User talk:Vininn126

wypatrywać, wypatrzyć clarification

Hi, I want to understand these reverts a bit better, if that's ok with you. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding aspect.

My first change was to remove the sense of to keep an eye out for sth/sb from wypatrzyć. This jumped out to me as nonsensical as to keep an eye out is durative, atelic and, if I've understood correctly, imperfective. One can write "I kept an eye out for my friend for an hour" but, for contrast, not "I won the race for an hour". Therefore it seemed like a mistake that it was included.

I checked my intuition by looking in WSJP and two dictionaries local to my machine. (Oxford PWN Polish-English Dictionary / Wielki słownik polsko-angielski and Uniwersalny słownik języka polskiego but I'm not sure they are the full versions or how dated they are). And subsequently now PWN. They all have only one sense for wypatrzyć and it seems to correspond to the spot sense. So the removal there felt justified.

For the revert on wypatrywać, by These actions can actually be imperfective or perfective in and of themselves, do you mean that spot and find in English can be both perfective and imperfective? I suspect you correctly caught me misunderstanding what imperfective means here but could you give an example to help?

If it adds to background, the change I made for wypatrywać was rooted in seeing that the definition in WSJP talks about trying/attempting, uważnie patrząc, starać się zobaczyć kogoś lub coś, and the definition from Uniwersalny słownik języka polskiego has szukać in the brackets for the imperfective meaning, as opposed to say znajdować. uważnie, bacznie patrząc, badając wzrokiem, znaleźć (szukać), odkryć (odkrywać) coś, kogoś for wypatrzyć and wypatrywać as a pair. I think I overlooked the odkrywać, which would contain the element of success that is not implied in search.

I was planning to make another edit to wypatrywać. I notice from the inflexion in Tygrys wypatruje zdobyczy, that wypatrywać takes the genitive. So I was thinking to add {{+obj|pl|gen}} to each sense. But I guess it makes sense to clarify these reverts first. Hietheehither (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! First of all, I want to thank you for assuming good faith, undos can sometimes lead to heat.

Getting to your current arguments, WSJP is probably my top trusted Polish dictionary, as they are far less normative, always provide quotes, and good labelling etc. USJP is also pretty good; I don't use PWN's Polish-English dictionary.

Finally getting to the meat of the matter - WSJP and PWN give a fairly solid analysis, in my opinion, i.e. the spot meaning as being biaspectual (many telic verbs, after all, can still happen over time!), and I wouldn't change the glosses, since lexical aspect (i.e. telic etc.) doesn't usually translate over Slavic "grammatical" aspect (compare the fact that "eat up" can also be in continuous, despite being more "perfective" than just eat, same with wyjeść/wyjadać), but the meaning of wait as being monoaspectual. In this case, two headword templates on wypatrywać would be used, one linking to wypatrzyć as the aspectual equivalent, and another without any aspectual equivalent (compare mówić. Then, you could check składnia for either definition of wypatrywać at WSJP, which lists the genitive that you mentioned for the monoaspectual meaning.

I agree overall the entry isn't quite right, Vininn126 (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Forgot to ping @Hietheehither. Vininn126 (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

On nagosz

I didn't quite understand this [revert]. The words listed as alternatives all have similar pronunciations... Did I misunderstand something about when to add such alternative words at the beginning of an article -- since any of them could in principle be the target the user was actually looking for when s/he ended up in nagosz by mistake? --Pereru (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Pereru Please read the documentation on {{also}} - it's for characters, not pronunciation or different scripts. Vininn126 (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

OK. (NB: <sz> is alphabetically treated as two letters rather than as a single digraph, unlike Spanish <ch> in earlier times, right?) --Pereru (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Pereru That depends on the language, but again, it's about computational characters, not linguistic letters. Vininn126 (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm... Looking again at the documentation you linked to, it starts with: "This template links to similar entries, especially those that differ only in capitalization, diacritics, or punctuation." I don't see a reference to computational characters here, and there's a reference to "similar entries" which suggests that even the number of computational characters and/or linguistic letters might differ. What gives? --Pereru (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Pereru Old wording, and the part about it being about characters etc. was left out. Vininn126 (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there a more recent reference I can check? (I'm not doubting your word, I just wished to have something I could link to in case someone ever makes the opposite claim to me. I note there are also occurrences of {{also}} that would seem to violate the rules you posit, like in pir where one finds cyrillic forms similar only in pronunciation, or self, where one finds forms with added hyphens that have one extra computational character / linguistic letter not found in the page title.) --Pereru (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

~@Pereru The usage of this template over time has been unregulated and misunderstood. This has resulted in many misuses, which leads to many people not understanding its intended application. As such, the template should probably be automated, and people have tried in the past; apparently dealing with all the characters is a headache, and also it's not a high priority at the moment. Perhaps some day it will be! Vininn126 (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

OK. Fair enough. No big deal anyway. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions! --Pereru (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Pereru Thank you for asking! I honestly foresee a discussion at some point somewhere, perhaps the Beer parlour, about the usage of this template. Perhaps it will turn out my understanding of it is wrong, as well. Who knows. Vininn126 (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your undoing of my edit on Template:pl-adjective

Hello

Concerning your [revert]

I'm not sure this is the way to respond and clarify why I made the edit; you'll tell me.

The reason for my edit is that as it stands this template, like many others, has hardcoded colors and thus is incomapatible with Dark Mode. I can do a large scale refactoring of this script myself, but before endeavoring this I wanted to try a harmless fix. Since the template has an edit restriction I didn't expect my edit to go through.

Please advise

Regards Petros Adamopoulos (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Petros Adamopoulos It gave the template a large, ugly, grey box. If the issue is darkmode, a different solution is advisable. Vininn126 (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Is it a change you committed? Petros Adamopoulos (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Petros Adamopoulos Pardon? I don't understand. Your change introduced an ugly gray box. Vininn126 (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I missread.

That's quite surprising, considering I changed the foreground color and didn't touch the background.

Since the background was hardcoded bright, it made the text in Dark Mode invisible basically, so I changed the text color to what it is in Light Mode, basically to have no effect there.

What browser are you using ? In Chrome here, the change didn't do anything except fixing Dark Mode to be readable. Petros Adamopoulos (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I was using Chrome. Vininn126 (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Answers to your questions:

Yes, and no. Why? Supevan (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Supevan I just found it to not be a crucial request. Most of your requests are relatively fine, but some of the surnames seem to be held by one person, and until further evidence I prefer not to add them. Vininn126 (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You don't have to add them right away, none of my requests are really crucial :D

That particular surname I got from the Musical Theatre of D. Baduszkowa in Gdansk, which I have visited - that's why I added it. Supevan (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

reverts on number box

It would seem practical to have the box transcluded on every page that it links to; it's not very obstructive either. Some of the entries had no reference to trzy whatsoever and it would help to compare the functional descriptions of the categories (potrójny is "multiplier", trojaki is called "multiplier qualitative"). The documentation of the template says "This template may be added to the entry of any number, whether a cardinal number, ordinal number or any other kind." Overall I find it hard to assume good faith for your rollbacks. Suryaratha03 (talk) Suryaratha03 (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Suryaratha03 Many of those entries would be better off in CAT:pl:Three. If everything related to three were in the number box or had it linked it would definitely be too much. Vininn126 (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

bat

I definitely think it's not in error. Why do you think it is? DCDuring (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@DCDuring Check the history of the page. Vininn126 (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

It gave me quite a fright, as I was in the middle of extensive changes. It is easy to get confused by that kind of thing and lose the plot. DCDuring (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I misclicked. Vininn126 (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Pronunciation

You don't seem to grasp what a phonological merger is or how we (and most if not all dictionaries) transcribe words affected by one. Transcribing words in the LOT lexical set with both /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ would make them indistinguishable from THOUGHT. Nardog (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Nardog You don't seem to grasp what "non encompassing an entire area" means. See the Tea room discussion. Vininn126 (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)