User talk:-sche/Archive/2019

Algonquian templates

Hey, did you ever create a header template for any Algonquian languages? I'm looking for something to use for Munsee verbs, like kwáxkăkeew. --{{victar|talk}} 02:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Or any templates for Algonquian languages for that matter. --{{victar|talk}} 17:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to respond to this earlier. No, I don't recall creating any templates besides reference templates. - -sche (discuss) 19:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

water translation "Soi"

Do you know what this is? "soj" isn't a valid language code and "Soi" isn't a language name. DTLHS (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's see... I added it in diff, using the translation-adder script, at which time it was a code, but then it was removed as a code in diff following this, but I evidently didn't catch the use on [[water]]. I'll fix it up now; thanks for catching it. - -sche (discuss) 18:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

/ə/

I'm sorry to bother you on this matter, because I think that we might have touched on this slightly once before quite some time ago, but I have a very particular question. It is about something that I feel ought to have been something that I learnt early on, but nevertheless never did.

When we transcribe words such as bottom (/ˈbɒtəm/ or the like) kingdom (/ˈkɪŋdəm/), mumble (/mʌmbəl/), etc., we use the schwa to transcribe their final vowel. Perhaps there is something up with my dialect (or, perhaps, my idiolect) because I don't quite understand how /ə/ in this instance is a different sound than /ʌ/. Is it anything like how, at least in my dialect, just in the middle of a sentence can be /d͡ʒʌst/ ~ /d͡ʒʊst/? But I was under the impression that /ə/ was supposed to be used to represent a distinct vowel per se...

Similarly, when we transcribe a word like fighter ([ˈfʌɪtɚ]/[ˈfʌɪtəɹ]), we transcribe the "er" as /ɚ/ or /əɹ/. I fail to understand how this isn't the same sound as /ɝ/. Conversely, I fail to see how, when /ɚ/ / /əɹ/ is realised in a non-rhotic dialect / in a situation where a non-rhotic pronunciation is used in a semi-rhotic dialect (such as mine), how this plain /ə/ is different from /ʌ/ (as I said earlier).

In other words, if I were to say "I'm not any better than you" fully pronounced, and then you were to ask me to give a rough transcription of that, I would transcribe that either as (and this is more narrowly transcribed than usual, but a. this is not as narrow as I could transcribe it, and b. to this day I still have trouble properly indicating certain things in transcription, therefore I have this marked with slashes rather than square brackets) /ɑi̯m nɑt ɛni bɛtɝ ðæn ju/ or /ɑi̯m nʌt ɛni bɛtɝ ðæn ju/ (I have told you previously about the complicated situation in my dialect with the realisation of historical /ɒ/. My dialect doesn't have /ɒ/, unlike the dialect of, say, Boston. It does seem to have once been present where I live, but not for a very long time. In modern times, my dialect realises historical /ɒ/ as /ɔ/ [a sound which is not present in, say, the Boston dialect, because--in that dialect--it merged with /ɒ/ instead; a form of cot-caught merger] in words like dog and foster (my father, who is originally from a different New England state technically--but comes from a part of that state that is not particularly far from the "dividing line" between the state that I and my mother are from, and his original state--, pronounces chocolate as /ˈt͡ʃɔklᵻt/, whereas my mother pronounces it as /ˈt͡ʃɑklᵻt/. This was sometimes the subject of casual conversation {usually my mother noting the difference in pronunciation between them for that word} when I and my sibling were young] It realises it as /ɑ/ in a whole lot of words, but in some cases it realises it as /ʌ/ in those very same words. This is particularly true with particularly older speakers of the dialect, although I clearly recall that there were other people my age that I knew during high school that pronounced got, gotten, and similar words with /ʌ/ in some instances. Furthermore, as I may have told you before, my mother always pronounces the name of the cartoon sailorman, Popeye as /ˈpʌp.aɪ/, stressed or unstressed. I ought to note that my father's dialect does not do this; historical /ɒ/ is /ɔ/ or /ɑ/ depending upon the particular word for him. There is no /ʌ/ realisation of it).

If I were to say the same line, but in unstressed speech, and you then were to ask me to give a rough transcription of that, I would transcribe that either as (and forgive my butchering here. I'm not great at transcribing casually spoken sentences) /ɑi̯mˈnɑʔn̩ibɛɾʌˌðɘ̞nju/ or /ɑi̯mˈnʌʔn̩ibɛɾʌˌðɘ̞nju/ (I'm just loosely using /ɘ̞/ here to stand for a vague representation of a sound in between /ɛ/ and /ʌ/. I don't know how I ought to transcribe that).

Keep in mind that I don't have the hurry-furry merger. It is for that very reason that I would get confused if we used "/əɹ/" in the middle of a word in a transcription. Would /əɹ/ represent the /ɝ/ (I'm not saying that /ɝ/ is an accurate transcription here for this) that it seems to when it is at the end of a word if it were to potentially be in the middle of a word, or would it represent /ʌɹ/ in that situation?

The -burgh suffix in placenames like Edinburgh would be said as [standard transcription, not my transcription] "/bʌɹə/" where I live. Yet, in British English, it is /bəɹə/ (or /bɹə/). The British pronunciation of borough is closer to my pronunciation of (in certain placenames) -burgh (in my dialect of New England English, borough would be /ˈbʌɹoʊ/). My mother and younger sister pronounce bureau as [standard transcription, not my transcription] /ˈbjʊɹ.ə/, so I wonder if there were words ending in -ough that were pronounced similarly (thoroughly is the only word that I can think of like that generally). So why are rough and tough not transcribed as /rəf/ and /təf/?

..Anyway, this can cause some trouble for me when I am transcribing words here on Wiktionary, because it sometimes seems arbitrary whether or not to use /ə/ for an o or the like when it seems to call for such a vowel, because, for instance, o can also be pronounced as /ʌ/ in some words as well.

Might you be able to help clear this up somewhat? Tharthan (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

After looking at our entry for come on, and reading the pronunciations given, I think that I notice an oh-so-slight difference. I seem to realise whatever /ə/ is (in the unstressed pronunciation of "come" in "come on") as a sound that is fairly close to /ʊ/, but that I recognise is not actually /ʊ/. I don't know how else to describe it. Perhaps this is what I am doing with the word "just" which I sometimes pronounce differently than /d͡ʒʌst/ when I am speaking casually or swiftly. I would have represented that casual pronunciation as /d͡ʒʊst/ if you had asked me to transcribe it, but perhaps "/d͡ʒəst/" would be more accurate (I won't use narrow transcription there, because I don't actually know what the vowel actually is in my case). Tharthan (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

When I learned (the basics of) IPA I initially had trouble distinguishing /ə/ from /ʊ/. I have learned it by convention (mainly based on stress) but it still seems to me that my own "neutral vowel" is very close to /ʊ/. Equinox ◑ 03:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

transgenderism

Sorry if this edit was a bit confusing. Saw someone inserting wild shit like "Soros funded Transgenderism!!" the other day. Should have wrote things like cultural Marxism for a comparison. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Grammatical description

Dear -sche. Concerning λύνομαι format.I have often found it difficult to place the grammatical 'recognition' or description of words in en.wiktionary: there is etymology, there is headwοrd line, there are definition lines, but there is no 'grammatical description' line. As in la:legendum or la:caveat. As here before it was changed. I do not mind following each wiktionary's style and instructions. But I would like an 'identity card' of the lemma, well, for greek -I do not know about other languages- Just a thought. --sarri.greek (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi -sche/Archive/2019,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wiktionary and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi -sche/Archive/2019,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Botnian"

Is there any source for the usage of "Botnian" to refer to Finnish, seeing you added it to the language data in this diff? — surjection ⟨?⟩ 21:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Surjection It's amazing (although I suppose it shouldn't be) how many things like that one does and then has no memory of... my guess is that I found it attested as the name of a dialect that would be subsumed under fi, and included it on that basis, like e.g. "Afshar" is listed as a 'name' of (a dialect of) Azeri so that people (like me!) who come across Afshar texts/wordlists/etc know what language they are to be treated as. Some quick re-Googling now suggests that the term exists in reference to things from the Bothnian Bay area, but there's enough interference from scannos of "Bosnian" that I can't be sure those hits include references to a dialect. Remove it if you like. - -sche (discuss) 21:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

East African German

I was just adding some Namibian German, and I was interested in whether there were more words from German East Africa like Schamba that could pass CFI. Any leads on where I could find such words? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi -sche/Archive/2019,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Todo/Non-templatised genders

Hey. Can you regenerate Wiktionary:Todo/Non-templatised genders please? --Vealhurl (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

And notify me please. Perhaps we can have it deleted from Wiktionary:Todo --Vealhurl (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Vealhurl Thanks for showing an interest, I've regenerated the list. - -sche (discuss) 20:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Transfeminine

Hi, -sche. Can you have another look at the following, which you created in 2013-2015: transfemale, trans female, transfeminine, trans-male, or contributed to: transmasculine, trans male, trans-male, transmale, trans male. None of these seem to be referenced, and I wonder which, if any, are supported, or should be merged into each other or into trans man and trans woman. Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

So, none of them will be "merged", per se: whereas Wikipedia (as an encyclopedia) treats variations on the same basic topic in one article, Wiktionary (as a dictionary) gives every word its own entry. (And alternative spellings, for better or worse, get their own entries that say "Alternative form of ___" and direct people to the most common spelling. This is because the string of letters may be a mere alternative spelling in one language, but a main spelling/word in another language, like with hors-d'œuvre, hence hard redirects are not used.)
Or do you mean only that e.g. "trans female" should be defined as just a synonym of "trans woman"? The noun is already, and perhaps the adjective could be as well, but in a case like this where the meaning of the "parts" of the word is so transparent, I might be inclined to leave the first part of the definition which mentions them, and just add to the end of it, giving a definition like "Female and trans, that is, being a female who was assigned male at birth; being a trans woman". what do you think, does that look alright/accurate to you?
The way entries are "referenced" is also a bit different; instead of finding e.g. books or journal articles discussing the concept, it's sufficient to find any "durably archived" cases of the words being used (with the sense/definition in question). (What counts as "durably archived" is a little tricky; the web usually doesn't, even when on e.g. archive.org; it's mostly books, journals, etc which libraries keep copies of.) I'll set about adding instances of use. - -sche (discuss) 17:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot, I've added citations to Citations:transfemale, Citations:trans female, Citations:transmale and Citations:trans male; I didn't add a full three citations (the standard) to some because for now I added only citations where it was clear within the snippet that e.g. "trans male" meant "trans man" (and not "trans woman"), but more citations can be found at google books:"trans males" (etc) and I would think at least some (enough) of them probably clarify what they mean elsewhere in the book and could be added if you or anyone else actually doubts the meaning or existence of the terms. I also added citations to transfeminine and transmasculine and expanded their definitions to include the broader concept the citations refer to. (Other entries with relatedly "broad" definitions include femme and masc, so it occurs to me to check if transmasc and transfemme/transfem are attested...) The hyphenated compounds proved harder to cite, but I'll make another effort later to find cites before taking up other people's time by submitting them to WT:RFVE. - -sche (discuss) 18:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@-sche:, thanks! As you've probably gathered, although I've made a few edits here at en-wikt, I'm very much less familiar with how it all works compared to en-wiki, so thanks for those basic principles. I understand the point now, about separate entries here, vs. the way Wikipedia handles it.

Back a couple of years ago, when I added a template to w:Transfeminine above moving content here, I understood even less. I'm not even sure how I came to do that, but I think I must have read something about transwikification (probably not that page) and tried to follow some instructions on what to do with articles about expressions or terms that were unlikely to become stand-alone articles. Maybe adding that template was a mistake; I'm not even sure, now. Do you mind having a look, and advising what should be done there, if anything? Redirect to w:trans woman? Merge here? Mark it a stub and leave it? Something else? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Crossroads, you may be interested in this discussion. Mathglot (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. The Wikipedia article appears to be a DICDEF, so I think if -sche (who is clearly more experienced than me with Wiktionary) could copy over whatever information they see as worth preserving, then maybe we can convert the Wikipedia entry to a redirect to Trans woman, same as Transmasculine goes to Trans man. Or, they could both go to Non-binary, since the two terms seem to refer to people who do not fully identify as women/men respectively, given what the Wikipedia article says. Any thoughts on this -sche and Mathglot? However, I don't see any basis for a separate encyclopedia article for Transfeminine and Transmasculine under GNG, NOTDIC, and NOPAGE, even though a separate Wiktionary entry for each of those does make sense. Crossroads (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything in the wording of the Wikipedia article that's so vital as to need to be copied over (if there were, then for licencing & all, someone with "Transwiki"-ing user-rights would probably need to transwiki it over, unless we were sure the content would not be deleted / made inaccessible but merely hidden in the edit history underneath a redirect). I may add one or two of the sources Wikipedia mentions to the Wiktionary entry as "references". It seems like there may not be enough (any?) sources which primarily/in-depth focus on the topic, for it to have its own article; it could probably be reduced to a redirect to w:Non-binary and a sentence or two in that article and in the w:Trans woman article — but I'll comment about that over on the Wikipedia article's talk page. - -sche (discuss) 17:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)