User talk:Kent Dominic

Hi. We have long-established and voted-upon practices here, so please don't change headers etc. (Adjective -> Phrase) unless you know what you are doing according to Wiktionary practice. ◑ 06:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Since I actually am well-versed in what I'm doing, indeed I ought to continue changing erroneous Noun headers to Noun phrase headers (e.g. adjective lexeme: lazy + nominal lexeme: bed = Noun PHRASE: lazy bed) and erroneous Adjective headers (e.g. adjective lexeme: ripe + prepositional lexeme: for + determiner: the + gerund lexeme: picking = Adjectival PHRASE: ripe for the picking). However, in keeping with your plea not to change them - but moreover because I really don't care to follow each one of your posts riddled with outmoded reliance on antiquated taxonomies and fossilized terminology to which less-educated readers and users are inured - I have no intention to continue monitoring any such outdated affinity for "simple" verbiage or to offer repeated admonishments for its corresponding bilge. I'm content to observe the wallowing in whatever simplicity you might enjoy pursuing while I apologize to any reader who discovers I've abetted your proclivity for engendering it.

I sincerely pray the future holds two things in store for you: (1) That you acclimate yourself with theoretical developments that have impinged the semantics and taxons relating to linguistics over the past 20 years, and (2) that you refrain from ad hominem/categorical aspersions (try, e.g., "it seems" verbose" versus "you are verbose, aren't you?" or "I don't get your redefinition" versus "Your redefinition didn't make sense"). I've endured far worse invectives and downright silliness from small-minded folks whose intemperance spawns much greater rudeness than you've displayed, so I'm not terribly offended by your immature manner of expression. I'm just saying I hope you reassess your modus operandi to help you avoid incurring the wrong person's wrath. --Kent Dominic (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Wiktionary's established practice is to use Noun for e.g. black hole, not Phrase and not Noun phrase. This is in keeping with e.g. M-W:black hole[1], which identifies the phrase as a noun. The practice of other dictionaries is seen in “black hole”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

acclimate yourself with, get acquainted with at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.: No ngram found for "acclimate yourself with". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I'm fully aware of the long, virulent stream of intransigence that I'm swimming against. I'm also aware of the fraternity that typifies the insular ranks of lexicographers, whose responsibility is limited to chronicling word usage rather than critically analyzing the linguistic logic entailed in the usage. Accordingly, as lexicographers' turnover historically is low, with infrequent hires coming from within their community instead from outside their ranks, lexicographers tend to bring their institutional bias with them when they change companies. Not only does lexicographers' attachment to particular taxons transfer with them, but so too do the inconsistencies evident in their labeling practices.

One example: at Merriam-Webster, good heavens is labeled as an idiom; good night is labeled as an interjection; line of sight is labeled as a noun phrase; sight line is labeled as a noun. My dearest, beloved Dan: If you could explain the consistency in those taxonomical labels I'd be forever indebted to you!

I'll admit that few readers regularly consult dictionaries in order to discover how the entries are labeled, but when non-native ESL students consult dictionaries such as the ones you've referenced above, those students really do rely on the labels as linguistic gospel rather than lexicographical whim. I'm afraid that most Wiktionary users do the same thing. When Wiktionary's established practice institutionalizes such a phenomenon, there you have it: institutional bias aka systemic bias.

Of course I realize the perils of labeling, e.g. "good heavens," as a noun versus a noun phrase versus an idiom versus an interjection. As I put on my linguistics hat, however, I'd say the concepts that adhere to traditional models of parts of speech is irredeemably flawed. In the lexicographical field, the approach that is supplanting it - albeit at glacial speed - is what's termed lexical category, wherein one lexeme or phrase is accordingly labeled under numerous taxons and a relevant example is provided. E.g. -

absolutely (adverb): certainly, positively, or surely - You're absolutely right.

absolutely (interjection): sure, very much so, or yes - Am I serious? Absolutely!

absolutely not (adverbial phrase): hardly - Equinox and I are absolutely not cut from the same cloth.

absolutely not (adverbial phrase; interjection): hardly - Are Equinox and I cut from the same cloth? Absolutely not!

I've consulted with the directors of only two major dictionaries about all this. My takeaway from those discussions is that every reputable dictionary sees the utility in trending toward the approach I've outlined, and they realize how big data capabilities allow that approach in ways inconceivable under the paper limitations from which dictionaries were spawned. Two catches: (1) Worldwide, there's a very, very small fraternity of lexicographers populated with a mindset rooted in contravening tradition, and (2) There's no burgeoning class of qualifying lexicographical wannabes who are lined up to do the monastic type of work required in developing dictionaries ESPECIALLY given declining salaries in an age where dictionaries' income has taken a hit from sites like Wiktionary.

To make a long story short, I'm quite familiar the taxonomical playing field here and elsewhere. My railing against Equinox was a reaction against his lack of couth rather than an effort to soften a rock-minded outlook that is irretractably embedded in an irredeemably flawed labeling doctrine. If I had been a bit more generous, I would have prayed for a third thing for Equinox - namely, that he reconsider donating his monumental efforts on Wiktionary's behalf and instead publish his own glossary or dictionary to see how he might profit from his folly or genius or whatever. Similarly, I have better things to do with my time than to write these lengthy posts. I'm just saying. No affront to you or to your interest in reading any of this. I appreciate and admire your endurance if you've made it this far.

The End. --Kent Dominic (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the convention of using the label "adjective" for both what is an "adjective" in a narrow sense and what is, more narrowly speaking, an "adjectival phrase", serves dictionaries well, especially English dictionaries. For other languages such as Czech, the lack of distinction may be confusing to some readers; I remember one contributor who was very passionate about bringing about that distinction. Any machine processing can immediately detect a phrase by noting the space in it, so a more refined labeling would not really help machines. If you want the bring about the change you desire, you would need to start a WT:Beer parlour discussion and convince people. If you instead choose to go ahead switching in the mainspace away from the established practice, the likely outcome are reverts.

On another note, "My dearest, beloved Dan: If you could explain the consistency in those taxonomical labels I'd be forever indebted to you!" seems equivalent "That's inconsistent." To convey meaning or to bloviate? That's the question. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: My grandmother once said, "If Kent were half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be a genius." Out of respect, I neither contradicted her nor offered my take on it: "If everyone thought Kent were as funny as he thinks he is, he'd be hilarious." --Kent Dominic (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

"acclimate yourself with" is a perfectly cromulent expression, Dan --Vitoscots (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

lock on

Hi. I don't understand your edit summary here: [2]. It seems you have just made the text longer without changing the meaning. What did I miss? Equinox ◑ 03:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Equinox. The original definition correctly included an intransitive taxon but the given sense was transitive. I just changed wording of the the sense to intransitive in order to reconcile it with the taxon. --Kent Dominic (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your use of the word taxon (we've only got a biological definition here). You changed "To track a target automatically" to "To engage in tracking a target automatically". Is it because you felt the first one was implying transitivity (there is a target)? 'cause I think it's actually fine. And I also don't see why "engage in tracking a target" is 'less transitive', since if we are arbitrarily going to interpret a definition as having transitivity, then we could do it with that too: "to engage in tracking (OBJECT: a target)". Help me out a bit more? Equinox ◑ 17:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure. What you term as a “biological definition” (and what Μετάknowledge below refers to as a “label”) is what I’m used to calling a taxon, short for the taxonomical classification of the lexical category (traditionally called a part of speech) under which various senses of a lemma are clustered and defined in a dictionary entry. E.g.:

eat

transitive:

1. to ingest food (wherein “ingest” is similarly transitive having “food” as a transitive object)
2. to have a meal (wherein "have" is similarly transitive, with "meal" as a transitive object)

intransitive: to partake of food (wherein “partake” is similarly intransitive as food is a prepositional object)

Internationally, the formula indicated above has been the trend in dictionaries for some time now, with Oxford Dictionary leading the way and Merriam-Webster now undergoing a massive revised edition process with those considerations in mind. The process is intended to assist in rote cross-lingual translations and machine learning. As you noted initially, my original edit hasn’t changed the meaning; it’s simply a matter of lexical reconciliation regarding the taxon and the intransitive sense given.
--Kent Dominic (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Definitions do not have to match the transitivity or valency of the lemma being defined. That's why we have labels. Our definitions must only match semantically. An example: eat can be used intransitively, so in "Are you eating?", there is no syntactic object. However, there are is always a semantic object: you have to be eating something. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I see you’re not confusing semantics and syntax, but the same isn’t true of casual users who know neither what those terms entail nor how they operate vis-à-vis a dictionary entry, its various taxons, and their distinct senses. Another example:

get (intransitive)

1. to arrive somewhere (one postpositive argument)
2. to arrive to a place (three postpositive arguments)

Both senses make semantically rational sense, but nonnative speakers (and machines) tend to mistakenly rely on the prepositional “to” function from the second definition as interpolated in the sentence, “How did you get to here?” Relying on the first definition, a nonnative speaker is more likely to say, “How did you get here?”

I stand by my original edit. As Equinox pointed out, the semantic meaning is identical; my edited sense consequently comports with the taxon, thus being less likely to trap an unwary nonnative English speaker. You’re right that "[the sense of given] definitions do not have to match the [stated] transitivity or valency of the lemma being defined," but it helps, as I outlined for Equinox above. So far you haven’t offered a contradictory rationale for reverting my edit, which I’m about to restore. I have no pride of authorship nor am I a stickler for style, so if you want to edit it in a way that the sense entails an intransitive syntax, then I'm all for it. If you have some reasonable justification for keeping the sense of lock on as it was, I’m eager to hear it. --Kent Dominic (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

There are effectively infinite ways to phrase a definition while preserving semantic equivalency. However, some are better than others: in general, terseness, clarity, and simplicity of diction are preferred. Your version certainly breaks the first guideline, and doesn't exactly earn points with other two. This is an anglophone dictionary, and although it should be able to serve advanced English learners, they are not the primary audience. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I get your point, and I admit being nitpicky with my my edit, but I can't fully agree that this is an anglophone dictionary. That's not what the Wiktionary Main Page says, anyway. Even if if I were to concede the "anglophone" point as well, the fact remains that the lexical trend in English-language dictionaries is to harmonize the taxons and the senses given, much as the examples given have forever strived to entail the relevant taxonomic transivity, their boatload of errors notwithstanding. My edit merely invokes the trend I've described, which has been an invaluable pedological tool for students who want to expand their usable vocabulary.

I hasten to add that during my days as a quirky middle school student, I wondered why my go-to dictionary, the Random House Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (now of Merriam-Webster ilk) often mix-matched the taxons and the senses. True, back then I didn't have the linguistic terminology to explain my perplexity concerning that shortcoming, but it nonetheless mattered to me as an L1 English speaker. The two dictionaries that I now work with are making strides to address the shortcomings that such mix-matching presents.

Finally, you neglected to include precision in you recipe for good definitional sense. "To track a target automatically" is concise but it ain't precisely intransitive, and it's a bit vague for my tastes. "To engage in tracking a target automatically" leaves some conciseness to be desired while ignoring the vagueness, but it's demonstrably intransitive. My latest iteration of "To track via an automated targeting system" (1) eliminates the vagueness, (2) retains fidelity to the relevant intransitive sense, and (3) is as concise as needed. If you have a more concise intransitive sense to provide, I'm eager to hear it. (Keep in mind that "concise" doesn't always equate to "fewer words.") --Kent Dominic (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget that this is a dictionary for use by the general public, not graduate students in linguistics. Precision is great, but useless if no one can actually read the definitions. In other words, the operation may have been a success, but the patient has died... Chuck Entz (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Touché. However, despite how my rationale is steeped in linguistic analysis, my edit is rather straightforward: no change in semantic meaning but (1) an improvement in how the general public will interpret its relevant sense, and (2) a better chance of users' correct syntactical usage, IMHO. Even professional lexicographers could give an at's rass (my spoonerism of the day) about the linguistics of it all. I shun linguistic entanglements regarding the articles themselves. Look here for evidence. — This unsigned comment was added by Kent Dominic (talk • contribs) at 07:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC).

WF?

Hi. Just wondering, are you Wonderfool? (Please do not get offended if you really be not WF.) Regards. — inqilābī ^{‹inqilāb·zinda·bād›} 17:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Uh, nope. --Kent Dominic (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

👍🙏 — inqilābī ^{‹inqilāb·zinda·bād›} 18:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is truly a Wiktionarian until they've been accused of Wonderfoolery. Congratulations. Kilo Lima Mike (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

If only I had the time and intrepidness to attempt such a thing. --Kent Dominic (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

re your edit message on as in

Hey, just so you know, even though I don't have a user page, I do have a talk page, and am happy to chat there. I appreciate your point about potential administrator retribution. I did see a an information desk thread about a different admin seemingly handing out a ban because another editor had the temerity to revert them because of a good faith content dispute. I definitely find it worrying that such behaviour seems to be tolerated from admins, and I hope that case was an exception rather than the rule. But regardless, I'm not going to shy away from (politely) disagreeing with an editor just because they're an admin. If I did catch a ban for that, I think that would tell me that this isn't the kind of community I want to participate in. Colin M (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Colin M: And just so you know, I wasn't speaking on behalf of DCDuring. I was joint pointing out the culture climate. People are people and egos are egos, right? Somewhere there's a process for initiating a warning or de-sysop petition or whatever, but I've never looked into it. Not worth my time or effort. I once got a week-long ban from an overzealous, thin-skinned administrator and was re-instated - promptly and without appeal - by a different admin who saw the blatant injustice. Again: whatever. --Kent Dominic (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow

Your lexicon sounds like a great resource for students. I doubt that they would suffer in the slightest from not having the traditional parts of speech drilled into them. Your set of binomial categories undoubtedly covers more English terms comfortably than the Procrustean bed we have for them. DCDuring (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@DCDuring: Cheers. My sole reason for editing here relates to roughly 2,000 individual words or phrases that have a minimal number of mentions in my lexicon and are either too expansive or too obscure for me to independently define. In those cases, I externally link their occurrences to sources that mostly include Wiktionary or Wikipedia. When I find a definition here that (1) suits my general purpose but (2) has a label that contradicts my approach, I can’t, in good faith, steer readers here to risk their dissatisfaction, confusion, or doubt regarding the lexical category involved. Single-word entries and prepositional phrases are unproblematic. Someone (maybe it was you, I don’t accurately recall) reverted one of my first edits here when I instinctively changed a MWE from N to NP. I got chastised for presumably knowing better when in fact I was ignorant of the WT:POS protocol.

Consequently, when I have a phrase like, “open air,” which constitutes a NP in my lexicon but hadn’t wanted to define, I either (a) must define it independently since Wiktionary - as well as every other OneLook reference - labels it as N, or (b) label it as NP, provide the Wiktionary link, and pray – as you suggested a while ago – that readers will skim over the difference between the disparate NP and N labels. In your experience, target users couldn’t care less. In my experience, however, 95% of the readers would ridicule me for sloth and disparage Wiktionary for stupidity.

Similarly, Wiktionary –like most other dictionaries - is rife with verbs having (in)transitive labels/definitions/examples with concordance issues. I fix them here only if I intend a subsequent link re. my lexicon. Such errors actually work to my benefit concerning copyrighted material elsewhere: I can make the needed adjustments, and voila – I own the rights to my edited version of dictionaries’ original verbiage. I had one in-face meeting with Webster’s lawyers concerning whether they’d threaten legal action for piracy if I used their definitions verbatim albeit with a different label. Their answer: No. U.S. common law is unsettled but generally considers a definitional meaning to include not only the wording of a given sense but also the label and the spelling, punctuation, layout, etc. Change one element and you can make the case that it’s a derivation, not an infringement.

And you insinuated that I’m a logophile? Ha! From day one of my project I resolved to write a glossary, not a dictionary. The only senses that I have interest in defining are those that are indeed used in my textbook. Now, encoding all these damned words are keeping me from film. There’s a word for film lover. It's cinephile, right? Maybe cinemaphile? Filmophile? Hell-if-I-care what it is since it’s not mentioned in my textbook. But zeugmatic conjunction interests me on a needful basis. Don’t worry – it’s a lexical category, not a proposed POS. FYI, it applies only in a case like, “I hold the opinion, or at least suppose, that you’re right” wherein the word, “that” corresponds both to “opinion” (i.e. as an appositive conjunction with “or at least suppose” conjunctively interpolated as a parenthetical verb phrase) and to “suppose” (i.e. as a nominal conjunction prefacing a nominal clause). Traditionalists would have a hard time bantering with modernists whether “that” is a pronoun (i.e. a relative pronoun) or a relativizer (i.e. a conjunction) regarding "opinion" and whether "that" corresponds to “suppose” as a freakin’ complementizer, if at all.

Pardon me for coining such linguistic grammatical terms as indicated in the red text above. I have to remind myself not to say "linguistics." It's a bad idea to use words that few people understand, fewer can define, and no one but true logophiles can stomach even a little.

Now, let’s get back to our regular routines, as in eating, sleeping, and bike racing, or whatever. --Kent Dominic (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)