to fat + -ness) is suffixed with "-ness". I do not claim to have fully understood your response, though; if you choose to speak simply and clearly, there are better chances that you will get a response from me that matches what you are trying to say. --Dan Polansky 12:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I think about it, "prefix" is a morphological rather than etymological notion. A word can have a prefix even if it did not originate from the latest phase of that prefix. Looking at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/7748/affix?anchor=ref211531 for "affix", they give an example of sub-mit, even though the prefix was added back in Latin. Thus, the categories named on the model of "Category:English words suffixed with -ness" are morphological rather than etymological categories. I admit that this does not fit the placement of these categories within "Category:English etymologies", but that can be fixed. --Dan Polansky 13:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If you don't mind, could you please have a look at [[talk:GLWT]]? —msh210℠ (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —msh210℠ (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

missään nimessä
How would you like this to be cleaned up? This phrase is always used with the negation verb ei and therefore discussing it separately from ei missään nimessä: does not make much sense as it would be like discussing "by means" separately from "by no means". I added this entry because in some sentences ei and missään nimessä may be separated by a cluster of other words and therefore somebody using Wiktionary for translation might try to look up an entry for missään nimessä. Would a REDIRECT be a better solution? Or should I write a usage note which explains why the user should move to the page ei missään nimessä--Hekaheka 06:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could it be considered an alternative form? A redirect seems fine. If you want to leave it as is, that's OK with me. It just didn't look right. DCDuring TALK 13:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Butting in, if I may: Hard redirect IMO. —msh210℠ (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll make it a redirect. --Hekaheka 03:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Astro Boy
I have further cited this entry. If this is your concern, then it should have been taken to RFV. DAVilla 07:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I had been doing for quite some time. It has seemed right and still seems right to me now that anything where deletion may be the result but could be addressed by attestation should be at RfV. RfD is for items of principle. Ruakh had argued otherwise, that probable resolution-by-attestation should not mean RfD could not be used. I can't say that I understood under what circumstances RfD is supposed more appropriate than RfV if attestation is the resolution. What are your criteria for RfV vs RfD?
 * Though I am often skeptical of the validity of fictional characters as entries and of the cites which are produced to cite them, I bow to community standards. I don't challenge such entries very often any more. DCDuring TALK 11:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you're right that this is an old nomination. RFD is obviously appropriate when verification doesn't counter the principle, such as US Army. I think it's also appropriate when the probability of acceptable verification is nil, such as Wikispecies. In such case, a misdiagnosis can always be transferred to RFV instead. DAVilla 06:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

-arium
I'd say it's generally poor style to begin a definition in a dictionary with a qualification, followed by the meaning. I'd also prefer not to define an entry by its part of speech, that is, not to say "a noun that..." for a Noun or "when suffixed to..." for a Suffix. --EncycloPetey 20:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Used to form nouns denoting an place where things are kept from other nouns."
 * An place where things are kept from other nouns? DCDuring TALK 20:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A general wording fix for the ending would be appreciated, but I do maintain that moving the construction qualification to the front of the definition is less than desirable. --EncycloPetey 20:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As it is a non-gloss definition, I don't feel bound by the strictures I use for gloss-type definitions. I couldn't think of anything acceptable other than fronting as a remedy. How about: "Used to form, from other nouns, nouns denoting a place where things are kept." DCDuring TALK 20:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of you: it's better for the meaning to come first and the "from other nouns" to come afterward, unless we can't find a way to write that intelligibly, in which case we have no choice but to put the "from other nouns" first. Maybe " "? —Ruakh TALK 20:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already made my first attempt by using quotemarks. Does this work? --EncycloPetey 20:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw your attempt — that was actually the first version I saw — and it took me a good minute to figure out what was meant by it. Your version is a huge improvement over the original version quoted by DCDuring above, but I don't think it's enough. :-/  —Ruakh TALK 21:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Ruakh's is the best idea so far - and there are not too large a number of choices. Another possibility is to separate the meaning and the morphology by a semicolon or period. DCDuring TALK 21:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever we agree is best, let me just make it clear I'm not arguing just the one case. I'd like to resolve this in a way that provides a framework whereby I can go back and re-edit all the Latin suffix definition lines, so that we have good format for all of those entries. --EncycloPetey 22:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As a general solution, Ruakh's approach, decomposing the morphology and the pure semantics, treating the morphology analogously to our grammar "context" labels, does generalize well and is not an unreasonable extension of the grammar context label model. I like it. I wonder why we didn't think of it before. (Maybe we did.) DCDuring TALK 23:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think most of us were working independently before, rather than working synergistically. (ouch, did I just use that awful word?) I often find that discussing the ideas brings out better ones through synthesis, or at least clarifies the issues involved. --EncycloPetey

19:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a bit more risk that a public on-line discussion will go off the rails than that a face-to-face one-on-one discussion will. So sometimes the conversations seem likely to become painful, which leads to more avoidance of them. Discussions off the discussion pages, like this!, runs the risk of seeming cliquish or cabalish. This particular matter should avoid that, but the problem remains in many cases. DCDuring TALK 21:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of the word attributive in PoS discussions
[continuation of WT:RFV DCDuring TALK I don't think we should be insisting on three specific unambiguous-adjective cites in order for an ===Adjective=== section not to be deleted, but you often do insist on that, which means that you have an obligation to accurately identify what it is that you are rejecting and what it is that you would accept. Abuse of the phrase "attributive use" to mean "a use that I would reject" would be ridiculous if it weren't so infuriating. —Ruakh TALK 20:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, this is neither here nor there, but I think you're misusing "attributive use" again. It does not mean "adjective-like use". —Ruakh TALK 20:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, it refers to one specific kind of use of a noun, a use as a modifier of another noun, a kind of use it shares with adjectives. This is the use that is almost always the use indicated in any usage example provided and, I wager, is also almost always the motivation for a contributor adding an adjective PoS section where the noun has the same semantics as the adjective. If I am making a category error, I am doing it in the interest of consistency with the language I have learned here and as a kind of shorthand. DCDuring TALK 21:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: your first sentence: No, not at all. Well, you use the term that way, so yes, that's what it refers to when you use it; but that's not what it means to everyone else. It's a crappy kind of shorthand, because it takes a useful real-world word with a well-defined and relevant meaning, and uses that word in a completely different way that seems superficially the same. I don't understand why you feel the need for a specific term that "refers to one specific kind of use of a noun, a use as a modifier of another noun", since in all the cases that you've used "attributive" for that, the term "noun" would actually have worked just as well; but as you obviously do feel the need for such a term, why can't you just make one up? That would be more honest, and would make it clear that you are expressing your own personal POV rather than anything that other editors should feel compelled to accept. —Ruakh TALK 23:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When I go to a reference work that uses the term "attributive use of the noun", how should I read that? DCDuring TALK 23:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not a single term — it's SOP — but it means "use of the noun before another noun, which it modifies" (as in "chicken salad"). Importantly, it can be contrasted with "attributive use of the adjective" (as in "angry dog"); and also importantly, it can be contrasted with "predicative use of the noun" (as in "they made him president" or "digging trenches is work"), which also superficially looks like adjectives. So "attributive" does not imply "noun", and "modifier of another noun" does not imply "attributive". And I'm not just speaking abstractly; more than once I've seen you nominate an adjective section for deletion as "attributive use" when the entry itself had predicative usage examples. —Ruakh TALK 00:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (I should clarify one thing: some reference works consider tall in he is tall to be a "modifier", and I believe that's the traditional use of the term; but other reference works, such as CGEL, do not, considering "modifier" and "predicative" to be mutually exclusive. Since you've used "attributive use" in reference to predicative examples, I can't even begin to guess how you're using the term "modifier". If you're using it in the CGEL sense, and by "it" above you meant something like "'attributive use of nouns'", rather than just the "'attributive use'" in the comment you were replying to, then your definition was pretty accurate. Which is pretty bad, if so; defining it wrong and using it wrong is infuriating, but defining it right and using it wrong seems like lying.) —Ruakh TALK 00:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't recall intentionally using attributive except as a coordinate term of predicative. I hesitate to use any term the way CGEL does because their system often does not comport with what I read elsewhere. They often make their departure from usage by others quite explicit.
 * I still don't understand what particular use bothers you. When I object to a purported adjective, I assert that the usage that appears as an example or has motivated the creation of the adjective section is not the full range of true adjective usage but is merely attributive use of the noun. The unstated premise, implicit in an RfD, is that the term does not exist as an adjective or should not be considered to exist as an adjective. Where is the error? DCDuring TALK 03:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: "When I object to a purported adjective, I assert that the usage that appears as an example or has motivated the creation of the adjective section is not the full range of true adjective usage but is merely attributive use of the noun": Yes, I've noticed that you assert that. One problem is that you assert that even when the example usages are not attributive, or even when it's implausible that attributive use is what motivated the entry. (N.B.: Assertions that are not true, and that you make without regard for their truth, are known as .) Another problem is that you often "assert" it by saying something like "attributive use" without specifying "noun". —Ruakh TALK 12:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you give me a specific instance? DCDuring TALK 16:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * An instance where the example usages are not attributive: I can picture one in my head — it was a slang word, and had two example sentences, one with attributive use, one with predicative use — but can't remember what the headword was. I'll think about it, maybe it will come to me. (I tried Googling for it, but no dice. It may have been back when Mglovesfun was deleting archived RFV discussions.) · An instance where it was implausible that an ===Adjective=== sense-line was motivated only by the existence of attributive uses: WT:RFV. (Also WT:RFV, IMHO, despite your protestations there. And even if those sense-lines were motivated only by attributive uses, which is hard to imagine, it still wouldn't make sense to posit that the senses are only attributive use of the noun, if your goal is for people to find clearly-adjective cites instead of merely non-attributive cites.) · An instance where you used "attributive use", without "noun", as though it meant "non-adjective": WT:RFV. (Also Talk:family, though at least there it was replying to someone who had said "attributive use of the noun", so could be taken as an understandable-if-nonetheless-crappy shorthand for "what you just said".) · —Ruakh TALK 18:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time. I'll look at them carefully. DCDuring TALK 18:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * bad form - When bad form: (or many other nouns) is used as a predicate, I would argue that the predicative use provides no straightforward grammatical evidence as to whether it is a noun or adjective. I made an assumption that everyone knew this, though I had only laboriously learned in preparing Wiktionary:English adjectives (but not explained there). It might have helped if I had added a bad form. (Websters 1913 clearly defines good form and bad form as nouns in the run-in entries at "form". Cambridge Advanced Learners explicitly gives the PoS for "bad form" as noun.)
 * brass could be considered a similar case, though I am less sure it is worth pursuing. "X is brass" could refer to brass:, brass:, or, in principle, brass:. Thus, I would look to more discriminating tests of adjectivity.
 * From these cases alone, I think I see an emerging pattern: my making too many assumptions. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I completely agree that predicative use is not proof of adjective use. In fact, that is my whole point! Using "attributive" to imply "noun", or complaining that a putative adjective is only "attributive", wrongly suggests that the problem is with attributive use. But attributive use is not always ambiguous (you often — quite rightly — raise modification by "very" or "more than " as strong evidence of adjective status, but both of those are very common for attributive adjectives), and non-attributive use is sometimes also ambiguous (as you just said yourself).
 * I never thought I would have to ask you, of all people, to WT:AGF. I was apparently mistaken in some of my uses of the word in various ways with various degrees of inexcusability. (I'm still trying to nail down the specifics for myself.) But I was simply mistaken.
 * I am still a bit bothered by our use of material terms, as brass. Maybe I can approach it again with better vocabulary. DCDuring TALK 20:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: AGF: You're quite right. I'm sorry. I shouldn't even have had to assume good faith, since your good faith has been evident throughout (for example, in your switching to RFD after I, much belatedly, expressed my objections to the application of "RFV failed" to these words). When you asked me for examples, I mostly found only old ones, which should have been a big hint to me that my anger was out-of-date. Your use of "attributive use" in this discussion seemed wrong to me, hence my <small>-font comment about it, but if it weren't for past history on this issue, I wouldn't even have noticed. So, I have no excuse. I've been way too harsh in this discussion, and I hope you can forgive me. —Ruakh TALK 21:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing you wrote quite rose to the point of needing forgiveness. I wish that you would, if possible, tell me sooner about my wrong or minority use of terms or my bad practices. Even on those rare occasions that I think you are wrong, I find your knowledge deep, your analysis often quite sharp, and your judgment excellent. I am a completely self-tutored student of language, really only English, so I am willing to defer to deeper knowledge, at least if I get a sense that the one with greater knowledge and I are talking about the same thing. It is sometimes frustrating to me when my linguistic vocabulary fails me. DCDuring TALK 23:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

is beneficial to users such as this example in Mandarin. I believe that it is good for English as well. Engirst 12:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The community of active contributors in Mandarin didn't seem to share your views at all and the Wiktionanry community as a whole was not much less unfavorable. DCDuring TALK 15:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are very few active contributors of Mandarin, and there is no contributor to apply in Mandarin except me.  What do you think about the function of  as you were the only active contributor to apply  in English?  Engirst 15:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be great if the community were willing to apply it. DCDuring TALK 16:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should do promotion for it. Engirst 18:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:English words derived from...
Somebody said: "These categories are incorrectly named. We use "terms" in the category names, not "words"." (Please see here.) Could you amend it? Engirst 19:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is also a discussion afloat that may prohibit these categories (at least for English; see WT:RFDO). --EncycloPetey 19:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

evening
Fair point, but the problem is the TOC - the heading level makes it look like the statistics section only applies to the second etymology. It should probably be promoted to a level 3 heading so it comes as a direct child of "English" in the TOC. 109.155.163.191 20:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I hadn't noted that. ✅ DCDuring TALK 21:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

banned?
Is already banned by the rule of Wiktionary? 2.25.213.172 02:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no rule for some administrators. 2.25.191.229 14:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

 * When one person (=you) forges ahead overusing a template whose usage is disputed... one administrator (=me) might get irritated and start to doubt your good faith, which will result in long strings of rollbacks and banning. Especially when you don't even want to use accepted templates. —  [Ric Laurent] — 15:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, you should let me know whether is banned or not?  Otherwise, I don't know how to do.  2.25.191.229 20:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary should have rules to follow but not by somebody's thinking. 2.25.191.225 09:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You could have asked about that template before. Did you? Overusing it without regard for opinions of others is making up your own rules, ergo your criticism actually applies to you. --Daniel 09:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What is "overusing"? Wiktionary should have rules to follow but not by somebody's feeling.  2.25.213.130 09:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just see overuse. Your complaint is meaningless; please stop repeating it. If you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say anything. --Daniel 10:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't just close my mouth. Anyway, is  banned?  2.25.213.130 10:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You said "You can't just close my mouth." after I asked you to be either constructive or silent. Are you seriously trying to claim the right to say unconstructive things? --Daniel 18:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Somebody opposes but does something similarly as an "accomplice". Please see here. 2.27.73.120 18:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What's your point? Whom are you talking about? DCDuring TALK 18:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

topical attention
Hi. I hope you're well.

I don't understand the purpose of your recent edits to absolute address, and they do reduce utility. ( does not help the script tabulate the entry correctly at WT:TA.) Likewise interesterify and transphenomenal.

Thanks. —msh210℠ (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I should also thank you for taking care of so many of the entries formerly on that list! —msh210℠ (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

 * My concern is that there is a very heterogeneous mass of items in Category:English terms needing attention . Generally, once something in English is on an Rf page, it should no longer be in that category. I really don't care about the elegance of the category structure, I care about items not falling between the cracks or into black holes. We already have numerous lists that are so overpopulated that they are useless. (For example, the numerous Special pages with more than 5,000 entries are black holes.) It may be true that a language with only occasional participants needs to draw those participants to the list of problem entries in that language. But that does not seem to apply to English and may not apply to some other languages. I hadn't noticed that very many folks were even using the Category:English terms needing attention list.
 * Specifically about topics, whatever the future benefits of a topics-oriented attention list might be, we are not realizing them now. I believe that it is and will be merely a too-hard pile. That it also clogs up English terms needing attention makes it seem counter-productive to me. Perhaps if Category:English terms needing topical attention were a subcategory of Category:English terms needing attention it would not seem so counterproductive. To really make the topical attention idea work we would need to have some project page for each area that made it easier and more interesting for non-language-oriented persons with knowledge to contribute where it does us some good. Attention tags aren't generating much volume in any specific area. That implies that we don't need much outside help, whereas in fact we need a great deal of help with missing terms and bad definitions in many areas. DCDuring TALK 23:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I forgot about its clogging up category:English terms needing attention as well. As (as you noted) no one really uses WT:TA (except you and me, and we hardly), I'll have to agree that the benefit of adding the entries to that list is outweighed by the clutter added to the English-attention category. (I suppose having the various templates that call template:attention instead call it only for foreign words, and, for English ones, categorize in the topical-attention category directly would avoid the clutter, but then the script would (as currently written) be unable to tabulate them right.) If WT:TA does start being used, I think a new solution will be necessary. I am looking forward to the day when WT:TA is regularly cleared by experts (perhaps advertising it on various WikiProject pages at enWP will help; what do you think?), but am not anticipating it any time soon.
 * All that said, adding  to the category link doesn't help, so you might as well not bother (unless the script can be modified to recognize such). —msh210℠ (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Another possibility is to have a specific topical attention template. That could be inserted in specific sense lines with comments. But much the same thing can be accomplished using the entry talk page. DCDuring TALK  00:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thing
There are no South Germanic languages (see Category:South Germanic languages) it's an odd thing were there are North, West and east Germanic languages, but not South. Also in relation to Thing, should this not be lowercase? I mean it's a common noun, but common nouns can be with an initial capital letter by convention. --Mglovesfun (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, the southern Germanic languages. I wasn't thinking of well defined categories, I was thinking non-Scandinavian. DCDuring TALK 17:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, þing has some good information. --Mglovesfun (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Even modern German Ding: seems to have the sense . Certainly there are MHG cognates, possibly related to . I doubt that they were referring to Scandinavian assemblies, rather than their own. DCDuring TALK 18:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If I may stick my nose and two cents in: yes, most (possibly all) Germanic languages have a word cognate to "thing" that means "assembly"; the sense "item" developed later because items were discussed at things. In German, the word (sense) has become less common as the referent has become less common, but some scouting organisations in Germany still call their assembly a "Thing" or "Ding", and the National Socialists built Thingplätze in the 30s. Thus at [[Thing]] I would suggest a definition like "a public assembly or council in a Germanic country, especially in a Scandinavian one". I would also support moving the common noun to lowercase; the quotation in the entry uses uppercase to refer to a specific thing, much as one might say "I'm going to the Convention tomorrow", referring to a specific convention. - -sche (discuss) 05:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. How about "(chiefly historical, except in Scandinavia) A public assembly or council in a Germanic country." ? DCDuring TALK 05:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The context is tricky. I will try to cite the English words "Thing" and "thing" comprehensively over the next few days to see how they are used. I think, though, that: although there are still assemblies in Sweden and Germany (etc) which the Swedes and Germans call "ting" and "Dinge"/"Thinge", English-speakers would not call these modern assemblies "things", and would think that the word referred exclusively to the historical phenomena. (I tried searching for "the [Icelandic/Swedish] Thing passed a" [new law], and found nothing.) Thus, I think the context of [[thing]] is purely "(historical)" or "(chiefly historical)", even though [[ting]] is not "(historical)". "Especially in Scandinavia" could either be part of the context or part of the definition. I want to take a good look through literature, though; among other things (no pun intended - 06:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)), I think English-speaking pagans may use the terms to refer to their own or even others' modern-day assemblies. - -sche (discuss) 06:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are certainly right about context. I should not attempt to deal with such matters without more sleep. DCDuring TALK 08:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Alright, I've cited this fairly comprehensively (so that we can judge how the term is used), temporarily conflating majuscule and minuscule at Citations:thing. My suspicion that this would be used by (neo)pagans in durably archived places proved unsupportable. However, I draw a number of conclusions from the cites I did find: first, that the term is used outside of translations of the sagas (eg in the 1974 and 1988 quotations). Second, that English-speakers only speak of Icelandic/Norwegian/Swedish/Shetlandic/Orcadian "things", although continental Germans did have contemporary Dinge/Thinge. Third, that English-speakers refer to historical assemblies as "things"; the only references to modern "things" are references to proper names (eg the specific "Great Thing" of Norway). Assuming I don't find (a way to find) references to German "things", do you think "A public assembly or council in a Scandinavian country during the Viking era." is a good definition? Or "A public or judicial assembly [or council] in a Scandinavian country during the Viking era."? I add the "during the Viking era" bit because I realised that it might be misleading to say "(historical)" as I had suggested above — the referent is historical but the term is still in use to refer to the historical thing. I suppose we should either have that sense at [[Thing]] and [[thing]], or make one an "alternative form of". (I'd suggest making [[thing]] the main entry.) What do you think? - -sche (discuss) 05:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the research. It seems to me that the tag is perfect for references to thing: in contemporary works of history (or historical fiction?) referring to the phenomena. I have removed  from [[Thing]] and also added the "transcriptions" = "thing" in Etymology. Presumably Thing: is used for references to specific assemblies so called, as well as for the generic phenomenon. I have also edited the sense at [[thing]]. I think the main entry has to be at [[Thing]], which could be a Proper noun, though the term is used generically, whether or not capitalized, in works of history AFAICT. I am not committed to any of the changes I made so please feel free to make any revisions you wish, especially since you have collected actual citations.
 * BTW, are you familiar with COCA? It's a great resource for US usage. The BYU site also has other corpora (BNC, Time, COHA) that mostly work the same way. DCDuring TALK 12:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Good point, that the uses of "thing" are in history books or translations of sagas, so is appropriate. (I also just checked WT:Glossary and found that it explicitly points out that "historical" doesn't mean the word itself is unused, only that the referent is historical. Ok :) I'm satisfied the tag is good.) I've improved the etymology section; modern use to mean "assembly" is probably influenced by the presence of þing in Old Norse, but the word is still derived from Old English (where assembly was the original sense). I've done my best to reduce the amount of content that must be synced, by putting the translations at Thing (added benefit: the smaller page should be easier for users wanting to add translations to edit), but the etymology at thing. Also, great job finding the continental Germanic cite! - -sche (discuss) 01:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't used COCA or the BNC, but I'll check it out! I've mostly used Google Books. - -sche (discuss) 01:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks good. It should be easier to improve the definitions of [[thing]] if we chip away at the periphery like this. Sometimes Widsith works on fundamental words like this, especially those from Old English. Access to the OED helps. He also deploys tags which indicate the period during which specific definitions were current.
 * I am in the middle of reading the book I got the cite from. Google Books only has it without preview (text not even searchable).
 * Thanks. DCDuring TALK 02:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

absolute address
I would say it's sense 4 of address: "Loosed from, or unconnected by, dependence on any other being". For memory addresses, it's the same sub-sense as used in relative path (e.g. docs/) vs. absolute path (e.g. c:/mystuff/docs — a complete path, not just a partial one relative to some assumed disk location). Equinox ◑ 19:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But an absolute address is "dependent" (in a way) on a zero point. Absolute]] has a lot of Webster 1913 cobwebs, including too much terminology from philosophical idealism.
 * It seems that there might be a sense that is common between absolute zero (temperature) and this. Am I wrong in thinking that there is even a correspondence between the notion of scale (Celsius (& Kelvin) vs Fahrenhiet) and the the units of memory (bits, bytes, 64-bit etc)? DCDuring TALK 19:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't quite see what you're asking, but one situation where you might hear about absolute vs. relative addresses is in assembly-language programming. Each tiny computer instruction (like "add two numbers" etc.) resides at an address in memory; you can imagine the memory as being a long row of sequentially numbered boxes with instructions or data in them. When jumping to another address (like following a branch of a flow chart, or doing a GOTO), depending on the hardware you might do an absolute jump (e.g. "go to address 4000 and continue running from there") or a relative jump (e.g. "move 3 instructions forward from where we are right now, and continue from there"). Code with those absolute addresses will not function correctly if it is located anywhere else in memory, whereas code using only relative addresses can be placed anywhere (useful in modern operating systems where several programs may be loaded at once). Dunno if that helps! Equinox ◑ 19:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

 * I've been bold and rewritten it completely. SemperBlotto 19:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are such memory addresses always in bytes or could the units of memory be double-bytes or larger units. Were smaller units (bits or larger) ever addressed? Is the prevailing language always "bytes". DCDuring TALK 19:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the actual size of things in memory can vary, and there is the concept of addressability. A 64-bit CPU is capable of working on values that are 64 bits long (8 bytes) in a single operation, but the addresses would still be stated in terms of bytes, so the values might be stored at addresses 0, 8, 16, and so on. Separately, some very ancient systems had a byte of a different size than 8 bits, but I don't think that's ever the case any more. Equinox ◑ 09:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was wondering whether the larger units that CPUs handled, the use of Unicode rather than ASCII for encoding, and the reduced cost of memory had led to larger units of memory being addressed in some cases. Apparently, not yet. DCDuring TALK 11:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:English terms needing attention
You know, the aim isn't to empty the category at any costs, but rather to fix the problem or other issue and then remove the entries from the category. And I quote:

If you don't understand why a word appears here, don't worry about it!

A word appearing here does not necessarily mean there is anything wrong with the entry, only that it may be improved.

Some entries tagged just have 'missing definitions' as the subject needing attention, and there's no reason to detag this while the tag is correct. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

help?
if you have some time later could you help my entries? thank you. --Koopawarwa2 16:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

ObamaCare?diff=13694019
The current etymology doesn't parse. I'd fix it myself, but I'm not certain I know what it's supposed to say. —Ruakh TALK 23:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. haste makes waste. DCDuring TALK 23:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But actually, on further reflection . . . I tend to doubt that is meant as a blend with, because Medicare is an immensely popular program, and  is meant to be derisive and dismissive. Also,  is uniformly written with a lowercase <c>, whereas  is frequently written with an uppercase <C>. (The latter, notably, is also an argument against reading it as a blend with . I note that  is rather productive in forming one-word proper-nouns and other compound nouns, mostly in the general areas of childcare, healthcare, and elder-care — , , , , , , , , , , , etc. — such that trying to identify specifically-relevant influences in any verifiable way is likely to be an uphill slog.) —Ruakh TALK 00:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think healthcare is the most obvious etymon, though of course that doesn't mean it's right. Can it be from healthcare, with the capitalization a newfangled titlecasing for the proper noun? —msh210℠ (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems infinitely possible. (If nothing else, it seems less unlikely to me that the <c> would be uppercased on the way from "healthcare" (common noun) to "ObamaCare" (proper noun) than on the way from "Medicare" (proper noun) to "ObamaCare" (proper noun).) But I really have no idea. How can we verify such a thing? —Ruakh TALK 15:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If I were an etymologist, I'd (maybe) be able to tell you. As I'm a layman, I can only present my ideas for what they're worth. Find the earliest uses and see what they seem to be playing off of (e.g. comparing/contrasting the coinage to/with Medicare, or to healthcare, or what) and how they spell it. —msh210℠ (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added the earliest reliably-dated cite that I could find. (Hat-tip to this, via the Google News Archive.) It actually seems to have been playing off of . :-P  —Ruakh TALK 13:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I hadn't given it that much thought. The previous etymology was "blend". What you say seems eminently reasonable and more likely and straightforward. DCDuring TALK 00:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Silence
I suppose you're now gonna want me to convert it to Category:en:Silence, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever the unvoted-on "rules" require. I don't understand why some context categories have language prefixes. So I have stopped paying attention to whatever rules are being promulgated in category world. DCDuring TALK 11:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You clearly have stopped paying attention, and they're not unvoted-on; see Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-05/Add en: to English topical categories, part 2. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What's a topical category vs a context? Who decides? Based on what criteria? Who implements? DCDuring TALK 13:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone I guess, context labels appear in entries and generate categories. Categories are obligatory in context labels, but any context label that doesn't have a category is no better than . --Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Agrilus
A genus of boring insects. That seems a bit harsh to be honest. LOL. --Mglovesfun (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, polysemy. DCDuring TALK 17:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Adjective translations of nouns
Hi! I don't want you to think I've forgotten about this discussion. I will post something about it in the Beer Parlour today, or you can beat me to it if you like. The more I think about it, the harder I find it to believe anyone will/could object to it, given how often entries contain translations that are of a different POS... the only difference seems to be that this is widespread/common and regular. - -sche (discuss) 19:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody should object, but they might anyway. Someone could view it as some kind of backdoor exclusionist attack on compound nouns. I'd be happy with any reasonable version of the proposal. Please feel free to make the proposal as I seem to find it easy to annoy some with my manner of discussion. DCDuring TALK 20:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:DCDuring/2011 QIII


text:
User talk:DCDuring/2011 QIV

something for you?
While I don't wish to impose extra work on you, as you are a busy man, I would most appreciate your help on making the entry [[understandably]] better. You did something once adding tags categorising things as "manner adverbs" or "modal adverbs" or "degree adverbs" and other type of adverbs, and those entries looked really neat. Can you sprinkle some fancy dust on understandably too? --Rockpilot 00:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thx --Rockpilot 22:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

bringing the heat?
does it qualify here? --Fkdc321 04:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I think that heat: might be used in other expressions. I am not as familiar with other expressions that use lumber:. DCDuring TALK 22:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Bye
--Daniel 21:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * He's not leaving. --Rockpilot 21:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are powerful motivations for me to stay, mostly personal. I can't stand to let the bastards win. DCDuring TALK 22:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's hope the bastards put up a long and valiant fight, if only to keep you here and competing for the common good. --Rockpilot 22:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This war looks tough. Are there many bastards yet? --Daniel 07:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If necessary, I could side up with the bastards. But also with the good guys. I'm flexible like that--Rockpilot 07:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Bastards tend to be the more dynamic characters whose actions really push the story arcs. —  [Ric Laurent] — 12:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, everyone loves a good antihero. —Ruakh TALK 14:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest setting up a club, called The Bastard Club. You in, Ruakh or Daniel.? I'm the boss, and Ric is already in by default. I'll get some others to recruit. I'm thinking matching costumes... --Rockpilot 14:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I could enter the club, if I like the costumes. --Daniel 16:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * tell you what, you can design the costumes. Whatever it takes to get you in. --Rockpilot 22:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds fun. Just let me know next time bastardry happens, so I can help. --Daniel 16:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Brand names
We had this discussion several times, so let us concentrate it in one place. To my understanding, "physical product" stands in contrast to "service" and to "information product". You may label this "literalism", but that I find not only unconvincing but rather disingenuous. If you really intend the phrase "physical product" to make no difference in WT:BRAND's "A brand name for a physical product should be included if it has entered the lexicon", you may create a vote that removes "for a physical product" from that piece of text. I have no intention to start such a vote, as I want WT:BRAND to be as weak as possible, and completely removed if possible. There are fair chances that you could succeed with such a vote, as there are many anti-brand people around in Wiktionary. But until such a vote passes, I do not see how you can ignore the "physical product" part and still claim to abide by WT:CFI. --Dan Polansky 14:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not here. DCDuring TALK 16:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

thingosol
You found the soil category eh? I'd been saving that one up! Equinox ◑ 20:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I discovered the USDA classification in the course of looking up how to propagate Carpinus caroliniana, aka musclewood:. The WP article on one of the sols revealed the FAO classification system names. These are widely used, I hope. DCDuring TALK 21:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Votes/2011-10/Categories of names 3
Because you voted in Votes/2011-07/Categories of names, I'm informing you of this new vote. —msh210℠ (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

template talk:en-adj
An update at the bottom might interest you. —msh210℠ (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not a dictionary I would rely on.
No, nor me. And I don't think it ever will be, the whole premise behind a dictionary that anyone can edit with no paid staff seems flawed to me. I always say I edit Wiktionary for my own pleasure, and this is why. I don't think we have any realistic hope of rivalling the best printed and online dictionaries. Structurally, it can't work. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

 * The same applies to Wikipedia versus a traditional encyclopaedia, viz. it will be somewhat under-edited and amateurish and occasionally inaccurate. That hasn't stopped Wikipedia succeeding, primarily because the largest group of users (people who just want to check something, rather than write a researched paper on it) don't seem to care enormously about those things, and as long as it's free they will overlook certain inferior qualities. I think the best thing about Wikimedia projects is probably that they are free (in the sense of being reusable without expensive licensing), which suggests that if things do get particularly bad then some other group can always take the raw material and try to fix it up in a new project. I increasingly feel that it's necessary with ours. Equinox ◑ 23:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But I also have the feeling that nobody wants to have to take a project and make it go apart from this mother ship. Simple, for example, seems to have been a lonely effort. This isn't too bad a group for the most part, though we have lost some folks I really liked and/or whose contributions and standards I respected. I've been a lot less obsessive about my involvement with Wiktionary lately. DCDuring TALK 00:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For its age, I don't think Wikipedia is any worse than any other encyclopedia effort, nor Wiktionary worse than any dictionary. All such endeavors begin by being shackled to the predispositions of their authors and editors. In this case, it just happens that we can see the sausage being made. Look at what we've done, in less than a decade. In ten or twenty years, the whole thing will be world class. bd2412 T 01:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the essential difference between Wikipedia and Wiktionary is one of expertise. Wikipedia has articles on every conceivable subject, for which there are many knowledgeable experts, and posts made there tend to be self-correcting (or in some cases may devolve into POV arguments, etc). Lexicography is an extremely complex and detailed enterprise to which professionals have devoted their entire careers. The editors of Oxford English Dictionary or the various Merriam-Webster publications, or American Heritage Dictionary all thoroughly research (independently from each other) every entry, and every detail of every entry. Here at Wiktionary amateurs who may think they know what a word might mean, or should mean, are free to post, regardless of how imprecise, garbled or misleading their definitions and examples may be.

 * In response to User:BD2412, Wikipedia is quite a good encyclopedia, overall. But to continue with "... nor Wiktionary worse than any dictionary. All such endeavors begin by being shackled to the predispositions of their authors and editors" is simply untrue. That last statement is certainly true of Wiktionary - but not at all of "real" dictionaries.

 * It's particularly difficult for even a very good Wiktionary editor to come up with entries that are concise, precise, and unambiguous, with complete possible meanings of words, and distinguishing them, without relying on (aka copying from) copyrighted dictionaries. I would hazard that very few, if any, editors here are sufficiently skilled in lexicographical research to be able to come up with entries rephrased in their own words that can meet those goals. In contrast, Wikipedia is descriptive and explanatory; and editors there are free to acknowledge fair-use quotations from any number of authoritative sources. A dictionary and an encyclopedia are entirely different animals in this respect. Milkunderwood 03:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

 * But you're talking only about the English-in-English part of Wiktionary. There are translation portions of this dictionary the rival and surpass the best translating dictionaries I've seen, and Wiktionary is still "in print".  Just try to find a good English-Galician dictionary, because I haven't.  Our Galician section is set to surpass the only in-print translating dictionary I know of, and the work is not simply copying from exisitng translating dictionaries.  The one I have is wrong more than 10% of the time, and is vague about the translation another 20% of the time.  It omits required diacritical marks, and has countless other problems.  So, in comparing Wiktionary to the OED, AHD, or Webster's, you've missed another vast aspect of Wiktionary that isn't covered at all in those publications. --EncycloPetey 16:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I would repeat my original qualifier, for its age. Wiktionary is relatively new, but is far more dynamic than any of its much older brick-and-mortar based competitors. bd2412 T 19:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How good can a translating dictionary be if the full senses in the base language are not very good, especially not very complete? It is largely because Wiktionary is so hard to use as a monolingual dictionary that there is relatively little headway being made in improving it as such. Our vaunted coverage of contemporary terms is usually poorly worded. Our professionally worded senses are often dated or copyvios. If it were not for the definitions taken from Webster 1913 and, probably, various copyvios which we didn't detect, Wiktionary would be even less complete. DCDuring TALK 22:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It can be better than 99% of the translating dictionaries out there, which do not contain any section defining the English word in English. The usual translating dictionary only converts one language's words to those of another, often without explaining the use of either word except in the grossest way possible with sense tags (and often not even that). My Galician-English dictionary translates xineta as "genet", which is fine only if I know what genet means.  Otherwise, I have to go to another dictionary to look up genet:.  Then, I'm confronted by the fact that English genet has two very different meanings and I have no idea which is meant.  Wiktionary thus provides more because (1) we link to the English translation, and (2) we try to clarify the senses of a translation instead of simply providing a bare word. --EncycloPetey 04:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly the problem. That the other dictionaries limit themselves to perhaps the main senses of a word is adequate for a dictionary that does not pretend to the universal inclusiveness of Wiktionary. I suppose the weakness of the competiting translating dictionaries is a great advantage to Wiktionary allowing us to surpass them with ease, especially for "smaller" languages. I still wonder whether the effort to add translations for senses will be undone be the need to correct English senses.
 * Somewhat relatedly I have long wondered about:
 * the use of obsolete English words as one-word glosses in definitions of FL words.
 * the preference for one-word glosses when the English word used is highly polysemic.
 * -- DCDuring TALK 14:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Your many ttbc's
Hi,

Once again, I consider this a very bad edit. This creates a lot of unnecessary work, which has been done before. As if, when you add a new sense to a word and all previous translations become invalid. This way no translations will ever be final and someone will starting casting doubt on previous work. The entry already had "father (informal, familiar)". --Anatoli (обсудить) 12:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am so sorry that it inconveniences you that we keep on changing English definitions to correct for the poor quality of so many of them. It seems intolerable that the errors in those definitions should be allowed undermine the credibility of translations by not being confirmed after significant changes.
 * This is going to continue to happen as long as we do not have a "certification" process for English definitions. The poor quality of the starting point for translation is apparently not readily detected by many contributors of translations, so they waste their time on doing translations that need to be redone.
 * I will certainly not stop adding under the same circumstances. I can't see any other way to mark the issue. If we had subcategories of translations to be checked so that those arising from sense splits were categorized as a subcategory treated differently from others perhaps the existing category would be used in a way more to your taste. DCDuring TALK  17:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

 * The English definition may have required fixing but not the translations. When people translate a word, especially as simple and straightforward as this one, they use the most common sense of it, why would they do otherwise? If I were you, not knowing these foreign languages, I would leave the translations in the first, most common sense but you haven't checked a single translation. So you doubt the meaning of the French papa or the German Vati? You have French and German in your Babel list. It's not about me and my taste but I feel sorry for my work as well because I added many translations myself. --Anatoli (обсудить) 22:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When you are me, feel free to do it that way.
 * I don't trust my knowledge of register differences. Dad is used in different registers and with different senses. Would be better for any new senses? DCDuring TALK  00:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I was just recommending the way new senses or splitting a generic senses would work, in my opinion, provided the most common sense stays at the top. Yes, is better for new senses or just no translation at all (copy from other senses if sure). I wouldn't add  for languages with few contributors. They would just sit there. If someone wants to add a translation for each sense, they can do so. --Anatoli (обсудить) 01:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Chicago-style hot dog too encyclopedic
I'm still not getting why you consider CSHD to be too encyclopedic. It follows the same format as many food articles, describing what's in it. Therefore it's no more encyclopedic than any of them Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

you get that
Where did you wanna move this entry? ---> Tooironic 12:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I get that a lot is, I think, more common. Both of them seem like possibly meritorious phrasebook entries, but you know I don't think we have any credible phrasebook. Otherwise, they both seem SoP based on context and get: (sense just added). DCDuring TALK 15:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO I get that a lot would also be a useful phrase to include. Do you support a phrasebook or not? I couldn't make out your position based on your previous comment. ---> Tooironic 23:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I support a credible phrasebook, one that has some principles for determining what is in and what is out and that focuses on colloquial speech, not canonical sentences. A phrasebook is not a substitute for learning the basic grammar of a language. DCDuring TALK 00:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

two things about rock
Hi. I hope you're well.

to [[rock]] caught my eye for two reasons: Thanks for your attention. —msh210℠ (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You removed the  from the  template (right after I'd added that parameter, though I assume you didn't realize that). The   categorizes the page in English terms with homophones, so is worth including. (If you think that that category is not worth having, then by all means bring it to RFDO. But so long as we have it, the template should be parametrized accordingly, don't you think?
 * You removed from a sense (also soon after I had added it, though, again, I assume you didn't know that). I don't know what sense(s) it refers to. If you do, please add that info. If you don't know (or don't add) the glosses, then why remove ?
 * I am not fully aware of the current state of categories using lang=en. I know that they are counter-productive in the case of, for example, rfd, rfv, and rfc. I know that they are not used in an enormous number of cases. I really have never seen the point of having the English stuff appearing in its own category rather than the ubercategory, other than a fetish for lingual egalitarianism.
 * That said, I would have deferred to your judgement with respect to had I looked at the author of the change.
 * OTOH, I thought was supposed to be used for translation glosses and either  to be used for definitions.
 * If current practice is not settled, then my arguments are that "gloss" has several drawbacks relative to "definition":
 * It is more elitist, jargony.
 * It presupposes that a non-gloss definition is not appropriate.
 * In its normal and even linguistic meaning there is a presumption that it is especially brief, possibly just a synonym, rather than a more self-contained definition. DCDuring TALK 20:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And I thought rfgloss is when a word is present but which sense of it is unclear (as in a foreign word's definition as just "set" or, for that matter, an English word's definition as just "set"), and rfdef for missing definitions. But maybe not. Anyway, the entry; see if it's okay. —msh210℠ (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:DCDuring/2011 QIV


text:
𝄀

Symbol

 * 1)  A separator between two measures or bars.
 * 2)  A line that closes the staff at the beginning and end of the staff on the right and left side of the page.
 * 3)  A line that connects the staves of grand staff.


text:
अभिरांम

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1) charming

title: अभिरांम


text:
અભિમાન

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) pride, arrogance

title: અભિમાન


text:
𝄁

Symbol

 * 1)  An indicator of a change of key signature or any other major change.
 * 2)  Used at the beginning of the staff.
 * 3)  Used at the end of single-line pieces, e.g. for scales or some demonstrative pieces.
 * 1)  Used at the end of single-line pieces, e.g. for scales or some demonstrative pieces.
 * 1)  Used at the end of single-line pieces, e.g. for scales or some demonstrative pieces.


text:
𝄂

Symbol


text:
estremeñu

Noun

 * 1) Extremaduran

title: estremeñu


text:
réinu

Noun

 * 1) kingdom

title: réinu


text:
Toleu

Proper noun

 * 1) Toledo

title: Toleu


text:
individualmenti

Adverb

 * 1) individually

Etymology
From.

Adverb

 * 1) individually

title: individualmenti


text:
puebración

Noun

 * 1) population

title: puebración


text:
pather

Noun

 * 1)  A non-player character that walks a repeating path.

title: pather


text:
meyeval

Adjective

 * 1) medieval

title: meyeval


text:
ķermenis

Etymology
Borrowed from, from , see also 🇨🇬.

Introduced by to replace the Germanism  (compare 🇨🇬) used by many other Latvian authors. Kronvalds introduced the word as ; the current form only appeared and became popular in the 20th century.

Noun

 * 1)  body physical object, material entity
 * 2)  body of a living being, organism
 * 3)  part of space bound by a closed surface
 * 4) the main part of something
 * 1)  body of a living being, organism
 * 2)  part of space bound by a closed surface
 * 3) the main part of something
 * 1)  part of space bound by a closed surface
 * 2) the main part of something
 * 1)  part of space bound by a closed surface
 * 2) the main part of something
 * 1) the main part of something
 * 1) the main part of something
 * 1) the main part of something

title: ķermenis


text:
आंब

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) mango

title: आंब


title: passw0rd


text: आंसू

title: आंसू


text:
rhedarium

Etymology
From +, by analogy with.

Noun

 * 1) A structure used for storage, sale, or manufacture of horse-drawn carriages.

title: rhedarium


text:
आंहू

Etymology
From. Compare with Hindustani /  and Gujarati. Ultimately from (compare 🇨🇬), from, from compound  (compare ).

Noun

 * 1) tear (a drop of liquid from the eyes)

title: आंहू


text:
creolistics

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  The branch of linguistics concerned with the study of creole languages and literatures.

Translations

 * Danish: kreolistik
 * French:
 * German:
 * Norwegian:
 * Bokmål: kreolistikk
 * Nynorsk: kreolistikk
 * Occitan: creolistica
 * Polish: kreolistyka
 * Spanish: creolística
 * Swedish: kreolistik

title: creolistics


text: creology

title: creology


text:
łį́į́ʼ tʼáá dilkǫǫhgo naalgeedígíí

Etymology
+ +  +  +  +

Noun

 * 1) bareback bronc riding (at a rodeo)

title: łį́į́ʼ tʼáá dilkǫǫhgo naalgeedígíí


text:
आंम

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) public

title: आंम


text:
marégraphique

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  tide gauge

title: marégraphique


text:
galápago

Etymology
From ; compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) any of several species of turtle
 * 2)  giant tortoise
 * 1)  giant tortoise

title: galápago


text:
déjanter

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to come off the rim
 * 2)  to go crazy; to lose it

title: déjanter


text: aalbessesappen

title: aalbessesappen


text: aalbessesapje

title: aalbessesapje


text: aambeeldje

title: aambeeldje


text: aambeelden

title: aambeelden


text: aalbessestruikje

title: aalbessestruikje


text: aalbessestruiken

title: aalbessestruiken


text: aalbessesapjes

title: aalbessesapjes


text: aalbessestruikjes

title: aalbessestruikjes


text: aambeeldjes

title: aambeeldjes


text:
subjectile

Noun

 * 1)  A substrate, material, or support upon which a painting or engraving is created.

title: subjectile


text: afbreektekentje

title: afbreektekentje


text: afbreektekens

title: afbreektekens


text: afbreektekentjes

title: afbreektekentjes


text: aandeelhoudertje

title: aandeelhoudertje


text: aandeelhouders

title: aandeelhouders


text: aandeelhoudertjes

title: aandeelhoudertjes


text: aandelenbeurzen

title: aandelenbeurzen


text: aandelenbeursje

title: aandelenbeursje


text:
womanthrope

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  Someone who hates women; a misogynist.

title: womanthrope


text: aandelenbeursjes

title: aandelenbeursjes


text:
အားလုံး

Determiner

 * 1) all

title: အားလုံး


text: aanbeelden

title: aanbeelden


text: aanbeeldje

title: aanbeeldje


text: aanduidinkje

title: aanduidinkje


text: aanduidingen

title: aanduidingen


text: aanbeeldjes

title: aanbeeldjes


text: aanklagers

title: aanklagers


text: aanduidinkjes

title: aanduidinkjes


text:
ပျစ်

Adjective

 * 1) thick, viscous

title: ပျစ်


text: aanklagertje

title: aanklagertje


text: aanklagertjes

title: aanklagertjes


text: aankledingen

title: aankledingen


text: aankledinkje

title: aankledinkje


text: aankledinkjes

title: aankledinkjes


text:
ထူထဲ

Adjective

 * 1) thick relatively great in extent from one surface to another

title: ထူထဲ


text: aanwijzende voornaamwoorden

title: aanwijzende voornaamwoorden


text: aanwijzend voornaamwoordje

title: aanwijzend voornaamwoordje


text: aanwijzende voornaamwoordjes

title: aanwijzende voornaamwoordjes


text: aanknopingspunten

title: aanknopingspunten


text: aanknopingspuntje

title: aanknopingspuntje


text:
aanlopen

Etymology 1
Inherited from, , from. Equivalent to.

Verb

 * 1) to encounter, meet
 * 2) to hasten, walk with speed
 * 3) to walk toward
 * 4) to continue, to endure
 * 5)  to frequent

title: aanlopen


text: aanloopje

title: aanloopje


text: aanmoediginkje

title: aanmoediginkje


text: aanmoedigingen

title: aanmoedigingen


text: aanrandertje

title: aanrandertje


text: aanranders

title: aanranders


text: aanslagje

title: aanslagje


text: aanslagen

title: aanslagen


text: aantekeninkje

title: aantekeninkje


text: aantekeningen

title: aantekeningen


text: aanvaardinkje

title: aanvaardinkje


text: aanvaardingen

title: aanvaardingen


text: aanverwantje

title: aanverwantje


text: aanverwanten

title: aanverwanten


text: aanvoerdertje

title: aanvoerdertje


text: aanvoerders

title: aanvoerders


text: aanverwantjes

title: aanverwantjes


text: aanvoerdertjes

title: aanvoerdertjes


text: aantekeninkjes

title: aantekeninkjes


text: aanvaardinkjes

title: aanvaardinkjes


text: aanslagjes

title: aanslagjes


text: aanrandertjes

title: aanrandertjes


text: aanmoediginkjes

title: aanmoediginkjes


text: aanloopjes

title: aanloopjes


text: aanknopingspuntjes

title: aanknopingspuntjes


text: crematies

title: crematies


text: agencée

title: agencée


text: agencés

title: agencés


text: agencées

title: agencées


text:
łį́į́ʼ bikʼídahaznilgo naalgeedígíí

Etymology
+ ( +  +  +  + ) +  +  +

Noun

 * 1) saddle-bronc riding (at a rodeo)

title: łį́į́ʼ bikʼídahaznilgo naalgeedígíí


text: bugels

title: bugels


text: bugeltje

title: bugeltje


text: bugeltjes

title: bugeltjes


text: ķermeni

title: ķermeni


text:
albuminoïde

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) albuminoid

Noun

 * 1) albuminoid

title: albuminoïde


text: ķermenī

title: ķermenī


text: ķermeņi

title: ķermeņi


text: שמתי

title: שמתי


text:
သန်ကောင်

Noun

 * 1) worm, intestinal parasite

title: သန်ကောင်


text: Category:my:Worms

title: Category:my:Worms


text:
sétány

Etymology
From the stem of.

Noun

 * 1) promenade, esplanade

title: sétány


text: sétányok

title: sétányok


text: galápagos

title: galápagos


text:
kraft paper

Noun

 * 1) Strong paper made from kraft pulp, often used for making corrugated board.

Translations

 * Danish: kraftpapir
 * Finnish:
 * French:
 * Hungarian: nátronpapír
 * Irish: craftpháipéar
 * Norwegian:
 * Bokmål: kraftpapir
 * Nynorsk: kraftpapir
 * Tagalog: sotsowa

title: kraft paper


text:
quelonio

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) chelonian

Noun

 * 1) chelonian; turtle

title: quelonio


text: ועשיתם

title: ועשיתם


text: quelonios

title: quelonios


text: quelonia

title: quelonia


text: quelonias

title: quelonias


text:
kraft pulp

Noun

 * 1) Pulp used in making kraft paper produced by delignifying woodchips by cooking in a vessel under pressure using an alkaline cooking liquor.

title: kraft pulp


text:
delignify

Verb

 * 1)  To remove the lignin from (wood pulp).

title: delignify


text:
नाश

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) destruction, devastation
 * 2) waste
 * 1) waste

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) destruction, devastation

Etymology
From, from , from , from. Cognate with 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬 (as opposed to ), 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬. See also 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) demolition, ruin, destruction, annihilation
 * 2) disappearance, extinction, abolition

title: नाश


text:
㶷

Usage notes

 * Unicode encoded a duplicate of this character, 𤈎, by mistake. maps to that one.

title: 㶷


text: Category:Norn nouns

title: Category:Norn nouns


text:
promenád

Etymology
From, from , from.

Noun

 * 1)  promenade

title: promenád


text: promenádok

title: promenádok


text: Category:Paper

title: Category:Paper


text:
Appendix:Lojban/.enai

Particle

 * : but not

title: Appendix:Lojban/.enai


text:
oyri

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) a gravel bank

title: oyri


text:
gooden

Etymology 1
From. Compare 🇨🇬,, from 🇨🇬. More at.

Verb

 * 1)  To make good; improve; better; perfect.
 * 2)  To become good.
 * 3)  To grow; improve; prosper.
 * 1)  To become good.
 * 2)  To grow; improve; prosper.

Etymology 2
Back-formation from, an alteration of , believed to be derived from or perhaps a survival of , , from. Alternative etymology derives this term from earlier, perhaps a corruption of.

Verb

 * 1)  To perambulate, usually town to town, collecting alms, gifts, or small gratuities before Christmas-time, usually on St. Thomas's Day.

title: gooden


text:
béégashii ałtsʼą́ą́ʼ wódleehígíí

Etymology
+ +  +

Noun

 * 1) team roping (at a rodeo)

title: béégashii ałtsʼą́ą́ʼ wódleehígíí


text: Citations:crumb grinder

title: Citations:crumb grinder


text:
ałtsʼą́ą́ʼ

Postposition

 * 1) away from each other, in opposite directions
 * 2) divergently

title: ałtsʼą́ą́ʼ


text:
crumb grinder

Noun

 * 1)  A child.

Synonyms

 * See also Thesaurus:child.

title: crumb grinder


text: crumb grinders

title: crumb grinders


text: Citations:crumbgrinder

title: Citations:crumbgrinder


text: crumbgrinder

title: crumbgrinder


text: crumbgrinders

title: crumbgrinders


text:
ܒܪܘܝܐ

Etymology
From the root related to creating.

Noun

 * 1) creator

Proper noun

 * 1)  Creator, God

title: ܒܪܘܝܐ


text:
ܒܪܘܝܬܐ

Etymology
From the root related to creating.

Noun

 * 1) creator

title: ܒܪܘܝܬܐ


text:
béégashii yáázh wódleehígíí

Etymology
+ +  +

Noun

 * 1) calf roping (at a rodeo)

title: béégashii yáázh wódleehígíí


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/gōdōn

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to make good, make better, improve


text:
dóola naalgeedígíí

Etymology
+ +

Noun

 * 1) bull riding (at a rodeo)

title: dóola naalgeedígíí


text:
ܕܘܓܠܐ

Noun

 * 1) lie

Etymology
From the root related to lying.

Noun

 * 1) falsehood, lie, lying

Etymology
From the root related to lying.

Noun

 * 1) lie

title: ܕܘܓܠܐ


text:
abdominal rib

Noun

 * 1)  Any of the riblike structures that cross the abdomen in lizards.

title: abdominal rib


text: abdominal ribs

title: abdominal ribs


text:
abdominoperineal resection

Noun

 * 1)  Surgery to remove a portion of the large intestine and surrounding lymph nodes through incisions in the abdomen and perineum.

Translations

 * Portuguese: ressecção abdominoperineal

title: abdominoperineal resection


text: abdominoperineal resections

title: abdominoperineal resections


text:
ܕܓܠܐ

Etymology
From the root related to lying. Compare 🇨🇬.

Adjective

 * 1) lying, deceitful, false, spurious, feigned, vain

Noun

 * 1) liar

title: ܕܓܠܐ


text:
goeden

Etymology 1
From, from , from.

Verb

 * 1)  to supply with material goods, to make prosperous

Conjugation
Only the past participle survives, but has taken on another meaning.

title: goeden


text:
gegoed

Etymology
Past participle of the now-obsolete verb.

Adjective

 * 1) well-to-do

title: gegoed


text:
User:Nkansahrexford

Please read my profile here

title: User:Nkansahrexford


text:
ܕܘܪܫܐ

Etymology
From the root related to threshing.

Noun

 * 1) training, teaching, instruction, exercise, experience
 * 2) discipline, study, erudition
 * 3) disputation, investigation
 * 4)  litigation
 * 5) contest, struggle

title: ܕܘܪܫܐ


text:
Talk:tīkls

tīkla audums — network fabric
tīkla audums is defined as network fabric, which appears to be a computing term such as discussed at. Is that what's intended? --BB12 (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Again thanks for your interest! First, let me say I'm not a native speaker of English (and I'm certainly not a specialist in weaving, cloth, embroidery, or any such topic) -- so the questions you ask simply show that I've chosen the wrong translation (o me miserum). I'm also not a native speaker of Latvian, I'm simply trying to learn it. No, a computing term is certainly not what I was aiming for.
 * The first meaning of tīkls here basically reflects the first sense in the LLVV (Latviešu Literārās Valodas Vārdnīca or Dictionary of the Latvian Literary Language; this site). The basic idea is that of a fabric or material made of fiber-like interwoven elements (thread, string, line, plastic fibers, etc.) with clear intestitial spaces, like the material used to make fishing nets, or soccer/football nets, or certain kinds of fruit bags or sacks (the oranges I buy in the local market come inside a little bag made of this kind of material). This is the material (cloth? fabric?) that (I believe) the LLVV refers to with the words "tīkla audums" ("audums" by itself simply means 'fabric', 'cloth'). I.e., fishing nets, soccer/football nets, etc. are made of "tīkla audums". The example about 'knitting' or 'weaving' "tīkla audums" refer to the process of producing this material.
 * So, what would you call that in English? I thought 'network fabric' or 'net fabric' might translate that, but that was a(n informed) guess; my Oxford Picture Dictionary unfortunately lacks any picture with this material on it. I thought about 'mesh fabric', but I wasn't sure (it's not entirely clear to me how a 'mesh' is different from a 'network'; I thought 'mesh' was something more solid (like metal), whereas network here at Wiktionary seemed to have meanings that were more fabric-like), and a few Google searches weren't really helpful. I'll be grateful for any help with that! --Pereru (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm not an expert, either, but here are my thoughts. First, Google Images is really useful to check on things like this. Overall, I think "network" should be deleted from the first definition. Although the first definition of network is correct, this meaning has grown uncommon, so mesh is better. (See Google Images for "knit a mesh," for example.)
 * Also, I think changing "smalks, rupjš tīkls — delicate, coarse mesh, network" to smalks tīkls; rupjš tīkls — delicate mesh; coarse mesh" is much easier to understand.
 * Google Images shows that "mesh fabric" is probably correct.
 * I looked on Google Images for "mesh eyes," "eyes of mesh" and "eyes in mesh," but I didn't see anything that matched. I wasn't thorough and "eyes in a mesh" certainly seems reasonable, but "mesh hole(s)" certainly has many positive hits.
 * I'm concerned about the word "knit." That specifically means to use two needles to create fabric from yarn. If that meaning is covered, that's okay.
 * For definition 4, I would delete "network-like." I'm not sure what a "work sequence chart" is. I think "degree grid" should probably be "coordinate grid."
 * For definition 5, "network" seems fine to me.
 * Also, some of the English examples are missing articles. According to Latvian_grammar, Latvian words incorporate the article in the noun, so I do not want to guess how those should be changed (or perhaps they are fine).
 * That's a lot of suggestions, but the examples are really good. I'm really impressed. --BB12 (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I certainly appreciate suggestions, and I'm glad you had the time to make these. I'll change network to mesh. I'm not sure about repeating the word with adjectives -- I think the results are often a bit repetitive, and I kinda like the "smalks, rupjš tīkls" style (it's how both my Latvian dictionaries do it). I see how much Google Images helps -- thanks! I could change 'eyes' to 'holes', but one could also leave it as a literary translation with a parenthetical explanation -- "mesh eyes (= holes)". Wouldn't that be better? Would you also prefer the word sew (a mesh) rather than knit? I'll delete the 'network-like' as you suggest. I thought about 'coordinate grid' instead of 'network grid', but wouldn't that suggest all kinds of (Cartesian) coordinate grids, like the ones used for graphs at school? That particular example refers only to longitude-latitude grids used to represent the Earth's surface... I'll have a look at the English articles in the examples. Again, thanks! --Pereru (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the update. I'll try to look at the other words you suggested on my user page.
 * The reason I'm concerned about the adjectives is that you have to really look at it to understand what it's saying. "delicate, coarse mesh" appears to mean "a mesh that is delicate and coarse" (which might be possible in English) but your intention is to provide two examples. They do that in paper dictionaries because space is so precious, but on Wiktionary, I think it's better to repeat and be completely clear.
 * Although "mesh eyes" seems like it's probably correct, I personally cannot say for sure. I did a quick search on Google Books, and the hits I found mean "eyes with mesh material" or "mesh-like holes," not "holes in a mesh," so I'm not completely comfortable with that expression. Also, it says "mesh holes (= mesh size)," but "holes" is plural and "size" is singular; does "acis " work for both in Latvian? "Sew" seems better, though it depends on the scope of "adīt." The verb "sew" means to create with a needle and thread (by hand or with a sewing machine). I'm not sure about "longitude/latitude" but Wikipedia has geographic coordinate system. --BB12 (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Two more things occurred to me. "smalks (rupjš) tīkls — delicate (coarse) mesh" is clear and saves space. Also, does "smalks" means "fragile, easy to break"? If "smalks" is supposed to mean that the mesh holes are small, "fine" is the word that should be used. --BB12 (talk) 02:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

 * For the adjectives: to forestall all ambiguity, I went ahead and made two separate examples out of 'delicate' and 'coarse' mesh. If you think 'mesh holes' works but aren't sure about 'mesh eyes', then it would seem the prudent course of action is to keep 'holes', not 'eyes', right? As for 'size': no, 'acis' is 'eyes', plural (sing. acs); I added 'mesh size' because (if I understood correctly the explanation I found in the LLVV) "tīkla acis" can be used to talk about the mesh sizes (i.e. are the "tīkla acis" big or small?). I'm not entirely sure how meshes are actually made, but since line is often involved, I suspect that (at least originally, pre-industrially) some sort of sewing procedure was involved. The LLVV definition for "adīt" is Gatavot (ko) no vienlaidu pavediena, ar īpašām adatām saistot to ciešos valdziņos, which means "to make (something) from a continuous filament, with a special needle tying it in tight stitches" -- which makes 'knitting' sound better as a translation, doesn't it? But then again -- even if one says "to knit a mesh" in Latvian, does one in English? And shouldn't the translation be ultimately the English expression for 'making a mesh'? --Pereru (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:tīkls


text:
Citations:presentification

 * 2001, Anthony J. Steinbock (translator) and Husserl (author), Analyses Concerning Passive and Active Synthesis, Kluwer Academic Publishers, ISBN 0792370651, § 17: “Description of the Possible Types of Intuition”, page 110:
 * Every other kind of presentification has a similar structure.⁶⁴ ⁶⁴ Translator: Empathy [Einfühlung] as a mode of presentification does not make present a previous or futural perceptual object because the other or the alien can in principle never be given “originally.” This is certainly different from a remembering that literally re-presents its object, or from a futural presentification that anticipates a futural object as present, or finally from a co-presentification in which something that is not given in the original at present, but can in principle be present (cf. below 367, 373f., 377f.). Accordingly, rather than translate Vergegenwärtigung as re-presentation, which would be well-suited for temporal acts, I prefer the common neologism, presentification, since it includes the full complement of acts ranging from imagination to empathy.

title: Citations:presentification


text:
Citations:schadenfreudig

 * 1921, Baddeley, Russia in the ‘Eighties’, Sport and Politics, Longmans, Green and co., page 220:
 * The tone of the St. Petersburg papers — to say nothing of Moscow — became now one of unbounded arrogance. English threats and warlike preparations were treated alike with scathing contempt, and there is a melancholy interest to be derived, in these latter days, from the fact that they anticipated then all the schadenfreudig vaticinations of modern Germany at the commencement of the Great War as to the fate of England.

title: Citations:schadenfreudig


text:
Citations:crumb cruncher

Noun: "(slang, humorous or pejorative) a child"

 * 1975 — Loyd Little, Parthian Shot, Viking Press (1977), ISBN 9780670540631, page 135:
 * A dozen crumb crunchers scurried around the floor.
 * 1999 — Marisa Carroll, Winter Soldier, Harlequin (1999), ISBN 9781459253476, unnumbered page:
 * "I thought you told me you came on the mission to get away from your adorable crumb crunchers."
 * 2001 — Raye Morgan, Working Overtime, Silhouette Books (2001), ISBN 9781426881404, unnumbered page:
 * "You wouldn't dare go in where all those crumb crunchers are swarming. Would you?"
 * 2009 — Deborah Kinnard, Angel With a Ray Gun, Desert Breeze Publishing, Inc. (2009), ISBN 9781936000159, unnumbered page:
 * Near the exit door stood Darth himself, with a six-month-old crumb cruncher in his arms.
 * 2010 — Kevin Leman, Have a New You by Friday: How to Accept Yourself, Boost Your Confidence, & Change Your Life in 5 Days, Revell (2010), ISBN 9780800719333, page 65:
 * When you get the wedding photos back and see that one of the six-year-old crumb crunchers has pulled his shirttail out of his fly, therefore spoiling the portrait, two to one says he's a lastborn.

title: Citations:crumb cruncher


text:
ܟܕܒܐ

Etymology
Active noun of the verb ; compare 🇨🇬.

Adjective

 * 1) lying, false

Noun

 * 1) liar

Etymology
From the root related to lying. Compare 🇨🇬.

Adjective

 * 1) lying, false

Noun

 * 1) liar

title: ܟܕܒܐ


text:
crumb cruncher

Noun

 * 1)  A child.

Synonyms

 * See also Thesaurus:child.

title: crumb cruncher


text: crumb crunchers

title: crumb crunchers


text:
Citations:crumb-cruncher

Noun: "alternative spelling of crumb cruncher"

 * 1986 — Jude Deveraux, The Temptress, Pocket Books (1986), ISBN 9780671556839, page 337:
 * "They'll certainly be well-fed little crumb-crunchers, that's for sure."
 * 1989 — Melodie Adams, The Medicine Man, Harlequin (1989), ISBN 9780373086474:
 * If she were one of those mothers, no doubt she'd be grubbing it up right alongside the little crumb-crunchers.
 * 1996 — Kathy Lette, Mad Cows, Dove Books (1996), ISBN 9780787112936, page 57:
 * It was the same story all week; whether posing as a Prue Leith graduate (she'd landed the job to deliver hampers of salmonella and egg sandwiches to posh boardroom lunches) or an opera buff (when the Covent Garden PR director asked her how she would define her understanding of various plots, she'd flirtatiously ad-libbed, 'Just follow the bouncing dagger!') every opportunity was sabotaged by Maddy's little crumb-cruncher.
 * 2008 — Cathy Pickens, Hush My Mouth, Thomas Dunne Books (2008), ISBN 9780312354435, page 204:
 * "Isn't that past the crumb-crunchers' bedtime?"
 * 2010 — Stephen Arterburn & Fred Stoeker (with Mike Yorkey), Every Man's Marriage: An Every Man's Guide to Winning the Heart of a Woman, WaterBrook Press (2010), ISBN 9780307458551, page 219:
 * Sure, some couples marry for companionship and inform friends and relatives they harbor no desire for crumb-crunchers.
 * 2010 — Paige Tyler, Dead Sexy, Ellora's Cave (2010), ISBN 9781419929823, page 64:
 * Seems Cia had a baby girl and granny crawled out of whatever hole she's been hiding in to give the little crumb-cruncher a hug.

title: Citations:crumb-cruncher


text: crumb-cruncher

title: crumb-cruncher


text: crumb-crunchers

title: crumb-crunchers


text:
ܝܬܡܐ

Etymology
From. Cognate with 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, and 🇨🇬.

Adjective

 * 1) orphan, orphaned, fatherless
 * 2) bereaved
 * 3) desolate

Noun

 * 1) orphan

title: ܝܬܡܐ


text: falsadoj

title: falsadoj


text: falsadon

title: falsadon


text: falsadojn

title: falsadojn


text:
falsigo

Noun

 * 1) falsification act of making false

title: falsigo


text: falsigi

title: falsigi


text:
Citations:crumbcruncher

Noun: "alternative spelling of crumb cruncher"

 * 2010 — Trish Jensen, "Sixteen Decades", in Ladies Prefer Rogues: Four Novellas of Time-Travel Passion, Berkeley Sensation (2010), ISBN 9780425233818, unnumbered page:
 * He figured if she was teaching all subjects, she must be teaching the little crumbcrunchers.
 * 2010 — Trish Jensen, "Sixteen Decades", in Ladies Prefer Rogues: Four Novellas of Time-Travel Passion, Berkeley Sensation (2010), ISBN 9780425233818, unnumbered page:
 * He figured if she was teaching all subjects, she must be teaching the little crumbcrunchers.

title: Citations:crumbcruncher


text: crumbcruncher

title: crumbcruncher


text: crumbcrunchers

title: crumbcrunchers


text:
tuteco

Noun

 * 1) completeness

title: tuteco


text: tutecon

title: tutecon


text:
tutaĵo

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) totality

title: tutaĵo


text: tutaĵon

title: tutaĵon


text:
complétude

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  completeness

title: complétude


text:
מחובר

Adjective

 * 1) Connected, linked, tied.
 * הוא מחובר לחמצן. — hú m'khubár l'khamtsán — He's hooked up to oxygen.
 * המדפסת מחוברת לחשמל. — hamadpéset m'khubéret lakhashmál. — The printer [is] connected to the electricity. —  The printer is plugged in.
 * 1) * 2012 May 7, Maya Epsztajn (מיה אפשטיין), “ישראל 2012: 40% מהעניים אינם מחוברים לאינטרנט” (yisra'él 2012: 40% meiha'aniyím einám m'khubarím la'ínternet, “Israel 2012: 40% of the poor are not connected to the Internet”), TheMarker.

title: מחובר


text:
quitón

Etymology
, from.

Noun

 * 1) chiton mollusk

title: quitón


text: quitones

title: quitones


text: Category:mr:Writing instruments

title: Category:mr:Writing instruments


text: Category:raj:Writing instruments

title: Category:raj:Writing instruments


text: Category:hi:Writing instruments

title: Category:hi:Writing instruments


text: Category:hi:Writing

title: Category:hi:Writing


text: Category:ar:Writing instruments

title: Category:ar:Writing instruments


text: Category:ur:Writing instruments

title: Category:ur:Writing instruments


text: salpicaderos

title: salpicaderos


text: splashbacks

title: splashbacks


text:
celomado

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  coelomate

Noun

 * 1)  coelomate

title: celomado


text:
abraziva

Adjective

 * 1) abrasive

title: abraziva


text: celomados

title: celomados


text: celomada

title: celomada


text: celomadas

title: celomadas


text:
eskarpeso

Noun

 * 1) steepness

title: eskarpeso