text:
Albeean

Adjective

 * 1) Of or relating to  (born 1928), American playwright.

title: Albeean


text:
брутто

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1) gross

Adjective

 * 1) gross

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

title: брутто


text: luronnes

title: luronnes


text: transseksuelle

title: transseksuelle


text:
elevator pitch

Etymology
From the idea that such a pitch is concise enough to be given during a trip between floors in an elevator.

Noun

 * 1) A brief and simple sales pitch; a short summary of a business plan, process, or product, and its selling point and value proposition.

Translations

 * Finnish:
 * Swedish: hisspitch

title: elevator pitch


text: elevator pitches

title: elevator pitches


text:
нетто

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1) net

title: нетто


text:
-izio

Etymology
, . Depending on the source, or.

Usage notes

 * The suffix is attached directly to the root of a noun to form an adjective denoting derivation:
 * Examples:

 * Many instances of the suffix are found in words of Latin origin:
 * In some cases, the root exhibits fossilised characteristics lost in the correspondent modern Italian root noun:
 * Example:
 * → (cfr. Latin, from )
 * In a few cases, the adjective has no correspondent root noun in modern Italian:
 * Example:
 * (cfr. Latin, from , which has no descendants in Italian)

 * Terms derived with this suffix are invariably stressed on the penultimate.

title: -izio


text:
-izi

Final

 * 1) be in a state or condition

Final

 * 1) to be...

title: -izi


text: -izie

title: -izie


text:
Lure

Noun

 * 1)  lur

title: Lure


text:
Luron

Noun

 * 1) resident or native of Lure

title: Luron


text: massiers

title: massiers


text: massière

title: massière


text: microfilmant

title: microfilmant


text: microfilmé

title: microfilmé


text: microfilmée

title: microfilmée


text: microfilmés

title: microfilmés


text: microfilmées

title: microfilmées


text: microfilme

title: microfilme


text: microfilmes

title: microfilmes


text: microfilmons

title: microfilmons


text: microfilmez

title: microfilmez


text: microfilment

title: microfilment


text: microfilmais

title: microfilmais


text: microfilmait

title: microfilmait


text: microfilmions

title: microfilmions


text: microfilmiez

title: microfilmiez


text: microfilmaient

title: microfilmaient


text: microfilmas

title: microfilmas


text: microfilmâmes

title: microfilmâmes


text: microfilmâtes

title: microfilmâtes


text: microfilmèrent

title: microfilmèrent


text: microfilmeras

title: microfilmeras


text: microfilmera

title: microfilmera


text: microfilmerons

title: microfilmerons


text: microfilmerez

title: microfilmerez


text: microfilmeront

title: microfilmeront


text: microfilmerais

title: microfilmerais


text: microfilmerait

title: microfilmerait


text: microfilmerions

title: microfilmerions


text: microfilmeriez

title: microfilmeriez


text: microfilmeraient

title: microfilmeraient


text: microfilmasses

title: microfilmasses


text: microfilmât

title: microfilmât


text: microfilmassions

title: microfilmassions


text: microfilmassiez

title: microfilmassiez


text: microfilmassent

title: microfilmassent


text:
круассан

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) croissant a flaky roll or pastry in a form of a crescent

title: круассан


text:
montrougien

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  of Montrouge

title: montrougien


text: Montrouge

title: Montrouge


text: Category:Italian terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *wekʷ-


text: noceuses

title: noceuses


text:
pavoisement

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  bunting

title: pavoisement


text:
Thread:User talk:CodeCat/*népōt reconsturction/reply

I don't see how the -s could have disappeared, so I think it should be moved back.


text:
Wiktionary:Information desk/2016/December

Generic term for charity coin-spinner things
Is there a generic term for those charity coin-spinner things? There's a dome with a coin slot at the top, and the coin spirals down around a sloping patterned surface and finally drops out of sight. Trade names appear to include MoneySpinner, Spiral Wishing Well, and Coin Vortex. Equinox ◑ 19:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Perhaps Mechanical bank is the term you seek? -- OlEnglish (Talk) 06:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

 * I don't think so: that seems to be a personal piggy-bank, not a piece of public furniture to collect the public's money for charitable purposes. Equinox ◑ 08:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The website for the Spiral Wishing Well calls them coin funnels. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Pages of great works
Hi, consider this "translation" of Vergil's Aeneid. I want to do that with Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, can I use OrphicBot to create such a page? since you run the bot. Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you liked my little exercise. How is this?  User:OrphicBot/Sandbox/A_Midsummer_Night%27s_Dream.  I didn't handle the capitalisation perfectly, and the wikitext formatting is not very pleasing, unfortunately.  Isomorphyc (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks! Going to use that to study some Shakespearean English. Icebob99 (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:法
Someone help me out here. —suzukaze (t・c) 03:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Vitam impendere vero
Unfortunately I dont have the time or access to change this but this is not from Juvenal. It's from Rousseau's Lettre a D'Alembert sur les spectacles (1758) and passim. Rousseau never mentions Juvenal in either his letters or future mentions (Confessions, Reveries) in relation to this motto. Juvenal's version, in Satire 4, is Vitam inpendere vero (hence the confusion) and means to 'To risk (not devote) one's life for the truth. Small but big difference! Perhaps someone more au fait could make the relevant change.

OTRS volunteers
Apologies if there is a better place to put this, but I figure editors who answer questions here are likely to be most able to help out.

OTRS is currently in need of agents familiar with Wiktionary. OTRS is the front-line of customer service for the Wikimedia Foundation, more-or-less. We field emails related to all Wikimedia projects and attempt to help our readers, editors, and other stakeholders best utilize and contribute to our projects.

The questions received on the Wiktionary queue are likely to be similar to those received here at the Information Desk. This particular queue is very low volume, but we currently appear to have no agents actively answering these emails, so they've managed to pile up. While our oldest open ticket is approaching a year old, we only have seven total emails waiting to be answered, so this is a very low amount of work. Any experienced Wiktionary editor who feels able to answer questions at the Information Desk and who has basic customer service skills (civility, etc.) would be highly valued.

See OTRS/Volunteering for details about how to apply, and feel free to ask me any questions, either by email or my enwiki or Commons talk pages. I currently answer tickets for info-en, commons, and our permissions queues, so I should be able to answer general questions about what to expect. BU Rob13 (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 * I did this a while back, it is not onerous. I signed up again, but it can't hurt to have a few people. - TheDaveRoss 21:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I answered all the emails that were left. We were in a bit of a crisis mode not too long ago with literally nobody checking, but it's not too bad now, I think. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Displaying Special:WhatLinksHere/ numbers
Is there a function in existence that displays the number of pages that link to a given page, in a similar way to the   function for numbers of members in categories? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 * There is not a magic word for it like your example but there is an off-wiki tool for it mentioned here. What do you have in mind? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 * In case you're not fluent in HTML queries: http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/backlinkscount.py?db=enwiktionary&title=foobar is how you get the count on Wiktionary for "foobar" (note that in the page title, spaces should be converted to underscores, and certain characters should be URL-encoded; generating the title with should do the job, which in this case gives ""). --WikiTiki89 22:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Oooh, thank you; this is promising. Is there a straightforward way to extract that numerical datum for automatic display (again, in the way that   works)? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

 * If there is a way to do that, I wouldn't. That server seems to be fairly slow and we would risk overloading it. However, it would be very easy to create a template to generate the link. --WikiTiki89 14:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Hmm. I was hoping for something that could autogenerate the kind of information in User:DCDuring/MissingTaxa without the need to scan XML dumps. Does that seem even remotely possible to you? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

 * You can do it with a bot that could use that interface without having to scan XML dumps, but it would have to be a bot rather than wikitext magic. --WikiTiki89 18:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks for all your help. What do you think? Does something like this sound less arduous? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 09:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Arduous?
 * I get a reminder e-mail when the dump is ready. It takes about 5 minutes to set up folders and headings, 5-10 minutes to download, less than a minute to make the basic taxlink run, and about five minutes to insert the relevant portion of the list onto the appropriate subpage. In contrast, it takes 15 minutes or more to create a fairly complete entry for a taxon.
 * I can create almost any kind of list that I want, including searches on the rank or ranklessness of the taxa, or the presence or absence of a verification date or any other search criterion or feature I may introduce. And I don't even have to know much Perl. Mostly I just need regexes. The XML dumps runs are now twice a month. If I miss a few, Wiktionary does not grind to a halt, so I get to choose when and how often I experience the arduity 733 raw Google Books hits. DCDuring TALK 15:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for thinking of me. But I would mostly need that I don't have is counts of instances of taxonomic names not enclosed in and, especially, not linked either to an entry either here or at WP. It can be done only imperfectly, with multiple passes over the dump. DCDuring TALK  15:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 * OK, never mind. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. At least we got and its etymon out of it, I suppose. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Traditional dictionary layout
Is there any support here for a more traditional paper dictionary format that lists many different words and their definitions/translations in the same page? I'm not proposing a a change to the current layout, I'm just wondering if it would be okay to create some other pages like this.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

 * There are appendices that look like that (Appendix:Glossary of military slang) but from my observation appendices aren't regularly edited or maintained here. —suzukaze (t・c) 23:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you interested in making a print publication? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No not literally, but it would still be nice to have something of that format, even if it were online.--Prisencolin (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Is junk = genitalia, in this phrase?
About this phrase: "they are in love, they hold hands and junk".

Does it mean that they are probably holding each other's genitalia, or there could be a non-sexual sense? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It depends on the stress pattern of the sentence, but I think it's more likely that "junk" means "stuff" in this case. DTLHS (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Our entries for, , , and do an awful job of explaining it, but "and stuff" (or "and" any of the other nouns) is used to mean "other similar things" when following a noun phrase and "other similar actions" when following a verbal phrase, like here. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Don't parse it as "hold (hands and junk)" but as "(hold hands) and (junk)": they hold hands, and do other (mushy/romantic) things like that. Equinox ◑ 11:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the others: it means "they hold hands and do other such romantic stuff". But it does have the potential of being a dirty double entendre. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

 * I'm surprised no one's asked this yet. What's the context? You can't really analyze a short statement like that on its own, it could mean practically anything. --WikiTiki89 14:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

 * OK. From what I understood, it's really: "they hold hands and do other such romantic stuff".
 * Anyway, per Wikitiki89's request, I'm linking below to the place where I found that phrase. The illustration looks cute and non-sexual to me, except Ariel's left hand could be touching somewhere near her "junk", which confused me at first, but I don't know much about anatomy of mermaids from Disney movies.
 * Initially, I just wanted to talk about that phrase, under the assumption that it is "self-contained" and meaningful enough that we didn't really need to discuss the context. Anyway, here it is. Feel free to comment further if you want: http://rokewe.tumblr.com/post/154335818129/hey-just-wanna-get-this-out-there --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Link to a blacklisted website (Youtube)
Hi. Is there any way to link to Youtube without tripping the blacklist filter? Perhaps using a template?

In project namespace this can be useful to discuss/illustrate usage of words and phrases. I tried to link to a video in which I found some (possibly) missing senses, but had to mangle the url to do so, which is a solution I don't feel particularly good about (and which may violate the letter of some anti-spam policy). --Azertus (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You can link to "youtube.com" (like this), you just can't link to "youtu.be". --WikiTiki89 15:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Extreme backlog
Requests for moves, mergers and splits There are several "open" requests from more than two years ago. Does someone want to take a look to close out ones that seem either resolved or which have no resolution and are so stale that there is no conversation to be had? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

How can I edit a declension table?
Hi. I have a question as in the subject: how do I get to edit a declension table? There is a mistake in the declension table of duży and I would like to fix it, however the Edit page only allows me to edit the headline, tops. Unless I am not noticing something really easy and silly. The error, if you are curious, is in the Nominative/Vocative line, m pers plural. It should be "duzi" (yes, that's the only form without the Ż character), not "duży". Marek Kopański (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Such a thing can be difficult. In this case, the template had first to be substituted; thereafter, the forms became editable. See the documentation for and . I've made the change to . Note that template substitution is rarely a good idea; this case was unusual. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! :)Marek Kopański (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Is this the only adjective that behaves this way? Are there any other adjectives that end in -czy/-szy/-ży that change to -ci/-si/-zi in the m.pers. nom/voc? --WikiTiki89 15:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 * No, it's a rule. The correct template to use here is . Before the -i of the nominative/vocative masculine pl adjective, the final consonant is palatized, as in -duzi, -bogaci. There are many, many cases where hard and soft consonants alternate in Polish declensions and conjugations. —Stephen (Talk) 05:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

 * My bad. Thanks for the better fix. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

"Inquiring (enquiring) minds must know"
What is the origin of this oft-quoted phrase? Equinox ◑ 08:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

 * It originated as an ad slogan in the form of "enquiring minds want to know" and was used in the tabloid The National Enquirer . The Enquirer trademarked the slogan in 1981 and first used it on October 20, 1981. —Stephen (Talk) 09:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Most common name for this type of pencil:
For these. Google suggests "", "", "", "". —suzukaze (t・c) 09:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've always just called them "mechanical pencils," but if I wanted to specify that specific type, I would just describe it, since I don't think any of the names you mention are particularly well-known or readibly understandable. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a blast from the past! Haven't seen those in a million years. I never knew what they were called, but certainly not "mechanical pencils". --WikiTiki89 16:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

 * I'd call them, by analogy with the ink cartridges of fountain pens. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems like a much better alternative to what I've called them, on the rare occasions I've had to... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia mentions "pop a point pencil" under. —suzukaze (t・c) 05:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

 * (Adding a link to ロケット鉛筆 so that this discussion can be found using Special:WhatLinksHere. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC))

conjugation of sollen
Why the conjugation of sollen can't be read?--Dafne07 (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Which language, German or Luxembourgish? If you mean Luxembourgish, nobody has added the conjugation yet, sorry. However, if you go to lb:sollen on the Luxembourgish Wiktionary, you will be able to read it. —Stephen (Talk) 17:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

rfc synonyms?
Hey. What's the correct cleanup tag to flag synonyms as ambiguous, like in proceeding when it's not clear which words are synonymous with each sense? --Derrib9 (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Maybe just use ? As reason you could give "it's not clear which words are synonymous with each sense". Maybe you could also post at WT:RFC. -84.161.47.131 13:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


text:
Wiktionary:Information desk/2016/January

Obsolete spelling?
I'm trying to make a page for an old form of a word that was accepted for a long time until 1996, but is not allowed anymore. Should I label it as an obsolete spelling or archaic, or something completely different? Some people still erroneously use it (mostly old people). I'm talking about the Dutch actie/aktie, with aktie being the form no longer accepted. Here's some more information.
 * The term we use for German spellings that were valid until 1996 and are still widely used by people who don't care for or care about the reformed spelling is "superseded". We have the template superseded spelling of for that. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. Also noticed I forgot my signature, woops. NINTENPUG (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I object to 'erroneously' as it happens, nobody has the authority to change the rules of a language. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I get where you're coming from, but I was kind of referring to the government sanctioned spelling instead of the Dutch language as a whole, I guess 'erroneously' was not completely the correct word to use in this case. NINTENPUG (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I find "erroneously" fine in reference to spelling, since spelling has nothing to do with language, and is very much regulated by authorities. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Template:U:nl:obsolete spelling exists and accepts parameters as described on the talk page, although we've been phasing the corresponding German usage-note template out in favour of a definition-line template, and it may be desirable to do the same thing for Dutch. - -sche (discuss) 02:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Inflections in adjective translations
Do we include different inflections in adjective translations? When I first started adding translations a couple of years ago, this was quite common, not so much now. I personally think it's counterproductive to include all the inflections in translations. I just want to know if we have an official policy. The reason I ask is that recent Romanian translations I'm monitoring, for instance stingy, perpendicular and tangential, all have feminine forms. --Robbie SWE (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know if it is policy, but for French and Italian, I only include the masculine singular. The other three forms are only one click away. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your input SemperBlotto! That's what I suspected. I'll make sure only the masculine forms are included from now on. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

 * While I found nothing of relevance in Translations, I find it's pretty customary to only include the lemma form, and the entry itself includes all the inflections. Translations isn't too bad but these pages rarely get updated as knowledgeable editors rarely read them. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

 * For Romanian, only the masculine singular indefinite adjective gets a full treatment. The other forms get a page like this Spanish buenas. —Stephen (Talk) 00:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Plurality of one book
Which is proper to say when you have multiple books of one name? i.e. Books of Mormon or Book of Mormons
 * Three copies of the Book of Mormon. Colloquially, you can also say three Books of Mormon, but not three Book of Mormons. --WikiTiki89 23:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, this is because the Book of Mormon actually refers to the content and not to the physical representation of the content. For the Book of Kings, you can say the two Books of Kings to refer to the first and second parts of the book (and thus, you can say: I have three copies of the two Books of Kings). --WikiTiki89 15:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 * The first one. In grammatical terms, "book" is the head of the noun phrase, so that's where the plural marker goes. Equinox ◑ 00:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be difficult, this is also the name of a musical. If one were talking about different versions of the musical, I suppose one might say something about "The Book of Mormon"s, because the title would be treated grammatically as a unit, rather than being analyzed into its component parts. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, and if you had a book with a title like To Kill A Mockingbird, you'd pluralize it as "the store had three To Kill A Mockingbirds" if you were going for a short plural, although as Wikitiki notes the more formal (more common?) phrasing would be "three copies of To Kill A Mockingbird". - -sche (discuss) 02:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As in The Redneck Manifesto (1998) "You'll see plenty of To Kill a Mockingbirds, but fewer and fewer On the Waterfronts." and Make Something Up: Stories You Can't Unread (2015) "[... sprayed] gravy all over a bookcase full of nothing except a hundred To Kill a Mockingbirds." On Google Books, "two Books of Mormon" is more common than "two Book of Mormons", although the latter does also exist. - -sche (discuss) 03:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

"on demand" and "on-demand"
It seems like the on demand entry could be improved with regard to the alternative spelling on-demand that redirects there. There are examples for both spellings, but no note about the alternative spelling or difference in usage (if any). 94.189.2.97 01:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that the hyphenated form is an adjective, and needs its own entry. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Proto‐Indo‐European vulgarities
Did any protolanguages have any vulgarities? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 01:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Only very rarely. Bear in mind that protolanguages are reconstructions, and vulgarities are rarely reconstructible because of the irregular sound changes and semantic shifts they tend to undergo. Those that are, like PGmc. *skītaz (if memory serves) may not have even been particularly vulgar, hence being preserved. The actual ancestral languages spoken may have differed a great deal from what the reconstruction looks like, and almost certainly had vulgarities, since essentially all languages used in daily life do. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Has anybody ever reconstructed the Proto‐Germanic equivalent to fuck? It seems like it should have one by now. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 01:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of a Proto-Germanic one, but Proto-Indo-European had . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

imambara
Imambara, is used in the description of your picture of the day but I cannot find the word on wiki.
 * We don't have a picture of the day. —CodeCat 02:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * He must be referring to a different project. Commons has a picture of the day, but its description does not contain the word "imambara". --WikiTiki89 02:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh duh... It's Wikipedia's picture of the day! There's a Wikipedia article on "Imambara". --WikiTiki89 02:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Clodagh
How do you pronounce Clodagh? Is it Irish or Scottish? Source for the inquiry is http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/uk-storm-centre. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's Irish and pronounced to rhyme with . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

feed but for drink?
Is there an equivalent to the English verb that refers to giving a person something to drink, rather than food? —CodeCat 01:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Don't think so - though a commenter here mentions some specific cases (water a horse, feed a baby, wine and dine somebody). Equinox ◑ 01:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

 * The counterpart to would have been, but it got diverted to a different meaning, except in a limited sense having to do with animals. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

 * There's the expression to "give drink to". --WikiTiki89 18:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

What to do when different sources contradict each other, or even themselves?
I'm working on improving our coverage of Veps, which is a small language that doesn't have a whole lot of speakers left, mostly concentrated in a small community. Consequently, there hasn't been a huge amount of lexicographical interest for it either, and sources are not easy to find (and tend to be in Russian). Nevertheless, there are a few dictionaries, grammar and teaching books available, and I've been using those. However, standardisation of Veps is still recent and not entirely consistent, and sometimes different sources contradict each other. For example, gives the form, while  has  instead. This kind of fluctuation is not surprising, given that vowel harmony (the a-ä distinction in endings) is almost entirely gone from the language, so these are just relic forms that are subject to analogical changes. Of course, I don't have the knowledge to judge which is more common or more "standard". It's more confusing when I find the following, also in :

 * '''ec искать
 * искать ec
 * искать ec

The Veps-Russian translation differs from the Russian-Veps translation. only has. However, I don't find actual attestations of this form in Veps, but I do find. Would anyone have suggestions on what to do in cases like this? —CodeCat 18:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Include what is attestable. If neither form is attestable, don't include either of them. --WikiTiki89 18:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Veps is an LDL. —CodeCat 19:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Attestable by LDL standards then. --WikiTiki89 19:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Editing Translated N-grams
I am trying to clear out a bunch of redlinks on the Wiktionary Israel page. I don't know how to unlink translated n-grams without untranslating them. Help?TheCensorFencer (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (What's wrong with red links?) —suzukaze (t・c) 06:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a wiki- most of the millions of entries here at Wiktionary are the result of people clicking redlinks to start new articles. Removing redlinks or converting them to plain text defeats the purpose that the redlinks are designed for. Please don't. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. My apologies, everyone, I didn't mean to undo anyone's work.  I am new to wiki editing, and I've read a lot of help pages in the last month.  I thought I had read that red links, when encountered, should be either deleted or validated.  I reread that page, and I am permanently disabused of that notion.  Thank you both for your time.TheCensorFencer (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Chleona
I have a friend with a sister called Chleona. I'm guessing this is an Irish name. What's its etymology? looks to me like it's attested but very rare (search without quotes gets a lot of false positives for words ending in ch and Leona). Renard Migrant (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like her parents decided to merge the names Chloe, Cleo, and Fiona; perhaps with a nod to, into the mix. It's certainly not a traditional Gaelic name in Ireland, though that doesn't mean it's never used there. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There were zero (0) people named Chleona in the 1911 UK census. I don't have online access to the Irish census, but this seems to indicate that it is not a traditional name. There was one person (Chleona Miller) in the 1940 US census. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've discovered that there is a traditional Irish Gaelic name Clíona/Clíodhna (pronounced roughly KLEE-na, not klee-OH-na; see ), so Chleona is probably an anglicized spelling of that. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


text:
Wiktionary:Information desk/2016/February

Sectum
nice to know the accusative and nominative of but what about the definition? That's what I clicked on your site for. Best, Joe Taylor, New York City
 * I am sorry that it was unclear, but sectum is a form of which has the definitions.  It means cut; divided; amputated. - TheDaveRoss 13:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Link template?
So according the tutorial, one should use, but Template:link seems to do the same thing, and also gives you the option to specify the language. Are there any rules on which one I should use, or are they interchangeable? NINTENPUG (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

 * can only be used for English, but  can be used for any language, including English. —Stephen (Talk) 09:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Can somebody identify this consonant?
http://vocaroo.com/i/s1uTwqvAmz3N -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 05:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a voiceless alveolo-palatal sibilant to me. I'm not 100% certain, though. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To me it sounds like sʲ, a dentalized laminal palatalized voiceless alveolar fricative. For example, listen to the audio at всё (ignoring the initial f sound). —Stephen (Talk) 09:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My best guesses are also [ɕ] and [sʲ], but identifying sounds on the basis of their acoustics alone without any knowledge of the phonological system they belong to is very tricky. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To me it sounds like [sʲ] or [xʲ] or [ç], but certainly not [ɕ]. --WikiTiki89 16:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think [sʲ] is a likely candidate (it sounds palatalized, now that I listen to it again), but I'm doubtful of [xʲ] and [ç]. I'm no expert, though, so I'll gladly defer to the judgement of others when it comes to finer points of the IPA. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me like a very forceful s (I almost thought it was an ejective for a minute there), with palatalization (sort of [sʲ] fortis). The vowel is nasalized, which contrasts strongly with the consonant. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that [sʲ] is my first choice. --WikiTiki89 16:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Conrad.Irwin/editor.js
Hello everyone, I just tried this js. on de Dutch Wiktionary and expected that the template trans-top gets the gadget voor adding of translations. However it isn't work and I can't understand what went wrong. Can somebody help me to solve this? Thank you very much. -- Denis Marinov (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Quality check -- does this meet the requirements for inclusion on Wikitionary / have I formatted this correctly
During a brain fart, while reading The Faerie Queene in preparation for revamping an essay I'd written on it, I was stumped by the spelling "vniust" and Google gave no easy-to-find definition. I realized it was "unjust" but I noticed an old discussion page on Wiktionary about whether or not the word should be defined. Defining it would have been a great help to me in this case and I regularly study Spenser, so I imagine that vniust has stumped quite a few people who don't have a specialization in a poet who always writes with those forms, especially based on the results I saw from searching vniust (lots of people asking w/ no answers, it would seem).

So, I added vniust, along with some citations, and I was hoping some Wiktionary veterans could check the page out to make sure I've done it properly (the guides were of some help but I figured out most of the formatting by just opening "edit" on various pages that had archaic forms, quotations, and all that stuff). I'm pretty sure the word does qualify for inclusion in Wiktionary since any readers of Spenser, the Wycliffe Bible, King James Bible, and various other Middle English / anachronistic modern English texts will probably run across it (at the very least, people who major in English will probably take a Middle English course and read some Chaucer and such, and it is not translated in the footnotes of the Standard Edition of Spenser. It is in the Middle English Dictionary

Bradapalooza (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to as it's spelled the same as 'unjust' just using different characters, the same way I can write cɑt instead of cat. The community's pretty split on these; some have been deleted, some not (that's what happens by the way when your deletion process is based on voting). Personally I think the pragmatic solution might be to allow these but to not allow them to be created by bot, no 'mass creation'.

 * In terms of your formatting, which was the question after all, it's very, very good. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks OK to me. But you don't need to repeat the definition. (I don't know if it should be Old English or Middle English though, rather than English) SemperBlotto (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Well, vniust is really more applicable to the one definition of unjust (3 iirc) than a pure carbon copy of the modern usage of the word as far as I know. It's not Old English -- it starts popping up in Middle English as "vniuste" but Spenser and the KJV are considered the start of Modern English just with somewhat anachronistic spellings (Spenser and the writers of KJV were purposefully writing words to LOOK like Middle English while intending them to be pronounced like the spellings of their day because it was "more formal") -- it's sort of a liminal point between Middle and Modern English. Bradapalooza (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

are
Are there any dialects that use are in place of am or is? I know that you can say ‘jag är’ in Swedish, but if I said ‘I are’ in English people would look at me like I’m brain damaged. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 13:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Yes, in the Midlands and East Yorkshire (UK), they say "I are". In the Northwest dialect, they say "I is". In the Southwest dialect, they say "I be".
 * Even in Standard English, we say "aren't I?" (which I believe derives from an earlier "ain't I", where ain't was pronounced /ɑnt/). —Stephen (Talk) 00:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In Ireland, though, they do say "amn't I?" for that, which I rather like. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Confirmed, I be a Southerner. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 01:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Swedish is a bad example, though, because it does not distinguish person in verbs at all. --WikiTiki89 15:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Catalan subjunctive
,, is there any variant of Catalan that has a distinct future tense in the subjunctive mood? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 14:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 * I don’t think so. Spanish, Portuguese, and Galician have a future subjunctive, but even in Spanish it is now almost obsolete. Since the vast majority of Catalan speakers also speak good Spanish, I suppose that it could happen that some Catalan speaker who is very interested in verbs and grammar might borrow the Spanish future subjunctive endings (since they are so simple) and apply them to a Catalan verb, but I would think the occurrence of this would be quite rare, there being so little need for it. —Stephen (Talk) 08:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Monitoring changes in a certain category
Hey everyone, sorry if this is a stupid question, but I was wondering if it is somehow possible to see all recent changes to pages in a given category, or, ideally, a group of categories. In my case I am interested mainly in Category:Ancient Greek lemmas and Category:Latin lemmas. Thanks in advance! - Rathersilly (talk) 06:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

 * There is a "Related changes" link under "tools" on the left side of the page. --->>>Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Ancient_Greek_lemmas
 * The edits aren't guaranteed to be related to Ancient Greek 100% of the time (it tracks edits made to pages that are in the "Ancient Greek lemmas" category, not edits to the Ancient Greek sections of pages that are in the "Ancient Greek lemmas" category) but it works—suzukaze (t・c) 07:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Thank you, that should indeed be useful! Is there also a way to do this with multiple categories at once? - Rathersilly (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure about multiple categories. —suzukaze (t・c) 07:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

 * there is also a watchlist feature you can opt into: Beer parlour/2016/February. - -sche (discuss) 08:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks, that too will come in handy. - Rathersilly (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Statistics
I just want to say I'm proud that I managed to bring Veps into the top 10 of increases in gloss definitions, all by myself. It may not be a widely spoken language, but I feel we have a duty to preserve and promote threatened languages as well. —CodeCat 21:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We absolutely do. In fact, I consider it one of our strongest selling points. It's difficult for us to compete with professionally edited dictionaries for English definitions and for widely studied foreign languages like German, French, Spanish, etc., but we have the potential to be unbeatable when it comes to small and threatened languages. I'm pretty sure we are the only Lower Sorbian–English dictionary in the world. There is a print Upper Sorbian–English dictionary, but I don't think there's one for Lower Sorbian. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed! - -sche (discuss) 23:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV/translation statistics
FYI that this very interesting and useful page exists. Among other things, it seems like it catches cases of incomplete language rename (including "Waray"). - -sche (discuss) 23:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Moses, and Abraham (Latin)
In the source there was this comment: "I shall have to create a declension table for this proper noun; however, what are the forms of the dative and vocative cases?". The declension AFAIK is as follows: As for the ablative, "Mosi" could be an error by incorrectly using the dative, or an OCR or typing error when someone converted the Latin Bible into a digital form. But "cum Mosi" can indeed be found in google books. "ab Mose" can also be found, while I couldn't find "ab Mosi". That is, maybe the dative "Mosi" is incorrectly used here with "cum".
 * Nom.: Moses
 * Gen.: Mosi (in Vulgata), Mosis (outside Vulgata)
 * Dat.: Mosi
 * Acc.: Mosen, Mosea (according to dictionaries: "Mosea, Iuvenc. 4, 15")
 * Voc.: Moses (Exodus 3:4: "et ait Moses Moses qui respondit adsum", Nova Vulgata with better punctuation: "et ait: “ Moyses, Moyses ”. Qui respondit: “ Adsum ”.", in English: "the Lord [...] and said: Moses, Moses. And he answered: Here I am.")
 * Abl.: Mosi (Exodus 33:9: "cum Mosi", Nova Vulgata has: "cum Moyse"), Mose (Joshua 1:5: "cum Mose")

Bibles that I used were The book books.google.com/books?id=y847nKBVLxIC&pg=PA27 mentions the following forms: Moseos and Mosem can be found outside the Vulgata. So one has: The google book above also has the abl. Abraham for Abraham. A google book search has results for both "cum Abraham" and "cum Abraha". I've once read, that in later Latin cum was also used with acc., so Abraham could be acc. and not abl. there. google also has results for "ab Abraham" and "ab Abraha", though results for "ab Abraha" were based on OCR errors like misreadings of "ab Abrahæ ..." or "ab Abrahã". Nevertheless, both forms exist. -Balebatim (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * www.latinvulgate.com/lv/ (has the Latin and English text)
 * la.wikisource.org/wiki/Biblia_Sacra_Vulgata_(Stuttgartensia)
 * www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vetus-testamentum_lt.html (Nova Vulgata)
 * Nom.: Moses
 * Gen.: Mosis, Moseos
 * Dat.: Mosi
 * Acc.: Mosem, Mosen
 * Voc.: Moses
 * Abl.: Mose
 * Nom.: Moses
 * Gen.: Mosis, Mosi, Moseos
 * Dat.: Mosi
 * Acc.: Mosem, Mosen, Mosea
 * Voc.: Moses
 * Abl.: Mose (Mosi)
 * PS: As pointed out at Module:la-noun/data one has to search for e.g. ""cum Abraham" "Abrahae"" or ""ab Abraham" "Abrahae"" to see that Abraham is the ablative of Abraham, -ae, m. and not of Abraham, m. indecl.. -Balebatim (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

pascha (Latin)
Also sometimes both forms are used in the same text. Did some people somehow differ between these forms, like using "pascha" for the Jewish pascha and "Pascha" for Christian Easter? -Balebatim (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it spelled "pascha" or "Pascha"? Dictionaries have "pascha", but google has results for "pascha" and "Pascha". So both forms should exist.
 * There is also the declension pascha, -ātis, n. besides pascha, -ae, f., and this declension is also mentioned in dictionaries. So how should the two forms be mentioned? Should there be two sections with "=== Noun ===" or should both forms somehow be mentioned under one header?
 * The entry pascha just has the accusative pascham. books.google.com/books?id=y847nKBVLxIC&pg=PA27 has the accusative Pascha. Google has results for both forms, like when searching for "post Pascha" or "ad Pascha". There are these possibilities: (a) The results might have the accusative of the neuter noun Pascha. (b) There might be Pascha, f. indecl.. (c) It is an accusative of Pascha, -ae, f.. So searching for e.g. ""Paschae" "ad Pascha"" one can find for example "Parasceve Paschae non est praeparatio ad Pascha ..." (books.google.com/books?id=F-RjAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA340) and "... Parasceve Paschae, hoc est, Praeparatio ad Pascha ..." (books.google.com/books?id=AMJVAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA287). So the accusative "Pascha" for Pascha, -ae, f. does indeed exist. Might someone verify this or correct me?

Iesus (Latin)
In the entry Iesus it is: That is, it has two syllables and a j sound (in English often written as y). In modern Latin it has indeed two syllables and is also spelled Jesus, and with Je- it also fits to the Hebrew name begining with ye- (English transcription). But as the name is derived from Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs), the Latin name once could have had three syllables, i.e. I-es-us. In Lewis and Short it es e.g. "Jōsēph or Ĭōsēph", "Ĭēsus (in late Lat. also dissyl.)" and "Ĭōnas (or Jōnas, Vulg. Jon. 1, 1 al.)". Jonas 1,1 is (depending on the Vulgata used):
 * "(Classical) IPA: /ˈjeː.sus/, [ˈjeː.sʊs]
 * (Ecclesiastical) IPA: /ˈje.sus/, [ˈjeː.sus]
 * (Ecclesiastical) IPA: [ˈjeː.zus]"
 * et factum est verbum Domini ad Ionam filium Amathi dicens
 * Et factum est verbum Domini ad Ionam filium Amathi dicens:
 * Et factum est verbum Domini ad Jonam, filium Amathi, dicens:
 * (English: Now the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the son of Amittai, saying:)

I can't see how an ancient Latin spelling (without distinction of u and v, and of i and j) would support any reading here, but in case of the modern Latin spelling (with distinction of u and v, and of i and j) it is indeed Jonas (two syllables and with j). However, I wasn't able to find "Iesus" in a modern Latin edition (which differs between J and I). For comparision: In modern Latin one can find jambus (2 syllables) as well as sometimes iambus (3 syllables) and ïambus (3 syllables, with trema). So: -Balebatim (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Did Iesus, Ionas, Ioseph (etc.) also have three syllables in ancient Latin, as Lewis and Short state?
 * Did Iesus, Ionas, Ioseph (etc.) also occur in modern Latin (with distinction of I and J), that is did they sometimes also have three syllables in modern Latin?
 * To complicate things a bit more: In Hebrew, these all had j, a phoneme apparently not present in Ancient Greek (at least there was no way to spell it). The Ancient Greek Ἰ could have been either either a j written with the closest letters available in the Greek alphabet, or it could have represented actual Ancient Greek pronunciation after the sounds were modified to match Ancient Greek phonotactics. I don't know enough about Ancient Greek pronunciation of Hebrew loanwords to even guess. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the reply. Gaffiot also has Iesus and Jesus, Georges just has Iesus (and doesn't differ between I and J), Pons has neither form. Are two dictionaries sufficient to include Iesus (three syllables)? Well, I doubt it. But how about a note that some dictionaries state it once had three syllables? That should be okay, or? -Balebatim (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Words with no lemma form?
The name for the Veps language is, a formation consisting of a genitive and the word. So it translate more or less literally as "language of Veps". Other Finnic languages use similar formations, such as Finnish. Finnish uses the nominative alone as a synonym, so also means "Finnish language" by itself. For Veps, the genitive is securely attested modifying a variety of nouns, but the nominative is apparently not used. Another attested case is, and there is also the derived adjective.

The difficulty I am having is where to place these forms together. and could be defined as an independent indeclinable adjective and an adverb, respectively. is clearly derived as +, but this former term can't link anywhere since it doesn't exist. So what should its etymology say? And should have its own entry, the way  has? I recall a similar discussion concerning some other language for which the name of a language was some word + "language".

Also, to keep this in perspective, Veps does this with many languages. Russian, for example, is, with the translative , the adjective but also the compound noun , and the name for Russia itself,. —CodeCat 00:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel like if a word only occurs in the genitive, then make the genitive the lemma for that word, even if for most nouns the nominative is the lemma. That's certainly what we do for Primitive Irish, where the vast majority of nouns are attested only in the genitive. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, you think that it would be ok to say that is derived as  + ? What about, the other attested case form? —CodeCat 20:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Re "I recall a similar discussion": Talk:bulgarian kieli, Talk:старославянский язык, Talk:tadžikų kalba and Talk:Türk dili. Apparently we tend to keep "X language" type names; for a while we even had German language! - -sche (discuss)
 * For Veps in particular, there is some additional evidence though. The Veps Wikipedia articles about countries list the language(s) spoken in that country without attached, although the articles linked to do include it. So   on w:vep:Alamad (Netherlands). That suggests that the combination of genitive and  is not idiomatic and inseparable. Interesting is also that  is a plurale tantum (like its English calque counterpart), so its genitive is . However, for the language and as a general modifier, the singular  is used, in lowercase. —CodeCat 22:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Do abbreviations go under synonyms or alternative forms?
I'm inclined to put them under alternative forms myself, but maybe others have different ideas? —CodeCat 01:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's where I typically see them, and I think that's where they belong. They're usually pronounced the same, anyway. In cases like and, however, where the abbreviation has become a word of its own (usually the shorter form isn't pronounced like the full word in these cases), I think it should go under synonyms. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call an abbreviation but a clipping. Things like Dr/Dr. for doctor and pp. for pages and ff. for following are abbreviations. I suppose they go under alternative forms, though I wouldn't be adverse to a separate L4 "Abbreviations" header. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I usually put them under Derived terms with the qualifier "abbreviation". --Panda10 (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend to put them under alternative forms if it's just the same word but abbreviated in some way, like an initialism to me isn't a different term to the full term, but rather comes from it. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How is this: ? —CodeCat 21:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

present–future tense
Just curious, are there any languages that don’t distinguish between the present and future tenses? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 16:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Most Germanic and Uralic languages do. —CodeCat 16:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

 * But English must use shall or will to indicate the future tense, which may be what you are thinking of. I’m assuming that other Germanic languages do the same, but I haven’t done any research on that. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 16:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Most modern Germanic languages do use an auxiliary to form a future tense, although in some cases the auxiliary isn't necessary and the simple present can stand in for the future. In English, consider "I'm flying to Vienna tomorrow", which uses a present progressive with future meaning, and "If you see Alejandro, tell him hello from me", which uses a simple present with future meaning. In the second example, the simple present is obligatory: *"If you will see Alejandro" is ungrammatical (or at best, means something different). The older Germanic languages (Old English, Old Norse, Gothic) don't even have auxiliaries for the most part but simply use the present tense with a future meaning. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, strange how I never noticed that. But doesn’t the if indicate the future tense? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 17:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, not directly. You can tell from the semantics of "If you see Alejandro, tell him hello from me" that "you see Alejandro" refers to the future. But in "If my husband is in here, I'm going to ring his neck!", the "my husband is in here" refers to the present. But grammatically, there's no difference between those two sentences in English. Irish, on the other hand (and maybe Romance languages as well), distinguishes the sentences grammatically, using the future tense in "if you see Alejandro" but the present tense in "if my husband is in here". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Is your husband Alejandro? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 19:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He'd better hope not! ;) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Translations of beverage and drink
Should the translations of beverage and drink be merged? —suzukaze (t・c) 01:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not in the entries' current state. None of the senses at drink quite matches either of the senses at beverage. The first sense at beverage could be subdivided similarly to part of drink: "tea is my favorite beverage" and "the lunch special comes with a free beverage" aren't really the same. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I was thinking more of the merging of the single table at beverage into drink, as drink is defined as "A beverage .", while beverage is defined as "A liquid to consume, usually excluding water; a drink ." —suzukaze (t・c) 02:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Translations of come and arrive
Can come (sense 2 / translation box 2: "To arrive: The guests came at eight o'clock.") be merged into arrive? —suzukaze (t・c) 03:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


text:
Wiktionary:Information desk/2016/March

language-specific headword template
i've found an old, unused headword template for polish verb forms, tried it in a bunch of entries and it seems to produce exactly the same effect as with pl and verb form arguments. is there a reason why the template wasn't used? or are language-specific headword templates preferred to generic ? profesjonalizm • talk 22:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's the opposite: generic with two arguments is preferred to specific templates. —CodeCat 23:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ok... so should i start changing the or  templates to s when editing random entries? and what's the rationale here? -- profesjonalizm • talk 23:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the fact that people are used to their being templates named according to a language-code + "-" + POS format makes the presence of such a template- even one that does nothing but plug parameters into head- worth it just for the reduction of cognitive load. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Show hidden categories
Hi. Is there a option to show the hidden categories? --Vivaelcelta (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it’s under the Appearance tab of your preferences. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought that that was in Gadgets. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:sense in synonyms
Can I put in synonyms section this: " " in damajuana? --Vivaelcelta (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don’t know if there’s an official protocol, but I’d put Mexico in a qualifier instead:  . — Ungoliant (falai) 21:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ungoliant. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I also agree; qualifiers pertaining to the synonym (rather than the original word) should go after the synonym. If, on the other hand, the word foo meant "cat" in Spain and "dog" in Mexico, then it might be appropriate to add "(Mexico, dog) " to the synonyms section of foo...but it'd probably be best to just say "(dog) " in that case. Btw, where there's only one sense, I'm not sure a sense tag is needed at all. - -sche (discuss) 21:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks everybody. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Americas vs Hispanic America vs Latin America
Which term should be used to indicate the countries where a Spanish word is used when it’s used in all the countries of the Americas that speak Spanish? For example: video (English) in Spanish is video in Hispanic America and vídeo in Spain. I think that it should be Hispanic America or Americas. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with "Latin America"? --WikiTiki89 23:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t include US Spanish. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But US Spanish isn't a real dialect. It's just a collective term for the dialects that immigrant communities speak. These immigrant communities can theoretically even be from Spain as well. So really Cuban Spanish, Mexican Spanish, etc. include the varieties of these dialects spoken in the US. Only words that arise specifically out of the US environment really need to be classified as "US Spanish". --WikiTiki89 23:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In New Mexico, there are communities that never stopped speaking Spanish when their state became part of the US, and I wouldn't be surprised if the same were true here and there in other states. Likewise, Chicano Spanish may not be distinct enough to be a completely separate dialect, but it does have some of its own unique vocabulary and a few other traits that aren't completely imported from elsewhere. There have been a number of waves of immigration by Spanish-speakers over the centuries, with different levels of assimilation to English, so it's not a good idea to generalize. Going strictly by numbers, your description mostly applies- but it leaves out some very interesting exceptions. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Latin America includes Brasil, which speaks Portuguese. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's being used as a context label in a ==Spanish== entry, that (Brazil) isn't a problem. After all, we have entries like all mouth and no trousers labelled "UK" (which displays as "Britain") and I doubt anyone thinks it means that all mouth and no trousers is also used in Welsh, even though "UK"/"Britain" includes Wales. - -sche (discuss) 06:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm what Chuck Entz said: not all native Spanish speakers in the U.S. are immigrants or recent descendants of immigrants. Some Spanish-speaking families have been there since before Texas independence and the Mexican-American war. Their variety of Spanish is similar but not identical to that of northern Mexico, and is characterized (among other things) by a large number of English loanwords and calques of English expressions. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would still consider those to be varieties of Mexican Spanish and included by the term "Latin American Spanish". And the term "US Spanish" is not primarily used to refer to those specific communities. --WikiTiki89 16:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessarily consider a variant of Mexican Spanish, but I would consider it part of Latin American Spanish. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I wasn't aware of its history when I said that. --WikiTiki89 18:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okey. Thanks everybody. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Suits of Spanish playing cards
I have created this template Template:table:spanish suits for suits of Spanish playing cards. It is okey? --Vivaelcelta (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See Template:table:suits/es. DTLHS (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But Template:table:suits/es is about the Poker's suits. But I create a new template for Spanish playing cards. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Latin sans copula
Is there a tendency in Latin to omit the sum verbs? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 03:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep! All the time! — JohnC5 03:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Damn, that was quick! I was asking because Wikipedia doesn’t suggest that Latin is a zero‐copula language. This does explain why so many Latin sentences look strange to me; you have to imagine the copula existing there because it’s implied. -- Romanophile  ♞ (contributions) 03:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As mentioned here, it's common to omit the sum in periphrastic verbs. I also recall omitting copulae all over the place (particularly in ablative absolutes), but I'm not finding references for it at the moment. Perhaps it is more common in poetry? — JohnC5 04:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Copula oblitus es? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 04:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The copula is very often omitted in Latin when it would be present indicative, and not just in periphrastic verbs. I wouldn't say it's omitted in ablative absolute constructions, though, because absolute constructions by definition don't have a finite verb. In other words, it would be ungrammatical for a copula to be present in an ablative absolute. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a source. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are quite right about ablative absolutes. I guess I was harkening back to my (somewhat erroneous) high school Latin wherein they described ablative absolutes as either noun + participle (+ complement of participle) or noun + noun (with an understood present active copular participle). I realize now that this latter explanation was a false simplification. Thanks for the correction! — JohnC5 19:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's certainly true that the copula can be understood in abl.abs. constructions, and it may need to be supplied in English translations of them, but it is never explicitly present in them. Thus they're different from main clauses like "Tu coniunx", which could also grammatically be "Tu coniunx es". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if we can say that omitting the present indicative copula was a PIE feature. --WikiTiki89 13:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If it was, then it was not omitted in in enough cases that all its descendants preserved the verb. If the verb was not widely used, you wouldn't expect it to have survived. Latin isn't the only branch that omitted the copula, the East Slavic languages commonly do too. —CodeCat 14:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

"basin"
Can basin refer to these things? The present definition #1 seems to apply to only sinks/sink-like bowls. —suzukaze (t・c) 10:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say so. If you do a Google Images search for "plastic basin" you get almost exactly the same results. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that it applies to all of these things. It could be used for any of them that could reasonably be used for washing the hands. Pans that are used for baking/cooking would not be called basins, in my opinion. To me, sinks and sink-like bowls seems like a good definition. —Stephen (Talk) 06:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

un amuse-bouche
The pronunciation for amuse-bouche is actually the pronunciation for un amuse-bouche. Someone should replace it.--Iskenderbalas (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is that a problem? --WikiTiki89 20:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is typical for French entries, as French nouns are rarely found without a determiner of some sort. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I considered it would make it harder to learn the language for a French learner.--Iskenderbalas (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would it be harder? Un is one of the first words you learn and you should be able to recognize it. --WikiTiki89 15:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Almost all the French audio files include the article. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata
Why Wiktionary isn't available in Wikidata? When will it be available? --Vivaelcelta (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&search=Wikidata&fulltext=Search&ns4=1&profile=advanced Dixtosa (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not yet implementable due to different POS, inflections, etc of languages. But at least, they should make interlanguage links repository first because it is the same function as for Wikipedia. --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Translation
Hi all. If you have some time, please translate this urgent notice into your language. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech/Server_switch_2016 --Octahedron80 (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

numeral vs number
Can I ask something? What is different between numeral vs number categories? For example, 'Xyz cardinal numbers' vs 'Xyz numerals'. If I have terms like '๕' and 'ห้า', where should I put them? --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * According to a discussion, Category:English numbers contains any number while Category:English numerals contain only numerals—well, it’s not clear to me. More confusingly, Category:en:Numbers contain words related to number (such as even number) — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

 * ๕ belongs in Category:Thai numeral symbols; ห้า belongs in Category:Thai numerals and Category:Thai cardinal numbers. —Stephen (Talk) 22:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Still wondering why English terms go everywhere. Numerals in my meaning are the numeral symbols, so spelling words should be located only under numbers. That is also the same problem at my home Wiktionary. --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

remendar
Can somebody please alert me of a good site for conjugating Asturian verbs? In particular, I need the table for remendar… perhaps? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 20:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

 * I don’t know of a good site for Asturian verbs. There is Verbix, but it assumes that remendar is a regular verb and conjugates it as if regular. I do not know whether remendar is really regular or not. —Stephen (Talk) 22:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No idea, sorry. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

 * , it’s not exactly a conjugator, but you can use https://www.languagetool.org/ before inserting a conjugation table, that way you can catch any irregularities. And yes, remendar is irregular in Asturian just like Spanish. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 11:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

 * , and here’s a real conjugator! -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 11:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Occitan
Do I need to provide citations of Occitan terms to avoid getting into trouble? I have a dictionary with me, but I don’t know if that suffices. Can I just add what I find in the dictionary? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 03:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As long as you're not violating the dictionary's copyright by copying its text wholesale. I don't think you need to provide citations unless someone RFV's them, but obviously it's a good idea to provide a reference so other people can check your work if they want to. And although WT:CFI allows terms in less-documented languages like Occitan that have but one single mention in a reliable source (e.g. a printed dictionary that everyone who knows Occitan agrees is a good source), I generally try to verify words even in small languages in at least two sources, just to avoid the possibility of ghost words and fictitious entries getting into Wiktionary. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd add it to WT:About Occitan as a source sufficient for a single mention. Personally I'm not a big fan of terms that may only appear in dictionaries but under these circumstances they are completely legal. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Can't figure out how to add a word to a category
Category:Esperanto words suffixed with -aŭ

I tried several different ways and none worked. I looked at edit page of a word already in the category and didn't see the code that linked it into the category. There are many (and I mean many) words in Wiktionary that should be added to this category and I haven't figured out how. Surely, it's not done directly on the category page, is it?

Sollupulo (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Most of those kinds of categories are added via the headword template, in this case something like or .  If the appropriate template is used on the "inflection line" (immediately below the part of speech header) then the categorization is automatic. - TheDaveRoss 15:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But this is a suffix category, which is added by etymology templates like and . —CodeCat 15:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks CodeCat, the suffix template works the magic —Sollupulo (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Style
In rocking chair I want the translations box appears after the photo. Is it possible with a code? --Vivaelcelta (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You can, using, but I think that it is a bad idea because then there will be a lot of blank space above the translation table. —suzukaze (t・c) 04:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * would work, but it would be better to put more material between the definitions and the translations. See if you can add some synonyms (such as rocker, glider) and related terms (such as Kennedy rocker). —Stephen (Talk) 10:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Should I get off of the Reconstruction pages?
I'm a newbie in PIE and stuff, although I have passive interest in it.

TL; DR: Do you agree with CodeCat's suggestion for me to leave these pages?

I tried to aggregate cognates yet again. I only created PIE pages for forms that were already reconstructed in etymology sections, which one time or the other turn out to be poorly done. In today's case, I did not make this faulty reconstruction myself, it was a redlink from which I hoped someone else could settle on a correction on (see  for CodeCat him/herself doing this).

I think he/she is fed up with me touching these pages... I admit I don't have expertise.

I ask and  on this matter. Am I a nuisance on the Reconstruction pages by creating pages in this manner? Hillcrest98 (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll point out that Code initially told me early that I shouldn't edit PIE until I learned more and suggested that I read Fortson's Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. It was quite good and a very helpful primer. The issue is that there is just so much information to keep in mind when writing these entries, and I need all the help I can get. I might advise doing a little more reading if you want to continue to help. I like having users help out with PIE though, especially since I at least am extremely slow at making entries. — JohnC5 04:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you John. Just keep reading... Hillcrest98 (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with CodeCat. Etymology sections here are often outdated or wrong. You should not "aggregate cognates" from them. --Vahag (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't fed up at all, it was just an honest suggestion since you recognised the limits of your knowledge yourself. As John said, getting into reading is a very good idea! —CodeCat 18:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever created a Proto-Indo-European entry, and I took a course in Indo-European linguistics as part of my linguistics degree. That's because the field has been changing constantly and extensively in the century or so it's been in existence (even in the three decades since I took that course), and it takes a great deal of knowledge and access to sources to sort through all of it. There's a great deal of obsolete information about Proto-Indo-European in a lot of otherwise-good references, and I'd have to spend time getting myself up to speed on the latest developments before I would feel comfortable creating entries based on what's in our etymology sections. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I seem to be a total here, given what people are saying about me. Laryngeals we go... Hillcrest98 (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Categorization of English words without rhymes
If we have a whole namespace dedicated for rhyming, are non-rhyming words to be left alone, e.g. wolf, bulb, etc.? Because it isn't hard to come across trivia saying "purple, orange, silver, ... don't rhyme with anything" and such. Hillcrest98 (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind having a list or automatically generated category or something of English words with no rhymes, except that it will be difficult to separate its entries from a list or category of English words that have a rhyme but that no one has added to a Rhymes page yet. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We already have that, unless you mean something else. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me where it was. Hillcrest98 (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

"what" vs. "how" in this phrase
About the phrase: "I have no idea what to title this" (as in, "I have no idea what title I should give to this")

Can someone say instead: "I have no idea how to title this"

(that is, replacing "what" by "how" and retaining the same meaning)

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Technically, only "how to title this" is correct, because "title" only takes one object ("this" in this case). If you use the verb "name" instead, which can take two objects, then you can say either "what to name this" or "how to name this". The "how" version can have other meanings as well, but it can also mean the same thing as the "what" version. --WikiTiki89 00:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

 * I don't think that's accurate; Merriam-Webster includes "She titled the book The Story of My Life" (two objects) in its examples of how to use "title". "What to title the" is more common than "how to title the". (Bare "how to title", with no following word, is more common than bare "what to title", but includes irrelevant stuff like scannos of "how-to title".) "How to title this" also sounds OK, though (it doesn't sound prescriptively nonstandard or incorrect). Incidentally, I notice we have "conforming to the language as used by the majority of its speakers" as a definition in the negative at nonstandard, but not in the positive at standard. - -sche (discuss) 08:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I should have clarified: "In my idiolect..." (as for nonstandard and standard, I think that reflects an actual difference in the usage of the words). --WikiTiki89 13:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

horizontal rule
Are the horizontal rules between languages necessary? If so, why don't modify stylesheet of the headings instead? --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

title: Wiktionary:Information desk/2016/March


text:
Wiktionary:Information desk/2016/April

古希臘式搏擊
Does this really count as "the Chinese term for pankration"? It seems more like a description. —suzukaze (t・c) 05:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * seems to be the term. Under 概述, it says, "古希臘式搏擊乃Pankration的中文中性意譯詞彙". — justin(r)leung { (t...) 05:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

entry for ancient Greek νύξ, νυκτός
There are errors in the inflection for the ancient Greek word νύξ, νυκτός. I would fix them myself, but I've only done very basic editing, and fixing something in a template seems like something I could very easily screw up. A search around the Wiktionary site has produced only explanations that are probably very clear to people who understand them but that completely baffle me. Is there anybody (or any body) to whom/which I can report the errors so that they can be fixed by somebody who knows what s/he's doing?
 * I'm an admin and have been here for over 10 years and I can't figure out how to fix it either. I assume the problem you're talking about is the circumflex accent in the forms beginning with "νῦκτ-", which should be an acute since the upsilon in this word is short. There must be some error in Module:grc-decl, but module editing is so extremely esoteric that only a handful of our editors know how to do it. Perhaps ObsequiousNewt can figure out what's going wrong and will be able to fix it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How about now? — JohnC5 14:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * All fixed as far as I'm concerned. (I can only assume that this was the problem Derfner was talking about.) So the problem was not in the module, but in the parameters for the template. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. For the automatic generation of correct accentation with this template, vowel length should be explicitly specified. — JohnC5 14:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Override Javascript?
How do I override User:Conrad.Irwin/editor.js with my own version for testing? I created User:CodeCat/editor.js but it didn't do anything. —CodeCat 17:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't "override" it, since it's not a MediaWiki thing. If you want to test your version, you need to disable the gadget/preference that loads Conrad.Irwin's version and load your own version manually from your User:CodeCat/common.js with the line JavaScript --WikiTiki89 17:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. Would this be changed by integrating it into the gadget system? —CodeCat 17:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, it doesn't work. I included that line, but nothing gets loaded and there's no translation editor. —CodeCat 17:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Integrating it into the gadget system only means that it will get loaded automatically instead of manually. Did you try a cache-bypassing refresh? If that doesn't work then maybe there is an error in your script. Otherwise, User:Dixtosa may know what to do. --WikiTiki89 17:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Right now it's just the same as the old script, so if there's no errors in that, there's none in mine either. —CodeCat 17:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * —CodeCat 18:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have never tried to override it (User:Dixtosa/editor.js is actually a clone for a different script). Anyways, try disabling it from this box You don't have the current version of

--Dixtosa (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Disabling the existing editor isn't the problem, that part worked. The issue now is to enable my own custom version. That part isn't working. —CodeCat 19:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The checkbox in the preferences only makes one variable to change. So, editor.js is always loaded (probably a good idea since many scripts depend on editor API). In any case, remove this check  from editor.js  and you should be ready to go. --Dixtosa (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Coined by borrowing a preformed word
As [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=yam&curid=37763&diff=37999177&oldid=37805525 remarks], it seems odd to say that something was "coined" if it was "borrowed". However, there are several other entries which do this, which may also need attention: urethra, bacteriophage, acetylene, empathy/empatia, bathyscaphe, alkahest (or is it saying the Latin term, which was borrowed, was coined?), pococurante(?), zephirum, taxi(?), אמפתיה(?), meli, naheka, harmóníum(?), doryphore, Suht-Wales. - -sche (discuss) 17:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In some of those (urethra, meli), we are clearly just misusing the word "coin". In others (naheka, doryphore, empathy, taxi), the word goes through a significant phonetic or semantic alteration, so I think it's fair to call it both a borrowing and a coinage. In still others (pococurante, אמפתיה, harmóníum, bacteriophage, acetylene, empathy, empatia, bathyscaphe, alkahest), it only says that it was coined in the language it was borrowed from, so there's no contradiction because they are describing different steps. I can't make up my mind about zephirum and Suht-Wales. --WikiTiki89 18:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Those that name a person as coiner are okay (I'm assuming they are accurate) - but ones that have "coined in [date]" seem to have been input by someone who misunderstood the use of the word coined. I don't know how many there are of this type - and I don't know how one can search for them. Of course, words can be coined in a certain year, but this should not be confused with the earliest attestation in OED - especially as OED earliests are not wholly reliable (Murray conjectured that 75% of OED's earliest citations could be antedated). - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Have edited urethra accordingly. According to Online Etymological Dictionary, urethra was "coined" in Ancient Greek by Hippocrates - but this I cannot verify, and seems dubious. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * According to LSJ at Perseus, οὐρήθρα was used by both Aristotle and Hippocrates. Whether either of them actually coined the word is another question entirely. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think what meli says is OK. The word was coined in Hawaiian by being borrowed from Ancient Greek. It wasn't borrowed into Hawaiian in the way loanwords are usually borrowed. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

wiktionary by print?
What would be involved on the typesetting side in making wiktionary available via print to people without the Internet? I volunteer with an organization that sends books to prisoners and one of the more common (and thus unfulfilled due to demand) requests is for dictionaries. I've considered sending out a subset of wiktionary out to a self-publisher for printing, but not sure where to start. Thanks in advance for your help!

creation
am i creating something that i would in essence own as to be published as new topic, or word, or phase,   when the computer asked me to create the new word or topic? please i need this answer    for it deals directly with my problem    that i havent been able to get an answer to out of anything or one            where do i veiw this     ive never been here before
 * Welcome to the wiki! In order for a term to be listed, it must meet the Criteria for inclusion, if that's what you are asking. -Xbony2 (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Number
Is there any guildline about criteria of creating number article? In korean wiktionary, A user is making infinitely number artlcle such as it. --Altostratus (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This may be relevant, but it appears there are no actual policies on the subject... -Xbony2 (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Derived terms sections, sym- and -pathy
Hi. I was trying to determine if empathy and sympathy should be listed in -pathy. If I understand correctly, I just add a at the start of the Etymology section? I've done so for sympathy, but thought I'd ask before replicating on empathy.

Additionally, the derived terms section at sym- is created manually, and the section at -logy contains both methods, so that confused me further! Is there a preferred method, that I could potentially help transition to? I would guess suffixsee, but I couldn't see specifics in Entry layout.

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding something fundamental, on any of these various questions. Thanks for any help! Quiddity (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

 * This is the distinction between synchronic and diachronic etymologies. Or, whether we should describe words as being derived from a particular affix when the word was actually borrowed or derived from another language but could plausibly be analyzed as being composed of affixes in the original language. Different editors will have different opinions on this.
 * Sometimes it is appropriate to use - if there are no redlinks in the table, if there are no glosses or other commentary in the table, or anything else that wouldn't show up with in automatic list. It also can only show the first 200 entries in the category. DTLHS (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

title: Wiktionary:Information desk/2016/April


text:
Wiktionary:Information desk/2016/May

Romanization of Gothic, but not Proto-Norse, etc.?
Was wondering what the rationale behind adding romanized entries for Gothic entries is, if other languages with different scripts usually do not get such romanized entries (I do know of some others, like Japanese romaji, but they are seemingly not the rule). Adding a Proto-Norse lemma recently made me think of this - not everyone can type in Elder Futhark, and many browsers might not even display the symbols.

TL;DR: why is there swistar for, but no swestar for ? 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 ·  19:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

 * See these three votes (especially the "Rationale" sections, since that's what you're asking about). --WikiTiki89 19:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the quick reply once more, you seem to be all over the place. It does seem that by the rationale of the 2nd discussion you linked, Proto-Norse might well be included among the languages that might benefit from romanized entries. Possibly, however, the language was too underrepresented on Wiktionary at the time to be included? 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 ·  19:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support having romanization entries for Runic terms, regardless of language. —CodeCat 20:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So would I. In my opinion, the criterion for including romanizations should not be "not everyone can type in" the native script, not "many browsers might not even display the symbols", but rather "the majority of reference works (dictionary, grammar books, textbooks, etc.) present this language in romanization and not in the native script. Thus, I have supported romanization entries for Gothic and Primitive Irish and do support them for Proto-Norse, the Anatolian languages, and Sumerian, but I would not support them for Ancient Greek, Old Church Slavonic, Classical Arabic, and Biblical Hebrew. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Could (or should) another vote be organised on the matter? 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 ·  21:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

capitalization of "century", "dynasty" and "province"
Newbie question here. Do we capitalise "century" in 3rd Century BC, the 21st Century, etc.? They're proper nouns in this case, right? But I noticed Wikipedia does not capitalise their centuries. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

And what about "dynasty"? Should I write the Tang Dynasty or the Tang dynasty? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

One more - "province". Should I write Henan Province or Henan province? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not capitalize century. The 21st century isn't a proper noun, it's just a description. I would capitalize dynasty and province in the names Tang Dynasty and Henan Province, though, just like New York City and New York State. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Ngrams I used the 19th century so as not to conflict with the or . --WikiTiki89 14:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

 * I think that capitalization of dynasty and province falls under the same rule as rivers and mountains:
 * ''“When talking about a specific mountain (Rocky Mountains), river (Mississippi River), state (State of Texas) or street (Main Street), capitalize the nouns and adjectives in the name.
 * “When talking about a common noun—such as a mountain, a state, a river, or a street—do not capitalize those words.” —Stephen (Talk) 21:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

 * That's what I thought originally. But I noticed that history books commonly write it as Tang dynasty and Henan province, and not the other way. Perhaps a usage note could be written to explain this. ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

ישוע
Is there a feminine equivalent to this Hebrew name? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 23:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Pretty sure there isn't. Quick search on some baby name websites seems to confirm. Kleio (t · c) 01:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Though then again, yeshua is a historical name more than anything so you likely wouldn't find is equivalent on a modern website I guess.. Still, I haven't heard of any such female name, and I know a few. Kleio (t · c) 01:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

 * This name virtually fell out of use among Jews after the rise of Christianity. And up until modern times, it wasn't common for names to have "equivalents" of the opposite gender. Some names were mainly given to males, some mainly to females, and some to both genders without any morphological changes. In Modern Hebrew, however, it has become common to mimic "feminine" equivalents from other languages of originally Hebrew male names, giving things like and, but this addition of  cannot be justified by Hebrew grammar, since these particular names  do not grammatically imply any gender of the bearer of the name (any such implication is merely convention). --WikiTiki89 15:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Daniela and Michaela in Hebrew are I think Hebraized versions of Danielle, Michelle, etc. Kleio (t · c) 16:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I meant by mimic "feminine" equivalents from other languages. --WikiTiki89 16:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

nothing left to take away
What did he mean by this? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 22:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I interpret it as meaning that something is in its most perfect form when every remaining component is absolutely crucial and cannot therefore be removed. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Reminds me of the Chinese idiom 畫蛇添足. Not the same meaning, but related. ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Finding red/yellow links
Is there a way to find all red/yellow links for a language code? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

 * You can add a language code to the Template:redlink category, that would cause links created with, , , to add pages with redlinks to a subcategory of Category:Redlinks by language. Note, however, that adding too many major language codes to Template:redlink category will increase page rendering times and create a bunch of errors on large pages. For orange links, the only way to go would be to write a python script and analyze the database dumps. --WikiTiki89 15:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

disabling editing
Is there any way to freely disable (and enable) one’s editorial functions? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 03:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Off the top of my head I can think of 1. blocking and 2. removing elements from the webpage with JavaScript. —suzukaze (t・c) 03:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

 * What do you want to remove? — Ungoliant (falai) 21:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

 * All edit buttons. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 07:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

this CSS helps --Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 * An alternative method: Log out and vandalize until your IP is blocked. Then you can log out to disable editing and log in to enable. --WikiTiki89 15:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

common sayings
It would be nice if Wiktionary could add common sayings. I notice you have a "seeing is believing" entry under discussion -- since 2012 -- whatever status that gives it.

The specific one I was looking for was: don't take candy from strangers

Just for the administrative people/the people in charge to think about; you need not reply to me.

Thank you.

-- John
 * We actually do have them, except we call them proverbs instead of sayings. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Formatting changes with verbs that are centred aligning to the left when they are printed
Hi Wiktionary is brilliant. I am preparing for Polish exams and am finding my new printer does not print the page as is when I select and copy and print.

Anything that is centred is aligned to the left when printed.

How can I stop this happening?

I will be making a contribution to wiktionary as it has been invaluable. thank You Anne marie

 * Where do we actually centre things on Wiktionary? Can you show us an example page that has the problem? Does it happen when printing from other sites with centred text? Equinox ◑ 02:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

vessel lacks a definition
Hi. I would add it if it wasn't too complicated for me. A vessel (church architecture) is part of the nave (the nave being everything from the narthex (included) to the transept (not included). Thank you.
 * No. I can't find any such definition in any dictionary. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they’re referring to this obsolete definition, which we lack? 1704, J. Harris, Lexicon Technicum I: »Vessels, in Architecture, are certain Ornaments, usually set over the Cornices, and so named, because they represent divers sorts of Vessels, which were in use among the Ancients.«

Finding language codes
Seriously, why is there no easily accessible list of all language codes? I'm looking for one and have no idea how to find it; and I'm not saying which one, because then the underlying issue will be ignored. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Try User:Pengo/test2. DTLHS (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * : List of languages, linked-to from the top of Languages, lists all the codes we use. [//www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/codes.asp?order=639_3&letter=%25 SIL] lists all 3-letter ISO codes. Language treatment and its talk page (especially this thread) document codes they have that we don't. - -sche (discuss) 22:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you get to Wiktionary:Languages? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you go about looking for information on languages or for a list of all language codes, and type something to that effect into the search bar, like "Wiktionary:Languages", "Wiktionary:Language codes" or "Wiktionary:List of...", the search bar brings it up. You can also click the link "language code" on any language's main category, or in the documentation of the modules where the individual sets of language codes are stored. Where else would it be appropriate to stick a link? - -sche (discuss) 22:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I include a link to Languages in the documentation of parameters. See, , , etc. Sadly, others haven't been so thorough. —CodeCat 00:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this is ultrabasic information required to work on literally everything Wiktionary, the appropriate place would be the goddamn front page. For example as an info on top of Index:All_languages, which is linked at the front page. New users don't know that a separate namespace Wiktionary: does even exist, they'll never find this stuff. I'll take this to a more appropriate place, though. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The front page is for people who just want to read Wiktionary, not those who want to edit it. I don't think it's too much to expect editors to be aware of the Wiktionary namespace. What I use is User:Kephir/gadgets/xte, which gives you a button that lets you search by language name to find the code and by code to find the language name. Entering the language code as the positional parameter of \ returns the language name as well, i.e. de returns /. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's too much to expect people who are not-yet-editors to be aware of the Wiktionary namespace. But I have found my language code, further discussion on this belongs to this thread in the beer parlour. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone who wants to become an editor is going to have to find the Wiktionary namespace right quick, and not just for this. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition to what others have said, in your preferences, under Per-browser preferences, there is an option near the bottom to "Add a language name to ISO code converter to the sidebar." Unfortunately, it only seems to work when editing L1 or L2 headers. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

title: Wiktionary:Information desk/2016/May