text:
Wiktionary:Information desk/2017/December

Redirect for "Hollaback"?
I was on the Tony Kanal page earlier, and I tried searching up "Hollaback" here without success. Should it be redirected to "Holla Back"? Ranged Ranger (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

 * You're lost! This is Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Equinox ◑ 04:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

 * I actually meant that I tried searching up the definition of "hollaback" in Wiktionary, after seeing the Wikipedia article. Sorry if that wasn't worded very well. :) Ranged Ranger (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You may want to give it a shot as your first definition. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's more like a redirect request. That said, how exactly do I create a redirect? Ranged Ranger (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, you can make a redirect just like at Wikipedia, in the form of #redirectTARGET but usually we don't do that here. E.g. color and colour--alternative forms and spellings are worth retaining as a distinct entry. See also virtually any Chinese entry such as 𪋀. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * @Koavf Lol my Chinese isn't that good, but I get what you're saying. Thanks for clarifying! Ranged Ranger (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

 * See Panjabi for example of alt-form entry. But how is hollaback used? It can't be a verb because that would imply the silly-sounding *hollabacking and *hollabacked. I've never seen it outside that Gwen Stefani song title. Equinox ◑ 05:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

 * @Equinox I honestly have no idea what it meant before I read holla back, and the WP article instance could be a typo. *shruggie* Should I still make an alt-form entry? Ranged Ranger (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

 * No... I searched Google Books and the single-word "hollaback" is the name of an organisation but not a normal dictionary word. Equinox ◑ 05:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

 * I have created hollaback:. I am assuming that it meets CFI. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Error in pronunciation of French entretien
The French pronunciation of '' in IPA symbols is wrong, the s should be t. But I cannot edit that, when I press 'edit' I see no symbols at all. How does this work in Wiktionary? Can somebody else correct this error? Rudhar (talk)
 * Fixed. The page uses fr-IPA which predicts the pronunciation from the spelling. Since -tien in French is usually /sjɛ̃/, the template falsely predicted that it would be in this word as well. I've fixed that now. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 19:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The word "Tumshie" couldnt find it here ... just wondering
I was listening or rather reading a conversation about someone cooking tumshie? I could not find an example on google so I thought I'd try here but to no avail. sad.. could someone please explain or give me a link would be nice as well.

Thanks Happy Holidays! Lisa Bumgarner
 * According to it seems to be a Scots or Scottish English word for the rutabaga (known in Scotland as turnip and in England as swede). We do have the red link tumshie listed at turnip. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 15:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note also that it would be at tumshie rather than Tumshie--capitalization counts at Wiktionary (compare polish and Polish or august and August). —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Spanish "cruces".
Hi. I am not sure how to edit this, because it is possibly a unique case in Spanish, or at least one of very few cases. The entry for "cruces", in the section for the meaning in Spanish, states correctly that it is the plural of "cruz". But "cruces" is also the plural of "cruce", as is correctly indicated at the entry for that word. To complicate matters, "cruz" is a feminine word, whereas "cruce" is masculine. So, the grammatical information is different for this other meaning. How do you proceed in a case like this? Thanks. --Eduarodi (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * great catch. There are a lot of words in English which have one spelling but multiple etymologies, so we just list the etymologies separately. I think the way it is now is probably close to optimal. Thanks a lot. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They aren't truly distinct etymologies (cruce comes from a form of the verb cruzar, which in turn comes from cruz), so I combined them, but with two separate Noun headers, which is what we've done in similar situations in the past. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, "cruz" is "a cross" and "cruce" is a "crossing", so they are etymologically connected. But because they have different meanings and genders, I wasn't sure how to proceed. Thanks for the help. --Eduarodi (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Latin word missing: Phantasma.
"Phantasma" est verbum linguae Latini.
 * If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wiktionary is a wiki, so anyone — including you — can edit any entry by following the edit link. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to.  Wiki convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes.  If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But you probably mean without a capital P. Also, our Latin templates take a bit of getting used to - so I've added it for you. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

 * Of course, the fact that a word is Latin or Latinate does not preclude it from being English; phantasma, by way of analogy was Greek in origin and form, and I doubt that the Romans of the day apologised for appropriating it :D JonRichfield (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

rfquotek
I have just started a discussion page for rankle, where I encountered rfquotek for the first time. Could someone please tell me where I may find a discussion of what it achieves, how, and with what authority? TIA JonRichfield (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

 * It's a template asking for help finding citations and references: . —Stephen (Talk) 10:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

pay-off, Nostalgia Critic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BJokXg8eLE at 5:20

He keeps saying "second or third act pay-off". What does he mean by this? Sense 1, 2, 3, or other? I think he means "pay-off" to mean some kind of comedy/film jargon. PseudoSkull (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It’s not jargon, but it’s not a sense we have yet either. In this context it means something like a resolution or denouement of something that was set up earlier. Things are set up in the early part of the film to ‘pay off’ later on, when they’re finally activated during the second or third act. I suppose in origin it’s a metaphor based on the idea of an investment paying off down the line. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 17:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at defining it. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

leading
"leading" is generally an extreme adjective so "most leading" and "more leading" are very odd. Therefore "(comparative more leading, superlative most leading)" is, er, misleading.
 * Fixed. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there a name for this multi-word hyperlinking?
e.g. "This convoluted case clearly illustrates the dangerous absurdity of our statutory copyright damages laws. EFF has explained how [Congress] [could] [fix] this draconian damages scheme." Each of the three links notionally has the caption "Congress could fix", but in reality each link is tied to one word of the phrase (probably bad for SEO etc.). I see this sometimes; does it have a name? Equinox ◑ 19:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Working with Wiktionary database offline
Hello, Wiktionary world!

I am working on an open-source project designed for people learning Russian.

It would be very helpful to be able to run custom queries against the Wiktionary database, preferably offline.

I am currently downloading files from this page: https://dumps.wikimedia.org/ruwikisource/20171220/

I imagine that somewhere there is a step-by-step guide to setting up the database on a development computer, and running queries against it, but I have not been successful in finding it. I would be very grateful if someone could point me in the right direction.

Many thanks in advance, James

 * Check this page. I used mwdumper several years ago. Getting it to work correctly was a nightmare though, do read the instructions carefully if you choose it. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary is not a database. You can set it up as a database, but that will only give you access to the raw page text. You need to do your own parsing depending on what queries you want. The file you probably want to download is enwiktionary-latest-pages-meta-current.xml.bz2. DTLHS (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

References on Wiktionary
I notice that Wiktionary is not particularly big on references/citing sources, like Wikipedia is. On the page cat, for example, I don't see a single link to a citation or even any website that shows where information is coming from. Why is this? Doesn't this cause for even more disputes than on Wikipedia? Wolfdog (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The function of a citation is different here than in Wikipedia but citations and quotations are definitely encouraged, especially for things like the first instance of the usage of a term, a famous author or particularly notable quotation using it, or usages which can clarify confusing terms. Both Wikipedia and Wiktionary need a lot more references and it's completely appropriate to have one for cat. For instance, when was this term first used? (Likely long before written language was common, so when is the earliest citation we can find?) Or, when did it started being used in the sense of referring to a cool cat like in jazz terminology rather than a feline? It would be very helpful to have some citations there but there are diminishing returns when we have an indefinite amount of citations from every news story that says "cat" in it. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. Cat was just a random example. For a more specific concern, I notice that page stoop defines the noun form as "(chiefly Northeastern US, chiefly New York, also, Canada)". It would be helpful to know where this extra info comes from, since I don't see that it's chiefly Northeastern US in other dictionaries and I was wondering how accurate this info was. Anyway, I understand if citations are still a long way off in Wiktionary. Maybe one day! Thanks Wolfdog (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, thank you--pointing out what we lack is a really important part of how we can improve. Do you by chance have any feedback on how we can streamline suggestions? We have a feedback page and you can also request citations. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but this page has worked well for me to get feedback. Wolfdog (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of information here is "original research", and is backed up by primary sources (i.e. quotations that show the word being used in running text) rather than secondary or tertiary sources (i.e. dictionaries and grammars). Our criteria for inclusion are in this way very different from Wikipedia's. After all, the goals of a dictionary and an encyclopedia are different. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 19:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It was more a lack of any sources whatsoever that I was noticing, but I see the distinction you give about primary sources. Obviously, however, a quotation and accompanying primary source don't show anything about a term's etymology, its chief usage, its part of speech, etc. Wolfdog (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We have to apply the general rules of reason and common sense, including usual linguistic methods to terms. Consider the lack of sources mentioned for Arabic in WT:About Arabic – there is not even an etymological dictionary of Arabic!
 * Not everything has been researched or stated by someone else, sometimes sources are hard to access, and often we can not do more than a guess: There are phonological and semantic criteria and extralinguistic facts: A craft that we can master perhaps not worse than some dudes from universities. You can just look at some discussions in the Etymology scriptorium to see how it works, for example, or Reconstruction talk:Proto-Semitic/ṭāb- where it becomes visible that we are even better than the sources, because the other sources, which are not many, only give ṭayb or even ṭayyib: The other sources are only some well-known daredevils around . We would be destitute if we would rely on the sources. The goal of Wikipedia is not to replace the usual sources in a field, but to give more meagre overviews, whereas the goal of Wiktionary is not only to be on par with them, but to exceed them, which we can make by transforming, abstracting language usage into entries. The lack of references in that extent known from Wikipedia is a corollary of it. It’s all okay if make the certainties clear, isn’t it. After all we are not writing biographies of living persons. And after all you must not forget that on Wiktionary there are not that many people, so if you are itched by the lack of citations, you should consider that the more interesting words would be absent in Wiktionary if we would quote and reference the common words the existences of which are evident by some search engine searches or whatever. That is in many cases necessarily work for later generations. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 20:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and for some very well studied languages like English, French, Spanish, etc, there is a plethora of resources to use, and so if something seems wrong on here using a secondary source to verify information is easy. Quotations do in fact show dialectical usage, part of speech, etc. They do not provide etymology or pronunciation, you are right about that. In that case, out of copyright resources (such as Webster's 1913 English dictionaries) are very handy; some time ago the entirety of Webster 1913's data was imported here. Public domain works don't need to be cited, so an entry may rely on such sources without explicitly mentioning it.
 * For less documented languages (like Arabic, as Palaestrator verborum said) we give more leeway on an editor's knowledge. For example, my other native language, Hindi. I can assure you no Hindi dictionary includes most of the terms in Category:Hindi slang, and by extension their etymologies and pronunciations. The entries are only backed up by quotations (primary sources) and my own personal knowledge (or as WP would call it, original research). They are all real words that are used, some only in certain regions, but no secondary source even mentions them. This kind of thing has made Wiktionary more lenient on citing stuff; a lot of obscure, regional, niche, and slang terms would otherwise be uncitable can be included.
 * And common sense plays an important role here too; no one will argue that our primary definition of as "An animal of the family Felidae" is wrong. Citations are really only important for information that would be contentious. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 21:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

cabbage = 2 syllables; cabbages = 3 syllables?
I checked this website, and it claims that "cabbage" (singular) has 2 syllables and "cabbages" (plural) has 3 syllables. But I think that's wrong, isn't it? Thanks in advance.

 * https://www.howmanysyllables.com/words/cabbage
 * https://www.howmanysyllables.com/words/cabbages

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's right. The -es of the plural is pronounced . --2A02:2788:A4:F44:1C3B:A3D9:F0BD:7B60 12:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. To generalize, the plural ending (as well as the third-person singular ending) is pronounced as or  whenever the singular ends in a sibilant, as in masses, fizzes, mashes, fishes, matches, badges. — Eru·tuon 17:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 * (Does any English word end in /ʒz/, even a loan word? I can't think of any.) Equinox ◑ 19:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No; /ʒz/ and /dʒz/ are not possible consonant clusters in English except across a syllable break (and even then I can only think of examples across a word break, like beige zipper or huge zoo). Neither are /ʃs/ and /tʃs/ for that matter. Interestingly, the rule of /ɪ}/-insertion is not carried over into German when it borrows such words from English: the plural of is  pronounced /ˈzɛnt.vɪtʃs/ in two syllables. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 19:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * tillages (looks wrong) DTLHS (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Any English pronunciation added by Sae1962 is suspect. They fortunately decided on their own to stop adding them after some of their errors were pointed out to them. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Quitting the Wikimedia Foundation
If it's possible to quit working for the Wikimedia Foundation, then what are the procedures? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You probably have to be an employee first. Then I imagine you could just tell them you're quitting. DTLHS (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Then is terminating an account possible? If so, then what are the procedures? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 07:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * w:Wikipedia:FAQ —suzukaze (t・c) 07:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

A little something for fun
Those of you who like memes on Facebook will hopefully appreciate that some meme-makers on Facebook like us too: —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One more: . Wyang (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ... I'm enjoying this page way more than I should. Another one:, looking suspiciously like it's based on 你好. Wyang (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Me too...some of their memes also use screenshots of Wiktionary. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This one might actually require real attention . Did they really have those shades of meaning? —Rua (mew) 15:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * These are great: —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 16:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 16:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I spot italic Cyrillic and Greek. I thought we disabled that? —Rua (mew) 16:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not for mobile, since MediaWiki:Common.css does not apply to it. Not even our vsSwitcher inflection tables work on mobile. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 16:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And this is why copying Sanskrit definitions from an 1800s dictionary is a bad idea: —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 16:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh man, you improved the entry and ruined the meme :( —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ... the ميم, lol! Wyang (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * lol, it lives on in Monier's dictionary (see, in the leftmost column). —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 22:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 22:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL. -- माधवपंडित (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


text:
Wiktionary:Information desk/2017/January

Chinese words in French wiktionary
I downloaded a dump of the French Wiktionary, and was surprised to see a huge number of non-French words which (assuming I understand the structure) appear to be treated as lexemes. A majority of these are Chinese, in Chinese script. An example is '星期', which appears in https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E6%98%9F%E6%9C%9F. Based on the characters I would expect to see in French, I get about 3,076,557 lexemes (not counting inflected forms listed in the paradigms), and another 480,082 "lexemes" which contain unexpected characters. In addition to Chinese characters, there are Cyrillic, Tamil, Greek, Devanagari, etc. A few are understandable: the individual letters of the Greek alphabet, affixes (I hadn't allowed for hyphens, so affixes are showing up in my list of headwords with unexpected characters), etc.

Some other examples: французька (Ukrainian, https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%84%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%86%D1%83%D0%B7%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B0), アラブ首長国連邦 (Japanese, https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%82%A2%E3%83%A9%E3%83%96%E9%A6%96%E9%95%B7%E5%9B%BD%E9%80%A3%E9%82%A6), δόντι (Greek, https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B4%CF%8C%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B9), פרי (Hebrew, https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99), återgälda (Swedish, https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%A5terg%C3%A4lda).

I could understand the occasional loanword with foreign language spelling, like 'fiancée' in English. But hundreds of thousands of foreign words in foreign scripts in the French wiktionary? Why? And at least as important, is there a better way to filter out foreign words from a wiktionary? I'm not talking about "real" loanwords like 'weekend' in French (and yes, I know that's a fuzzy boundary), I'm talking about words that (afaict) have no place in the dictionary of language X. The problem with my filtering method--looking for unexpected characters--is that it won't filter out foreign words that happen to use a subset of the French alphabet, like 'fish' (https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/fish).

BTW, I'm writing this note here because I'm a native speaker of English, and a very poor speaker of French. I suppose I could try to write the above in French, or google-translate it, but I'm not confident I'd be understood if I did that. So I'm hoping the answer is here.Mcswell (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Every Wiktionary includes words in all languages. Equinox ◑ 19:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Each Wiktionary is intended to be a dictionary of all words in all languages; the nominal language of that Wiktionary (the "xx" in "xx.wiktionary.org") is the language in which definitions are written and in which discussion takes place. But French Wiktionary is as entitled to have Chinese and Russian words as English Wiktionary is (CAT:Chinese lemmas, CAT:Russian lemmas); likewise Chinese and Russian Wiktionaries are entitled to have French and Russian words, and so on. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As for getting just the French words from French Wiktionary, you need the subcategories of fr:Catégorie:Grammaire en français. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Elmer (mentor)
I've recently started reading about amateur radio (ham radio), in which the word Elmer is used as a literal synonym for mentor. In recent days I seen uses such as "I was given this old aerial by a local elmer, but I don't know if it works with my rig" and "the guy who elmered me".

I wondered whether this is worthy of inclusion here, but I've never started an article on this site before, and I have no idea which of your discussion rooms is most appropriate for this. I'm sure I could find a few appropriate citations for use. Google books: noun, verb. --Strolls (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added a definition of the noun at . SemperBlotto (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"news" and "News"
It doesn't seem like there should be two pages/entries for the word news/News. Instead, I would suggest replacing the current News page with news, and having news redirect to News.
 * The German noun is always capitalized, which is why it is at the title News. DTLHS (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Old Irish verbforms
So I found this Old Irish verb database which has a bit of verbforms, whereas our Old Irish conjugation tables are blank for no reason. I've decided to take up the task of filling in the tables here on WT. I've started with and a few others. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 02:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

SineBot missed an unsigned addition to a discussion page
Here. Is it possible to summon it to have it do its thing there? --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I know that bot only operates on Wikipedia. DTLHS (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 * We usually manually add the template or . --WikiTiki89 22:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Done. (By the way, Template:unsignedip is redirected to Template:unsigned.) --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Error on 'Translation requests (Polish)
I've been adding a few Polish translations to various terms, and I noticed that the word 'być' is listed on the page Category:Translation requests (Polish). The problem is that it is a Polish word, meaning 'to be' (it is a word in also Lower Sorbian, but the meaning is the same and there is no translation section there for that language anyway). I can't remove it just by going to the 'edit' page because the page seems to be automatically generated. Any help would be very much appreciated. N Oneemuss (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe the entry is placed in that category due to a quotation on the Polish entry być not having an English translation (the one under sense 4). You should be able to remove it from the category either by translating it or removing the quotation (I recommend the former). — Kleio (t · c) 14:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I'll translate the quotation. N Oneemuss (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

quotation; germane; test edit
i made an edit to add a quotation for 'germane'; arthur golding trans. of ovid's metamorphoses lines;460-2 bk. 1. it was deleted as a test edit. what did i do wrong? look the quote up, this is honest, true, fact. i do believe it does cast a question on the shakespeare/ hamlet/ german assumption.
 * It looks like it was removed because you added it as plain text with no formatting. By the way, your keyboard probably has a key allowing you to type uppercase letters. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your quotation isn't for the word "germane", it's german. DTLHS (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * DLTHS is right. I've salvaged the quote you added and put it on the entry for german. You can look at the source code of that entry to see how to format quotes in the future. In any case, thanks for contributing! — Kleio (t · c) 21:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

phrases around the case

 * that is the case / that is not the case
 * if that's the case

See also: d1g (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * avoir lieu
 * иметь место и имеет быть clarification at gramota.ru
 * means "to take place." "That is the case" is simply "c'est le cas" in French. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

User warning templates
Am I allowed to create a user warning template to warn users or can administrators only do that? Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's fine. What warning do you want to create? DTLHS (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In case you didn't see: Category:User warning templates. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible alterrnative etymology for 'anthropology' (not mentioned in that article in Wiktionary)
I have added a notion on subject to discussion about 'anthropos' at discussion about 'anthropos'. I got notified there that my addition to discussion could get undetected so I also post notification here. Marjan T. 193.77.152.190 16:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 * But is an encyclopedia of philosophy a trustworthy source of etymological information? — Ungoliant (falai) 16:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Do note that that derivation is specifically listed on the cited website in the context of speculative (ancient) etymology. The encyclopedia itself is quite trustworthy. — Kleio (t · c) 19:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

"Serbo-Croatian"
There is no "Serbo - Croatian" language.

 * That is only for the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians. For Australians, South Africans, Brits, and Americans, Serbo-Croatian does exist. When we study the language of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, or Montenegro, we study Serbo-Croatian. —Stephen (Talk) 11:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians generally do not admit the existence of Serbo-Croatian. Americans, Brits, South Africans, Australians, and New Zealanders are open to the idea that it does exist, and if you learn it, you can speak and understand Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian. You just have to remember to tell Serbians that you speak Serbian, Croats that you speak Croat, and Bosnians that you speak Bosnian. A few other minor adjustments, depending on who you're talking to. —Stephen (Talk) 11:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In other words, the distinction is purely political, not linguistic. There are linguistic differences within Serbo-Croatian, of course, but they don't correspond to the artificial Serbian vs. Croatian vs. Bosnian (vs. Montenegrin) distinctions. . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Could someone give me the gist of this paragraph (in Chinese)
http://imgur.com/8pjvnw5l.png Thanks in advance.

(it's about the variation of the futuritive participle in Eastern Yugur.) Crom daba (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Translation:
 * The affix, after imperfect tense of adjectival verbs ending in certain consonants, is sometimes in the form of -kə/-qə, coexisting with -gə/-ɢə. For example, hog-kə (hog-gə) “to beat”, ɢailəɢ-qə (ɢailəɢ-ɢə) “to float”.
 * Adjectival verbs in Eastern Yugur are the same as adjectives in that they can also represent the name of the person or thing associated with the movement represented by the adjectival verb. In these cases, the word can decline with respect to number and case like a noun, but only the continuative form can be affixed to form the plural, only the continuative and imperfect forms can have various case affixes, and the perfective forms can usually only be followed by conjugational (?) and case suffixes.
 * Examples of plural affixes after continuative forms of adjectival verbs:
 * Wyang (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Crom daba (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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


text:
Wiktionary:Information desk/2017/February

Two questions
Hello, is there a gathering place for people editing and adding words belonging to the same language to discuss things like what is being done, what needs to be done, etc.? A bit like portals or projects on Wikipedia. Second question, is there a plan to make the different Wiktionaries more homogenous, template or layout wise? Orgyn (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The talk page of the relevant "About language X" page (e.g. Wiktionary talk:About French) is often a good place to coordinate work on a specific language, or else the Beer Parlor, but of course that isn't language-specific. I don't think there's any attempt to homogenize the different language versions of Wiktionary (en-wikt, de-wikt, fr-wikt, etc.). It would be an enormous undertaking and require consensus at all projects, which is probably unattainable. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding harmonization of the various editions of Wiktionary, you can see d:Wikidata:Wiktionary (which is Wikidata's discussion about integrating structured data into this project) and OmegaWiki (which is a proposal to adopt OmegaWiki). The road toward anything like that is several years away, though. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The "About xxx" page is exactly what I was looking for. The Wikidata project is very interesting! Orgyn (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference List
I entered a second definition in "Dunder" and tried to include a reference, but I must have not done it correctly because it does not show on the save page. Skelta Skelta (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't have w:en:Template:Reflist here, so you can just use the MediaWiki tag  to generate them. There are several templates in Category:Citation templates if you'd like to convert it from the way I edited the entry. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that this definition is distinct from the one already present? DTLHS (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Latin vowel lengths
Sometimes different sources give different vowel lengths. It seems like older or Romance sources (French Gaffiot, English L&S) prefer short vowels, while younger and Germanic sources (German Georges, German Pons, Dutch LaNe) prefer long vowels. Lewis' Elementary Latin Dictionary which is younger than Lewis' and Short's Latin-English Lexicon and Frieze-Dennison's lexicon to Vergil's Aeneid are in between both. Maybe it's similar to iuxta, that the origin implies a long vowel while Romance descendents imply a short vowel. Questions: iuxta/juxta, forms of lugeo, punctum and punctus contain u followed by multiple consonants. unctus and unctor for example also have an u followed by multiple consonants and again give different dictionaries different vowel lengths. -80.133.125.177 05:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * L&S omits the length of the last syllable or the ending of the nominative singular. — This is simply a deficiency of L&S.
 * Georges has -o instead of -ō for (a) the verb ending for 1.ps.sg. ind.pres. act. (e.g. laudo) and (b) 3rd declension nouns with genitive -onis (e.g. regio). — Maybe Georges omits the ending in this case similar to L&S or maybe there were other views about the length of the o.
 * In case of foreign words and some New Latin words the vowel length might be unknown or disputed.
 * Finnish Nuntii Latini once had gāsum but changed it to gasum in 2016. — Maybe they had a long vowel because Finnish and German have a long vowel in their word for gas and maybe they changed it because Romance languages have a short vowel. In this case a short vowel might be more likely, but there might be other cases.
 * Some words were different sources give different lengths: iuxta/juxta, some forms of lugeo, punctum and punctus, stella.
 * Should there be a category or/and an appendix for words with disputed vowel lengths?
 * Are there patterns?
 * Could there be a template to add information like in iuxta?

 * There should definitely be a category for Latin words with disputed vowel lengths. In Latin, when a vowel is followed by multiple consonants at a syllabic boundary, the first of those consonants is applied to the first syllable (with some exceptions, vide infra), rendering it heavy, meaning that that vowel's quantity is hidden from inference by scansion; that is the pattern you're noticing. We could indeed have a template for such information; cf. . — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

manoeuvering versus manoevring: keep or omit the final e in British English?
Many dictionaries prefer manoeuvring for both the gerund and the substantive. Thus your entry offers, for the moment, a minority view as if it was standard.
 * Although the entry manoeuvering doesn't say anything about standardness, the entry manoeuver does say it's a nonstandard alternative spelling (which in my opinion is a euphemism for "misspelling", but other people may feel differently). Certainly the most common spellings are manoeuvre in GB-based spelling and maneuver in US-based spelling. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Calling people "things"
Consider this sentence:

"I see three things in this room: a teacup, a man and a dog."

Is it wrong and/or offensive to call people "things" in English like this? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No. A "thing" can be an object like a cup or a bicycle--calling a person a "thing" in that example would be offensive. A "thing" can also be basically the same thing as a noun—a person, place, object, state of affairs, or idea. "My favorite things in the world are roller coasters and my grandma" is not at all offensive. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It depends on how you emphasise thing too. Unless one were to stress the word thing, implying that the person in the room is not to be considered more than a "thing", I think it would be fine. I wouldn't call a person a "thing" though, but I think referring to persons in groups of nouns that consist of things as "things" is okay. Leasnam (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * thing can be an affectionate term: you silly thing!, you sweet thing!, you handsome thing!, you old thing!, you clever thing!, she's a pretty little thing! —Stephen (Talk) 05:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

 * As suggested above, it's often okay in a general sense, but it would be strange and impolite to use it for individuals, e.g. "I need to talk to that thing over there". Equinox ◑ 20:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

shut the fuck up
Why was the entry shut the fuck up deleted (eight years ago)? It is a legitimate phrase, but the page can’t be recreated. Why does STFU exist but not shut the fuck up? ― PapíDimmi  ( talk | contribs )  04:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To me, this looks like a SOP of shut up and the fuck. Note that the latter has a sense "Used after verbs forming a part of a phrasal verb [...]" with examples like "Get the fuck out [...]" and "Drive the fuck off [...]". STFU is an abbreviation. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 * STFU having an entry does not automatically legitimise one for its expansion; e.g. people might want to know what YHBT stands for, but the expansion you have been trolled is a normal sentence, not requiring an entry. Equinox ◑ 13:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Kansai dialect accent info
I haven't edited anything before, but I'd like to add Kansai dialect accent information for the Japanese word entries. I've seen that someone has added the accent information for the Tokyo dialect and that they used the NHK accent dictionary as a source. I have a different book I can use for Kansai-ben accents (全国アクセント辞典), so this endeavor won't be an issue. However, I saw that the Tokyo dialect had IPA transcriptions but no source for these. Are IPA transcriptions created from the editor's phonological knowledge of the dialect?

--于雪森 (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Welcome to Wiktionary!
 * The 標準語 IPA is generated by code at Module:ja-pron.
 * As for Kansaiben, if it is of interest, we do have |Osaka%2F&go=Go a handful of pre-existing entries which include Osaka pitch accent (but only a handful—most added very recently by User:MihailJP).
 * (While we're on the topic, and I don't mean to derail your original question, but is terminology such as "heiban" really applicable to Kansai-ben? such as at 木, where formatting intended for Tokyo-style heiban accent is applied over "きい".)
 * —suzukaze (t・c) 06:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks for explaining the 標準語 IPA! That makes a lot of sense (It'd probably be better to not add IPA for Kansai-ben since I can't ensure its accuracy).
 * You're totally not derailing this; I actually was just looking at the entry for 木 too and was quite perplexed how it could be called heiban. At least for 標準語・東京弁、that definition is workable, but since Kansai-ben can have a low flat pitch or a high flat pitch, it seems quite erroneous to call it heiban. The accent dictionary I have uses a system of numbering, but it's sort of arcane, and I don't think it would be very useful or intuitive for the reader. It might be better to just use the typical "line over the kana" format, especially since Kansai-ben can have really unusual accent patterns that are impossible in 標準語 (こんばんは、for example).

 * Maybe code for IPA could be developed for Kansai-ben as well. The current Module:ja-pron code works by processing merely kana.
 * Maybe we could add both the lines and the numbers, if the numbers have a method to their madness. 京阪式アクセント also seems to have some sort of numbered category. (, any opinions? ) —suzukaze (t・c) 23:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 * IPA code for Kansai-ben would be fantastic, but I have entirely no idea how I would go about creating that. :/
 * Both lines and numbers would be awesome. It might take me a second to figure out how to work that. There seems to already be a template, but it might have to be edited, yeah?
 * 于雪森 (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 * I can't imagine it would be too difficult to find references about the phonology of Kansai-ben.
 * For the lines and stuff, currently the search results above use Template:ja-accent-common but the template is designed for Tokyo accent (hence the "heiban" stuff, I guess). Probably needs reworking. Alternatively, Module:ja-pron actually does both lines and IPA for the standard dialect, and similar code would also do both for Kansai-ben. —suzukaze (t・c) 08:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Can the developers change the font for mobile (iOS)?
Hi Wikionary, can the font be changed so that it displays San Francisco instead of Helvetica (Neue)? I find it easier to read when on mobile. Keep the font Georgia as it is. This should also apply globally across Wikimedia projects. Thank you! – AWESOME meeos ！ *  (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 05:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is only a partial solution but you can edit User:Awesomemeeos/common.css to get this outcome for yourself when you are logged in. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not work for mobile view. Only works for desktop view. The link is actually here – AWESOME meeos ！ *  (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 06:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow. You learn something new every day. I'd recommend you post to if we can't change our own settings on mobile or if there is a font that is clearly much more readable on mobile. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Categorizing transliterated names (separate from native given names)?
Currently, Category:Gothic given names is (with one reconstructed exception) full of names that are, well, not Gothic given names, like. They're transcriptions of Biblical names which are not attested outside the Bible as being used as names for actual Gothic persons. I'm intending to remove the entries in that category from that specific category, but I think it'd still be neat to have a category listing which transliterated names are attested in Gothic texts (transliteration is a very valuable source of information on pronunciation and spelling conventions).

So I was wondering if there is a precedent or system in place for this: a category which lists given names from other languages that are not in use as actual given names in the "target language", but have been adapted to the writing system of that language -- e.g. Nebuchadnezzar in English. (There are also attested actual Gothic names in their original Gothic spellings, in the two Ostrogothic Deeds and in the Gothic Calendar, which do have a place in the Gothic given name category and which I will add sometime in the near future.) — Kleio (t · c) 17:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nebuchadnezzar itself is in CAT:en:Biblical characters and CAT:en:Individuals, but not CAT:English given names. Probably 𐌰𐌹𐌻𐌴𐌹𐍃𐌰𐌱𐌰𐌹𐌸 could be treated the same way. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That should do for now. — Kleio (t · c) 18:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Force spelling
How to force spelling. I search of can create the word "Spolí", but system redirects me to "spoli", which is something else.--Juandev (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are redirected it means there is no article for it. If you want to create an entry for a word like this type the word and select "Containig..." there you will see an appropriate red link.--Dixtosa (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added an also: template to the spoli entry. You can use the red link there to add Spoli. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Given names of famous people
is obviously a very famous Zulu name, and definitely warrants inclusion, but I'm not sure how to define it. It's known as the name of this particular person, but are there other people with this name as well? That is, should I define it as Shaka or or both? —CodeCat 21:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

 * IMO, do both. But the given name should come first — AWESOME meeos ！ *  (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 10:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you nominate yourself as an autopatroller
Hi anyone, is it possible for this to happen? — AWESOME meeos ！ *  (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 10:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Malware on Wiktionary?
My virus blocker just started detecting all sorts of malware on discussion pages. The specific threats it identifies seem to be in anything from timeclocks in signatures to links to specific section headings. Any idea what might be causing this? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's also blocking me on some pages from viewing my edits. It looks like the edit was saved, but it stays on the edit page and my virus blcoker tells me a threat has been detected when I click "Save changes." It's very strange. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What virus blocker do you have? What's the specific message? DTLHS (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have Avast, and it tells me a threat has been detected, listing the infection as "VBS:Malware-gen" and the process as "C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think this has anything to do with Wiktionary- you probably actually have a virus. DTLHS (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I thought I might, though I've never had one like this before. The virus scan hasn't turned anything up yet, but we shall see. It just seemed odd that it was only affecting Wiktionary (so far, anyway). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Could also check if it replicates on another browser. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I just checked on Google Chrome and even just opening the main page set it off. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like this is all me and probably has nothing to do with Wiktionary. :P Somehow I ended up with dozens of infected files since I last ran a virus scan two weeks ago. I've had many viruses, but none quite like this one... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

ensorcelled
I requested a definition of this word to confirm my own understanding of the word ' ensorcelled' @ 19:43 (7:30 p.m.) Pacific Standard time (U.S.). I was surprised to see it had last been modified at 14:43. Does this mean someone had just modified it at 2:43 p.m. Estonian or 2:43 p.m. U.S. Pacific Time? Either one of these would have been just hours before I looked it up; that's an amazing coincidence! Good anticipating!~ ~ ~ ~
 * Wiktionary's time is UTC, just so you know. —CodeCat 14:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You can change the time zone in your preferences. ― PapíDimmi  ( talk | contribs )  14:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

What does "lb" mean in a word definition?
I am editing a word to add a new definition, and the other definitions have tags like. I know what uncountable and en refer to, but I have no idea what lb means. I don't want to just copy it, because I don't want to introduce something incorrect. So, does anybody know what this means, and where can I find a full list of things like this? Not sure if it is related to formatting or meaning. Proxyma (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 * It's a short form of another template, and it means label. It is generally used for various sorts of non-gloss information pertaining to a certain sense of a term. Putting uncountable in this template (you can view its documentation on the template page, ) makes sure it is formatted automatically (italicized, placed between parentheses) and that it links to the right appendix page explaining what that particular label means. Significantly, it also makes sure that the term is included in the relevant category, in this case, Category:English uncountable nouns. Besides uncountable, other labels can be anything from transitive (of verbs) or slang for any language, to language-specific markers like Medieval Latin (for Latin) or US (for English, specifying that it is restricted in usage mostly to the US) just to list a few examples. It's a bit of a catch-all, really. — Kleio (t · c) 15:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 * To get a link to a template without triggering it, use the 'template' template: or  . If I now take that out of 'nowiki' it will display as a link to, the documentation for lb. --46.226.49.236 15:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Or just put Template:lb (or whatever) into the search box. Equinox ◑ 19:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks everybody, this has been very helpful! Proxyma (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Someone please help me with this phrase.
So, this show is about the American Revolution days. This sailor got off a ship, and later was surrounded by these Patriots who mugged him and covered him in a tar and feather coat.

This is the scene where that happened. I'm trying to transcribe this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAbMPt1vXpU

Go to 7:00.

This is what I got:

MAN: I offered to buy you a drink.

MR. PARKER: I don’t drink.

MAN: That it? Or is you wouldn’t join the toast? Me, Parliament, rot the wretched lotes!

What the heck? I must be getting something completely wrong. I understood the words "Parliament" and "wretched" at least, but I can't understand the word that sounds like "/lots/". The only thing I could possibly think of to fit the context was lotes, a European tree, but that doesn't make any sense. Please help me with this. I need it. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * louts (I have no idea what the sentence means, but it's definitely "louts"). DTLHS (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "May Parliament rot- the wretched louts!" Chuck Entz (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think he also says "is't you wouldn't join the toast". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The infinitive ending in English
Middle English had -en as the infinitive ending, and this was also the ending of the past participle of strong verbs. But in modern English, infinitives have no ending while past participles still do. Why did -en disappear in one instance but not another? —CodeCat 22:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The past participle ending did disappear, but was preserved in a few very common, basic verbs, probably because those forms were encountered early enough in childhood to be learned directly rather than guessed. Perhaps the infinitive wasn't as widely used in those verbs, so analogy from the verbs where it was lost could run its course. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the loss of -en in the infinitive was not a phonological change; not only did many past participles keep their -en, so did adjectives like, nouns like , and noun forms like . I think it was really a morphological change, where the infinitive in -en was replaced by the bare stem. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Installing Wiktionary for offline use
Hi all,

Do we have a means to install Wiktionary for offline use in, say, Goldendict? That could be easier to use. I see Android app, but I primarily write texts on the desktop. --Gryllida 23:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Files containing all of Wiktionary’s data are available for download here (you’ll want the one with pages-meta-current or pages-articles). You can try to find out if your software allows you to import this file.
 * Something I’ve done before in order to access Wiktionary offline was installing MediaWiki on my computer, but it’s a huge pain in the ass to get it to work properly. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Similarly, you can download an offline copy to read with Kiwix but that won't necessarily integrate into Goldendict. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No idea where this fits priority-wise, but it would be nice to have (perhaps in sync with the regular data dumps) some kind of easy, user-friendly "installable" Wiktionary. Most of us happen to be techy people but many people who could benefit from Wiktionary are not. Equinox ◑ 10:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what you mean by this? What would be the difference between what you are proposing and the offline versions from Kiwix? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * great idea indeed--Backinstadiums (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


text:
Wiktionary:Information desk/2017/March

On 'joke' words
Is it against the rules of Wiktionary to write pages about joke words such as "y'all'd've"? Thanks in advance. ElliottBelardo (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If they are unattested, then yes. DTLHS (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 * See WT:CFI. English terms have to be attested by three usages (and not mentionings). If attestable, they can be added. If unattested, one could add it to WT:LOP. "y'all'd'n't've" - this is not the same as "y'all'd've" but it's similar to it - however "doesn't seem logical" (quoted from there). -84.161.53.36 21:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 * "Y'all'd've" is a possible construction, and I believe I have actually heard it a couple times. Not sure whether it's attestable or not though. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 * *, without the apostrophe between the and, makes logical sense; however, it probably wouldn’t satisfy WT:CFI. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably not, although I wouldn't be surprised to hear it in my dialect, given that "y'all'd've" is completely possible (at first, I thought there was no way someone could say it without it sounding really unnatural, but I realized it's not really that awkward when you read it out loud). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Indeed. I say things like that all the time. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

What's the language?
www.asterix-obelix.nl states that there are Asterix comics in the Attic dialect of Ancient Greek.

What language is that? The Asterix comics are said to have diacritics. So it's not almost diacriticless Demotic Greek (like from Psycharis) or Very Modern Greek, but Ancient Greek or some other kind of Modern Greek. Of course, it's also no Old Ancient Greek but at best some Modern Ancient Greek.
 * grc: Ancient Greek (including Middle Greek) which ends in the 15th century
 * This includes Ancient Greek dialects like Attic, Doric etc.
 * el: Modern Greek which begins in the 15th century and is originally spelled with classical diacritics (spiritus, accents), at least by educated Greeks
 * This includes Katharevousa Greek, Demotic Greek, and that mixed Very Modern Greek

Furthermore:

Anglo-Saxon and Gothic are used in Wikipedia (ang:w:Hēafodtramet and got:w:𐌰𐌽𐌰𐍃𐍄𐍉𐌳𐌴𐌹𐌽𐌹𐌻𐌰𐌿𐍆𐍃; not durably archived, so it fails WT:CFI). Just like that, one could use these Old languages in printed books. In fact, every Ancient, Old, Middle language which has a grammar and a dictionary can be used to write texts which can be printed in books. Was any Ancient, Old, Middle language besides Greek used in printed books? And what language was it or would it be?

Maybe in advance: Modern or New Old languages etc. like Modern Anglo-Saxon or Modern Middle English would be LDLs, so a single citation instead of three citations would be sufficient. And it shouldn't be unlikely that there was one person who published something in a New Old language. -84.161.53.36 22:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say most of those are conlangs that are designed to be as close to the old languages as possible. We do have people trying to add translations in Gothic and various proto-languages for television and various other things that didn't exist when the language was alive. I would exclude from that "undead" languages such as Hebrew, Latin and Sanskrit, which continued to be used as a second language for specialized purposes after they were no longer anyone's first language. I'm a bit conflicted about Cornish and various other languages that are being revived by the descendants of speakers after they completely died out. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm protesting.
I just want to say that anonymous users SHOULD NOT be allowed to edit on Wiktionary (or Wikipedia). A lot of other community wiki, such as OpenStreetMap require logins for editing. This will be beneficial for many reasons:

 * 1) Less chance of vandalism. Still some vandalism with some accounts may occur, but it will be harder for school students to vandalise, for example.
 * 2) No need to show your IP address. If an editor does not want to show their location or private life, they can hide their IP address with a username.
 * 3) More reliable sources. People who are registered usually make better edits than anon. users.

There are many more reasons, but I gotta go now... — AWESOME meeos ！ *  (не нажми́те здесь [nʲɪ‿nɐʐˈmʲi.tʲe zʲdʲesʲ]) 08:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In case you're serious about this, the idea of prohibiting IPs has been brought up many times over the course of 16 years and struck down every time. If you wanted to propose this as a policy discussion, Meta is really the place to do it. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But I'm actually serious about this! — AWESOME meeos ！ *  (не нажми́те здесь [nʲɪ‿nɐʐˈmʲi.tʲe zʲdʲesʲ]) 08:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But I just don't want to see you waste the effort. I've been using Wikipedia since 2003 and started editing through IPs. I have seen this discussion happen many, many times and at this point, it seems very unlikely to change. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh god... But it doggone frustrates and irritates me! — AWESOME meeos ！ *  (не нажми́те здесь [nʲɪ‿nɐʐˈmʲi.tʲe zʲdʲesʲ]) 09:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Plenty of logged-in editors edit less constructively than your average anon editor. — Kleio (t · c) 19:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And there have been plenty of times when I was browsing Wiktionary on another device and wanted to fix a typo or something. Would have been a pain to log in just for that (especially since I can't remember my password half the time!). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Letting anons edit is important for a billion reasons. List? What? Equinox ◑ 03:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 * I once went through and assessed the last 100 IP edits that had been made at the time, and found that the majority were vandalistic, unconstructive, or required cleanup by another editor. If we had a user with the record of our anons, we would block them, but we never seriously consider ending anonymous editing here. Our values seem to direct us toward allowing it, but it does get in the way of building the dictionary more than it helps to build it. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 * It does come down to "values", and the open-sourciness of Wikimedia. A bit like how most modern liberal political systems give everybody a vote, regardless of who they are. I have noticed very different responses to my Wikipedia editing as named user versus IP. There's more assumption that you won't be back, and can be reverted for not much reason. (And haven't we all had that "heartsink" moment when the person whose protologism we just deleted reappears with a username to battle for its inclusion?) I do also think it's important that we have the patrolling-flag stuff because yes a lot of IP edits are schoolkids messing around, or weird bots. Equinox ◑ 03:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 * w:Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals —suzukaze (t・c) 03:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's less of a problem from a Wikipedian's perspective because anons can't create new entries there. We might consider that here. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support that. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Perhaps something to be said for steering newbie anons to pages like WT:REE and WT:LOP? Then again there's always a certain contingent that will never read anything you shove under their noses. Equinox ◑ 04:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 * I see lots of bad edits by IPs, but I also see bad edits by throwaway user accounts. Yes, you can permanently block those accounts, but the same person comes right back with another account. Without knowing anything about the IPs used to access an account, using the "block the IP" option when permanently blocking an account is a really bad idea.
 * The IP used to make an edit can provide lots of useful information through geolocation: you can often tell what part of what country they're editing from, whether they're editing from a company or a school, whether they're using a mobile provider, whether they're using the same IP, or a different one over time. If I see a UK Sky Broadband IP editing Japanese entries, an Indonesian IP editing Finnish or Basque, a northeast-London IP editing sexual or Muslim terminology, a Greek IP editing advanced physics terminology, or a Tennessee/Kentucky IP editing given-name entries, I know exactly who I'm dealing with. Checkusers have access to this information for user accounts, but they have strict rules about how they can use it- precisely because of how much it can tell about the person making the edits.
 * As for the value of IP edits: there are lots of bad IP edits, but lots of good ones, too. A significant portion of our translations are added by IPs from areas where the languages of the translations are spoken. A significant amount of corrections are done by IPs. We have over 5 million entries- no one person could even visit that many without taking years to do it, and looking through all the content would take far longer still. We have millions of people visiting our entries all the time, so most of the opportunities to spot something wrong involve IPs- it would be a shame to waste all of that. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

the term 'you guys'
Your website says that this is okay to use for men, women, a combination of those genders. I disagree. I think even if you're talking to a gender-mixed group of people, and none of the women in that group mind being labeled 'guys' or being lumped under that label, still, somewhere in the world, that is insulting a woman. What if a few 'guys' or 'men' went out to a restaurant and the waiter or waitress came up and asked "What would you GALS like to eat? I try to use either 'you folks' or 'you people' when talking to more than one person where the genders are mixed.  I think that covers all of us.  Saying 'you guys' is just an expression can still be hurtful, and I suspect there have been many so-called 'expressions' that have caused tensions, divisiveness, and bad feelings for centuries.  You should edit that definition to say that it only covers men, boys, males, or yes, 'guys'.  Thank you.
 * You are certainly correct that there are other who will be offended by this usage—that's the nature of language. We don't say how words should be used (except in a strictly grammatical sense)—simply how they are used. We have many words defined here which are on the face of them patently bigoted, rude, or offensive. A lot of language is inappropriate in many contexts. What do you propose we do about this? Should we scrub all references to offensive language? Should we define who is allowed to use certain terms and in what context? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

 * We won’t start adding fake information to Wiktionary just because someone is offended by it. Sure, we could add a usage note saying “some people are offended by how this word is used”, but unless you guys is exceptional, we would have to add the same note to half of our English content. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

 * PMFJI a bit late, but I believe many of these colloquialisms differ by region and also change meaning and usage quite often. MykeS (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

About Inter-Wiki link
Hi, whenever I'm going to add any Inter-Wiki Link from BN Wiktionary, some editors suddenly revert this. But I see they are keeping Inter-Wiki links from the others wiki. Whats with problem?  ~ Moheen  (talk)  09:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good question. Interwiki links here are for the same word defined at each Wiktionary, not the same idea in each language. So at book, we have an interiwki link to book which is written in Spanish and describes the English word "book". We do not have a link to libro which is the Spanish word for "book". Does that make sense? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To build upon what I just wrote, the Translations header provides translations of a word. Inter-wiki links are just for the same sequence of characters (like "book" or "বই") that are defined in each edition of Wiktionary. There is an abuse filter tag called "bad interwiki" which is automatically made when one of these incorrect interwiki links is added to a page. Please understand that no one here thinks you were abusing Wiktionary—you are obviously trying to help. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I understand that point means there are no need to add BN Wiktionary page with non-slimier word. ~ Moheen   (talk)  10:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , that's right, Wiktionary interwikis are not like Wikipedia interwikis. In Wiktionary, interwikis can only link identical words. For example, our English word India has a correct Bengali interwiki bn:India (same spelling, same alphabet). Also, our Bengali word has a correct Bengali interwiki bn:সংস্কৃত. However, you added the interwiki bn:চুড়ি to bangle, but those are not identical and cannot have an interwiki link. Your Bengali entry be:চুড়ি can only have an interwiki to our . —Stephen (Talk) 10:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Vandalised Templates and Modules?
Hi, I know of regular pages as well as user pages being vandalised, but what about templates and modules? — AWESOME meeos ！ *  (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 09:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Of course. —suzukaze (t・c) 10:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks. What else? — AWESOME meeos ！ *  (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 10:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 * ? Special:Contributions/2A01:CB05:8231:A600:64CC:6B61:25F0:B8A2? —suzukaze (t・c) 16:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Most widely used templates and modules are semiprotected anyway, so they're less likely to be vandalized. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Synonyms for ear rape
Anybody know any synonyms to "horrible sounds or music"? If so, please add them, because I feel like there's a more common term. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

 * racket. —Stephen (Talk) 04:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * cacophony. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the etymology of noise is the same as nausea. It's a little afield but an antonym would be ear worm and an inverse for images would be eye bleach. Maybe that helps. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Using "horse" instead of "mare"
Please confirm if I'm right, or correct me if I'm wrong. If I have three female horses, I believe I can say "Here are my three horses." I don't have to say "Here are my three mares." I believe "horse" is gender-neutral, and doesn't imply that the horses are male. Right? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Correct. If you want to specify that a horse is a male, you can call it a stallion (or a gelding, if it's castrated). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 * …Or a colt, if it’s intact (uncastrated) and under four years of age. There are several hyponyms of . — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Red flower
What is the thing on their chests called? Wyang (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks kind of like a rosette, but I don't know if that's the best word for it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe, red sash. —Stephen (Talk) 00:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Or a red armillary sash (浑天绫). —Stephen (Talk) 02:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm thanks Stephen. I should have been clearer. Is there an English name for the red flower the kids wear in front of their chests? Thanks! Wyang (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You were clear, but I don't think there is a set English term for it. All I can think of is a red sash (or red armillary sash). I realize that this ignores the flower itself. If you really need to specify the flower, I think you would have to describe it. Maybe something like a red (or vermilion, or cinnabar red) sash embellished with an ornate (or ostentatious, or ornamental) red rosette. —Stephen (Talk) 02:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Added to 紅花. Wyang (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

 * That sort of flower appears, specifically, to be a or . AFAICT, botanists call that kind of inflorescence a . I’m no expert on this subject, however. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

en femme
I added a quotation to en femme, trying to follow info at WT:QUOTE and parrot, but when I preview or save, I don't see it rendered. Editing again shows the text was saved, it's just not rendering. What am I missing? (Please ping; not watching.) Mathglot (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see what the problem is. The instructions at WT:QUOTE in the Raw code example are misleading.  You cannot include the hash character in the raw code, as the example seems to imply; that will make whatever you type on that line not appear.  This raw code example should be fixed on that page.  (I guess I could do it, but being a newbie, maybe will wait around a bit before editing policy pages.) Mathglot (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The section you are referring to is for placing quotations under the definition line, as I have done to the entry in the latest revision. DTLHS (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

My first article: small penis syndrome
I created small penis syndrome, which was deleted as an attack page in 2010. I may have been familiar with Wiktionary, but I have never contributed to Wiktionary before. What else can I do here about the page? --George Ho (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 * I have made some formatting improvements; compare this — AWESOME meeos ！  *  (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 09:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I added some more info about the ref. --George Ho (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Case sensitivity in wiktionary
I looked for the German word 'Stab' except that I entered all lower-case, and it did not match. I guessed that this might be the problem, and did a second search with the correct case, which succeeded. What is supposed to happen? Case-sensitive matching is highly unhelpful for German-language searches where the user does not know whether the word in question is a noun or not, or has only heard the word, or does not even know what language they are dealing with.
 * Yes, years ago we had long discussions about this. It was finally decided that case sensitivity was by far the best choice. If you type the wrong case, just look at the top left of the entry and you will see the other case listed, '. You should become comfortable with this arrangement soon enough. Besides that, the interwiki links are designed to link identical words (identical in script, spelling, case) among all of the wiktionaries. If we did not have ' in the proper upper case, it would not link to de:Stab in the German wiktionary. —Stephen (Talk) 02:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not only is case sensitivity necessary between languages but within them. Compare August/august and Polish/polish just in English. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Latin sufficiam
Latin sufficiam should say present subjunctive as well as future indicative (as regam). See Ovid Amores 2.10.24.
 * I have added that. Note that this is a dictionary anyone can edit, so next time you see something missing, try adding it yourself! Just copy the existing formatting and ask me for help if you need it. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Confessions of a Lexicographer
Check this: https://longreads.com/2017/03/14/falling-in-love-with-words-the-secret-life-of-a-lexicographer/ —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Or if you want a review: http://www.avclub.com/review/word-word-makes-surprisingly-convincing-case-irreg-252237?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=feeds —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone who is not me was blocked
Where can one request admin attention for vandalism, uncivil behavior and the like, is there an analogue to Wikipedia's administrator Noticeboard? 91.66.15.106 05:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No. We have a page for ongoing vandalism, but it sounds like you have some sort of beef about someone being blocked. You can discuss it here if you like. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Offensive comments towards me have been made and repeated after a polite note to stop it, most notably by you. Attempts to remove the offending comments were reverted. This derailed an ongoing discussion that was practically ended by a block of my IP. I was neither warned beforehand, nor did I ignore an obvious consensus. Multiple commentators agreed that a proof of the disputed claim would be almost impossible. Add to that a loose moral when it comes to IP users and I can only conclude gross misconduct.
 * I insist the requirements for sources for oft disputed edits should be held to a higher standard, but that comes down to a policy discussion.
 * Comments from admins who are not involved in the Wiktionary Reconstruction: namespace would be most welcome, to maintain neutrality.
 * Given the aggravations against me, I assume you might take the highroad about what could be malignantly interpreted as block evasion. At least I took the lack of an immediate range block as token of grace. Concerning the lack of a fair warning of the block in the relevant thread I can only assume the prevalent disdain for IP users was responsible. So, I guess, I have to formally request permission to continue the discussion where it left off. 91.66.15.106 18:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

is it possible to extract the dictionary files used in Wiktionary?
hey guys just trying to get a csv of a dictionary and wondering if wiktionary allows me to do it?

also if it doesnt does anyone have any other sources of a possible dictionary csv or a file that can be converted to csv?
 * You can download dumps of Wiktionary here, but converting to .csv might be an issue. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Or Google "dictionary csv". --WikiTiki89 15:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Examples of blocked Autropatrollers
Hi Wiktionary, can you tell me of anyone that fits into these categories? (Whether being blocked could be edit wars, pranks, trolling etc). — AWESOME meeos ！ *  ([nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 23:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Autopatroller is a title given to someone who is trusted, so that the other admins do not need to waste time checking up on his edits. Most often, when an autopatroller is blocked, the block is temporary, and when it ends, he still has the autopatroller bit. If someone who has the autopatroller bit is indefinitely blocked, he would lose the bit, since people who are blocked have no need of an autopatroller bit. By the same token, if an admin is indefinitely blocked (such as Wonderfool), he also loses the admin bit, since people who are blocked permanently do not need to be admins. So Wonderfool (and his many incarnations, most recently User:Quadcont) would fit in your category. —Stephen (Talk) 02:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Thank you,, on that note, may I pretty please become an autopatroller? — AWESOME meeos ！ *  ([nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 03:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter? Just wait until someone nominates you. If you're overeager to not have people checking your edits, that doesn't exactly inspire other people with confidence. Just be patient and make good edits, and you won't have to wait long. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , autopatroller does not confer any powers or privileges to you. All it does is tell the other editors that nobody needs to check your work anymore. As long as anyone, even one person, feels that they need to check your edits for whatever reason, you can't get autopatroller. You will get autopatroller when the editors who are checking your work decide that checking behind you never shows any problems, and that having to check your edits is a waste of their time. When they decide it's a waste of their time, they will gladly put you in for autopatroller so that they are no longer notified to have a look. My point is, autopatroller is not granted to you for you, it is for those who have to check on you. Autopatroller will do nothing for you, but it relieves others of drudgery. Nobody enjoys checking other editors' edits, and as soon as they trust you, they will nominate you ... so that they no longer have to waste their time checking on entries that are always good. —Stephen (Talk) 06:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

lectotype
Apparently this word is also used in context of buildings or structures, but, as far as I can ascertain, only by Chinese authors. Please google "Lectotype optimization". I don't know what to make of it.

 * Misspelling of "tectotype" (to mean a type of roof)? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 * For, n.b.:
 * 2010 May, (compiler), Terms Used in Bionomenclature: The naming of organisms (and plant communities), :, ISBN 8792020097, page  s.v. “tectotype”:
 * "en"

- tectotype: (zool[ogy]) any type comprising a microscopic slide preparation or section.

 * — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

forem, sum
Are the entries, , and  complete? Georges has: "forem, es, et etc. [...] 1) = essem, esses etc. [conjunctive/subjunctive imperfect] [...]: [...] so auch in der Coniug. periphr. beim Partic. Fut. [...] – 2) = fuissem, es etc. [conjunctive/subjunctive plu(squam)perfect], Plaut. u. Ov. Vgl. Brix Plaut. mil. 49." Brix (full title: Ausgewählte Komödien des T. Maccius Plautus. Für den Schulgebrauch erklärt von Julius Brix. Viertes Bändchen: Miles Gloriosus. Zweite Auflage. Leipzig, 1883, in English Selected comedies of Plautus. For the use in schools explained by Brix. Fourth small volume. Second edition, p. 29) has
 * "AR. Quid ín Cappadocia, úbi tu quingentós simul, / Ni hebés machaera fóret, uno ictu occíderas?"

with the note
 * "49. foret im Sinne von fuisset wie Trin. 832 837. Truc. I 1, 73. [foret in the sense of fuisset] — occideras für occidisses doch wohl nur aus metrischem Grunde [occideras for occidisses but likely only out of metrical reasons], [...]"

Some translations of the passage from Plautus' Miles gloriosus: So: -80.133.107.23 12:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "And how about that time in Cappadocia, sir, when you would have slain five hundred men all at one stroke, if your sword had not been dull?" (Paul Nixon, Plautus with an English translation, vol. III, p.128f.) — had been is pluperfect in 19th century English grammars, without if it's indicative and with if it's subjunctive.
 * "What feats did you perform in Cappadocia! Where at one single stroke you had cut off five hundred men together, if your sword had not been blunt" (Bonnell Thornton, Comedies of Plautus, vol. I, p.130)
 * "Und dann in Cappadocien, wo Fünfhundert du mit einem Streiche, wenn dir nicht der Pallasch stumpf geworden wäre, niederhiebst." (Wilhelm Binder, Lustspiele, vol. II, p. 17) — wäre geworden is pluperfect of werden
 * Can forem etc. be pluperfect and not only imperfect? The answer seems to be 'yes'.
 * Are these Old Latin uses, or "misuses" out of metrical reasons? Plautus would be Old Latin.

 * Neither L&S, Gaffiot, nor the OLD state that the verb forms occur in the subjunctive pluperfect. How old is Georges as a source? Might his assertions be founded upon a now-emended Plautine falsa lectio? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

title: Wiktionary:Information desk/2017/March