Wiktionary:Information desk/2014/November

Could someone please capitalize the title on the "subjunctive" page?

Could someone please capitalize the title on the "subjunctive" page? I don't know how, but it bothers me makes Wikipedia look bad and un-professional. — This unsigned comment was added by 216.114.41.41 (talk) at 22:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

This is Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Because this is a dictionary, the difference between capital letters and lower-case letters is very important, so polish and Polish are two different pages, and subjunctive has a lower-case letter because it isn't normally capitalized. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, for some reason, the Latin Wiktionary decides to keep its pages capitalized when they are not normally capitalized and decides to put things like (en) at the end of their article titles to clarify the language. God, that pisses the hell out of me. No offense to Latin Wiktionarians, but I just hate that idea. The reason I don't like that is because if we do that, then it's harder to put those pages into interwiki links. It's a nightmare for me to look at a page like that with no interwiki links when it really needs them. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 01:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

skank

I have a question about a word. I specifically would like to know the history of this word. I am doing an essay on this word as a punishment. here is the word - SKANK. I know it's a derogatory word but I need to know some history, or a place to start my search on it's history. — This unsigned comment was added by 50.53.21.79 (talk) at 22:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The word is actually two separate words in itself. Its first use, meaning "a foul substance" is a blend of skeevy ("disgusting") and rank ("stark and foul"). Its second use, meaning "a bawdy woman", is a blend of scold ("a rude woman") and brank ("to prance about").

I know that we're not supposed to help people with homework questions, but my life goal is to spread knowledge, so I thought, why not? At least this person could learn something about this, and that's probably what the person who assigned this was hoping for. Tharthan (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do French Judaists spell Dieu?

--Romanophile (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to G-d#Translations, it's D.ieu, which is confirmed by [1] and [2], while [3] indicates an alternative form D-ieu. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red link at Category:Ancient Greek language

Hello, I'm not an expert here, so I was wondering why there is a red link inside the box at Category:Ancient Greek language. The ancient Greek Wiktionary was deleted or it never started? (I am sorry, I have not learnt how to properly put wikilinks inside a text yet) Nikolas (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there's never been an Ancient Greek Wiktionary, and I'm pretty sure there will never be one. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can you be sure that there will never be one? Are you a psychic? :D Nikolas (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rules have been tightened up considerably regarding Wikimedia wikis in dead languages since the Latin and the Old English wiktionaries were started, and they're unlikely ever to be relaxed again enough to allow creation of a new one such as this. The main problem is that there are no terms in such a language for modern places, institutions, concepts, etc., which means that new ones have to be created- and those would be really terms in a conlang based on the original language, not in the language itself. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the main problem—indeed the main reason why no more Wikimedia projects in extinct languages will be approved—is that there are no native speakers to form the basis of the community of editors. It is now a requirement that a language have native speakers in order for it to have its own Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, etc. Exceptions are sometimes given for Wikisource and Wikiquote, since those projects present previously published information rather than original writing. However, even then, extinct languages are often incorporated into the Wikisources and Wikiquotes of their modern descendants, so Old English source material is hosted at English Wikisource and Ancient Greek source material is hosted at Greek Wikisource, and so on. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about A Greek-English Lexicon (this version), it could be expanded, the past editions of the Liddell-Scott are in the public domain nowadays. .Nikolas (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we can have as many Ancient Greek words here at English Wiktionary as we want. But there isn't going to be a Wiktionary with definitions written in Ancient Greek and with Ancient Greek as the interface language. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I agree with that, thumbs up, but can someone please rework the infobox that is the main concern of my 1st message? I have no idea, and no time at the moment, on how to do that, but if you write down some relevant shortcuts, I could quickly learn and edit it . :)Nikolas (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

correcting entry and adding quotation to page randon

First time wanting to edit a page here, and I've come up with a complex task that is way beyond me at the moment, so I'm wondering if someone would like to adopt it.

On the page randon there is currently a quotation from Spenser that is misplaced in the Noun section. It needs to be removed (a pity) or moved to the Adjective section, which needs then to be created.

I have a quotation that does belong in the noun section. It is from Halley, and I suspect (but don't know) that in the short (again, I suspect ...) period between the beginning of scientific ballistics and this word becoming obsolete (likewise, I think, the word 'random' used in this sense) it is therefore an important and valuable quotation.

"half the Parameter is the greatest Randon, and that that happens at the Elevation of 45 Degrees"

A Discourse concerning Gravity, and its Properties, wherein the Descent of Heavy Bodies, and the Motion of Projects is briefly, but fully handled: Together with the Solution of a Problem of great Use in Gunnery. By E. Halley.

Miscellanea Curiosa, Vol. I, 2nd Edition, 1708 p.316

(An ebook version is in preparation for Project Gutenberg.) --Alkhowarizmi (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ovalized/Oblonged

I realize these words are not in the dictionary. So what best describes the act of ovalizing, say "ovalizing" a hole during manufacturing, or oblonging, "oblonging" a round object by placing it in a press. I know once the object has been deformed, per se, it is oblong. Please advise. Thanks!

Using Template:suffix without categorization?

It used to be that one could use {{suffix}} with lang=- to keep it from adding a category in cases where the suffixation occurred in a language other than that of the entry. Is there any way to do this now, and if not, why not?

I'm asking this because I'm not quite sure how to get rid of bogus categories such as Category:Middle English words suffixed with -k, which contains only the English term crash- but no Middle English terms at all.

The template can be useful for formatting in etymologies, which makes replacing it in cases like this a bit of a pain. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use nocat=1. lang=- doesn't work because if it did, then the template could no longer format the text and the link correctly. Even if it's not supposed to add a category, it should still know the language. —CodeCa t 02:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this to the documentation for {{suffix}}, {{prefix}} and {{confix}}, so I won't be asking this again in six months. Feel free to improve on my efforts- they're just a first draft. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected Initial Accent in Southern (US) Nouns

This is a phenomenon I've always found curious, but I hadn't really considered just how unusual it was until I saw the reaction of someone who wasn't aware of it at all (diff).

It consists of certain words that are accented on the second syllable elsewhere, but instead are accented on the first syllable in Southern English. It's not just that the first syllable is accented, though. The second syllable retains a strong secondary accent, to the point that it sounds like the first syllable is a separate word, and the second syllable retains its full, unreduced pronunciation. The first syllable is also lengthened quite a bit, but I'm not sure if that's separate from the strong stress.

The examples that will no doubt be most familiar are guitar (/ˈɡɪːˌtɑɹ/) and police (/ˈpoːʊˌliːs/), but w:Southern English also lists behind (/ˈbiːˌhaɪnd/),cement (/siːˌmɛnt/), Detroit(/ˈdiːˌtrɔɪt/), display (/ˈdɪːsˌpleɪ/), hotel (/ˈhoːʊˌtɛl/), insurance (/ˈɪːnˌʃəɹɨns/), July (/ˈd͡ʒʊːˌlaɪ/), motel (/ˈmoːʊˌtɛl/), recycle (/ˈriːˌsaɪkəl/), TV (/ˈtiːˌviː/) and umbrella (/ˈʌːmˌbɹɛlə/). A couple more examples that come to mind are Arab (/ˈeːɪˌɹæb/) and Italian (/ˈaːɪˌtæljən/). I've also caught myself doing this with a word or two like default (/dɪˈfɑːɫt/), but I'm not Southern and I'm not sure where I picked it up.

I'm curious as to whether anyone has ever studied this, and whether anyone knows more about it, especially whether there's a pattern to which words have it and how far beyond the Deep South it extends. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After moving from New York to St. Louis, I've noticed people here say insurance with initial stress (I'm used to penultimate) and likewise for some words that are both nouns and verbs, but used as nouns, though I can't htink at the moment which ones. I don't know whether that's an extension of the same accent in that respect. Does Southern display (which you list) have initial stress for the verb and noun, or which?—msh210℠ (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be on the edge of the South, but Missouri is still a Southern state. I have no specific knowledge about the verb sense of display, but the general pattern is for the noun to have the initial accent, while the verb (if there is one) is the way it is everywhere else (recycle seems to be the exception). I'm wondering if it started out as a way to insure clarity in some strata of unfamiliar but frequently-used words. You'll note that behind is the only one in the list that goes back to Old English, and it was no doubt an uncommon word pressed into service as a euphemism. All of the above is just speculation, which is why I was hoping there was something about it in the literature. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

wherefore Lazarus, not Elazarus

Why did אלעזר become Λάζαρος (Lázaros) with no initial (glottal stop or) vowel? Does Ancient Greek not allow initial vowels or something?—msh210℠ (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This would be better at the Etymology scriptorum. As to substance: The etymology at Lazarus is missing details. You'll find אֶלְעָזָר in the Hebrew scriptures as Ελεαζαρ (Eleazar) / Eleazar, but the name in the New Testament which gave rise to the modern name is from לַעְזָר, which is itself derived from אלעזר. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks!—msh210℠ (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replying

--Supersonic414-On Wikia 13:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC) Hello! I just want to ask how to reply to peoples post! — This unsigned comment was added by Supersonic414 (talk • contribs) at 13:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Click an [edit] link, put an appropriate number of :s or *s under someone else's post, type your reply, ~~~~ and submit. — Keφr 14:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help. --Supersonic414-On Wikia 14:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by Supersonic414 (talk • contribs) at 14:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- You forgot the ~~~~. — Keφr 14:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-Culture Words?

Hello all, I wanted to ask, should pop-culture terms be here? This is a dictionary for pretty much everything, but really, should media terms be here? It's not that I have anything against them, but it would help if there was, say, a specific portal that led to any, if not all, terms caused by the internet, IM slang, pop culture references, etc. Of course, if this is already handled,then disregard this message.

Thanks Muaadth on fire (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Internet slang is in plenty of mainstream dictionaries (though not to the same extent — yet!). Being Internet-based and freely editable, we tend to get more of it, and earlier. You can search by "Internet slang" category at the bottom of these entries, to narrow it down. Equinox ◑ 21:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phrase "stand pat" question

I always have know about the general usage of this phrase as a poker term, and as an expression of firm resolve. I don't have the resources to look deeper into the origin of the second word, but wondered if it could be derived from "patent" as in "letters patent", suggesting a proven right to occupy a place or position. Betsinoregon (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it's the adverb pat#Adverb. Equinox ◑ 21:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for deletion

I couldn't get templates {{RQ:Mlry MrtArthrP1}} and {{RQ:Mlry MrtArthrP2}} to work properly, though the code worked alright when I shortened their names. Would someone please delete these two templates or tell me how to do it. — ReidAA (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted them both since you have gotten {{RQ:Mlry MArthrP1}} and {{RQ:Mlry MArthrP2}} to work. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. — ReidAA (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asexual Definitions Ordered Incorrectly?

Why is the new colloquial definition (post 2000), which is not only a misnomer but also misuse of the term (nonsexual is a word that already meant that, and far less confusingly), listed as first and second? Especially when there is a concrete scientific definition for the term. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/asexual --Mr.BloopBloop (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sense 1 is not post-2000; here is an example from a book published in 1979. Also, nonsexual doesn't mean "not experiencing sexual attraction", and since "not experiencing sexual attraction" is probably currently the most common meaning of asexual outside of biology, using it this way is neither exclusively colloquial, nor a misnomer, nor a misuse of the term. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to my original question, I'm still wondering why it was ordered the way it was. I don't know the policy, and in my mind it seems logical to keep the most solid, longest currently used, concrete definitions at the top. In reference to the reply, the wiktionary page only gives post 2000 quotes, and the link you sent was in German. Not sure if that translates, or how that would work since this is not the German version. So I'm a little confused by that admittedly. Asexual is a common term in biology and as such I suspect it is used far more often, though in different circles. Though we are ultimately both speculating on that point. No way to tell, but it's still absolutely the current term for that meaning in biology. At the very least it has been written in more professional contexts, over a much longer period. Furthermore, as defined elsewhere, e.g wikipedia, the definition is actually more fluid. IE some asexuals can experience sexual attraction, which is why it frustrates me. A definition is put forward, and then it's basically picked apart until it doesn't mean anything remotely like the original definition. The only consistent element is some level of disinterest, ie the definition of nonsexual. Everything else is conditional. Finally it's semantic to say nonsexual doesn't mean that, and then assert asexual does when it was just an arbitrary decision someone made. The first person to do so did it in error, or colloquially by definition. That and it's only time and repetition that renders a word not colloquial; and since it's in direct conflict with the original meaning, the construction of the word (etymology), and it's concrete scientific definition (which can't be said of nonsexual), I'd say it is misuse (rampant as it is). In the context for the original meaning all humans are by definition sexual, it's a characteristic of our species, not an aspect of an individuals identity or sexual orientation which varies by birth. Though none of this really matters since deliberate misuse is how language works, and evolves, but that is essentially what has been done.--Mr.BloopBloop (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The citation I gave wasn't in German, though I did link it through books.google.de. Try this link: [4]. We don't have a policy on how to order senses; some people are in favor of putting the oldest sense first (even if it's now obsolete), other people are in favor of putting the oldest non-obsolete sense first, other people are in favor of putting the currently most commonly used sense first, other people just add senses at the bottom as they think of them. The reason I said that nonsexual doesn't mean "not experiencing sexual attraction" is simply that as far as I knew, the word isn't used that way; however, I have now found this book that does use nonsexual with that meaning, so I take it back. But nonsexual is still much less common in this sense than asexual is. Saying that things are an "error" or "misuse" makes sense only within a prescriptive context (and we aren't a prescriptive dictionary) or with regard to actual real-world usage (and since asexual is very widely used to mean "not experiencing sexual attraction", it isn't an error or a misuse to use it that way). It isn't "an arbitrary decision someone made", it's the way the language evolved. You might as well call it "an arbitrary decision someone made" that silly now means "foolish" instead of "blessed" as it originally did. No one consciously made that decision, the language just evolved that way. It's true that our definition could use some tweaking, as you point out, since asexuality doesn't necessary entail a complete lack of any sexual attraction, but can also include a simple lack of interest in sex. I really don't see that the biological and sociological meanings are in any direct conflict, though; amoebas and bacteria are just as uninterested in sex as any person who identifies as asexual. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also prefer to see the biology sense placed first. Equinox ◑ 13:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AquaStretch References

I'm trying to provide references for the new word AquaStretch using the following links and the editor won't let me save them.

Is this word actually used by English speakers? Is it a brand name? If the answer to the first is no, or the answer to the second is yes, then it can't be included on Wiktionary. —CodeCa t 23:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) First of all, this is a descriptive dictionary based on usage, and our Criteria for inclusion don't count non-durably-archived websites as evidence of usage. Besides, this is trademarked, and identified as such in your references, so it doesn't meet WT:BRAND. The only way we would include it is if people were using it in ways that didn't match the trademarked meaning. This would require evidence of independent usage in at least three durably-archived sources, of which Google Books has exactly one. If you're connected with the trademark-owner, bear in mind that the kind of usage to make it a valid Wiktionary entry is exactly the sort that could endanger the trademark (see w:Generic trademark. I'm not a lawyer, so you can take that with a grain of salt). Chuck Entz (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're a spammer; get the hell out; did you only post those links here in a fake "question" so that your links would be on a page? Equinox ◑ 03:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think search-engine spam was their goal, and I think they really thought it was some technical glitch that kept them from posting the links, but I've now removed the URLs just to avoid giving them an undeserved boost. I deleted the entry (after they posted here), but it wasn't especially promotional in tone without the URLs. I would put them somewhere in the wide gray area between spamming scum and ethically-clueless self-promoter. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for deletion

Hi, could you delete the entry of "αντέξα" ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B1%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%AD%CE%BE%CE%B1 ) as this form does not exist. Instead "άντεξα" (note the accent mark) is the correct "First-person singular, simple past form of αντέχω". (I already added the entry for "άντεξα".)

178.25.191.74 21:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can request speedy deletion by putting {{delete}} on a page with your reason. In this case,

done. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RQ: Melville Moby-Dick Template

This template is now frozen. However it needs to be able to be used without a parameter so that it can be used on a quotation that hasn't yet been narrowed down to a chapter, as is the case with most of the existing Moby-Dick quotations. Furthermore, M-B has very many chapters and this deters people who use Wikisource from trying to narrow down a quotation's chapter. The code is very simple, as will be seen for example in Template:RQ:Bronte_Wuthering. Could this be fixed, please. — ReidAA (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Moby-Dick is entered into Category:Quotation_reference_templates but not into Wiktionary:Quotations/Templates. Should I go ahead and put it in there? Incidentally, I notice that there doesn't seem to be any way to put a new template into Category:Quotation_reference_templates. Am I blind to an Edit button somewhere there? — ReidAA (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]