Scope: This page is for requests for deletion of pages, entries and senses in the main namespace for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested. The most common reason for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as "green leaf". It is occasionally used for undeletion requests (requests to restore entries that may have been wrongly deleted).
Out of scope: This page is not for words whose existence or attestation is disputed, for which see Wiktionary:Requests for verification. Disputes regarding whether an entry falls afoul of any of the subsections in our criteria for inclusion that demand a particular kind of attestation (such as figurative use requirements for certain place names and the WT:BRAND criteria) should also go to RFV. Blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed.
Adding a request: To add a request for deletion, place the template {{rfd}} or {{rfd-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new nomination here. The section title should be exactly the wikified entry title such as [[green leaf]]. The deletion of just part of a page may also be proposed here. If an entire section is being proposed for deletion, the tag {{rfd}} should be placed at the top; if only a sense is, the tag {{rfd-sense}} should be used, or the more precise {{rfd-redundant}} if it applies. In any of these cases, any editor, including non-admins, may act on the discussion.
Closing a request: A request can be closed once a month has passed after the nomination was posted, except for snowball cases. If a decision to delete or keep has not been reached due to insufficient discussion, {{look}} can be added and knowledgeable editors pinged. If there is sufficient discussion, but a decision cannot be reached because there is no consensus, the request can be closed as “no consensus”, in which case the status quo is maintained. The threshold for consensus is hinted at the ratio of 2/3 of supports to supports and opposes, but is not set in stone and other considerations than pure tallying can play a role; see the vote.
Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it was deleted), or de-tagging it (if it was kept). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFD-deleted or RFD-kept, indicating what action was taken.
Striking out the discussion header.
(Note: In some cases, like moves or redirections, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFD-deleted” or “RFD-kept”.)
Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.
I spent a few minutes looking at the entries they made and comparing it to the source, for anyone interested. I'm inclined to say that they're innocent, or they at least didn't rip all of them. As for what to do, I think a more experienced editor should weigh in.
асп vs. "N. English: horse. Tojiki: асп. From: Tajik."
The editor in question added a lot of bad entries and was quite uncareful; we know for a fact that some are copied from that site. We also don't have anyone equipped to assess whether they're correct. Unless such a person appears, I think we may have to delete them to be safe. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds02:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I think they should all be deleted as well, but also because Yaghnobi should be written using more accurate Latin characters. Using Cyrillic is nationalist propaganda claiming that Yaghnobi as closely related to Tajik, which is unquestionably not at the case. --Victar (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
After looking a bit more, I agree with you guys... I shouldn't have been so quick to judge (in favor). Side note: some of the etymologies had straight up zero links 😕 – Gormflaith (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks User:Gormflaith for looking at the entries in more detail. If this is agreed upon then, then they ought to be deleted sooner rather than later, as once the data is re-used by Wikidata under a different licence I think it will be impossible to delete, won't it? @MetaknowledgeKaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
If it's decided to delete all of this user's Yaghnobi entries, note that some Yaghnobi entries were not written by this user, so look at the edit history before deleting. - -sche(discuss)20:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
I don't know how easy it would be to program a bot to do that, and DTLHS may not have time to write one, but if we all look over a few entries a day we can get this knocked out in a month or so. I've started going through the entries in Category:Yagnobi lemmas, removing the ones I can't find evidence for in books (I am using Google Books to check for English or Russian books that contain the word and its gloss in those languages). - -sche(discuss)03:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
I would have to look at the page histories of all Yagnobi entries to see that Rajkiandris actually touched the page, unless you have a list already. DTLHS (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
To echo what I wrote before, all the Yaghnobi entries should be deleted. Using cyrillic is nationalist propaganda taken from the site Rajkiandris sourced. --Victar (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
I've found references attesting Yagnobi words in Cyrillic script from at least as early as the 1970s; based on that and Guldrelokk's statement above, your claim seems overbroad. I don't have a problem with romanizing those sources/entries if it is felt that the Latin script is preferable, though. I can go ahead and move/recreate the entries I've found attested in Latin script straight to Latin script entries. - -sche(discuss)17:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
@-sche: Mirzozoda from the Tajik Academy of Sciences is the spearhead behind spelling Yaghnobi using Cyrillic, an otherwise unwritten language. The modified Tajik Cyrillic alphabet he uses was invented by him, but it is completely inept at properly representing Yaghnobi phonology. He also asserts that Yaghnobi and Tajik are closely related, which is demonstrably false, harkening back to my nationalist political propaganda comment. --Victar (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
I've gone through the ёs, аs, бs, вs, дs, еs, жs, гs, иs, яs, ғs, ӣs and ԝs and removed the ones I couldn't find other references for (which was most of them, about 50 entries so far). - -sche(discuss)05:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
Russian. These are not suffixes: the preceding а is a part of the verbal stem. It can be a suffix on it’s own or another а-final suffix like -ывать(-yvatʹ), but in any case it will be present throughout the inflection. The participle suffix is just -ущий(-uščij), -ющий(-juščij). Guldrelokk (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Speaking of metanalysis, I've always wondered whether our analysis of nouns ending in -ание was right. Don't these always come from a-stem verbs? If yes, I think we should consider parsing описа́ние as описа́ть + -ние, the same way we parse Latin words ending in -atio as "a-stem verb + -tio"; see interpretatio for example. I only know of two cases of a genuine -atio suffix: gradatio and *coratio; are there similar counterexamples in Russian?
I think the problem we're having is that native speakers tend to naturally think of the а being part of the ending and not the stem, when historically it's part of the stem. --WikiTiki8917:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it's a problem unless/until it's being misapplied in word-formation (or, in this case, conjugation). Are there people who misconjugate non-a-stem verbs?
May I suggest moving it to -щий? The correct decomposition of such a participle is, for example указ-ыв-аю-щий. The stem is указ-, followed by a imperfective modifier -ыв-, followed by the infinitive suffix -ать, which is conjugated to 3rd person plural -ают and trimmed to -аю, followed by the participle ending -щий. Otherwise, all of the following would have to be created: -ащий, -ящий, -ущий, -ющий. These are not different forms of the same suffix, but different conjugation classes of the base verb. Nonetheless, I do agree that initial а/я is not part of the suffix. Quaijammer (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Guldrelokk Let's think this through before just deleting these suffixes. My motivation for -аемый is that for many verbs, the passive participle suffix clearly replaces the infinitive suffix, e.g. терп-е́ть -> терп-и́мый, ма́зать -> ма́ж-емый, hence the same could be said here, e.g. уваж-а́ть -> уваж-а́емый. This is the same reason I prefer to treat -ание(-anije) as a suffix, parallel to -ение(-enije), rather than having two suffixes -ние(-nije) and -ение(-enije) that behave in non-parallel ways. Since I've been the main person working on adding etymologies, you'll find lots of words with etymologies that reference -ание(-anije) , and so it's not so simple to just delete that suffix. -аемый doesn't have so many words referring to it but we should maintain consistency of analysis. Benwing2 (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: But compare терпим and уважаем. Verbs that drop the stem-final а, like писать(pisatʹ), пишем(pišem), do not have this participle at all, so there is simply no way to treat а as part of the suffix: it would be plainly wrong. Guldrelokk (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
To the active participle: note how писать(pisatʹ), пишу(pišu) has пишущий(pišuščij). So to summarise: -ющий(-juščij) only occurs after а when the stem invariably has it. Whenever it is possible to ‘replace’ the vowel, it does that. Thus, in уважа-ющий -ющий is clearly suffixed to the stem уважа-, which has no allomorphs altogether: if it could drop its а like писать(pisatʹ), it would be уважущий(uvažuščij). On the other hand, -емый(-emyj)only occurs after those stems in а which have no allomorphs altogether: for other verbs of the first conjugation the corresponding participle does not exist. So again, уважаемый is clearly уважа-емый, because if уважать(uvažatʹ) could lose its final а, it wouldn’t have a passive participle.
I think that -ание(-anije) is a way harder and a very different question. I’ll need to think a lot about it. But the participle suffixes I requested for deletion are unjustifiable: removing them will not change anything globally. Guldrelokk (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
As per my reasoning in the section above, I suggest Move to -мый(-myj). The е/и is governed by the 2nd person plural conjugation of the verb (-ем/-им). It is not part of the participle suffix. Quaijammer (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
I find that "anh hai" is used outside of the family context as well; I am yet to find analogous ways of using the other "family relation + hai" expressions. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latin. This together with inodiatus and perodiatus are taken by L&S from Forcellini (edit: on another look odiatus doesn't occur even there; the other two words do). However, in Forcellini itself it says "word to be removed from the Dictionary, occurs only in Not. Tir. p. 77." This is what it's referring to: as far as I can tell, it's a manuscript/codex of Tironian Notes shorthand, and is indeed the only place I've found those words in. I don't know if misreading or scribal mistake is more likely. The words themselves reflect presumable proto-Romance forms (e.g. odiato) based on the verb odiare which doesn't exist in Latin. Those forms cannot derive from odīre - the perfect participle from that would have been *ōdītus or *ōssus. Unless someone can provide dictionary entries for those words from Medieval Latin dictionaries or cite examples from medieval texts, I think it's fair to conclude that the editors of Forcellini have mistakenly included them (forgot to remove them), whence they've found their way into L&S, but are not actual Latin words. Perhaps they have a place in the newly-emerging proto-Romance section.
I just tried searching odiatorum and easily found a result; I haven't found anything legitimate for an inflected form of inodiatus, however. I'm not sure whether we should reject something only found in the Tironian Notes in any case, and perhaps they would be better to keep with an appropriate label. Also, for the future, this is the wrong place to post this; WT:RFVN is the forum where you should post entries that you doubt the existence of. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds21:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
I've found exactly 2 attestations of odiatorum in google: one is this 1591 edition which is corrected to exosorum in later editions; the other I haven't found corrections of. archive.org has been somewhat more productive, showing for instance a quote from what I gather to be a book by a 19th century Italian historian Pietro Martini - which I haven't been able to find - quoting an unidentified parchment. Another is this from ~1700. The word odiatus, as I've made clear in an edit, is absent from the edition of Tironian Notes I've linked to (presumably corrected to odietas as a marginal gloss of odiosus), the word inodiatus has 4 alternative readings, perodiatus one. Ernout, Meillet has this to say, marking odiatus with an asterisk. The words are not in De Vaan. This dictionary follows Forcellini with the same single (and apparently false) reference, and so do some other minor dictionaries.
Here's another article conjecturing that the form odiare must have existed based on that same codex as well as the Romance forms - however, as we've seen, the form isn't truly attested even there, and Romance points to proto-Romance, not to Latin. "Neue Formenlehre..." gives what seems to be a comprehensive list of all attested forms in pre-Medieval Latin, neither odiare nor odiatus are among them - the -ia- forms are presumably subjunctives, whose very existence by itself precludes a verb odiare from appearing. That said, inodiare at least does seem to have inscriptional evidence and is listed. Looking for perodiare will be a bit too much for me right now.
I think this should be enough evidence from me. However, I'd also like to raise a methodological question: if a word that is expressly ungrammatical in Classical terms, is attested during or after the Medieval Period a couple of times with dubious manuscript authority, and corresponds to or is indistinguishable from a proto-Romance form, can be included on wiktionary as a properly Latin entry, then I have to wonder - firstly, what's the point of having the Vulgar Latin category (whose name I take a big issue with and whose link doesn't appear to be working, but never mind)? And secondly - does this mean that I can add a Latin word (naturally marking it as "contemporary Latin" or the like) found in the personalised dictionary, or simply in the writings or speech, of some modern Latin-speaking circle or internet venue? How about a random PDF file with computer vocabulary floating around the net? Is being found on the Latin wikipedia a solid enough ground for inclusion? Certainly it would be more useful for a modern Latinist. Do medieval Latinised Germanisms and Gallicisms such that abound in all those early medieval laws quality as Medieval Latin? What about their corruptions that are firmly-attested by several manuscripts? Last, but by no means least — does Nutella Nutellae and other macaronic Latin qualify? I know this might seem like it's going well beyond the scope of this discussion, but I suspect the answers to this latter part might instead be at the very core of our apparent disagreement over the inclusion of the words in question. By the way, I'm henceforth including the alternative conjugation of odio into this discussion. Also, should we continue this here, at RFVN or at some other place? Sorry, I'm very poorly familiar with community pages. — This unsigned comment was added by Brutal Russian (talk • contribs) at 17:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC).Reply
Attestations from Vicipaedia or the like do not suffice. The question for mediaeval and modern Latin has been whether a single durably archived use or mention suffices (as it does for classical words), or whether three independent ones should be required. I support the latter position, and we have applied it with some success: it avoids words that just one person coined for, say, Harrius Potter, but still allows in words that seem like "bad" Latin but occur in multiple manuscripts and might reasonably be something that someone would come across and want to know the meaning of (like sewera). My viewpoint therefore leads me to be very inclusive of anything that may be classical (if there are several proposed readings, we can include them all with explanatory labels), and exclusive of things written after the Late Latin period unless they meet our more stringent requirements. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds20:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Regarding "WT:RFVN is the forum": If OP's opinion is that words only attested through Tironian notes should be deleted, it would be an RFD or BP and not an RFV matter.
Regarding "random PDF file with computer vocabulary floating": That's probably not durably archived (WT:CFI). And even if it were, there would be the mentioning stuff (such as "should maintain a list of materials").
Regarding CFI, types of sources (Tironian notes, manuscripts, editions) and types of Latin: 1. Tironian notes, manuscripts and older editions (if they aren't clear misprints or misspellings) should be okay for attestation. There can be labels and usage notes to note such things. 2. Even Contemporary Latin obiously is an LDL too like so many others languages and no constructed language as for example Esperanto. And why shouldn't Latin Harry Potter attest Latin words, when other Harry Potter versions can attest words for other LDLs (e.g. Scots, Cymric or West Frisian)?
It’s a good question what we do with well-attested manuscript corruptions that have creeped into literature. fariō(“salmon trout”) (whencever people are so sure about the meaning of this hapax) has even been borrowed into English though in Meillet’s and Ernout’s words “sans doute graphie fautive de sariō” (from long ſ to f as it seems). Imho using {{n-g}} and saying what kind of corruption (with what likelihood, if applicable) a thing is is a good idea (even in Medieval Latin “odiatus” is a soloecism). There are lots of examples for ancient languages, considering Semitic languages too, where occurences of “holy” scriptures are corrupt but only later found to be so etc. Because why shouldn’t we if we include misspellings? Traditional dictionaries write things like “so in the Ms. XYZ” (funny if juxtaposed with the three-quotes criterion, and tricky with the templates). Or we need a layout similar to {{no entry}} for corruptelae. You need to let your creativity work. Fay Freak (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Interesting, I've checked the Latin misspellings category and only one item in there can be said to be a misspelling, the hypercorrection pariens for pariēs (the status of nasalisation/nasal in this environment and its timeline seem to be unclear). Other items that aren't abbreviations reflect genuine alternative morphophonetic forms, even if -acius for -aceus is likely to be at least in part a result of phonetic developments. What criterion defines those alternative forms as misspelings? In some non-literary corpora, the rate of omission of the final -M can be well over 50% (data from Adams 2013) - this hardly qualifies for a misspelling any more, but the language of those inscriptions is undeniably Latin. Late inscriptions and early Medieval texts still identified as Latin (even if with reservations) consistently fail to distinguish between the Accusative and the Ablative; Medieval Latin always spells -e- for -ae- in the 1st declension. Why do we not supply these and other things as alternative Late/Medieval forms? Certainly it looks like that's what has been dome in the case of the alternative conjugation of odio, only there a whole paradigm has been made up, apparently on the barely-extant evidence of just the participle - one can walk away from wiktionary falsely convinced that all of those forms are good Latin. Even if we were to confirm that paradigm with more than the current 3 New Latin attestations (+1 emended one) of the participle, I think it's beyond doubt that the form is an erroneous back-conversion from a Romance language for the properly Latin invīsus — and it's in this connection that I've asked about macaronic language, because the only difference here is intention. Would 3 attestations of a macaronic word give it a pass?
It looks like the misspellings category is currently being used as the generic dump for any non-standard form that's either attested or doesn't foreshadow Romance forms, and thus cannot be filed under the reconstructed namespace. This doesn't seem like an optimal solution to me, but filing them under for instance "Medieval Latin" doesn't seem a much better option - indeed, hence my objection to the inclusion of odiatus etc under such a label. I think we need to somehow draw a clear distinction between forms current and accepted in some period and unambiguous corrigenda, non-literary (inscriptional etc), or as of yet unsettled or competing usage (modern Latin vocabulary). For entries currently residing under misspellings I would suggest "Non-literary form", an equivalent of "Dialectal form" in other languages, with a way to specify place and period. For solecisms like odiatus, including those found in dictionaries on shaky or wrong evidence, as well as corruptions, I agree with the above proposal — there has to be a way to clearly indicate the non-acceptance of the former and the corrupted nature of the latter. And I don't think we can have an "alternative" conjugation like that without every form's page indicating its essentially fictional nature — unlike the 1st conjugation there are 2 pre-Medieval attested forms of the 3d conjugation odere - yet those aren't sufficient grounds to make up a whole new conjugation for the verb either. If anything, the reconstructed space seems like just the place for those. As for odiatus, its most solid attestation is a species of midge called Culicoides odiatus — perhaps that's what the page should be provisionally reprofiled to. ♥Brutal Russian (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
I think the following uncontracted forms of ἀγαθοεργέω(agathoergéō) created by RexPrincipum, are incorrect. This is the fault of Module:grc-conj, which currently gives some uncontracted forms if you set the dialect to Koine rather than Attic. But Koine contracts in the same way as Attic, thus ἀγαθοεργοῦμεν(agathoergoûmen) not *ἀγαθοεργέομεν(*agathoergéomen), ἀγαθοεργῶσι(agathoergôsi) not *ἀγαθοεργέωσι(*agathoergéōsi).
Hi, I've seen your comment, but the thing is that, as a rule, these verbs also contract in koine, they still appear in their uncontracted forms throughout the corpus of text, although rarely. But do correct me if I am incorrect, I am not the most experienced. RexPrincipum (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
The dual was completely extinct by the time of Koine, wasn't it? If so, then setting the conjugation template to |dial=koi should suppress the dual column, and all the entries for dual forms of Koine-only verbs should be deleted too. —Mahāgaja · talk11:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
In ἀγαθοεργέω, non-contracted -οε- in the middle of the word looks wrong in combination with contracted endings. My edition of the New Testament reads ἀγαθουργῶν (2x contracted) in Acta 14.17. Akletos (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago10 comments6 people in discussion
See WT:Beer parlour#Old-English-pseudo-prefixes. I went through all the Old English prefixes and identified those that I think aren't true prefixes, i.e. they're just the first part of a compound word. I identified two categories: (1) those I'm pretty sure aren't true prefixes, (2) those I think aren't true prefixes but I'm not totally sure. They are:
I think "ful(l)-" exists as an uncommon verbal prefix (that is, it can behave like a prefix by being unstressed when attached to a verb). In present-day English "fulfill", at least, the main stress is on the second syllable, and this may also be the case for "fullfyllan" (I haven't found a reference yet for this specific word). Another "ful(l)-" prefixed verb is fuldōn. Some of the sources I've looked at distinguish between a few different types of elements that can be prefixed to verbs; e.g. Minkova 2008 says that niþer- is a "particle" (p. 24).--Urszag (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
When the meaning of a combination H + T is a specialization of the meaning of T, in which H serves as an attribute defining the specialization according to the meaning of free-standing H, then this is almost certainly an ordinary compound. This is most obvious when H is a noun. Lacking a generally agreed-on definition of when a morpheme is bound, we cannot hope to have a watertight criterion for separating the wheat from the chaff, so we need to proceed with some boldness. Not deleting will mean we harbour very many false prefixes. Deleting will mean we perhaps lose a few – probably not a big deal since the analysis of HT = H + T is not wrong. So I advocate to Delete all except those H- for which an argument can be made – like for ful- above – that some term HT is not an ordinary compound. (Since twi- is very likely a true prefix, it would not be surprising if an argument can be made that þri- is actually also a prefix inherited from Proto-Germanic *þri-.) --Lambiam09:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I have emptied the categories for the first group; there were only a few entries to change. If no one objects, I'll delete the first group of prefixes in a few days. Benwing2 (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
We have all- and even- and self- as prefixes in modern English, and some languages either predecessorial or related to Old English, which might suggest that eal-, eall- and efen- and self-, at least, might be real prefixes. - -sche(discuss)00:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
For some reason in linguistics (Indo-European linguistics at least) adpositions and adverbs when compounded are considered affixes, but other wordtypes aren't. I don't know how that tradition arose, but changing it would certainly require a policy discussion. (It could be done for example the way it has been accidentally done under aġēn, but that would require a lot of changes in a lot of languages.) In that context, @Benwing2 what you've done above seems sensible to me, as most remaining prefixes are considered prefixes in cognate languages. Anyway, this can be closed, no? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don’t see the benefit of deletion, neither for the collective of editors nor for the users. Panthera onca is not some obscure species that you only find mentioned in specialized scientific literature, and we can provide an etymology for the epithet to the curious user. --Lambiam12:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
That's not separate: the species was first described by Linnaeus under the name Felis onca, then was transfered to the genusPanthera, which automatically changed the name to Panthera onca. It would be like treating the name on someone's birth certificate and their married name as two different occurences of their given name. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
Translingual. Entered without any definition, just a description of what the glyph looks like, visually. In the wording of CFI, terms have to "convey meaning".__Gamren (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
“Incomplete infinity” is a concept that is discussed in the literature.[1][2][3] I have no evidence,though, that the symbol ⧜ is, or has been, in actual use with that meaning. --Lambiam13:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
No; as of the July 20th dump, we have mainspace pages for for 42,300 code points (out of 143,859 according to Wikipedia). — Eru·tuon04:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
As I said on the RFD for -lendingen: This isn't a suffix, it's just the result of applying -ing (second sense) to a word that ends in land, with attendant vowel change. It is silly to analyze islending as is + -lending ("ice + -lander"); it's Island + -ing (Iceland + -er).__Gamren (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Gamren: The reasoning for deletion seems incomplete to me. On the one hand, there is the question about whether -lending technically is a suffix. On the other, the vowel change cannot be presumed to be trivial; it is not like vowels can be changed willy-nilly in Norwegian. The information that -lending rather than -landing is used in demonyms and similar words should be stored somewhere in the dictionary; and given that an official Norwegian dictionary has an entry for -lending, my starting point is that we should have an entry for it here as well. --Njardarlogar (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it should be deleted either, the fact that it is in the dictionary is reason enough for me to keep it. Also it's pretty convenient to get all the derivatives containing -lending from this page. The Norwegian Academy Dictionary also states that it is in fact a suffix, as seen on the entry for "flamlending" on naob.no, though they don't actually have a separate entry page for it. I am in the process of sending them a list of words missing from their dictionary, and will include -lending. Supevan (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
As I said on the RFD for -lendingen: This isn't a suffix, it's just the result of applying -ing (second sense) to a word that ends in land, with attendant vowel change. It is silly to analyze islending as is + -lending ("ice + -lander"); it's Island + -ing (Iceland + -er).__Gamren (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Albanian. Tagged but not listed nearly two years ago with the reason "It is misspelled; the correct spelling is dëgjoj". We do have an entry for dëgjoj, but degjôj is labeled {{lb|sq|Gheg}}, and there's a citation for the inflected form degjôn, so I suspect this is a valid spelling for Gheg dialect if not for the standard language. But I know virtually nothing about Albanian, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion. Pinging @HeliosX, PlatuerGashaj as the creator and deletion proposer respectively. —Mahāgaja · talk10:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
In Dhurata Ahmetaj's song, the verb is pronounced like this only the first time during the first minute. You can search the song online if you like to review its pronounciation. It can be noted that the rhyming word "preokupon" is pronounced here with the vowel [e] too but the pronunciation of the second verb can't be altered because of that only. HeliosX (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
It will be highly difficult to establish this spelling in writing because Gheg is nearly always written without any circumflexes and often without the diacritic of the schwa letter. HeliosX (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
All of them were created by my bot several years ago, based on Module:ar-verb. When I created that module, I did a careful analysis of hamza spellings based on several sources. I documented my findings in detail in w:Hamza, where they still remain. I don't think I made any mistakes but you never know; this particular area of Arabic spelling is very hairy, and there are disagreements among different authors. The IP apparently thinks spellings like تسوءوا are more correct. If you look at what my module generates, you'll see it generates both spellings, and lists the IP's preferred spelling first. The dual spellings are intentional, since there is author disagreement in this case. Am I right or is the IP right? Benwing2 (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I was taught that following Quranic orthography, it was valid to write the hamza without a seat for e.g. سَاءُوا(sāʔū), but that doesn't even seem to be one of the options presented. That would be to avoid two wāws in a row, but for MSA usage where that rule is not generally applied, the wāw should be used as a seat instead. I don't know of any justification for using a yā', but based on w:Hamza, I would guess that it follows the trend of certain medial hamzas being typeset with yā' as the seat rather than seatless, even if not historically justified. So the IP is seemingly right from a prescriptivist perspective, but given that we're descriptivist, I don't see a problem with keeping anything attested (maybe labelled in some manner). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds06:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: The w:Hamza article mentions Barron's grammar books. I've got his 501 Arabic Verbs. The third-person masculine plural past active ofجَاءَ(jāʔa) is given only as جَاؤُوا(jāʔū) (not جَائُوا(jāʔū)) but the third-person masculine plural non-past active indicative is given as يَجِيؤُونَ(yajīʔūna) (not يَجِيئُونَ(yajīʔūna)).
A Student Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic by Eckehard Schulz, however gives يَجِيئُونَ(yajīʔūna).
As far as I recall I've seen the forms with ء(ʔ) only in older Quranic writing. I've never seen hamzas preceding a short or long u in the form of ئ(ʔ), but ؤ, as mentioned by Anatoli. --Z14:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
It is يَجِيئُونَ(yajīʔūna), because i takes precedences before u. As no i vowel environs those third person male past plural forms they cannot be written with ئ(ʔ). If in some Arabic country the opposite is considered permissible, I plead ignorance; search engines even hardly find forms like شائوا and correct to شاؤوا even if in ASCII quotation marks. Forms like شائوا should be removed from the conjugation tables at least owing to undue weight. Following experiences like on Talk:هذا we have to expect that Arabic grammars also contain wrong forms. Fay Freak (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
No kasra or ى around the glottal stop, then it can't be ـئـ. These are basics in Arabic orthography. No damma or و around the glottal stop, then it can't be ؤ. Some words are acceptable to be spelled with either, but in the eighties, one of the Arabic language academies (in Egypt?) favored the ء on the line for some words over ؤ that was commonly used, e.g. دؤوب (traditional style); دءوب (newer style). — This unsigned comment was added by Mahmudmasri (talk • contribs) at 20:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC).Reply
I have never seen an unseated Hamza in front of a non-vocalic letter, I must admit. Apart from that, I too prefer شاؤوا or شاءوا to those forms with a Yā'-seat, because they should only ever appear next to unrounded high vowels.
Also, on a side note, this discussion is open since 2020. When is a good time, generally, to either close a RFD or act upon one? Who archives inactive discussions? -Konanen (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep -- The mere fact that it's possible to write it as ansein and then label it as superseded or historic or whatever means we should keep it. There's no need to play games with ourselves. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 10:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Delete. If we kept an sein it would be hard to argue why we shouldn't allow lemmata like zufrieden sein (zufriedensein until 1996), vorhanden sein (vorhandensein until 1996) or fertig sein (fertigsein until 1996) (and countless more, like ab sein, auf sein, aus sein, dabei sein, weg sein, zu sein). I second user Lambiam's suggestion to move to ansein and note the superseded spelling. Skunkassociation (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Move. I agree we might add the superseded version for posterity's sake with an explanation ("compounded from an + sein"), and maybe add that to either "sein" (or "an", or both?) under compounds? -Konanen (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The entry ŋó is simply a rendition of Suyá. The spelling ŋó does not follow any established orthographic conventions for the language (it is taken from Guedes 1992, which uses its own ad hoc conventions and is in general not a very reliable source on the language). I was unable to move it because the page ngô already exists. Degoiabeira (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Delete. I don't really see any value in keeping ad-hoc phonological transcriptions when we can lemmatise at the established orthography. Thadh (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete ... we have this same problem with a few other languages, like Abinomn, where in some cases it's not clear what the proper spelling should be because two transcription methods overlap. But in this case, it's clear that ŋó is <ngô>, so I would move the word to the new spelling. —Soap—10:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
So... I ask that these kinds of entries be deleted, because they contain a postposition, which is hard to translate in English as one word. Currently have found four words: ანგელოზი-ვით, აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ, აღმოსავლეთ-ის-ა-კენ, მათ-თვის. Now 1st can be translated as "like an angel", second and third "towards east", fourth as "for them; by themselves..." and other nuances the postposition carries. I don't think it's proper to have these forms on Wiktionary, since the pages would pile up and bad translations would arise. Just study grammar... I haven't actually looked whether this qualifies at all by the Wiktionary rules, so I'mma ask y'all. For comparison to other languages, these forms are kinda like if Korean 미국에서(migug-eseo, “from America”) entry existed. I'll also ping @Dixtosa, Reordcraeft. Additional questions if we decide to delete them... would there be an easier way to actually find them? -Solarkoid (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Our concepts of SOP and words aren't all that good at dealing with agglutinative languages. A few precedents I can think of are "-que" in Latin and "'s" in English (forms with both of which are deleted as they're clitics that can go on syntactically-unrelated words), prefixed prepositions in Hebrew (prefixed forms excluded by Hebrew community consensus), and case endings in highly inflected languages such as Latin and Finnish. Latin accusative can be used for toward, ablative for away from, and locative for at. I'm not very familiar with Finnish cases, but there are a variety of cases with prepositional meaning. Then there are the long and complex German compounds that native speakers consider SOP, but that the overall community decided to keep. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ye that's understandable, to be honest. However, additionally the thing is, none of the postpositions listed there: 1) Can mean anything on their own 2) Aren't considered as cases by anyone; none of them were given names. Akaki Shanidze, a well-respected Georgian linguist, considered things like -ში(-ši) cases, since 1) they didn't show the case marker 2) they could be isolated as a case per meaning (like Locative case). Georgian, like any language, deals with postpositions like word-case marker-postposition, where pp can either be a isolated one or suffixed. -ვით(-vit) means "like (close to in shape, size, features...) for example, შესახებ(šesaxeb) means 'about' and is spaced. But like, I don't know what to do with them. I guess since Hebrew excludes the prefixed prepositions and Korean also does that with their "markers", there should be no need for ones in Georgian, since they don't just change meaning for one word or another, they're systematic. I'll look at different responses, see what other people think. Also see if Dixtosa responds, he hasn't been active muchito. Thank you for your answer. -Solarkoid (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
I partially agree. Forms like ანგელოზი-ვით can be deleted, but there are so many non-lemma forms for other languages, I doubt we should make it our priority at this point. When it comes to words like აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ (eastward, eastwards), I think we can keep them. These words are useful when it comes to navigation, whether on foot or by sailing a boat or flying a plane. All in all, we should look at the usefulness of each entry and not delete them in broad sweep. --Reordcraeft (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Honestly just because it has a one word translation in English using -ward doesn't mean it should be an entry in Georgian. I have more problems than imprecision in definitions. Typically, inflection of would be used for cases or conjugations and others, but not postposition. What inflection are you going to specify აღმოსავლეთისკენ as? LOCATIVE? Locative is a case, so is Ablative and others, so unless proven or discussd to be a case (like in case of -shi, -ze cf. Shanidze), you can't just assign them values like that. As for further problems with აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ: It's like so unnecessary. -k'en is a suffix for movement towards something. ANYTHING at that. You can select any noun and damn straight it'll work because it's a postposition. It is suffixed to a noun in genitive case, so, imho, keeping cases is fine and is in good will, while keeping postpositions is just unnecessary UNLESS you have linguistic proof that it can be considered a case. Also for "These words are useful when it comes to navigation" Well they can be built as easily by a person learning even a little bit of grammar as useful it is. Since there is no exact rule on agglutinative languages here, I think it's for community's best interest to deem such entries impractical, because they are so easily guessable from the root word. Unless you prove me that every little bit has to be here in this dictionary, then let's add entries like მიკაქალ, პაკა, ბაი, ოკ, სახში, ტვალეჩი (ngl last one kinda deserves an entry) since they are so widely used. Also მხოლობითი which I've heard far more than მხოლოობითი but is not attested in a dictionary. However: for Mingrelian and Laz these are cases and should be treated as such, but that's for future and they are clearly cases, so I'm not going to bring that here. I feel like I'm in court. Nothing further, Your Honor. Also I'm partially going off from Korean entries here too. @Karaeng Matoaya In your expert opinion, should entries like 엄마처럼/엄마같이 (not saying sole, dictionary words like 쏜살같이) and 왼쪽으로 be created? I'm asking you because it's kind of the same matter here, though y'all view those as particles instead. But I kinda have that problem too with some entries having -ც. -Solarkoid (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think what Solarkoid is trying to say here put very simply is that this is SOP, since these postpositions can be attributed to any noun by exactly the same method. This seems to me to be as SOP as any monoword compound can be, but with an enormous amount of entries to be created. Is there any point of not deleting them (for example Georgian speakers or learners not being able to recognize the suffix being a postposition)? If not, then a strong delete from my part. Thadh (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, there are good reasons why we should not delete them. Someone may want to look it up, wow. That someone is probably neither a native speaker nor a learner though because it is pretty easy to guess any postpositional form from two basic forms (genitive and plural). But, have you ever looked up a word in a language you knew nothing about?
I think WT's objective should not be to include any variant of any word that anyone could find anywhere. The reason to delete this is so that it doesn't fill up the mainspace with words that can be deducted very simply. This isn't different from any SOP except for the fact it doesn't use a whitespace. Why not add whole sentences in Scriptio continua? Thadh (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Dixtos, Wiktionary has this convenient little feature called "words containing..." under the search if the word you're looking up isn't an entry. We could even do redirects to the main entry where they can open the inflection table and see it for themselves. Like look up the word "დიდედისთვის", which doesn't exist, and it will tell you, that the word "დიდედა" contains the word, so I still stand by my opinion, that it doesn't matter. And if they can't find it that way still, let's just let them add it to entry requests, add main entry and add a redirect even. Redirect has to be discussed still, but we'll see. -Solarkoid (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Given the small number of languages using this script and their being limited to a relatively small area, the risk of overlap with words in other languages seems pretty small, and the likelihood that at least some Georgian editors will be able to spot it seems pretty high. That means you can be much more liberal with redirects than for scripts that are widely used by lots of languages with no connection to each other. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
@Hk5183 Sense "to have sexual intercourse with". It doesn't seem lexicalized to me, and AFAICT it's quite rare, too. Looking cursorily, I found one cite, and there is another on DDO, both of which seem like nonce euphemisms by romantic authors (Femina is a women's magazine). ODS lists a large number of minor semantic variations, but not this one.__Gamren (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
I personally have never encountered this meaning in reading (only in DDO), so I cannot attest to it's usage. I agree that it is not at the core of the word's meaning, so delete it if you think best. Thanks! Hk5183 (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
If "Standard Arabic" is defined chiefly in terms of the case system, the conjugations, and the traditional grammars that come with both, one may find very many "dialectal" words that become "standardized" by adding the appropriate case markers when used, and with them whatever productive combination-forms and derivational patterns in the vernaculars, such as this very segment. Since its function is recognizable and it is fairly productive, I do not see why it cannot be classed as a "suffix".
The whole "informal" tag for Arabic entries, which I have been trying to remove gradually, albeit with some resistance from disgruntled IP's, is to me utterly absurd: the employment of the case system itself strips any supposed "informality" from speech, regardless of the lexicon. How could a word like بُوسَة(būsa) be "informal" when declined in the manner characteristic of speeches and books? And, to me, the use of this segment is analogous to it. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Roger.M.Williams, Fay Freak: The term بَلْطَجِيّ(balṭajiyy) is borrowed from Eastern dialects to MSA. The suffix is nonexistent in Standard Arabic whatsoever, which is the opposite of the prefix كَهْرُو(kahrū) in that it is productive and largely used. The suffix جِيّ(jiyy) can't be considered as such just because it is found in some borrowed words from dialects or other languages. Should we consider تِلِ(tili) (in تِلِفِزْيُون(tilifizyūn), تِلِغْرَاف(tiliḡrāf) and تِلِفُون(tilifūn)) an Arabic prefix because it is found in some borrowed terms, even though it was never treated as such in the borrowing language? — Fenakhay(تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت)22:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
The distinction between the dialects and the literary language is very often blurred when vernacularisms are "adjusted" to fit in the conjugation and declension systems. You are speaking of "MSA" and the "dialects" as if they were almost antipodal (perhaps like Chinese and Swedish), but if you scour through modern news articles and opinion pieces, you will probably notice that very many of them are written in some "standardized vernacular", while some have whole paragraphs that are entirely composed in the syntax of the vernacular. The more starkly "dialectal" elements are interrogatives and other like particles, and when those are excised, you end up with a composition that is lexically "dialectal" yet grammatically "standard".
So my question is this: is this segment used in vernacular and/or literary formations on the model of the borrowings? If yes, then I deem it to be productive in some language. The question whether this language is the literary language or a dialect assumes that the two do not spill over each other at all. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I doubt it is under no circumstances. It probably pops up too often in literature, though then not being as unmarked as it is now labelled (probably jocular? one hasn’t labelled it so on the other hand because it would be misleading because in basilects it is normal). Some words containing it are clearly part of the general standard, though one would have to seek examples where it’s not only by surface but the formation has taken place in literary use. بَلْطَجِيّ(balṭajiyy) clearly is manifestly general Arabic but not formed in it. Fay Freak (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I changed the label to lower case, but the generated category contains only the one term so this is still a one-off solution as currently implemented. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Wow, what a clutz! I'm wondering though, why is it that the current alias substitution works even tho it's still different from the "Pre-classical" of the category field. Is it that the first letter only is case-insensitive? Why does categorisation even care what's written in the label if the category is unchanged?? Brutal Russian (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Brutal Russian: I thought you would understand: The dataset is called post-classical. To this argument of labels the aliases have to be mapped; of course everything is case-sensitive. display makes that all appear uniform. Fay Freak (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fenakhay, sending these to RFD is not an appropriate way to handle an entry that obviously exists. In general, we should avoid bulking up a forum like this this with entries that obviously shouldn't be deleted. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds18:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Lean delete, which religious titles to include and which not can be difficult because there are many metaphors and allusions involved, but this one is rather straightforwardly descriptive. So it is closer to Holy One of God (imo excludible) than to Lamb of God (imo includible). ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Speaking from a background that leaves me rather ignorant of much of Islam, I can only guess at what or who "Allah's Messenger" would refer to -- Might this be an angel? Any of the prophets? A specific prophet? I don't know.
In other words, I agree with Mahāgaja's point, and I cannot agree with Fay Freak's contention, that "[i]t's always the one relevant in the narrative of the religion in question" would mean any English speaker would perforce understand this in a sum-of-parts manner.
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This construction isn't really a word (not in Dehkhoda), and the attempt to treat it as a verb has produced the convoluted usage notes. The relevant information is now contained in منتظر#Usage notes, which I think conveys the information rather more succinctly.
Latest comment: 8 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion
All of the entries for Barngarla on Wiktionary follow the standardised spelling (as specified here), except for one entry kawu, and two other entries kauo and kawi that specify themselves as alternate spellings of kawu. The version of this word with standardised spelling can be found at gawoo (and possibly also gabi). The Barngarla Language Advisory Comittee prescibes that Barngarla should be written according to the modern standardised spelling. These other spellings are not part of any sort of obsolete spelling system, but rather are just arbitrary spellings that some linguists used to transcribe Barngarla words prior to the modern spelling standardisation. Therefore I propose that these entries be deleted. --AndreRD (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
I looked into the situation here. The Barngarla language fell out of use by 1964, but has recently been revived thanks to an effort spearheaded by Ghil'ad Zuckermann, a linguist. Apparently Zuckermann himself developed a new orthography for the language. There are plenty of old pre-1964 texts with attestations (at least mentions) of Barngarla words not written in Zuckermann's orthography, but the evidence suggests these writers were using ad-hoc orthographies and there was no written standard. I suppose the most logical thing to do is to delete these old ad-hoc spellings - otherwise we'd clutter the dictionary with all sorts of one-off spellings for all kinds of LDLs. Do we have a common practice in these situations? This, that and the other (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Of course, Wiktionary is not paper. Incidentally, while we are at it, should we get these pre-1964 texts burnt? A sane compromise is to by default require 2 independent mentions with the same spelling if there are no examples of use. --RichardW57m (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The sense 'well-gone' (perpetrated by @咖喱饭) currently (26 June 2021) given for Pali sugata is either covered by 'faring well' or needs separate senses. "Well-gone" is not proper English in this context, but clearly a literal translation. --RichardW57 (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
This is a tricky one to analyse. There are 784 raw Google hits, but the problem is that killing an elephant for its ivory is exactly what the poachers do, and examples referring to that would be straightforward SoPs. --RichardW57 (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep. I've found a quotation that clearly isn't about elephants. Unfortunately, it's about the killing of Rama VIII (the current king's uncle), from a book that's banned in Thailand. It does, however, clearly show the use of the abstract 'noun' of the idiomatic phrase, so as with the request above we need a clearer explanation of why the abstract noun from the idiom should be excluded. The example shows the noun as the object of a preposition, ถึง(tʉ̌ng) (or a verb acting like one, depending on your taste in grammar). --RichardW57 (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 months ago7 comments7 people in discussion
RFD of the noun section: "a sign for or representation of four", "the value four, e.g. as a score" and "(uncountable) a group of four". Unremarkable variations on the numeral definition that don't deserve a separate noun section. ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Comment. English four, German Vier and Italian quattro also have a listed noun sense. Deletion of the noun section will also remove the information that this is a de word that has a plural on -en. --Lambiam19:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Keep. I added examples, all three noun meanings are remarkable enough and frequently used. I don't think deleting them would be any useful — NickK (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Nick, here. Removing these can cause ambiguity when one comes upon the use cases that would otherwise be provided.
A vicar apostolic has usually been ordained and consecrated as a bishop and stands as such in the apostolic succession, so they may perform the sacrament of holy orders. They do not represent a bishop other than the Pope. A vicar acting as the representative of a Catholic diocesan bishop is usually not themselves a bishop; they have vicarious administrative or judicial powers, but not sacramental ones. --Lambiam15:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Note that all of these exist in the translingual section already. I see little to no value in having language-specific entries for these; the only language-specific data is the pronunciation which could surely be derived from the letter name and the number entry. See also Wiktionary:Requests_for_cleanup#A1. --Fytcha (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
I created these entries while I was alphabetically creating entries from the Norwegian dictionary, where these are present. I think they are useful as they have the Norwegian pronunciation + some link to Bokmålsordboka, Riksmål dictionary, Norwegian lexicon and Wikipedia. Some of them even have other definitions, A4 has a definition unrelated to the paper size for example. Supevan (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
There may be language-specific aspects (pronunciation, inflections). We currently have no entry for Dutch, but note that the entry A4 at the Dutch Wiktionary gives a gender and a pronunciation and lists plural and diminutive forms as well as several derived terms. --Lambiam11:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Well, in practice these terms are attested in all modern languages in use by societies with a need for office supplies, so the entry could eventually become quite long, with endlessly repeated etymologies and definitions. The orthography, etymology, definitions, and related terms are common to all languages, while inflections, pronunciations (of little importance for this set of terms, as Fytcha says) and derived terms differ. There are good arguments for creating all the language entries as well for merging them up to a single Translingual entry; I tend to prefer the latter approach. I like the way the pronunciation section is set up at Homo sapiens, for example. This, that and the other (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete @This, that and the other I agree with this in principle. Is there a precedent for having things like gender and inflection in various languages in a table in the Translingual entry? A translation section is also desirable, as not all languages use A4. In Dutch for instance, the common term is A4'tje. @Fytcha Indeed, this should be discussed more extensively elsewhere (or has it already been?) —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@This, that and the other: It's an interesting idea and I'm not per se opposed but I think the idea of allowing different pronunciations in a translingual entry should be discussed in a BP first because I can see why some would oppose it. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
An interesting case. Viewed alone it is SOP, but the fact that this term is apparently only used in Northern Vietnam is an interesting and important detail that would be lost if this was deleted. This, that and the other (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep. If there is a choice of two semantically appropriate phrases, but only one is in use, I would say it's not sum-of-parts. —Soap—10:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Created by @Crom daba. The inclusion should be based on the usage. We don't create entries for "phonetic respellings" but we have (frequent) misspellings, alternative forms, etc. If the usage can be verified, the entry can be kept but as {{alt form|mn|баярлалаа}} or {{misspelling of|mn|баярлалаа}} --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)06:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Crom daba, LibCae, Fytcha: Still unresolved. It may not be just a "phonetic respelling" but a "common misspelling" (because it's how it's how it's pronounced). If this spelling is attestable, then it should be kept but needs a change of the label. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)01:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Kercha (2012) gives the forms четыри, четверо and штыри as forms of the numeral "four". AFAIK, Rusyn orthography is pretty phonemic, with a three-way contrast ы-и-і. I'd say send to RFV. Thadh (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2, Thadh, ZomBear: Sorry, can't help with this. I lost my Rusyn dictionary. On "четверо" I wonder if it's a noun with the sense "four people", rather than a numeral "four".
Trying to find what is right in Rusyn can be frustrating as different authors can use very different words and spellings. There are multiple standards but it seems to be no standard. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)02:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
It does exist in Classical Syriac but not as a lemma. I believe @Antonklroberts is referencing its non-existence in Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, in which he would be correct. I'll clean the article up and remove the deletion template. --334a (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete if not speedy; different number system does not mean that it isn't decipherable by its components and it isn't one word. —Svārtava (t/u) • 09:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Normally I think CFI's allowance for deleting numbers is too strong, but in this case if you have any idea what a lakh and a crore are, the expressions "ten lakh" and "ten crore" are completely transparent, so I am not opposed to deletion. Benwing2 (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Rishabhbhat, Svartava Would you consider any of the following uses to be idiomatic/figurative for 'very large number' rather than the SOP meaning?
जानकारी के अनुसार आज जिले भर के बाजारों में लगभग दस करोड़ों की खरीदारी हुई।
दस करोड़ों की लागत से बनाया आधुनिक तकनीक का डबल लेन ब्रिज में पांच सालों के भीतर ही दरारें पड़ गई।
योरप में कितने ही ऐसे कला-प्रेमी पड़े हुए हैं जो उनमें की एक-एक तस्वीर के लिए दस-दस लाख पौण्ड तक देने को तैयार हैं।
बाकी दस करोड़ों की आबादी में कितने ही बूढ़े, कितने ही मरीज, कितने ही डाकू, कितने ही भिखमंगे, कितने ही साधु शमिल हैं।
ऐसा गोल्डन लिफाफा दस लाख लोगों को भेजा गया है।
मारुति सुजुकी गुजरात प्लांट में दस लाखों कारों का उत्पादन हुआ पूरा
सौ करोड़ रुपये से कम बिक्री-राशि की दशा में निकटतम सैकड़ों, हजारों, लाखों अथवा दस लाखों या उनके दशमलवांशों में पूरा करके दिया जा सकता है। (ii) सौ करोड़ रुपये या उससे अधिक बिक्री राशि की दशा में निकटतम लाखों, दस लाखों अथवा करोड़ों या उनके दशमलवांशों में पूरा करके दिया जा सकता है।
ये कार्यकर्ता आने वाले नब्बे दिनों में हर दिन दस लाखों बिल्डिंग्स में जाकर लोगों के स्वास्थ्य की जानकारी लेंगे
खत्म होगी मुसाफिरों की मुसीबत, हाईवे के लिए दस करोड़ों राशी स्वीकृत
@Kutchkutch: Even in these sentences, in the first one - लगभग दस करोड़ों की खरीदारी हुई - the use might not be figurative: it translates to nearly ten crores of purchasing. I don't think that even the figurative use for "large number" should be enough to keep it because in any case it would translate to "ten crore(s)" even when figuratively and the meaning (from the components) and figurative use is obvious. —Svārtava (t/u) • 03:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Kutchkutch: Yes, whenever a term is deleted as SOP, I always relink its translation to its parts (instead of removing it) as every sysop should, so nothing would be lost there. The question only is whether this term merits a full entry by itself. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 08:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep. It seems like a compound term hyperonymous to שבת with a slightly different meaning (more formal?). The Torah uses this word as a synonym to שבת. Correct me if am wrong on this one. Tollef Salemann (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago9 comments7 people in discussion
German, not a real prefix. Supposed derivations are instead compounds with wieder. Many compound verbs with wieder can actually be written with a space, even in the infinitive. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Comment: On one hand, lemmings have this one: de.Wikt, DWDS and a number of books refer to the google books:"Präfix wieder-" / google books:"prefix wieder-"; I also see books which refer to its OHG predecessor as a google books:"Präfix widar" / google books:"prefix widar" (though some of these seem to have a different idea of what a "prefix" is than us). OTOH, analysing words formed with it as compounds seems to work. One book says there were cases where the semantics were different, at least in OHG, as in widerfahren vs widar fahren=zurückfahren, but that seems to correspond to modern wider vs wieder so it's still not clear we need wieder-. Meh. - -sche(discuss)19:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Fytcha: The requirement for something written together is traditionally lexicalization, the having become an idiom. A circumstance to be memorized by input and hence occasionally to ponder about when writing if you are not sure whether you just invented an SOP combination or it is a rarer idiomatic combination, I have experienced specifically in using wieder. So all of wiederentdecken, wiederkehren, wiedertaufen have been SOP terms of adverb plus verb at some point—until the point that people picked it up, which of course differs by centuries: you might see that that literal sense of kehren for instance is now tendentially archaic while wiederentdecken belongs to an era of oftener inventions. So none has been formed by prefixation. Correct is {{univerbation}}. Fay Freak (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep. This is definitely a prefix in my opinion, it's pretty much synonymous with re-, which is pretty much only used with Latin-based loans, and wieder- is used instead with native words. It's not the same as just using "wieder" as a separate word, it can be pronounced differently (the prefix is stressed when separable) and can have a different connotation or meaning. Wiederkäuen ('ruminate') doesn't mean the same as wieder kauen ('chew again') (käuen doesn't exist on its own), wiederholen ('repeat' or 'bring back') doesn't mean the same as wieder holen ('bring again'), wiederherstellen ('restore') doesn't mean the same as wieder herstellen ('manufacture again'), wiedergeben ('render, portray, reproduce', also 'give back' which seems to be missing from the entry atm) doesn't mean the same as wieder geben ('give again'), etc. Wieder as a separate word can be 'back (to its original state)', but I believe this is only used with words like herunter or aus indicating the state to return to, and not used before verbs. There are some cases of separable wieder- verbs with the 'back' meaning, which can often end up with 'wieder' at the same place in the sentence as if it was wieder (with the meaning 'again') on its own, in these cases, when the latter is intended, it may be expressed like schonwieder or malwieder to distinguish this. Er gab es mir wieder ('he gave it back to me') from wiedergeben vs Er gab es mir (schon) wieder ('ge gave it to me (yet) again') from wieder and geben. These separable verbs may sometimes be spelled with a space like wieder geben, but I'd say it is rare, and usually these are spelled without a space; specifically with this meaning 'back', whereas the meaning 'again' is a separate word and not a separable prefix. And there are also words with wieder- that are inseperable, like wiederholen in the sense 'repeat', where wieder on its own would often be placed in a different position in the sentence and have a different meaning. Just like words like um and über, it can be used on its own, as a separable prefix, and as an inseparable prefix, and we do consider um- for example a prefix. Unlike fremd- and recht-, wieder- is commonly used, both in various established terms with specific meanings, and also productively attached to other verbs. A few uses of wieder, such as wiederwählen may be considered a univerbation (is separable and has pretty much the same meaning (?) as wieder wählen), but most are not in my opinion. Tajoshu (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep and undelete the literal sense in Joan of Arc. The deletion of the person sense from Joan of Arc was incorrectly justified. In Talk:Joan of Arc, we can read "Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. Articles about the specific places and people belong in Wikipedia" as the justification for deletion. But this does not mean there can be no senses for people, only that the senses should not describe the people in encyclopedic manner. The quoted sentence also refers to places, and under the incorrect interpretation of the sentence, we would also need to delete senses for places from place names, which we do not want to do and have not been doing. It was further said that "Most terms in Category:en:Individuals are not entries about individuals but about terms named after individuals", which is not obvious to me and even if it were true, many of the entries there are for specific individuals, e.g. Aristotle: "An ancient Greek philosopher, logician, and scientist (382–322 B.C.E.), student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great." We did see some efforts to get rid of senses for specific individuals in the past, but that never achieved anything like consensus; see e.g. Talk:Xenocrates. And in Talk:Joan of Arc I do not see 2/3-consensus for deleting the literal sense, so the closure does not appear correct as for consensus either. In Talk:George VI I do not see the required 2/3 supermajority for deletion either. WT:NSE does not require us to delete Joan of Arc's literal sense, from what I can see. As pointed out elsewhere, we have other multi-word names such as Jesus Christ, Alexander the Great, Darwin's Bulldog, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Mary Magdalene, Robin Hood and I have just checked that they contain senses for specific people. “Joan of Arc”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows support of multiple lemmings, so we can even use WT:LEMMING as an arbitrary aid. Thus, the deletion of Joan of Arc person sense contradicts the usual interpretation of the part of CFI quoted for the support for deletion and contradicts common practice shown on very many of the entries in Category:en:Individuals even if not all of them, and contradicts WT:LEMMING, which can help us when we feel undecisive about what to do as part of WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
As for WT:NSE's "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic", "of Arc" is neither a family name nor a patronymic, so this does not apply. The notion that we exclude all person senses from multi-word person names was refuted above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Revisiting this a bit late.
From the WP article at w:Joan of Arc, particularly the #Name section, my understanding is that the of Arc or d'Arc portions of the name are in fact patronymic, at least as understood by the chroniclers who first recorded (something like) this version of her name roughly 24 years posthumously.
The EN entry at Joan of Arc currently has no proper noun sense, only the figurative sense -- which seems correct to me inasmuch as I understand the policy at WT:NSE.
The JA entry at ジャンヌ・ダルク(Jannu Daruku) currently has only the proper noun sense -- which seems like an entry we shouldn't have?
Keep the figurative senses of these entries, at the very least (I'd have no objection to keeping the literal senses either but whatever approach we take should be consistent across entries). If attestability is in doubt then RFV is the appropriate forum to discuss that, so it's not relevant to discussions here. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The suffixes -li/-lı/-lu/-lü and -siz/-sız/-suz/-süz can be added to any Turkish noun to form adjectives meaning “with ...” and “without ...”. For example: şekerli kahve = “coffee with sugar”; şekersiz kahve = “coffee without sugar”. IMO there has to be a specific reason to have entries for such adjectives, such as that they have a specific idiomatic meaning (tatlı = “sweet”, not the regular “having taste”), or that there is a dedicated corresponding English adjective (ünlü = “famous”). --Lambiam17:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
If we go based on these 2 rules we'd have to delete a lot of pages. Maybe mirror other dictionaries. {{R:TDK}} has the +-li form for some fruits, for example. Mainly those used as flavouring or in bakery. To my surprise they also have abajurlu and abajursuz. Then I came to discover that there's lampshaded. --Whitekiko (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm not supportive of the argument behind this deletion. Because Latin has such a well-understood morphology, we have a practice of including the complete set of inflections for Latin words even if some forms are not directly attested. In the case of abambulō, these are the only possible perfect and supine forms; if attestations were encountered, there is no doubt whatsoever that these would be the forms in use, not only in terms of this being a first-declension verb, but also as a compound of ambulō. Moreover, there's no semantic reason why the verb would lack a perfect or supine stem. Therefore, the forms should be kept. This, that and the other (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep because, these being the expected forms as TTO says, they are also the forms that do get used when an author needs to use the verb in the perfect: here are three (1800s) cites of abambulavit. (Many Google Books hits for forms of abambul- are actually scannos of obambul-, but these works have ab-.) - -sche(discuss)06:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep per TTO and because it does seem to be attested, I can find uses of abnatavit, abnataverat, abnatavi (starting in the 1600s, but that's in part because Google Books doesn't include much earlier stuff so one would have to search elsewhere for it) and dictionaries going back to at least the 1650s mention abnatavi when enumerating the forms of abnato. - -sche(discuss)05:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Translingual, supposedly meaning the ISO 3166-1 three-letter code for Great Britain (the island).
This is factually wrong, because GBN is not defined in ISO 3166-1 (which gives 2 and 3 letter codes to all countries). The codes for the UK are GB and GBR, and no mention is made of Great Britain the island anywhere.
It also can't be a member of the related standard ISO 3166-2, because those codes all refer to subdivisions of countries and follow a strict pattern, which in this case would be GB-GBN.
I spotted that (and the table on Wikipedia that actually says GB-GBN) but didn't want to overcomplicate the original request because I have a feeling that Wikipedia's wrong. I think they mention the codes EAW, GBN and UKM in the remark "for completeness" because they're in the (now obsolete) UK standard BS 6879 that ISO 3166-2:GB is based on, but they haven't actually been incorporated into the ISO standard. In any event, GBN alone is clearly not correct. Theknightwho (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Ah, that makes sense. I found various uses of GB-GBN in the wild, but given the power of Wikipedia it's quite possible they all originated with a Wikipedia editor making the same misconstrual I made. This, that and the other (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
They're not used in any dialect I am personally familiar with, and they were added by a non-native speaker I know who was adding words from a vocabulary list that is somewhat dubious. The question of whether a word that is attested in Standard Arabic may be considered to be attested in the dialect is a difficult one with no clear answer, because Standard Arabic vocabulary may be borrowed when specificity is required, as in the case of "arm" and "temple (of the head)". But I argue that they don't have any currency outside of those settings. (Note that this is different from terms labeled as "formal", which may be borrowed from Standard Arabic but are valid in the dialect and have the function of elevating the register of speech.) I would basically argue that just as we have started using Arabic dialect language sections on Wiktionary to include dialectal terms (instead of trying to accommodate them within the Standard Arabic banner), it doesn't make sense to use the dialect sections to accommodate all Standard Arabic terms that could be conceivably used in the dialect, which is nearly an infinite list. AdrianAbdulBaha (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Mahagaja: Because every German (and Romanian) adjective can be used as an adverb without morphological change. It's not insightful and just needlessly clutters Category:German adverbs as well as the adjective entries. It is also more or less de facto policy to not include these (seeing that we have 1.8k adverbs and 13.7k adjectives). Further, no major German (or Romanian) dictionary includes these conversions as separate adverb entries. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
WT:CFI is actual policy, and it says "all words in all languages"; this is a word in a language. On the other hand, CFI says nothing about excluding completely predictable derived forms without morphological change. We're not paper, so we don't have to worry about saving space like major German (and Romanian) dictionaries do. —Mahāgaja · talk11:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
I don't mind them being there, and it might be useful to add quotes under a more appropriate heading, instead of lumping everything together. – Jberkel11:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
I agree with this principle for German, but in this individual case I am not sure whether it has not sufficiently detached in development, for many sloppy speakers interchangeable with sehr(“very”). Rightly we also list derbe(adverb), and also others linked on Thesaurus:sehr. Fay Freak (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Worth noting that the majority view among grammarians is to not consider adverbially used adjectives to be adverbs but adverbials:
w:de:Adverb#Alternativen:_Das_„Adjektivadverb“: "Die soeben dargestellte Auffassung, dass die adverbielle Verwendung eines Adjektivs keinen Übergang in eine eigene Wortart Adverb bedeutet, ist in der Sprachwissenschaft heute deutlich die Mehrheitsmeinung.[11]"
@Fytcha It's probably worth defining what adverbial means in this sense, because the current definition doesn't explain what distinguishes words like this from adverbs. There is also the separate question of whether all adjectives can be used this way. Theknightwho (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
2016 December 17, Peter Eisenberg, Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik[7], Springer, →ISBN, 6.1 Abgrenzung und Begriffliches, page 204:
Kein terminologischer Glücksfall ist das Nebeneinander der Begriffe Adverb und Adverbial. Meistens - aber längst nicht immer - wird Adverb als kategorialer, Adverbial als relationaler Begriff verwendet. Wir folgen diesem Usus und gebrauchen ›Adverbial‹ synonym mit ›adverbiale Bestimmung‹ als Bezeichnung für eine syntaktische Relation (s.u.).
As to whether all lexical adjectives can relationally be converted, the following book argues no:
2016 February 16, Wolfgang Imo, Grammatik: Eine Einführung[8], Springer-Verlag, →ISBN, →OCLC, page 78:
Dafür spricht auch, dass alle Adjektive attributiv verwendet werden können, aber nicht alle Adjektive auch adverbial oder prädikativ. Das Adjektiv klein kann z.B. nur attributiv (das kleine Auto, der kleine Junge etc.) oder prädikativ (Das Auto ist klein. Der Junge ist klein.) verwendet werden, nicht aber adverbial (*Das Auto fährt klein. Der Junge läuft klein. etc.). Adjektive wie monatlich oder jährlich können nur attributiv (das monatliche Erscheinen der Zeitschrift; die jährliche Feier) oder adverbial (Die Zeitschrift erscheint monatlich. Die Feier findet jährlich statt.) verwendet werden, nicht aber prädikativ (*Die Zeitschrift ist monatlich. ?Die Feier ist jährlich.).
If such categories are necessary, then your original assertion that these adverbial forms are 100% predictable is no longer the case. The 2016 passage suggests that such exceptions are common. Am I right in thinking these generally correspond with English adjectives that can be suffixed with -ly, or are they far more common than that?
To contrast, every English noun can be used attributively and every English verb has a gerundive form that conjugates in the same way as the present participle. That's why we exclude those forms, because they're inherent to what it means to be a noun or verb in English. That reasoning doesn't seem to apply here. Theknightwho (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho: My first post was not that clear, apologies. What I wanted to get at with that part was semantic predictability: almost all adverbially used adjectives mean exactly what you'd expect them to mean (hence, they're predictable); the ones that have gained additional semantics in adverbial usage (e.g. schnell) are of course to be included.
I did assert that every adjective can be used adverbially but, looking back, that's not even all that important of an argument. The most striking argument is that the majority of grammarians don't consider these forms (adverbiale Adjektive) to be adverbs.
Also, contrary to what is claimed in Wolfgang Imo's book, I'm currently not convinced that klein cannot be used adverbially.
2014 January 29, Melanie Thomas, Taking a Punch at the Queen?: Die Darstellung von Königin Victoria in den Karikaturen des Satiremagazins "Punch" 1841-1901[9], Tectum Wissenschaftsverlag, →ISBN, →OCLC, page 97:
Russell wird im Punch durchgehend winzig klein gezeichnet.
Yes, none of these in either German or English are adverbs.
The manner specifically of eating has no bearing on it being healthy (you can eat like a pig and it would be equally healthy), rather it is the subject categorized as healthy, the one who eats has a healthy attitude towards nutrition and thus eats healthy food. In Latin it would be in the nominative, apparently covered for Latin by German Wikipedia as Participium coniunctum and for German as Prädikativum#Freie Prädikativa, leading us to the term depictive as correctly categorizing their syntactical function.
I suppose the reason one cannot say *Das Auto fährt klein. Der Junge läuft klein. etc. is the same as why one cannot say *The car drives small. The boy runs small. – what would it mean? --Lambiam08:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Fytcha @Fay Freak Having looked at these again, they seem to be used with copulative verbs, so as Fay Freak says, the adjective describes the subject. Cars might not be able to drive small, but one can certainly drive unsteady, perhaps after going large. As well as depictive and resultative, they can also be inchoative. Theknightwho (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete – in general we do not include such entirely predictable uses. In Dutch and Turkish too, it is a property of the language that adjectives can be used adverbially without morphological change, meaning in a ... way. For example, o güzel bir şeydir means “that is a nice thing”, and aferin, çok güzel yaptın means “bravo, you have done it very nicely”. --Lambiam 08:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC) — PS. In English, adjectives can predictably be used as nouns for a collectivity of people: The people have three worries: that the hungry will not be fed, that the cold will not be clothed, and that the tired will not get rest.[10] In almost all cases we do not have the corresponding noun entries for adjectives. (However, we do have this noun sense for rich and poor, and also for hungry, in the latter case without indication that it is grammatically plural. We do have a noun entry for cold, but it is not this collective sense.) At least for Turkish, several verb forms can predictably be used adjectivally: meyve olgunlaşacak “the fruit will ripen” next to olgunlaşacak meyve “the fruit that will ripen”; bu meyve olgunlaşmaz “this fruit won’t ripen” next to bu olgunlaşmaz meyve “this fruit that won’t ripen”. --Lambiam09:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep. In general, I'm not a fan of the idea that predictable or formulaic (non-SOP) entries should be removed for that reason alone. The overwhelming majority of plural forms are easy to guess, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have entries. The same applies here. Binarystep (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Delete per Fytcha. Binarystep (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Lambiam Bad example, because those show predictable being used as a noun, and we can even see the plural predictables. In fact, predictability is a total red herring here and should not be used as a basis for deletion: the real reason why extrem is not an adverb is because it never actually describes the manner in which a verb is done. If the water “runs red”, that doesn’t make “red” an adverb, because it refers to the water, not the manner of running. The same applies here, because it’s used with copulative verbs. This also applies to your Turkish example - ripen is a copulative verb in English, too. Theknightwho (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Maybe “regular” is a better term. But if the grammar rules of a language state that adjectives can be used adverbially without morphological change, then it is predictable that such regular uses can be attested. The point with predictable was that this is another example of the regular use of a term as another part-of-speech (here noun) than the most typical one (here adjective); that this boundary transgression is possible is not an exception but an instance of a general rule. The use of PoS labels on Wiktionary is a bit loose; we assign adverb to in brief and under the influence, while these are prepositional phrases most often (but not exclusively) used adverbially. And we label the verbal phrase come in from the cold as a verb, verb phrase being explicitly disallowed. I don’t get your point about olgunlaşmak; I don’t think it is copulative, and certainly not in these examples, where there is no complement. --Lambiam17:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
The example was poor because it doesn’t hold true for English. You cannot use every adjective that way, even if it might be obvious what it means in certain circumstances. In any event, you’re ignoring that these German examples are copulative uses, because they describe the subject.
@Binarystep: It's not "that reason alone". The most important reason is that adverbially used adjectives aren't adverbs (i.e. don't belong to the lexical category of adverbs) per the majority view of German grammarians as I've already laid out above. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete. To paraphrase others' arguments- if grammarians do not regard these forms as adverbs, and if they are entirely predictable adverbial uses of adjectives, it doesn't make sense to mark potentially several thousand adjectives as adverbs. An exception can be made for cases where the adverbial usage has developed new senses. Nicodene (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
On one hand, Duden has it only as an adjective and I believe those who say that German grammars traditionally treat these only as adjectives. On the other hand, one needs an adverb if one wants to enter the near-synonym sehr, which is never an adjective. Compare Thesaurus:sehr, which lists pure adverbs such as äußerst and adjectives+adverbs such as ungeheuer. How do you enter an adverb-thesaurus link into an adjective-only entry extrem or adjective-only entry ungeheuer? de:extrem lists äußerst as a synonym and even a definition of an adjective sense; that looks odd. And de:extrem translation table is incomplete in so far as it does not include any -ly translation yet that is applicable if this also covers adverbial usage. Furthermore, if it is true that "nicht alle Adjektive auch adverbial [verwendet werden können]", then one cannot say this is an exact analogue of English attributive use of nouns: each noun and gerund can be used attributively without modification. I don't think we are listing English adjectives as synonyms of English nouns. As for "semantic predictability", that's not particularly relevant since -ly adverbs are perfectly semantically predictable from their base adjectives. As for English "the hungry", our poor entry does have a noun section for "the poor". Since not every adjective can be used adverbially and since true synonymy does not hold between adjectives and adverbs, having separate adverb sections contrary to German grammatical tradition has considerable merit. About adverb vs. adverbials, I would say that what these grammars are saying is that all adjectives are so readily used as adverbs that it makes no dictionary sense to document them as such. The question whether they "truly" are "adverbs" probably means almost nothing: they behave like adverbs, and the rest is a matter of conventional treatment. From looking at Category:German adverbs, what is being discussed here seems to be a proposed change to a widespread previous practice, impacting possibly hundreds of entries, and "we don't have these null-morpheme, 100% predictable conversions" seems contradicted by observation: we do have these and they are not 100% predictable since not all adjectives produce adverbial behavior. Some examples from "f": feige, fachlich, fassungslos, figürlich, fleißig, förmlich, fragend, freudig, and furchtbar. I say keep in RFD: it makes no sense to delete hundreds of entries via individual RFDs. This needs to be adopted as a policy change via a proper channel so that one can then start removing these adverb sections in volume without RFDs. Our de facto policy so far has been to allow these adverb sections, and the nominated entry is no lone outlier. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
If one dislikes categorizing them as adverbs, one can put them into a separate category such as "Adverbial adjectives" or "Adjectival adverbs" and use a dedicated template for the purpose. That's an easy fix. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Reduplication in Basque is a regular process which can be applied to virtually all adjectives. In all cases the reduplication of [adjective] means "very [adjective]", so this expression is certainly not idiomatic.--Santi2222 (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Any Turkish verb can be made into a potential “to be able to ...” by adding a suffix to the stem. This suffix can be combined with many other suffixes, such as for the passive and causative, giving a combinatorial explosion of completely regular potential forms. In this case the entry does not even have a definition, so I think it can be speedied, but in general I feel such words, formed in a highly synthetic and agglutinative language by regular suffixation, with completely predictable meanings, spelling and pronunciation, should not be included as separate entries. Ideally, we should instead have a “word decompiler” or “word study tool” (see WT:Beer parlour/2022/January § Should we have entries for Turkish predicative forms?), which may be useful for many languages. --Lambiam14:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I still remember a phonetics class at UCLA 35 years ago where Dr. Bright gave a word from an American Indian language having 13 consonants and no vowels. He translated it as "I saw those two women come this way out of the water". If one only has experience with Indo-European languages, one can remain blissfully unaware of the lexical black hole that agglutinative languages represent. Basically, subjects, objects, adverbs, prepositions, auxiliaries, and a plethora of particles can all potentially be part of the same word, depending on the language. And these aren't languages with no spaces: although there are certainly a number of one-word sentences in such languages, they still have lots of multiword sentences in a structure that any European would recognize. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Lambiam: For reference, I am against deleting infinitives that have been derived with the reflexive, reciprocal, causative or passive interfixes. A Turkish grammar that I used to use had a special name to group these four together. The argument basically is that these are (sometimes) unpredictable. The causative is morphologically unpredictable whereas the reciprocal is sometimes semantically unpredictable (think konuşmak), and an interfix -İn- is unpredictable in that it's not clear whether it is the reflexive or the passive. They also feel a lot more like new words to me (unlike the negative or potential infinitives). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I agree that these should in principle be includible, but we should discourage adding rarely seen verbs such as öldürtülmek and sahnelettirmek (which have incomprehensible definitions; and what is an “intrusive” form?). Where does it stop? Why not sahnelettirilmek, sahnelettirilişmek, ...? So to be included, they should still be attestable. --Lambiam17:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Lambiam: Yes of course, attestability is a prerequisite. I am, however, in favor of retaining these forms so long as they're attestable because for me they don't fall into the same bucket as -Abil. And I don't think I've ever heard "intrusive form". — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete. The potential mode "-Abil-" is always predictable in construction and meaning, so I agree that the entry should be deleted. -Konanen (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Based on precedents above. Might be more controversial as they're more common and somewhat "standardised" for what use them. I'd prefer them deleted. —Svārtava (talk) • 16:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, it seems a bit strange to delete terms as common as these while keeping stuff like YWb. Not saying we should delete YWb, but m/s in particular feels lexicalised. I can’t quite put my finger on why, though. Theknightwho (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
We find m/s used without further explanation in articles written for a general audience, not just in the scientific literature or science magazines, so the unwashed masses are assumed to know its meaning. --Lambiam09:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
m/s² was originally at ㎨ (the single Unicode character); I moved it to m/s² because of the RFM now archived at Talk:㍹. If we want to keep the Unicode character but not the string, then maybe we should simply move it back to its old name and not delete anything. —Mahāgaja · talk08:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Presumably, a “single term” means here, “a term that is written without spaces”. This is obviously a problematic criterion for languages that are traditionally written without spaces. Is 中華民國國旗歌 a single term? It also “favours” more agglutinating languages. IMO, Tietoyhteiskuntapuolue is not part of the Finnish lexicon and should not have a dictionary entry. --Lambiam15:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
But you also can write them together and then WT:COALMINE, literally the same thing as Standard English pluralizing -s. Or are these cases adduced aslope for the coalmine rule? Fay Freak (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak What do you mean by “adduced aslope”? I’m inclined to agree, though. Taking Ben’s statement that all plurals work this way, that suggests dem may have lexicalised as a suffix - and I don’t think the presence of a space is particularly relevant in deciding that. However, if it’s just a clitic (e.g. if it can be used after noun phrases that don’t end with a noun, which doesn’t apply to English -s as it still attaches to the noun), then I agree we should delete these. Theknightwho (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho: I mean or meant (if I can reconstruct the thought of two months ago) that the coalmine rule is not wholly formulated towards these cases and may have a restricted scope which these examples miss: Compounding words is not the same as expressing the idea of a plural by which ever means a language does it. But even if this be so, as you see, the (unwritten) principle or ideal of consistency or consequence we adhere to is still capable to persuade us to include the noun forms in Category:Jamaican Creole noun forms in as much as we include English plural forms. So one may split my argument into two arguments; but the reason I connected this to the coalmine rule is that indeed there are languages using plural morphemes the combinations with which we do not include (somewhere in CJK?)—in the end it all still depends on how one reads texts and how likely one is to look up combinations therefore. Fay Freak (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak I do agree with you that consistency is important - though I suppose the principle behind my previous comment was that we can exclude “forms” that aren’t actually modifying nouns, but modifying noun phrases (which may end with something else, like an adjective, or a noun which is semantically subordinate, and therefore not the thing being modified). Compare the English plural, which always modifies the noun itself (e.g. “man on the streets”) with the clitic -'s that modifies the noun phrase (e.g. “man on the street’s”): the plural refers to multiple streets, but the possessive marker is referring to the man (who happens to be on the street) - even though it’s attached to the word “street”. It’s even more obvious if you then compare “men on the street”, where the plural doesn’t even come at the end of the noun phrase, with “man’s on the street”, which cannot function as a noun phrase at all. If dem acts like -'s, I don’t think we should have these terms that include it - even if they are used without a space sometimes. Theknightwho (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
The OP did not claim the term was not attested (which is what RFV is for), but solely that it contradicted an etymology in some unspecified way and that the alteration was non-standard. The latter point is not an issue arguing against inclusion – while there is no standard for alterations, many observed alterations are in some way anomalous, such as the unexplained shift from -o- to -e- in Esperanto tendeno, borrowed from English tendon. That is not an RFV issue. We should try to avoid internal contradictions, but absent an indication of what the claimed contradiction is, it is difficult to discuss it, but this too is not an RFV issue; etymologies should be discussed in the Etymology scriptorium. I think we should close this for failing to present a rationale. --Lambiam12:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Lambiam: What do you mean with "move"? A redirect? I can't see the use of it. That entry is misspelled, why keep it?
That cuneiform spelling is not listed in Kūsu because I usually only give the nominative (which would correspond to the entry). Phonetic cuneiform spelling are just given as examples anyway, I don't try to be exhaustive. — Sartma【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】13:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Lambiam, @Theknightwho: 𒆳𒆪𒋛(Kūsi) is the genitive of 𒆳𒆪𒌑𒋢(Kūsu). We don't even have inflected Akkadian entries at the moment, so it makes no sense to give their cuneiform spellings. We didn't even cover the basic vocabulary...! Akkadian cuneiform entries are not a priority at the moment, so I'm not creating them. But you're more than welcome to go ahead and do so yourselves.
@Sartma Do you have the gadget enabled in your preferences? It makes certain links go green, and if you click on them it automatically generates the page for inflected/alternative forms.
WT:ACCEL can explain much better than I can, but in essence it automatically generates the appropriate {{form of}} on the definition line. Setting it up involves adding some extra parameters to the {{l}} templates in the {{cunsp}} template that tell it what to put. It's pretty straightforward once you've done in a couple of times, to be honest. Once it's done, it's literally a two-click process to create the page. Theknightwho (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
I disagree. YYA-sopimus is short for ystävyys-, yhteistyö- ja avunantosopimus, not the other way round. We have alternative spellings of many other terms even if they can be described somewhere else. A dictionary is made for users. If someone sees term A in a text, how helpful is it for them if the term is "described" under term B? Keep. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
YYA-sopimus being short for the full form is correct, but we can just link to Wikipedia from the template. This is done a lot in English entries (just one example: NBA). — SURJECTION/ T / C / L /05:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Did you know that the Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948 wasn't the only agreement of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance the Soviet Union made. In fact it had similar agreements with many other countries. On top of bilateral agreements the Warsaw Pact was officially a Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance. Thus, the term does not refer to individual agreement but to a type of agreement. I edited the text of the entry accordingly.--Hekaheka (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, but I have never seen "ystävyys-, yhteistyö- ja avunantosopimus" used to refer to anything else than the Finno-Soviet pact and cannot find any such usage either. — SURJECTION/ T / C / L /18:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Old Mon.
The essential problem is that the author misencoded repha in the page title as <RA, ASAT> instead of <RA, ASAT, VIRAMA>. I have moved the file to the correct name, and am requesting removal of what was the residual redirect. To show what was happening, I have copied the original content from အကုသလကရ်္မ္မပထ to အကုသလကရ်မ္မပထ before making further modifications. It is အကုသလကရ်မ္မပထ whose deletion I am requesting. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
An additional complication is that the author was User:우습게, who has been banned as a 'sockpuppet' of User:咽頭べさ 'Dr Intobesa'. Is there any point in opening communication with him via the Mon Wiktionary to seek his approval to the deletion? Communication with him has not been entirely fruitless. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
@RichardW57: Both user accounts have not been blocked from editing their talkpage (yet), so you could try communicating with them there. At this point, I wouldn't presume they know much more on the topic than you do to be honest. Thadh (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'd be interested to know if the buah word meaning fruit is more often used with this than with others. If not I'd say that we could just delete this and move on. —Soap—09:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
A Nahuatl word for which our sole sample sentence spells it as two words, and which seems like it would be sum-of-parts even if the spaceless spelling was an acceptable alternative. Also, does Nahuatl have geminate stops? Thanks, —Soap—20:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
It seems that the distinction between ichtequi and ichtecqui is gemination, so I can believe the spelling is accurate, but this still seems like the very sum-of-parts thing we look for in other languages as a rationale for deletion. However, if we delete this, we probably need to point out on the ichtecqui page that the final vowel rotates to -a when it is juxtaposed in this fashion (maybe it's the genitive case marker?) Thanks, —Soap—09:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Turkish. The definition is wrong but the correct interpretation is simply -n- + -de; -n- also combines with the other case suffixes so this is best documented in just one location, at -n-. @Anylai as the creator. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
What about -y-? I saw AZ suffixes with the postvocalic forms so I did the same but in TR schools -y is also taught as an interfix, a "glue letter". Should we delete the postvocalic forms and create -y-?
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Swedish.
The adjective obegränsad(“unlimited”) is formed as o-(“un-”) + begränsad(“limited”). By surface analysis it can instead be interpreted as the past participle of the verb obegränsa(“to unlimit”). However, that verb is seldom (if ever) attested. Most likely the page was created as a misunderstanding. I suggest that it to be deleted for that reason. Gabbe (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete as they seem to be transparent formations from the word for the nationality followed by the word for language. If there are any exceptions ... e.g. if fransuz can mean the French language by itself but ingliz cannot mean the English language by itself .... then we can handle that on the individual entry pages for the exceptions, so i would still vote delete in that case. —Soap—09:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Please delete all pages under Category:Thai rhymes EXCEPT the page Rhymes:Thai. We will use rhyme categories instead that they do not need to be updated. Another reason is that Thai word list take lots of memory for transliteration; it cannot handle thousand words in one page. Octahedron80 (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Aearthrise, thank you for showing the reference. I put it in τρίπα αλά βενετσιάνα. I am trying to look for further instances, I found this in a tweet "όπως κ να το κανεις ακουγεται καλυτερα ετσι,σαν την τρυπα αλα βενετσιάνα που οπως λεει κ η αρωνη,ειναι πατσάς με σαλτσα ντοματα" (with υ instead of ι). FocalPoint (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Pretty old but since it hasn't been closed I'm commenting. It is mentioned in an academic publication regarding an endangered idiom, I think that's enough attestation in this case. Antondimak (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Comment – This is not a number, numeral or ordinal, but a phrase whose meaning (if it can be attested) is opaque. What, precisely, is a potentially valid rationale for its deletion? --Lambiam17:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep – The usage of countdown phrases is language dependent, often opaque, and sometimes even in dispute (such as 1-2-3, whether to go on 1 or on the beat after)—the kind of phrases that need a dictionary entry to be understood correctly. This one is in no way different than ready, aim, fire, other than the constituent parts being numbers. The numbers in this case don't even mean anything numerical, they're being used for sound and familiarity. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep per Lambiam; I don't know how I would feel about the Russian equivalent of "three, two, one" (which is at least obviously counting in a sequence), but "three hundred, thirty, three" is definitely opaque, the meaning/use is not guessable from the parts IMO. - -sche(discuss)23:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Normalizing spellings is not outdated at all. It's easy to find recent works that normalize spellings, e.g. Fulk's A Comparative Grammar of the Early Germanic Languages and Ringe & Taylor's The Development of Old English. All dictionaries that I'm aware of do it, including wiktionary.
As far as it being "misleading": has anyone come out and said, "I was misled"? Or is this hypothetical? I talk to people who study Old English all the time, and no one has ever complained that the normalized spellings on wiktionary caused them any problems. In fact it makes looking up words easier, since you can often tell what the normalized spelling of a word will be by glancing it at, whereas idk how anyone's supposed to predict which alternative spelling is gonna be prioritized for each word if the normalization is done away with. Some words appear with dozens of different spellings.
In fact, requiring all spellings to be attested, and not just all words, would cause huge practical difficulties. Presumably this would have to go for every inflection of a word, since those are supposed to have pages too and they're automatically linked to on the mobile version of wiktionary. That greatly multiplies the number of spellings that have to be checked for attestation and the number of new reconstruction pages to be created, to the point where the category for reconstructed words will be unusable or the same declension tables will be full of different spellings from different dialects, depending on which ones are attested. It's a ton of work just to make the site inconsistent and unwieldy. Not only that, but I'm pretty sure there is no source that lists every attested spelling of every word, so the task is not just onerous but impossible. Much better to just keep the normalized spellings. Hundwine (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I find normalizing the spelling of these types of vowels to be misleading or potentially misleading. (I certainly don't have an issue with normalizing the spelling of letters with the same pronunciation, such as ƿ > w, ð > þ). To give a specific example, even with the disclaimers at ielf, I didn't realize that that form is alleged to be completely unattested until reading the following statement in The Meanings of Elf and Elves in Medieval England (by Alaric Timothy Peter Hall (2004): "Nor is *ielf, the i-mutated form of West Saxon */æulβi/, attested (the form <IELF> on coins being an epigraphic variant of <ÆLF>: Colman 1992, 161– 62; 1996, 22–23); the absence is worth noting because ielf is frequently cited in grammars and dictionaries" (page 212). I wonder whether the same applies to derivatives such as ielfisċ or ielfcynn, which do not even include any disclaimers. Even if this word is a special case, the fact that the form ælf could be "borrowed into West Saxon at an early date" indicates that this kind of inter-dialectal borrowing was possible. I wonder whether this kind of issue is particularly likely to occur with "ie", which seems to be pretty limited in terms of actual attestation (I think it only occurs in Early West Saxon)?
I don't mind normalised spellings either, but we need to decide one way or the other on this. There needs to be consensus. If there were simply ONE attested form as hīersum (and 10 of another spelling), I would have made the entry as hīersum, heck that IS the most etymologically perfect form. But other editors have pulled me the other direction. Please, let us decide on one and stick with that. I edit across multiple languages, and I cannot keep track of micro-preferences for each. Leasnam (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Please delate the page -zki (and it feminine version: -zka)
In Polish, there is one ending -ski, but it shifts some consonant cluster to -cki (when the last letter represents some voiceless consonants in our alphabet, e.g. Sopot + -ski = sopocki) or -dzki (when the last letter represents voiced consonant, e.g. Łódź + -ski = łódzki) -- both are pronounced the same.
The only reason that English Wiktionary has 3 forms, is because it has also 2 forms for -izna (-izna, -yzna) that also depends on the last consonant before it.
There is no "special" -zki ending in Polish language. And the link to the page should be for -dzki.
There is the difference (both pronounced the same) between: Francuzki 'French women' (Francuz 'French man') and francuski 'French' (adj.).
If your language has a word with -zki, you should add it as part of that language, because in Polish -z- here is a part of the digraph in -dzki.
Delete. I'm only now noticing we've had -zki instead of -dzki from the very beginning, but I'd be inclined to change it per the request if we're to analyze either as separate from -ski. I don't really see how -zki can be the voiced allomorph of -ski; the -k- devoices the preceding obstruent, so it never is actually voiced, and given together with the -d- stem it constitutes the digraph dz, making it pronounced identically to -cki, it makes no sense to analyze it as separate (nor have I seen others do so prior). Hythonia (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I was wrong about the sonorization, but -cki and -dzki still aren't suffixes: in both cases the real, underlying suffix is -ski. That -s- is written differently when next to a dental doesn't change that fact; it's simply a spelling feature. So: keep -ski, explain everything there, and delete the rest. PUC – 13:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
FYI the general practice is to keep entries for allomorphs of suffixes and soft-redirect them to the canonical form. This is done in several languages. Benwing2 (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Why? We have go to bed. This is the Finnish equivalent to it. This is the type of saying one might want to look up in a dictionary - in other words it is a useful entry. It does not matter if many verbs can be combined with "nukkumaan": this is by far the most common way to express "go to bed" in Finnish. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
As we have mennä nukkumaan and laittaa nukkumaan as usage examples under nukkua we might as well delete these two as separate entries - to get rid of the RFD's, if not for anything else. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Why? We have put to sleep. This is the Finnish equivalent to it. This is the type of saying one might want to look up in a dictionary - in other words it is a useful entry. It does not matter if many verbs can be combined with "nukkumaan": this is probably the most common way to express "put to sleep" in Finnish.--Hekaheka (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Middle Persian. These two terms are supposed to be in the Book Pahlavi script, but it hasn't been encoded in Unicode yet. As such, they're using codepoints that haven't been assigned. I suspect they're using suggested codepoints from some kind of application to encode the script, but the document Unicode link to from their roadmap doesn't have them. Not that it matters much, as we wouldn't be able to rely on mere applications anyway.
I should stress that this is very different to the situation we had a few months ago with some Kaktovik characters. Those were added a few months before Kaktovik was added in Unicode 15, but after the codepoints had been finalised (meaning they were very unlikely to change). Book Pahlavi hasn't even been accepted into Unicode yet - and may not be for several more years - so the whole block might end up somewhere totally different; nevermind the fact that the characters within it are very likely to change, too.
It's just not tenable for us to have entries like this, as they're essentially unusable.
Sadly, unicode approval of Phlv got derailed from when I created Module:Phlv-translit, while communicating with Roozbeh Pournader. I would move it under my userspace but "Scribunto" content is not allowed on page, so please just keep for now. Delete the two entries though. -- Sokkjō21:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Sokkjo You can put modules in your userspace by prefixing them with User:Sokkjo:. Technically it's still in the module namespace, but the software treats it like it's your userspace anyway. Theknightwho (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete and salt. That sounds like a bug in Pywikibot - my guess is that it’s set to assume all control characters are bad titles, when in fact that only applies to the C0 codes. That being said, allowing C1 codes as titles is probably a bug in the first place - this was flagged way back in 2006, and it’s still not fixed: [19]. I’d normally be ambivalent about having them, but since they’re almost certainly useless, we should get rid of them to stop any technical problems they’re causing. Theknightwho (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't think that's true. The correspondent of "jotakin" in your example is "mitä"? There's always a pronoun in partitive, except in case of "eri". --Hekaheka (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 days ago6 comments6 people in discussion
Czech. This is imo incorrect, or at least unnecessary. Looking at the definition, it feels like someone took the English prefix mis- as a starting point and tried to make Czech fit it.
Voting delete but perhaps if someone more knowledgeable than me votes otherwise I might listen, but I am basing this on Polish niedo-, which is a pseudo-affix. Vininn126 (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree and this is good to know. I personally would be appreciative of having the option to know this is a misnomer. Perhaps listing it as a misnomer. Another aspect, if zne (actually 2 stacked prefixes) is removed as a (single) prefix, and then I search "czech words beginning with zne", would these "double prefix" words not populate? just a thought. 75.201.24.415:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
We have Lomboy as an English surname from Cebuano, Leblanc as a German surname from French, and Zaldarriaga as a Cebuano surname from Basque. If these are possible, why not this one? It is more likely, though, if attestable as a Cebuano surname, that it should be defined as a Cebuano surname from Afrikaans. --Lambiam19:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Many non-canonical (i.e. not native or from Spain) family names permanently have made their way into the Philippines via migration or intermarriage. I have mentioned the well-known Tausug family name Schuck in a related discussion. This is not a matter of "weil nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf", but we need solid attestations. The creator of these entries (@Carl Francis) still owns us a proper explanation about what motivated them beyond their stupid comment ("This is stupid") in the Beer Parlour[20].
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Translingual. This is used in Internet slang to indicate that the user is grinning. However, the enclosing < > symbols can be replaced with * * or even ( ). Furthermore, any word (or sentence) can be used in a similar manner (common examples include the unabbreviated <grin>, <facepalm> and <sarcasm>, see also the list at * *). I've added an identical sense to g#Noun, so this entry is now a sum of its parts (g + < >). There is also German *fg*(“cheeky grin”), which could probably be moved to fg. Einstein2 (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
We have an entry for insurance policy (insurance contract is a synonym-of entry), and there are several translations there themselves worthy of an entry.
We don't have an entry for rental contract or lease agreement, but imo we could. Although they probably wouldn't be protected by THUB in its current version, gathering translations there (Frenchcontrat de bail for example) could still be useful.
SOP - yeah, in Finnish it is, but it is not self-evident nor easily or in fact at all guessable that this is water dog in English and not a "bird dog that fetches from water" nor a "from-water-fetching bird dog". One important function for an interlingual dictionary is to help people find foreign-language equivalents for precise (even if they are SOP-) terms in their own language. Unless you can come up with a better way to tell to the users that this term actually translates as "water dog" into English, I would keep it. Are we writing the dictionary for actual users or for some other purpose? --Hekaheka (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Czech. SOP, meaning is "Ancient Roman law". (We could have any number of similar terms referring to specific cultures, and all would be SOP.) Benwing2 (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Czech. Although defined as "nylons", in Czech this just means "nylon stockings", whose meaning is a transparent SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Czech. "Financial statement", for which we don't have an English equivalent in Wiktionary, which strongly suggests this is SOP. I have created závěrka, and one of its meanings is "(financial) statement". Benwing2 (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
We normally allow pages for inflected forms. If the rule for Arabic is different then Wiktionary:About Arabic should have an explanation of the policy. Or do you mean it should simply be defined as an accusative case and not as an adverb? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Whoever created this page was probably imitating the orthographic norms of 19th century Croatian and NDH (1942—1945). The problem is that in this word 'ie' is not correct according to those norms, cf. the NDH orthographic manual – it's just ljepota. The form may have been used somewhere before the 19th century, but without an attestation that's just speculation, there's no attestation even in the JAZU dictionary. — Phazd (talk|contribs) 01:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak Fair enough. I must however question whether noting the endless variety of pre-Vuk/-Broz spellings of BCMS has any value at all, even for professional linguists. — Phazd (talk|contribs) 18:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments5 people in discussion
It appears that some 1,350 words in this language use a transcription system that is, to put it lightly, completely made up. The guide for the transliteration (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Ubykh_transliteration) given has no basis in Ubykh literature and in the user talk pages you can see these editors discuss what letters are used for the transliteration.
The only writing system this language has used in recorded history was the Turkish Latin alphabet and a transcription system based off of this snippet is in the back of A Grammar of Ubykh (ISBN-10: 3862880508) which can be visually shown here. ~ Burned Toast (talk)
You’re not wrong. This was done on the basis that it’s used by Ubykh revivalists, as it’s an extended form of the Abkhaz alphabet, but I’ve not actually seen anything that suggests it’s actually in use. @Thadh, Apsaros1921? Theknightwho (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
This is an unwritten, extinct language. The language is attested in scholarly works, each using a different transcription system. There is no standard. We can choose whichever system we want and even devise our own one as long as the spelling normalization rules are clearly documented. Vahag (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Piggybacking on this comment, since Russia generally doesn't generally have a high tolerance of non-Cyrillic writing systems (to put it mildly), most languages will eventually develop a Cyrillic orthography one way or the other, if any is developed at all. The only exceptions to this I can think of are Finnic languages and communities in Siberia whose mainstream counterparts live outside of Russia. Hence, if we are to create a writing system based on the fact that the language is undocumented, since Ubykh was spoken on the territory of Russia, I indeed believe it's best to devise a Cyrillic-based orthography. Thadh (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
However, most ethnic Ubykhs live in Turkey since the Caucasian war with the Russians (1864). Sure, it could make sense to base it off of Cyrillic since their native land is modern day Sochi but most of them live Turkey or other places that use a non-Cyrillic writing system. Burned Toast (talk) Burned Toast (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
In that case I don't see any problem in adopting a different kind of orthography. I was making general statements more than anything else, since I'm not familiar with Ubykh myself. Thadh (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
The ethnic Ubykhs have forgotten their language. We can choose Latin to make it easier for them to study their ancestral language. Or we can choose Cyrillic for consistency with all the other Northwest Caucasian languages. It doesn't really matter. These things are usually decided by the active editors of the language. Our only active editor is Apsaros1921 and he prefers Cyrillic. Vahag (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
The issue in this case is that the most recent publication of Ubykh literature has Fenwick state that the language has three vowels, which contrast in quality not length: [ɐ ɜ ɨ]. The entries use a very old dictionary with a transcription system (which the user has based his off of) which can't accurately describe the language as it includes vowels that don't exist - such as /oː/ which has been rejected by everyone else in the field - or excludes consonants from words that should exist. So none of the entries are correct on two points. If we are going to include any Ubykh at all, we should include a citation to A Grammar of Ubykh since it is the most up-to-date work in the field. Burned Toast (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, we should call them digraphs. As soon as the template supports that option, they should be corrected. But that's not reason for deletion. (I started a tech request on how to deal with this, but there haven't been any responses.)
Before I discovered the template, I'd write "A digraph in X orthography", but for consistency the template should be used. kwami (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Kwamikagami If someone creates a separate template for digraphs, then I'll support their addition (together with "dzi" which is considered a trigraph by some authors; also, e.g. PWN counts them as separate lemmas and provides definitions for them), but for now let's delete them. Shumkichi (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, though for English (and Irish), 'digraph' is a fuzzy category, and not all cases are as clear-cut as ph. (ti, for example.) Things are clearer in most other languages that have them. kwami (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Lushootseed uses accents over vowels to mark stress in dictionaries and such, but are omitted during regular writing. For example the entry for saliʔ in the dictionary (Bates et al. 435) is sáliʔ rather than saliʔ. I am fine with Lushootseed entries on Wiktionary either incorporating accents (which is proper, but potentially misleading for those not educated in Lushootseed) or dropping them (which is less proper for a dictionary), as long as there is consistency. I guess it depends on the precedent set by other languages with optional academic stress markers (like Hebrew?) but I don't know what that is here on Wiktionary. PersusjCP (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm also happy to follow whatever seems to be in suit with other such projects, but can say that the vast majority of Lushootseed entries so far have been made without stress markers. When I started adding Lushootseed entries, I did my best to follow what the majority of the pre-existing entries seemed to go with beforehand.
I'll also add that stress is different from dialect to dialect. The Bates-Hess-Hilbert dictionary doesn't mark the difference between Northern & Southern dialects in terms of stress, & while we can try to determine based off the speakers cited in the example usages, it's hard to say which the markers usually follow (although much of the dictionary treats Northern as the standard, we can't assume, & it isn't clearly stated). The inconsistency of stress, & the fact that we don't currently make the clearest distinctions between Northern & Southern except as marked in entry text, leads me to think that the accents might be overly misleading & best dropped. CedarForest14 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
My personal preference would be to omit stress markers, like you I agree it is misleading, as I often see people copy-paste Lushootseed with the markers included. Sadly there isn't much precedent for either online, however in my personal experience working with the language, the stress markers were omitted. I think either works as long as there is consistency. I'm fine with moving all the Lushootseed entries to not have stress markers. Like you said, I think they could have a place wherever dialectical differences might be marked, which really isn't part of many entries as of now. PersusjCP (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@PersusjCP@CedarForest14 Hey folks, I also agree that accents should probably be dropped in page names for the same reasons. Although, maybe we should include them in the pages themselves somehow? They may differ across dialects, but recording the accents from the Bates et al. dictionary would be really valuable.
The pronunciation section has that information as part of the IPA, so there is really no need. We can make different entries in the pronunciation section for different pronunciations, if it is spelled the same. Different spellings should probably be their own pages though, under alternate forms. I'm going to start moving pages to have no stress markers based on this discussion. saliʔ should not be deleted, either. PersusjCP (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Here's why: what I have seen is that in a word where a vowel is followed by "y" (for example bôyun and oynamaq), the "y" is dropped and replaced with vowel length (so oynamaq becomes "ônamaq" and "bôyun" becomes "bôun"). In the case of "bôun", this becomes"bûun" because of diphthongization. Xenos melophilos (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
User:TheDaveRoss edit-warring over removing deletion tags, refuses to follow procedure
Latest comment: 1 year ago16 comments5 people in discussion
Rather than contributing to the edit-war, I'm reporting it here.
The instructions on the deletion tag are that, if DR contests the deletion, they should file an {rfd} or {rfv} and ask for review here.
The reason for the nomination is that there is no content apart from the Unicode data. DR agrees that is reason for quick deletion, but argues that mathematical symbols should be exempt. They give no reason why there should be an exemption.
These entries may actually be harmful, as many Unicode names are misnomers. If the "definition" blindly repeats the Unicode name, we risk mis-defining the symbol. At the very least, if we can't devise a definition ourselves, there should be a link to the WP article that covers the usage. If we can't identify usage, we have no way of knowing if the Unicode name is accurate as a definition. Also, if the name is e.g. "circulation function", as one of them is, and we independently link 'circulation' and 'function', then we have a fake definition, because this mathematical usage is not covered under our entry for 'circulation'.
(In fact, when I changed the link to the phrase 'circulation function', making it clear (by being a red link) that we don't actually have a definition for this symbol, DR reverted it to the fake definition.)
All of which means these articles should be deleted, unless someone is able to verify/correct/cite them.
So if they can be verified, we shouldn't delete them? I sure wish we had an established process that other editors could use to verify... and if only there were a template to request verification... Vininn126 (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Even if they can be verified, they're not intelligible definitions. They provide the reader no understanding of what the symbol is actually for. I've cleaned up a few, but I've never seen most of them. If we have an article with an empty/fake definition, it should be deleted. RfV templates sit for months with no action. There would be almost zero effort involved in recreating these articles, and meanwhile we haven't lost any information (the Unicode name is visible when you check a character with a red link). kwami (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
So that gives you the right to subvert the entire process, instead of trying to rewrite a definition to make it better/check if it's real? We don't do that for anything else, I don't see why these should get special permission. Stick to the process like the rest of us. Vininn126 (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I *was* following process. DR is the one subverting it, by refusing to follow the straightforward instructions on the {d} tag. I'm already doing their work for them.
As I said, I have rewritten definitions in some cases. But in most I have no idea what I'm talking about, so it would not be appropriate for me to add some garbage and pretend it's a definition. That's the problem I'm trying to fix. kwami (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
There is a long-standing custom to not use {{d}} if the matter is not clear and has to be discussed. You were told numerous times that this was the case here, yet you continue to use the template. Stop making others do your work for you and start using {{rfv}} and {{rfd}} yourself! Thadh (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Um, this thread is from a month ago. Where have I done this in the past month?
Also, if the instructions for how to use {d} are wrong (as multiple people have now said they are), you might consider correcting them so they do not mislead people who do not have inside knowledge. kwami (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
The documentation seems straightforward and accurate to me? "If there is any possibility that the entry should maybe be retained for any reason whatsoever, then use {{rfd}} instead." —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
The template itself says that if you believe it should be kept, then you should change it to rfd. Evidently that is incorrect, or at least that is what people have been saying. kwami (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't see what is incorrect or misleading here. The notice on the template serves to inform anyone who comes across it that they can change it to an RFD if they challenge it. That does not contradict, and rather reinforces, the convention noted in the documentation that if you perceive any chance of it being challenged in the first place you should save people's time by not using it in the first place. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Thadh: I'm sorry, but I think they're going to have to be picked off one-by-one. I suspect that even the three path integrals (⨖⨑⨐) are not going to be bunchable, and the Southfork symbol (⅄) is probably on its own. The modulo two sum ⨊ is probably exactly what it says, but finding evidence may be difficult. (I think it comes from a use of ⊕ as sum modulo 2.) --RichardW57m (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
'Keep'. The definition 'transverseintersection' works fine for the intersection of one-dimensional submanifolds of a two-dimensional manifold. I've referenced the general definition under transverse. We ought to add the verbal meaning 'to [[intersect]] [[traverse]]ly', but I can't find an acceptable quotation for that either. --RichardW57m (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
The moratorium on editing these has not been lisfted.
You mangled my definition. I said that looking up the words of the definition worked in one case, which I suppose is the prototypical case. It should actually work well now - those who need the definition should have enough background to at least vaguely understand the definition in Wikipedia. The term is not limited to one-dimensional submanifolds of a two-dimensional manifold.
I've found some examples of use - Quiet Quentin delivers some, and Google yielded https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01166. They're a bit esoteric, but they're showing usage, and it looks as thought the meaning is indeed as non-specific as 'thermodynamic'. So here are three quotations from Quiet Quentin, to be added when the moratorium is lifted:
2020 March 4, Gary A. Mabbott, Electroanalytical Chemistry: Principles, Best Practices, and Case Studies, John Wiley & Sons, →ISBN, page 165:
CONTROLLED POTENTIAL METHODS 165 Equilibrium conditions Net reduction Ox + ne Red Ox + ne Red y g ren e Reactants Products e e r F ΔG f ⧧ = ΔG b ⧧ = ΔG o ⧧ ΔGf⧧ = ΔGo⧧–αnF(E–E°ʹ) ΔGb ⧧ = ΔGo ⧧ +(1–α)nF(E–E°ʹ) Reaction coordinate[…]
2020 November 22, J. Chris Slootweg, Andrew R. Jupp, Frustrated Lewis Pairs, Springer Nature, →ISBN, page 147:
The kinetic C6H4 (AH⧧ parameters extracted for the formation of 1-NMe2 -2-B(Ar)(thiophenyl)- AG298 = 19.9 ± 1.1 kcal‧mol–1; AS⧧ = − 30.9 ± 3.1 cal‧mol −1 K−1; ⧧ = 28.4 ± 2.0 kcal‧mol–1) are in agreement with the computational data[…]
2022 April 17, Jianwei Xu, Ming Hui Chua, Ben Zhong Tang, Aggregation-Induced Emission (AIE): A Practical Guide, Elsevier, →ISBN, page 649:
6 Schematic graph of the two nonradiative decay channels NR-VR and NR-MECP (A) BDP-1A and (B) BDP1G with the Gibbs free energy of activation ΔG⧧, the nonradiative decay rate constants, and the corrected quantum efficiency.
The argument is identical. Compare modern klädde av barnet ("the mother undressed the child") versus barnet klädde av sig ("the child undressed itself"). No fundamental change in meaning. Gabbe (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Chinese Pidgin English. SoP: one (=English one) + piecee (classifier). The same construction is valid for other numerals, for example:
examples
1862, 唐景星 [Tong King-sing], 英語集全 [Chinese English Instructor], volume IV, marginalia, page 65; republished as “Pidgin English texts from the Chinese English Instructor”, in Michelle Li, Stephen Matthews, Geoff P. Smith, editors, Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics[21], volume 10, number 1, 2005, pages 79-167:
米其地快都卑士 *mai5 ki4 di6 faai3du1 bi1 si4 makee divide two piecee divide this into two
1862, 唐景星 [Tong King-sing], 英語集全 [Chinese English Instructor], volume VI, marginalia, page 43; republished as “Pidgin English texts from the Chinese English Instructor”, in Michelle Li, Stephen Matthews, Geoff P. Smith, editors, Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics[22], volume 10, number 1, 2005, pages 79-167:
合吉地⿱竹厘卑時毡地文甘顚拿 *hap6 gat1di6 li1 bi1 si4 zin1 di6 man4 gam1 din1 naa4 hap got three piecee gentleman come dinner 3 gentlemen dine with me
1862, 唐景星 [Tong King-sing], 英語集全 [Chinese English Instructor], volume VI, marginalia, page 33; republished as “Pidgin English texts from the Chinese English Instructor”, in Michelle Li, Stephen Matthews, Geoff P. Smith, editors, Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics[23], volume 10, number 1, 2005, pages 79-167:
合吉昔士卑士林安黎科卑士𠲟忒記巴臣治 *hap6 gat1sik1 si6 bi1 si4 lam4 on1 lai4fo1 bi1 si4 gen6 tik1 gi3 baa1 seon4 zi6 hap got sixee piecee room only four piecee can takee passenger 6 rooms but only 4 to spare
1862, 唐景星 [Tong King-sing], 英語集全 [Chinese English Instructor], volume VI, marginalia, page 32; republished as “Pidgin English texts from the Chinese English Instructor”, in Michelle Li, Stephen Matthews, Geoff P. Smith, editors, Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics[24], volume 10, number 1, 2005, pages 79-167:
昔士地卑士文輝卑士烏文 *sik1si6 di6 bi1 si4 man4fai1 bi1 si4 wu1 man4 sixty piecee man five piecee woman 60 males and 5 females
I think the reference (Gow) is correct in interpretating this as "one" for the purposes of a guide book, but from a linguistic point of view it's simply sum of parts. – Wpi (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to go through and remove the 'delete' tags that I added for the articles that, thanks to you, now have some content, but per above I don't see any problem in you doing that yourself. kwami (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Content and quotation added. The quotation demonstrates the mark, but it's translation and transliteration need some expert attention. --RichardW57 (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Shan. @Kwamikagami requested deletion on the grounds of 'no comment'.
Keep. I've added a comment. I've found the same text in several orthographies on p315 of Sai Kam Mong's 'the History and Development of the Shan Scripts', and I may be able to use that for quotations if the need arises. Unfortunately, I don't have much faith in the typesetting of the book. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
(Translingual section)
Supposedly translingual when the entry is actually for Burmese. RichardW57m asked about this kind of edit at the Beer Parlor, and was told that the 'translingual' header is for translingual items, and that words/letters of specific languages need to be under the header for that language. Yet he continues to edit-war over the issue, calling for a "ban" of anyone who attempt to correct his abuse.
Burmese belongs under 'Burmese'. Since this entry already has a Burmese section, the 'translingual' section should either be deleted as redundant or turned into a translingual section. Easiest to delete it and let someone create a proper translingual section in the future if they wish.
BTW, I have tried changing these bogus sections to proper translingual ones, only for RichardW57m to revert me. This isn't a confusion over what "Burmese" means, e.g. of the country of Burma or of the Mon-Burmese script -- he admits that means specifically the Burmese language and alphabet (ဇ is the 8th letter of the Burmese alphabet, but may have a different sorting order in other Mon-script alphabets.) These are supposedly "translingual" because of the Burmese Army. kwami (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep. It is the Burmese script representative of the 8th letter of the Brahmi alphabet, which originally represented a voiced unmurmured oral stop (and its descendants prototypically still do) and we are confident that it is the 8th consonant letter of the Burmese, Mon, Pali and Sanskrit alphabets. As there is currently a moratorium on editing single character entries, here are some examples for its translinguality:
These languages are using the same letter! The letter is best known for its rôle in the Burmese alphabet because the Burmese conquered Burma prior to its conquest by the British, with a massive dimunition in the rôle of Mon. The domination is also demonstrated by the use of the ethnic name of the Burmans to denote the territory in English (and Thai พม่า(pá-mâa), for that matter). --RichardW57m (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
public opinion arguably involves an idiomatic expansion of opinion (senses 1 and 2), given that strictly speaking an opinion can only be formed and held in the mind of an individual. public opinion is a shorthand for the opinions of individuals considered in aggregate. Voltaigne (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Not saying it's not SOP (I'm on the fence; let's add it as a collocation at least), but I think your argument isn't good; if anything, it would seem to indicate that stosunek płciowy and stosunek seksualny are pleonastic. I suspect that sense of stosunek arose by ellipsis from stosunek płciowy / stosunek seksualny. PUC – 10:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
As far as I know, the full designations are shortened in speech because it has been perceived as indecent to talk about sex, so the noun without attribute could only mean the same as the noun with attribute after the wieldy term has been established. Thus German Verkehr is entered in dictionaries as “euphemism” and the like. This one though claim to not stand for sexual intercourse but for sexual relation in general, so you hear Verhältnis in old films said with a certain tone for Liebesbeziehung, and even English affair apparently also shortened “euphemistically”. So why do we even have sexual relation? Or as another obvious example, French fille, of which not the most transparent compound term would be SOP to mean “prostitute”, likewise German Dirne if one opines that written-together terms can still be SOP, because the shorter term in this meaning is only secondary. (WT:JIFFY.) Fay Freak (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I believe it might depend language to language - one can see evidence of stosunek being the original metaphor and later collocations being added - I wouldn't exclude it being under influence of other languages however. Agree with PUC it should at least be a collocation. Vininn126 (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
In English one can say that two people are “having a relation”, which is usually understood to be romantic and to include (probably, but not necessarily) sex, but also hanging out together socially. This also applies to “having a long-term relation” but not to “having a good relation”; when someone states they have a good relation with their boss, there is no romantic connotation. If one says two people are “having a sexual relation”, it implies that this is not just “sexual intercourse” (the first definition given at stosunek płciowy), but repeated sexual intercourse during an extended period. The connotation that they are hanging out together socially is absent. I don’t know how this is for Polish, but if it is similar, the term is a SOP. --Lambiam06:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't trust what it says about cultural differences: this was created by an Indonesian IP who was convinced that finding ads in any language with floor listings made them qualified to add translations and entries for those languages. To give you an idea, here they're explaining Finnish floor numbering to a native speaker. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I thought if would be a good idea to create the page بمن, as you can also find لمن, عمن, ممن. Why should it be deleted? Mbursar (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have mixed feelings on this one - on one hand it seems SOP, on the other it seems lexicalized. Furthermore, I suspect that it's usage in psychology might mean it has a specialized meaning? Unsure. Vininn126 (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm pretty certain that these are definitions given in Kyrgyz, which this user has worked backwards from with absolutely no knowledge of the language. Theknightwho (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago8 comments5 people in discussion
For all I could find, this isn't even an idiom with a particular meaning, but literally just the phrase "if it is ice", which I doubt needs its own entry. Similarly, I would've requested the deletion of the entry buzla (whose definition was given as "with [a/the] [piece of] ice"), if the word didn't also have the meaning of "sea ice", which is why I simply rewrote it.
If someone like Orexan could give their opinion or enlighten me on usages of the word which would make it worthy of an entry, I would appreciate it. — This unsigned comment was added by Trimpulot (talk • contribs) at 09:30, 15 October 2023.
Delete. You can do this for every Turkish noun and adjective: susa = “if it is water”; peynirse = “if it is cheese”; parasa = “if it is money”; iyise = “if it is good”; ... You can do this with countless other suffixes: sumuş = “it is apparently water”; peynirmiş = “it is apparently cheese”; paramış = “it is apparently money”; iyimiş = “it is apparently good”; ... Or: suydu = “it was water”; peynirdi = “it was cheese”; paraydı = “it was money”; iyidi = “it was good”; ... These suffixes can be combined in many ways: sumuşsa = “if it is apparently water”; peynirmişse = “if it is apparently cheese”; paramışsa = “if it is apparently money”; iyimişse = “if it is apparently good”; ... sumuşsaydı = “if it was apparently water”; ... And: sudasa = “if it is in the water”; sudasaydı = “if it was in the water”; suyumdasaydı = “if it was in my water”; ... There is no end to it; just take a look at how many Turkish suffixes there are. --Lambiam10:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Orexan Yes, unfortunately the user who created this had no common sense and systematically created entries (and templates!) for just about everything that popped into their head (they created English and German entries, too). Over 900 of the pages they created have been deleted, and I suspect many, many more will be once someone can manage to go through their contributions [25]. Between this user and an IP who insisted on making up unattested replacements for the loanwords that normal speakers use all the time, based on words from other Turkic languages, there are no doubt mountains of garbage scattered all over the place among our Turkish entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I support the proposed mass deletionas well as the deletion of the corresponding categories. I'd like to allow, though, for retaining the occasional term that just by itself is not inclusion-worthy but is a homograph of a Turkish terms that is. --Lambiam13:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
A) No, this has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, yoksa is an idiomatic conjunction, and kesinlikle is an idiomatic adverb. Many members in these categories are not just a suffixed noun with the expected meaning.
Delete can't find any instance of use except by rekhta dictionary. SOP as, सहीफ़ा(originally: book/writing; in islam: divine scripture) + ख़्वाँ (reader) कालमैत्री (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Namely if you look at the usage notes/alt forms of the Polish entry, you'll see that the pronouns can vary widely, meaning we can "boil" them away, leaving us only with "pokazać". I believe this is the same for English. Furthermore, English "show" as in "threaten" can be in the past tense as well. So the broader subject is "the Polish and English forms should just be at the verb". Vininn126 (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
In Bulgarian, a verb can have a verbal noun derived from it, which in turn can form its own plurals and behave like a noun in its own right. Some of these, such as the ones that end in -е(-e), are able to form the plural form by adding -та(-ta), e.g. бране(brane, “picking, gathering”) + -та(-ta, plural suffix) → бранета(braneta, “pickings, gatherings”). In some cases, they can further be made definite, with the prefixed meaning "the", by suffixing -та(-ta) again, e.g. бранета(braneta) + -та(-ta) → бранетата(branetata, “the pickings”).
However, sometimes, forming the plural is done with the -ния(-nija) suffix instead, and the -та(-ta) suffix is invalid or rare. In the majority of cases, it's -ния(-nija), although there are also times when only -та(-ta) is acceptable. Now, we have recently discovered that there are a lot of entries that were created by mistake using the -та(-ta) rule, many of which by User:ArathVerbFormBot (see бушуванетата) once upon a time. User:Chernorizets sifted through many of these candidates, and we found almost all of them were not worth keeping. As a result, the following ~800 pages, all malformed -та(-ta) plurals and their definite forms, have been found to be in need of deletion (all are totally empty besides the bad Bulgarian content.): User:Kiril kovachev/RFD BG Verbal nouns. If you need to delete these using a bot, I also have them listed in plain text (no wiki formatting, each word on its own line) at User:Kiril kovachev/RFD BG Verbal nouns/plain. Thanks very much, Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 23:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Scottish Gaelic. No uses found. Colin Mark's dictionary appears to be the source of the spelling, with all successive mentions likely able to be traced back either to it, or to Wiktionary itself. Several other dictionaries mention apracot as the correct spelling; a move may be preferable to a deletion. Qwertygiy (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
How about adding labels (like rare), usage notes, and making it an alternative form of a more common form? --05:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 months ago13 comments5 people in discussion
These entries are riddled with so many errors (in formatting, matters of fact, referencing, transliteration, and other matters) that it would take more work to fix them than to nuke them all and start from scratch. See comments by various users at User talk:Loukus999. In my opinion, not worth trying to salvage. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 09:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Vorziblix, Surjection, Fay Freak Where was the {{rfd}} warning to hint that repair work should not be started? As a partial aid to anyone else tempted to start fixing them, an at least partial list is:
This was was prepared as a list of entries with language ':Egyptian:'. Formally, the countdown to deletion has not started yet, though they were vanishing as I typed. --RichardW57m (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
If someone competent in Egyptian wants to create valid entries with correct content, that would be great, but as pointed out above and as I (unaware of this RFD) independently noticed and posted at RFC, the entries Loukus999 created had so many errors in formatting/layout and content/notation that it'd be about as easy to create good entries from scratch as to fix everything wrong with the entries that existed. - -sche(discuss)20:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@RichardW57m: Hi! I concur with -sche above; also see my response at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2024/January#Bulk_Deletion_of_Hieroglyphs. From sheer practical considerations, putting a warning on every single one of the entries in question (there are literally hundreds of them) would be impractical, and at least in my opinion a waste of time that could be better spent on building actual content, considering how little time and effort the original creator of these pages spent on them — almost all the material is just crudely copy/pasted out of Egyptian lexical entries that I made, and often doesn’t belong at the hieroglyph entry in question at all (e.g. all the references are wrong, all the descendants sections are wrong, most of the definitions are misformatted or outright wrong because they’re mindless copy/paste jobs, all the ‘transliterations’ are wrong...). I recognize that it’s not ideal and could be seen as out-of-process; if you want any of the entries in question restored, or want to discuss further before any more deletions take place, we certainly can. I just don’t think there’s anything to be gained from trying to fix these entries when practically everything in them needs to be totally rewritten anyway. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 20:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vorziblix: What was wrong with the new headings? I agree that most of the descendants sections would need rewriting or deleting on a subsequent pass (there are Meroitic descendants for a few of them), and the statuses as phonogram needed massive revision, for which I was at least sorting out the biliterals as I fixed the headers.
As there were less than 200 entries with the colons in the language, it looks as though the headings were at least getting better as Loukus999 progressed.
@RichardW57m: Nothing was wrong with the new headings; unfortunately, the same cannot be said for all the other content under the headings, which would still need to be totally rewritten. The problem with the copy-pasting wasn’t copyright (as mentioned on my userpage, all content I add is released into the public domain, and I claim no copyright whatsoever over it); rather, the problem is that no effort was put into making sure the copied content belonged on the new entries being created. For instance, all the references in each hieroglyph entry were good references for the particular Egyptian words they were originally copied from, but often had no relevance whatsoever for the hieroglyphs they were being copied to. The descendants sections are another such case; none of them belonged on the hieroglyph entries, since they were listing descendants for particular words, not hieroglyphs. This confusion of words and hieroglyphs ran through the entirety of Loukus999’s entries and is also visible in such things as the misconceived ‘transliterations’ present in many of these entries.
If you’d be willing to fix all these entries thoroughly, rewriting them with reference to actual scholarly sources, I could certainly restore the deleted content for you; just let me know. Again, though, I really don’t see what you would gain compared to just re-creating the entires from scratch. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 13:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vorziblix: I was planning incremental fixes, so the headword lines would probably be fixed in one pass, and the descendants (largely by deletion) in another. It is arguable that there should be an explicit redirect from the words to the transliterations, though again the descendants as words would belong at the main lemma.
The main references I would be using are those I know have access to, Gardiner and Allen, and templates were already set up, but not filled in. Additionally, the headings seemed to be free of typos, apart from the inappropriate colons. I hadn't worked out what to use for the biliterals - I was considering just using a Wikipedia list, though fleshing them out with examples appealed to me.
Unfortunately, I don't think I can commit to reworking about 150 hieroglyphs - I have too many stalled Wiktionary projects - fixing Mon entries, Welsh numbers, Sinhala script Sanskrit, Tai Tham Visuddhimagga, and I'm currently trying to set up Tamil script Sanskrit, which is currently mired in an unresponsive Unicode Technical Committee - there's an issue with the Unicode non-Standard. --RichardW57m (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, first time rfd and I forgot about this step. Thank you for adding for me! A couple of those are also not properly normalized to academic Early West Saxon Ythede Gengo (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I forgot to check "chōkaku" instead of "choukaku"; but in that case, as I said before, おきなわ already has a rōmaji transcription page at Okinawa, so this page should just be deleted after all, I think Ythede Gengo (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Old English: "sword's edge"
This seems SOP, even though it's used metaphorically/poetically- more of a collocation than something lexical. This is just one of many possibly-SOP phrase entries that @Wuduweard has created in Old English, Old Saxon and Proto-West-Germanic. I'm nominating just this one to make sure there's consensus in order to avoid disruption if I'm mistaken. If we do decide to delete, there are many more where this came from. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, the reason I created these is that these collocations seem to be reconstructable formulae often limited to poetic contexts, though that is definitely debatable. I'm fine with them being deleted if there's consensus. wuduweard (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Acehnese. Nominated for speedy deletion with rationale "not a lemma, it’s two being combined. From ‘jak’ (obsolete spelling: djak) and ‘woë’". Ultimateria (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Ultimateria: In general, I don't see how this automatically stops it also being a word. Additionally, will a user automatically recognise it as two words? Keep, but open to dissuasion. --RichardW57m (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This is a half-line from the Hávamál and only attested there (source). It is sort-of idomatic, but it's not a fixed expression. Nor is it semantically complete, the poem continues listing other things and when one should praise them (e.g. a woman when she is married-off, a frozen river when one has crossed it and so on). @Mnemosientjeᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Proto-Norsing ᛭ Ask me anything03:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete, had assumed the phrase recurred elsewhere but if it only occurs there then the entry should not have been created. A big part of the Edda is gnomic, doesn't mean that all of those verses should be added as proverbs. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 08:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Polish. Potentially SOP. The adjective podcałkowy is used with funkcja podcałkowa most likely the most, but wyrażenie podcałkowe is also used often in the same meaning. Aside from that I was able to find dodajnik podcałkowy[26], element podcałkowy[27], iloczyn podcałkowy[28], and a couple of others. Hythonia (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
This isn't a Welsh word. The creator of this entry misunderstood the initial element of the compound form barúg-wallt as being a stand-alone word when in fact, the acute accent is solely a consequence of its being part of a compound. (Modern spelling would dispense with the hyphen, which in turn would obviate the use of the acute, to give barugwallt.) Llusiduonbach (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@FocalPoint That's precisely why we list them at WT:RFV, and RFD is explicitly not for claims that terms don't exist. Even if it was we wouldn't speedy delete it, because the whole point is that we give people time to find attestations. Theknightwho (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
All these entries must be deleted, they are all misspelled variations of the actual term, which I have replaced with the correct entries. Akhaeron (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Akhaeron: RFV is for verifying whether the term exists in the language in question. We have entries for misspellings, but only if they've actually been in use and people might find it somewhere- that's a matter for RFV. For Well-Documented Languages we don't bother with rare misspellings, but this is a Less-Documented Language. RFD is for cases where it may exist, but issues like WT:SOP or WT:BRAND mean it would inherently not be suitable for an entry whether it esists or not. If no one finds sufficient evidence of usage that meets WT:CFI, it gets deleted. Also, there's no need to put an {{rfv}} template here (I removed it)- that goes in the entry so people know it's been challenged. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment: what about as part of expressions such as (but not necessarily limited to) 24/7/365? I've never seen it written like this, but I've heard it, and I can certainly imagine someone wondering what "365" means out of context. Specifying it as shorthand for "every day of the year" might be useful, and we do have a separate entry just for 24/7, so I think perhaps an entry for "365" is justified, although the current entry doesn't really explain why. Of course, this year it could be 366—but nobody uses "366" to mean "every day of the year", and I think that helps explain what distinguishes "365" from other numbers that could, but don't usually possess lexical meaning. P Aculeius (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Is this a joke or a hoax? Apart from the attestation issue, I'd need to see a solid reference for the etymology before I can consider taking this seriously. --Lambiam18:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Finnish.
I don't think we should have entries for nonstandard suffixes. I'm not opposed to entries for words that are actually used, like tahalteen if properly labelled. But we should not give a non-suspecting user the possibility for misunderstanding that this suffix could be used generally as replacement for -llaan (which we don't even have). --Hekaheka (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wiktionary isn't a dollar store Kielitoimisto. -lteen is a common and productive suffix, and should be included. -llaan is SOP, in my opinion. brittletheories (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho thanks, I'll remember that. It should be deleted rather than converted (which I have already done for other Middle Welsh mistakenly marked as Welsh), for the same reason that Latin amō goes on the page amo rather than getting a separate page. Arafsymudwr (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Redirected. I felt free to do so because two of them were my creations. But why don't some of their English equivalents go down the same drain? I can clearly see why never is there: it's a single word - but not yet? --Hekaheka (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've moved this to the correct forum, @Mkpoli. In future, please use the little plus button on the RFV or RFD notice, which handles this automatically. It also makes sure the title follows the correct format, too. Theknightwho (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
This seems like a set phrase to me. There's no other way to communicate the same command to a formation of soldiers. The English transmission is missing, though. Keep. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
[Middle] Tamil.
I have no clue whether we should treat Middle Tamil as a separate language from Tamil and Old Tamil, but this isn't the way one would do it. All the language codes are "ta", so all the categories say "Tamil". As it stands now, Middle Tamil is treated on Wiktionary as a variety of Tamil, so we shouldn't have entries under a separate Middle Tamil header Chuck Entz (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Lithuanian. Rfd-sense: Vocative singular (slỹva) of 'slyvà'.
The lemma, which we name using the nominative singular, 'slyvà', and the vocative singular, 'slỹva', have the same orthogragraphic form, 'slyva'. Therefore, we should not give the vocative singular and the lemma entires in the same section, just as we have no entry for Latin ablative singular mēnsā next to its lemma mēnsa(“table”). --RichardW57 (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I disagree that this page should be deleted because it is an orthographical error; omitting the trema on ë in written Albanian is certainly informal, but it is very common and not any more wrong than it is in Russian, yet alternative spellings of words with ë in Russian are maintained on Wiktionary MaxenceLE (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This is not really a definite form. It's essentially some of parts: an adjective with the definite article, "the first". They are just written as one word. In Hebrew, the definite article ה can be added to almost every noun and adjective, it's mostly consistent in orthography, and it's not considered a grammatical form.
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Turkish.
To me it makes very little sense if any. Correct: many nationalists would like to clean up loanwords in some specific language. Pretty soon we may decide to kick "PUTIN'" out of Russian. Rational? Not necessarily! — This unsigned comment was added by 64.114.129.169 (talk) at 02:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC).Reply
I think it passes WT:FRIED. A lista zakupów or a shopping list is, in its most typical sense, not a list of things that have been purchased, or a list of things that can be purchased, but a list of things that are to be purchased. Jonashtand (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
What entries would we put the quotation in then? Almost all of the words in it are well-known and in general use today as well as in Ivarsson's time. The only exception to the latter is äro, an archaic but formerly standard verb form. Glades12 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The synonymous term sonraki is far and far more common. The literal meaning of the term önümüzdeki is “that is in front of us”. In English it is much more common to use “next week” than ”the week that is in front of us”, and Turkish is not different. However, the term is easily attested. The question is whether it is a transparent sum of parts, for which we do not have a satisfactory criterion in the case of agglutinative languages. Note that the person can be varied, as in önünüzdeki yıl, “the year that is in front of you, which IMO shows the form is transparent. --Lambiam20:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I think your arguments are pretty valid but I just want to clarify that Turkish is way more different than English. If we go by literary translation Turkish doesn't have a proper word for "next" since sonraki also literally means "which is after" and in English we wouldn't say "week which is after". I also don't think that person variability matters since the meaning of "next" is usually lost when the person is changed as in "önümüzdeki yıl" being "upcoming/next year" while "önünüzdeki yıl" being "the year that is in front of you" and not "the next year". So I think its an entry we should have. Kakaeater (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sanskrit. Currently a redirect, this form was a pure invention by the original creator of the page (a class 1 verb instead of a class 7 verb from अववृज्(avavṛj)). Exarchus (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Polish. This also concerns -óg#Kashubian and -óg#Old_Polish. These stopped being productive in these languages and only exist in inherited forms. Do we want non-productive affixes? Why not include non-productive affixes from PIE as well? Vininn126 (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep all three. There is no rule against having unproductive suffixes. They are still morphemes and people might want to know what they mean(/meant) and where they come from. There are many entries for unproductive suffixes, e.g. English -en(feminine), Hungarian -ű(present participle). —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
It should exist because come from exists, it also has its own entry in the Estonian dictionary Sõnaveeb. From a learner's point of view, it is very helpful to see the conjugation as it is not clear that the words change order when conjugated, and which case the verb governs ("olema" and "pärit olema" governs different cases). Honestly this is the kind of entry that a learner of Estonian would realistically search for on this website. Supevan (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sõnaveeb isn't a great source. pärit should be a separate entry and the usage can be illustrated in the examples. Including 'olema' in the entry is redundant. Joonas07 (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Don't think this is the accusative plural of ἔκδοσις. Could be a misspelling of ἐκδόσεις or maybe a misunderstanding of how it is spelled in reference to the modern Greek pronunciation of the word? Zksouthon (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
See what Perseus has on this. It may not be standard, Attic-based Classical Greek, but Ancient Greek is a very complex mix of dialectal and chronological variation. I'm not qualified to verify it, but it looks plausible to me. Besides, the correct place to challenge this would be WT:RFVN. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Cornish. Given in a list of birds on this site as a suggested term to be used. However, the Akademi Kernewek's "Terminology Panel" has already opted to borrow Welshbras instead. There also does not seem to be any consistent or widespread use of this term (see thesesites).
Big pile of completely SOP, non-lexical entries created by an IP (they have no more meaning than "five euro banknote" would in English). They also created a lot of synonymous entries along the lines of Zehnmarkschein, but since those are more debatable as one word terms I'll leave them for now. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Smurrayinchester: Must be kept due to WT:COALMINE. 😆 IP put the coalmines under hyponyms at Eurobanknote, and even with amounts in words and the whole terms without hyphens they are all valid spellings, as seen edited in FAZ writing Hunderteurobanknote. It is only a question of time till they all have more hits, journalists have a habit of not wasting too much space so far, so 100-€-Banknote wins and in tabloids 100-€-Schein, since the colloquial prefers Schein for Banknote, so start at Fünfeuroschein, more readable than Fünfeurobanknote, yet of equal validity, which in German does not depend so much on actual usage as the English one does. The IP had systematic considerations here. Fay Freak (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think German should be treated like Chinese, i.e. an SoP term is not automatically accepted if it is written without spaces and adequately attested. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠22:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@King of Hearts: Preferably. Editors make analogical considerations when deciding whether an entry is even useful, which the IP apparently didn’t, mechanically applying the coalmine rule, which was enacted with an unclear set of languages in mind. Fay Freak (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Eastern Pwo. SOP: "elephant + male" = "male elephant". Eastern Pwo has scriptio continua, so it's not a situation like in German. Thadh (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's not what an idiom is. It's precisely as trivial as “internal affairs” in English, of which it is a calque (or both calqued from some other European language). Nicodene (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
The instance of ⟨biliþe⟩ in the Daniel poem is now regarded as a corrupt spelling of blīþe(“happy”).
Alternatively it could be made into an alternative spelling page for the aforementioned word, with perhaps a note regarding the abnormality and its widely perpetuated misidentification. — This unsigned comment was added by YthedeGengo (talk • contribs) at 05:59, 20 July 2024.
I'm not so sure. 1) One never uses any other number as specifier together with vartti in the sense "15 minutes". 2) We have the equivalent English expression three-quarters as entry. 3) In other context than time "quarter" is translated into Finnish as neljäsosa. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
1) is because there are more natural ways to express the same concept. Nevertheless, the others are fully understandable and occasionally used; kaksi varttia is probably attestable from BGC. 2) IMO does not mean much, and I'd rather say the English entry should also be deleted. 3) is irrelevant, as vartti itself already means "quarter of an hour", and it is not really possible to interpret kolme varttia any other way. — SURJECTION/ T / C / L /14:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Yoruba. Rationale was "This page is to be deleted for not following the rules of Yoruba languages entires, in addition to the fact that Ṣábẹ̀ẹ́ has its own ISO code making it its own language". Ultimateria (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete. It should be moved to mɔ and put under the Ede Cabe header with proper orthographic rules. I can get to it sometime later if no one else does. AG202 (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 days ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Vietnamese. Tagged with edit summary, “False understanding of the term, as the correct form is Mỹ - Nguỵ or Mỹ, Nguỵ. Meaning Americans and puppets. Nguỵ (僞; illegitimate, pseudo-) here is short for Nguỵ quyền and Nguỵ quân, referring to VNCH forces.” MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I re-etymologized and re-glossed it. So should it be kept? @MuDavid
Still, "Mĩ - nguỵ" or "Mĩ, ngụy" (& each form's alternatively spellings) are much more frequently attested. Those entries need created.Erminwin (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
So do I. Still, I can imagine an advocate for "Mĩ - nguỵ ~ Mĩ ngụy" being full-fledged compound, not just SoP by adducing the fact that the somewhat well-attested form "Mĩ, ngụy" defies the punctuation rule (in Vietnamese) that comma should be used to separate items in a list having three or more ("Khi nào nên dùng dấu phẩy? - Khi danh sách có nhiều hơn ba mục, để phân tách rõ ràng giữa các thành phần: [...]" source: https://mytour.vn/vi/blog/bai-viet/chuc-nang-cua-dau-phay-va-vi-du-minh-hoa-ngu-van-lop-6.html ) Erminwin (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I’m not sure I follow you there. The fact that people blatantly ignore punctuation rules doesn’t mean much, as a great many Vietnamese people are blissfully unaware of the existence of punctuation (and many other) rules. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@MuDavid: Well, I constructed a hypothetical scenario where somebody claimed that 'Mĩ, nguỵ' is not merely a SoP, but is a full-fledged compound because whoever coining 'Mĩ, nguỵ' violated the punctuation rule regarding how to use comma in a list, therefore, in the coiner's mental grammar, "Mĩ, nguỵ" was a compound word - just one lexical item -, instead of a SoP - a list of two lexical items -; had the coiner (aware and mindful of that rule) intended to coin a mere list consisting of two lexical items "Mĩ" and "nguỵ", they would not have violated that rule. However, you correctly objected that many Vietnamese are not aware of punctuation (& many other) rules, so whoever coining "Mĩ, nguỵ" might also not know that rule at all and might have intended "Mĩ, nguỵ" to be just a SoP, a list of two lexical items. Erminwin (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Mon. Currently entered as a "non-standard encoding of" ဗှ်ေ, pulled from the SEAlang Library Mon Dictionary, apparently. This feels even worse than including a typo, to be honest: the fact that the SEAlang Library Mon Dictionary didn't encode the term properly isn't meaningful, and certainly isn't something we should care about recording. It doesn't even render properly. Theknightwho (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
It could be seen as just a clitic rather than a true suffix, but there are many formations with -einander that are treated as lemmas by Duden and have their own entries on Wiktionary. Ssome potential -einander formations are rare compared to the standard ones. So I think there is a degree of lexicalisation here, it acts like a productive suffix in my opinion. Some other arguable clitics also have entries like this, such as -e (etym. 3) and -n't, as well as all of German's "separable prefixes" (e.g. auf- vs auf have separate articles), which are also more like clitics, but have lexicalised combinations; I think the latter are in a similar situation. There are even combinations of separable prefixes and -einander acting as a separable prefix themselves, like aufeinander (aufeinanderfolgen etc), which could also be seen as just auf + einander + folgen that happens to be spelled without spaces. In my opinion, it makes sense to distinguish between einander used without a preposition, and einander used with a preposition (the latter spelled as a suffix in standard orthography), so it's not like it's a complete duplicate. Of course, they are essentially the same in form and there is still a lot of things shared between them that doesn't need to be duplicated (hence why I said to refer to the usage notes of einander in the -einander entry).
@Sérgio R R Santos: Hi! It’s basically a discussion over whether or not to delete on the basis of our current policies/practices. A change to our policies themselves would take a little more work, but can be done through creating a discussion at the WT:Beer Parlour and getting community consensus there, if you so wish. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 00:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
well, in my opinion the policy of criteria for inclusion mentioned by @Vorziblix that wiktionary currently has always annoyed me a little bit: what is the point of having a whole page that just says "this is an inflexion of such and such" - that's basicaly a full fledged redirect page. Even if a user is searching a non lemma form of a word, and that secific form doesnt have its own page, as long as that word is mentioned in the lemma page they'll ultimatly get to that page, even if indirectly, in the search results.
Now having said all that, regarding the current discussion, i thing they should be deleted if all they say is "this is a particular form of x", which like i said just sounds like a redirect page to me, but i think they should be kept when they provide further information, like usage examples or quotation of that form beig used.I dont know how difficult that distinction would be able to be put in practice, but I gess in this particular case we're just talking about half a dozen cases. Sorry for the long and meandering response, i'm incapable of going straight to the point. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
As mentioned, if you wish to change that policy, please go to the beer parlour. As it stands, if these forms are attested, then they pass RFV and would need to be sent back here for RFD if you somehow manage to convince everyone to not include pages for inflections. Vininn126 (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
then do what the policy sais.i for now am just entertained with adding and improving coptic pages; if semeone wants to create non lema pages, good for them, it doesnt bother me. I might some day ending up going to the beer parlour, but it better have some beer! Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
coincidently, i just made a search in my coptic dictionary and the very first (unrelated) entry that came up includes pretty much all verb forms for all dialects - except the absolute form for bohairic. so i gess in certain cases having a page for a non lemma form is unavoidable. or... inevitable. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The reason for the existence of these English entries, as I understand, is their figurative use as (I assume) appositions to denote ‘(by extension) Finishing in first position, winning’ (‘the gold medal project’, ‘the gold medal runner’).
That every language grammatically allows such use is unlikely, and the majority of the corresponding entries only give the literal meaning. I presume all others to be SOP and in need of deletion. ―Biolongvistul (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Possibility of being SOP, plus I don't feel like lexicalization has done much work on this one, still sounds like translated English phrase, which probably adds to the feel of SOP-ness. The listed synonym phần mềm độc hại is more lexicalized and sounds less SOP. PhanAnh123 (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I’d vote keep in this case, as a literal interpretation would be more like “ugly software” (not following style conventions?) or “evil software” (viruses? not just malware). The fact that all the use I find is restricted to malware makes this a candidate for the fried egg test, no? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago38 comments6 people in discussion
Polish. Another case of Kwamikagami having no idea what they are doing, doing essentially no research and only checking a poorly sourced Wikipedia article without actually checking if this was widely used (clue, it was not). This user is only making further messes. I think a permanent ban is in order soon, as well. Vininn126 (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, it was not widely used. We could add 'rare' to 'obsolete'. But I went to the original source to verify that the coverage is correct, and we have lots of things on Wiktionary that are/were not widely used. The only criterion I'm aware of is rather minimal. Is there something more stringent for obsolete usage? And how is this creating a 'mess' that can't be handled with simple deletion? It doesn't impact anything else, and plenty of words are deleted for not meeting attestation requirements without calls to ban the editor.
I like contributing obscure things that are under-covered. I think Wikt should be as complete as possible, and AFAIK that is not a problem. kwami (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The calls for the ban are in reference to the fact you have been warned multiple times about low-quality entries like this without fact checking anything. You are leaving major messes and never take responsibility, which is so clearly demonstrated by your response in this thread. Vininn126 (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's an assumption on your part, one that you've made before, and an incorrect one. I did fact-check, and AFAICT the entries are accurate. Your objection above was that they're not notable. How are they 'low quality'? There's not much to say other than what's there. There's no 'major mess' here: if they're deleted, nothing else needs to be changed. If they do not meet eligibility criteria, fine, but AFAICT there is no factual problem with them. kwami (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, it's not. Cyrillic for Polish was never widely used at all, simply by a small group of especially non-natives trying to Russify Poland. But that's not in the Wikipedia article, is it? Vininn126 (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
If it was never used for publication, only in proposals that were never implemented, then I would agree these are not notable. Rather like the Cyrillic script for Esperanto. kwami (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I found that it was at least used for scripture. That would seem to be adequate use; many orthographies are not used for anything more than that. kwami (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Can you provide the actual texts where it was used, instead of just claiming it? And if it was written by non-natives, I see no further point in including it. Vininn126 (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The only thing I'm pulling up now, with the first words in Matthew, is in a series of texts under the heading Общеславянская азбука [Common slavic alphabet] from 1892, a few decades after the WP alphabet ref. That may be the same thing I found earlier. I can't judge if it was written by natives, but since it's just a transliteration of the Latin, there's no reason to think it was. kwami (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
This really demonstrates how little entryworthy these are and how little research you did, and how low-quality these edits are. Time and time again you have repeated this. Vininn126 (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
That may be fair about them not being noteworthy. There's also Лаврентiй Iванович Похилевич (1864) Сказания о населенных мѣстностях Киевской губернии или статистическия, историческия и церковныя заметки о всѣх деревнях, селах, мѣстечках и городах, в предѣлах губернии находящихся, fn p 97-98. I can't tell if that's quoted or transliterated for the help of readers who only know Cyrillic, but it uses the same orthography. kwami (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Felician Wołodkowicz Arcybiskup M.C.R." looked Polish to me. Though, again, it might have been transliterated for the footnote. kwami (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I really support the initiative, but maybe we need more examples from documentation. There are runic inscriptions of modern Norwegian and Swedish, but I usually avoid to mention them, because they are often very short and useless. But Polish Cyrillic has hundreds of examples with long sentences and consistent spelling. So its a project to go for, but it needs a good quotation. Tollef Salemann (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Tollef Salemann Not in this particular alphabet. There's a Polish Cyrillic used in Belarus that is very different from this set of letters brought up. The letters made here were made without checking how used they were. Vininn126 (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, am talking about this concrete alphabet. The problem is that there are many private photos of it with all kinda texts, but no independent source or a pdf-document. Some examples are to find on Wikipedia, but thats all. The only solution is to order scans from Poland, Russia and Belarus, but its hard to do without even knowing which libraries to ask. Tollef Salemann (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126: I think Polish Cyrillic words should be kept if attestable (three times!) in non-descriptive works, but letter entries are pretty useless anyway, and in this case, I don't see the point of them at all. This seems better suited for Wikipedia. Thadh (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think the main issue is determining whether this is some kind of conlang. I'm not sure how to differentiate a constructed orthography for a natural language from a constructed language. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Orthographies are usually constructed; we're actually more likely to reject an ad hoc orthography, like texting Latin script for Arabic or Hindi.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think our Polish editors will be able to distinguish between a Polish text and an Interslavic/Pan-Slavic one - those are quite different in both morphology, phonology, and much more. Thadh (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
We do. In English, pertussal has only a quote from non-native English speaker Vladimir Nabokov, who, like non-native English speaker Joseph Conrad, is one of English's great authors. Also, Indian English is mostly written by non-native English speakers, and it's a large body of text that is important to document. Post-Roman Latin, 19th century Hebrew, and Esperanto are other bodies of text that we at least in theory try to cover, but is written by non-native speakers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's not something practiced by most of the rest of the site and most people are generally against that. Those are also somewhat exceptional situations - a few Russians trying to convert a group of people that never accepted a script isn't really the same. Vininn126 (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I mostly agree with Vinn here. If this is just a proposal that was never used for independent Polish texts, then I agree it's trivia and [I would expect] does not meet our inclusion criteria. If in practice it was only ever used as a transliteration scheme for Russian-speakers, as is possibly the case in my last example [I can't tell for certain], then even if notable in that usage it would IMO need to be identified as Cyrillic transliteration in practice if not in intent. On the other hand, if there was publication in it independent of the Russian language, then IMO it wouldn't matter if the publishers were Russian, any more than it matters for orthographies of other languages of the Russian empire, where we don't apply a native-speaker test. [I say this as a hypothetical.] kwami (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
(agreement or aside, I prefer Vin over Vinn :P)
I think the creators do definitely matter. If I were to create my own alphabet and publish 2-3 books in it while something was already established, I'm not sure that would be noteworthy.
All this is to say that some Polish speakers use Cyrillic nowadays in Belarus, but that's completely separated from the letters in the given thread. Vininn126 (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's not something practiced by most of the rest of the site and most people are generally against that. That's not an argument; even if it's true, which there's no evidence of, it doesn't mean we should do that.
If it's in "use in durably archived media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year"WT:CFI, then it doesn't matter if it's Poles or Russians or what their motives are. I don't think this is exceptional; nobody checks to see who is a native speaker or not, and it would be a lot of work for the random non-notable English or Spanish author. We include abhorrent slurs created and used for evil motives.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's not really the issue on RfD, is it? You can pick and choose what you want to work on, and there are scholars who work on contact dialects all the time, so the interest is there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Am against deletion of such stuff, because it may be usefull for reading Polish Cyrillic. There are muuuuch more Polish Cyrillic texts than Swedish Dalecarlian Runic. Also, even if some crazy priests and wizards in the Swedish and Norwegian forests used runes in modern times, most of Scandinavians didn't. Polish Cyrillic is also obscure and wasn't liked by Polish people, but it has historical value. Just some weeks ago i accidentally found a photo of a paper with Polish Cyrillic and was pretty surprised by it before I understood what language it was. Also, Polish Cyrillic was a state-supported writing system, while runes were not. Compare now Lacinka for Belarussian, which also was state supported during the both German occupations of Belarus, and wasnt supported by all people, but we still do have it on Wiktionary. Tollef Salemann (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
"because it may be usefull for reading Polish Cyrillic" except the crux of the issue is there isn't enough of that for the given letters. Vininn126 (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Sanskrit. We don't keep entries for such "combining forms" which are nothing but the forms observed in sentences and compounds just because of the sandhi rules of Sanskrit. Thus, these are basically endless and applicable to all such words. Though a reference to {{R:sa:MW}} has been added, it is likely that MW just listed this term to group all such compounds below it. --Svartava (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Vietnamese. This results from misanalyzing such expressions as phép biện chứng duy vật, whose components are "phép biện chứng(“dialectic”, noun)" (head) and "duy vật(“materialist”, adjective)" (modifier).
A few example quotations to prove my point that that such expressions as [Vietnamese nominalizer] biện chứng duy vật are composed of "[Vietnamese nominalizer] biện chứng (n.)" (head) and "duy vật (adj.)" (modifier):
Die Mystifikation, welche die Dialektik in Hegels Händen erleidet, verhindert in keiner Weise, daß er ihre allgemeinen Bewegungsformen zuerst in umfassender und bewußter Weise dargestellt hat. Sie steht bei ihm auf dem Kopf. Man muß sie umstülpen, um den rationellen Kern in der mystischen Hülle zu entdecken.
The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel's hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its [dialectic’s] general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it [dialectic] is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.
Tính chất thần bí mà phép biện chứng đã mắc phải ở trong tay Hê-ghen tuyệt nhiên không ngăn cản Hê-ghen trở thành người đầu tiên trình bày một cách bao quát và có ý thức những hình thái vận động của phép biện chứng ấy. Ở Hê-ghen phép biện chứng bị lộn ngược xuống đất. Chỉ cần dựng nó lại là sẽ phát hiện được cái hạt nhân hợp lý của nó ở đằng sau lớp vỏ thần bí.
—
Karl Marx (1968) [1873] “Nachwort zur zweiten Auflage [Afterword to the Second German Edition]”, in Das Kapital [Capital] (Marx-Engels-Werke)[30], volume 23; English translation from 1996Marx/Engels Collected Works, volume 35; Vietnamese translation from 2002C. Mác Và Ph. Ăng-ghen Toàn Tập, volume 23
'Phép biện chứng đã phát triển qua ba hình thức cơ bản: phép biện chứng chất phác thời cổ đại, phép biện chứng duy tâm cổ điển Đức và phép biện chứng duy vật trong chủ nghĩa Mác-Lênin.
Dialectic has developed through these basic forms: pure dialectic during classical antiquity, classical German idealist dialectic and materialist dialectic in Marxism-Leninism.
—Bùi Tuấn An with Lê Minh Trường (adviser) (2023) “Biện chứng là gì? Lịch sử hình thành và nội dung biện chứng? [What Is Dialectic? How Was Dialectic Formed and Developed Historically?]”, in Công Ty Luật TNHH Minh Khuê [Minh Khuê Law Firm Co., Ltd.][31]
Sự biện chứng của ý thức, đúng trong sự biện chứng của con người, dĩ nhiên tiến hành theo quy luật chung của sự biện chứng duy vật, và như thế là giải quyết vấn đề bế tắc trong phép siêu hình: hoặc là vật chất, hoặc là ý thức – hoặc là con vật, hoặc là con người.
Dialectic in consciousness, as true as in humans' dialetic, often proceeds according to the general rule of materialist dialetic, and hence resolves the dead end in metaphysics: whether matter, or consciousness – or animals – or humans.
—Trần Đức Thảo with Cù Huy Chử, Cù Huy Song Hà (2012) [1989] “Hồi Ký”, in Giáo sư Trần Đức Thảo- Biển quê hương dạt dào và trầm tư triết học[32]
Delete. I also doubt if Nidhogg was at all a part of mythology in the days of Proto-Germanic unity. Anyway, why should it begin with nīþ- if we talk about pre-Viking concepts? Was it even a thing back then? Tollef Salemann (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
As is, we can't move this page to Proto-Norse, because of limited and conflicting literature describing the origin of "sharpening" hawwaz -> höggr, which is related to Holzmans law. It's either hawwaz -> hahwaʀ or hawwaz -> hagwaʀ or haguʀ. Speculative readings of similar verb-formations snawwa- (Kroonen) even points the reconstructions huhwaʀ, huhwʀ or huguʀ. It's certainly in the controversial part of Proto-Norse.
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This should be merged with *alamann-. There's no need for a separate page. Ethnonyms in this language are also generally not capitalised. — This unsigned comment was added by Haimariks Wandilaz (talk • contribs) at 16:00, 11 October 2024.
Perhaps, but unless there are other Germanic cognates or a contemporary borrowing, this should be considered a Norse construction. --{{victar|talk}}02:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Am agree with Victar.
Also, personification of Sun is capitalized just because of modern rules. Sun personified is still just a sun, as long it is not described as a humanoid spirit of the sun. Like, when Sun and Moon should be married, the Hedgehog said its gonna be to much light, so the Earth is gonna burn, and was against the marriage. So, even if Sun and Moon are like a couple, they are still like two light sources. So no need to capitalization. There are also no capital letters in Runic alphabet, not in Middle Eastern neither. The capitalization of Sun as a god(des) is kinda new thing because of alphabet, similar to capitalization of Shemesh. Its not really bad or unecessary, but how do we know the proto-Germanic context around the solar mythology to be sure about the capital letter use? Tollef Salemann (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Additional entries, mostly proper nouns, that are likely Norse and WG constructions, like the RC:Proto-Germanic/Nīþahewwaz Rfd above.
Most of these are Old Norse terms that need not be projected back onto Proto-Germanic, it is anachronistic to do so. The few entries that do not fit this bill seem speculative and unsourced, and in some cases not even potential descendants are given. Delete all. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
ginu and gino are quite well attested in Proto-Norse inscriptions both on Kragehul I, Stentoften and Björketorp.
I could probably move the entries there (to Proto-Norse).
Āhwijaz 'Ægir', should have (close?) cognates in Old-English éagor, ēgor ‘sea’ and ǣg-weard ‘beach-ward’. More https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eagre , though it is unlear if the sound changes are viable.
The name Ægir has to be a formation from a time where germanic ahwa- was still a productive word for water. Which places it in Proto-Norse and before. Most of the words above should in fact be Proto-Norse reconstructions first. Proto-Norse isn't a reconstructed language however. Vettlingr (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
If anyone wants to move some of these to Proto-Norse reconstructions, be my guest. There are also more PG entries by the user that are based on Latin borrowings, but are likely actually from either WG or Gothic. --{{victar|talk}}18:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm open for discussion on whether or not fill Proto-Norse with reconstructions, since it is in fact an attested language.
As of yet, there is no consensus of what time period/innovations encapsulates Proto-Norse best, which is why I'm apprehensive.
I'm not sure of PWGM loans in latin as the PWGM-language isn't exactly "real", but several shared innovations. There is generally no reason to assume that PWGM was any significantly different from PGM in the time that Tacitus wrote. I think Tacitus informants were mostly of a certain tribe which eludes me at this moment. Cassiodoros & Jordanes informants were mostly goths however. Vettlingr (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm moving some of the Entries over to Proto-Norse or Old-Norse where they belong. A new discussion should be held wether to keep or delete the moved entries. Vettlingr (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vettlingr, I noticed that you moved some entries to Proto-Norse without updating the templates or etymologies, such as on RC:Proto-Norse/ᚨᚺᚹᚨᛚᚨᚾᛞᚨ. There are also some entries, like RC:Proto-Norse/Hlēwaʀ, that should still be deleted as their origins in Old Norse are uncertain. Respectfully, it might be best to leave the task to another editor with more knowledge and experience. Thank you for your efforts, though. --{{victar|talk}}03:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your answer.
1þ. Competent editors don't grow on trees and everybody have to start from somewhere. You can't just wish another editor into existence as what you are suggesting. Besides, I've gotten the hang of it now. :)
2þ. There are piles of literature on proposed and confirmed Proto-Norse loanwords in Proto-Finnic. There are even lists of such words already on Wiktionary. I suggest you familiarise yourself with them, as I have:
A lot of the literature is only accessible in Swedish from what I know of however. Some of the research thence is a bit outdated in my opinion though.
3þ. Some of these Old Norse words are of uncertain origin, not because of lack of valid etymology, but because of an overabundance of valid etymological options. It's a very important distinction. Hlér from either *hlēwaR 'lukewarm', *hlewaR 'fame', *hlewaR 'shelter' or *hlēwaR 'clean'. Late Transitional Proto-Norse even has /eiw/->/ēw/ or /æ/, which merges hlaiwaR with hlewaR into hlær/hlér, compare -þewaR into -þér in personal names. Some of the controversies has already been pointed out at Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/hlēwaz and Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/hlaiw. Vettlingr (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
To whom are we writing the Finnish section of English Wiktionary? I think for two kinds of people: a) Finnish speakers who want to know how to translate Finnish into English and b) English speakers who want to understand Finnish. For neither of these groups is it self-evident (obvious without having learned the specific expressions) that näillä main is hereabouts in English. I agree that jossain näillä main is sum of parts now as we have näillä main. Thus, deletejossain näillä main. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Reason: SoP. nuôi ong tay áo is indeed idiomatic because it is understandable only figuratively Vietnamese speakers as "to shelter [one's own] would-be betrayers" instead of "to keep bees in [one's own] sleeves"; analogous to how birds of a feather flock together is idiomatic while birds flock together is SoP: because the former is understandable only figuratively yet the latter only literally. Erminwin (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
"being weird" is not grounds for deletion (so in the absence of a rationale for deletion, my vote is keep - it looks keepable enough in its current state).
If you think the entry could use some work, feel free to improve it (or slap an {{attention}} or {{rfc}} on it and hope for the best).
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
German.
Doesn't seem to have any meaning beyond the literal SOP "horse and rider", although I'm willing to be corrected on this if there's an additional definition we need. Not to be confused with Ross und Reiter nennen ("call a spade a spade"), which is idiomatic. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 30 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Sanskrit. I don't think we need tons of such phrasebook entries for Sanskrit; in this case we don't even have the English entry. --– Svārtava (tɕ) 04:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not to mention, the constituent four words can be placed in any order, giving a total of twenty four possible combinations. It'll be a nightmare if we start documenting all of these. Delete -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)05:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 26 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Russian. A hoax. The pre-1917 spelling is чёрный. If this is not enough, one can consult any pre-1917 book (as scanned on Google Books) for verification. --Ghirlandajo (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In Welsh, any adjective (sometimes verb) can become an adverb with the preposition yn. In the past, yn unig has been deleted as a SoP for this reason. Given this, I am nominating the following for deletion as SoP:
I appreciate some terms may survive due to reasons not to remove SOP here.
This is a matter for the Greasepit, but maybe adverb forms should part of the template for adjectives, alongside plural, comparative, superlative equative.
Latest comment: 4 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Aramaic.
This was mistakenly created as a badly-formatted Hebrew entry (Hebrew wouldn't end these words with "א"), by someone who obviously has no clue.
You can find this in the etymology for abracadabra as a theoretically-possible origin for the Latin word. As Aramaic, however, it just means something like "what has been said has been done"- nothing idiomatic. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
All of them are transparently derived from klukkan(“o'clock”, literally “the clock”) + the neuter number from 1 through 12. Note that we don't have the equivalents in French (neuf heures is a red link) or Spanish (likewise nueve horas), etc. Even the English phrases are clearly SOP, but can remain as translation hubs (and should be indicated as such). Benwing2 (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete — SAMEER (・・؏) 21:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
