User talk:Avjewe

Someone might need to talk to me. You never know.

Welcome! (and rhymes)

Welcome! I see you're interested in rhymes. I'm interested in rhymes, too.

But please be very careful when you add stuff -- we've got some very precise pronunciation distinctions carefully encoded in the rhymes sections. For example, all the "oil" words you just added to rhymes:English:-ɔɪəl already had their own page at rhymes:English:-ɔɪl.

Someone (I'm not sure who) has already done a very complete job of populating the rhymes pages. When you find an "obvious" word that seems to be missing, it's probably because it's somewhere else, under a pronunciation which you didn't realize was distinct (perhaps because, in your dialect of English, it's not).

I'm just about to post have just posted some easy-to-search alphabetic lists of all our rhymes, to make it easier to find them.

• Done: see User:Scs/allrhymes. —scs 03:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, welcome, and thanks for your interest! If you haven't found the help text and various "new user introduction" pages yet, or if you have other questions, feel free to ask.

—scs 01:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Multisyllable Rhymes

What are your thoughts on Multisyllable Rhymes. The official Wiktionary position seems to be that individualization rhymes with oversimplification, which to my mind, they don't. To my mind, rhyming is not symmetric, as bumblebee is a rhyme for tea, but not the other way around. Should the individualization page have pointers to multiple rhymes, e.g. ation, zation, ization, lization, alization, ualization, idualization, etc.? Certainly the page rhymes:English:-eɪʃən seems too cluttered to be useful -- might it be better to have all two syllable rhymes, and then pointers to the rhyme pages for flation, kation, nation, sation, zation et al?

I'm sure this has all been discussed, but I can't find such a discussion. And please forgive my use of ascii rather than IPA.

Clearly there are several possible ways of organizing the rhymes. I didn't have anything to do with the design of the scheme Wiktionary uses, and it took a bit of getting used to, but it seems pretty good to me.

It's true that there are an awful lot of rhymes listed at Rhymes:English:-eɪʃən, but of course that's a quirk given how many words there are in English formed by adding -ation. (It occurs to me that it might be worth broadening the rule we have against including every simple past tense and plural derivation, to also include broadly constructive suffixes like -ation.)

Your suggestion, it sounds like, might actually be more conservative that Wikipedia's current rule. Usually the direction people want to go in (either deliberatly or by accident) is to match on just the last syllable, as opposed to all-syllables-after-and-including-the-stressed-syllable. But if you don't want inividualization to rhyme with oversimplification, it sounds like you might be suggesting involving all the word's syllables in the comparison.

Since different people are looking for different things out of rhyme lists, no one scheme will ever be perfect. The best we can hope for is that people can find what they're looking for, culling our lists (or combining two or three) as necessary, but without having to do too much extra work.

In the fullness of time we might indeed want to have several different, overlapping categorization schemes, especially if the pages could be autogenerated. Another wrinkle that would be useful to consider would be to introduce the possibility of optionally grouping rhymes based on American pronunciation. (Currently they're based on British pronunciation.) In the meantime, more cross links might help.

Mostly I'm just blathering here. If you have specific suggestions, I encourage you to post them at the Beer Parlour, to see what some of the real regulars think. (Beware that, even if you have a good sugggestion, you're likely to meet some resistance at first from the entrenched status quo, but don't let this discourage you.) —scs 02:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Latin ordinal numbers

Hi,

thanks for your entries, but are you sure you understand the ordinal series? Just in case, it is here. --Fsojic (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

My mistake for duodevicesimus, I hadn't looked closely. I don't know if we should have tertius decimus and so on, but it's a bit disturbing to have duodecimus followed directly by duodevicesimus, don't you think? --Fsojic (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)