WORD BY LETTER : English CROSSWORD SOLVER and others things ...
Words starting with : 
Words ending  with : 
Ledger Nano S - The secure hardware wallet
Find a definition : 

definition of the word User_talk:BD2412

by the Wiktionnary

IC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> User talk:BD2412 - Wiktionary

User talk:BD2412

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Status: Limited availability. (e)


I do not want to come across as contumelious but please consider casting your vote for the tile logo as—besides using English—the book logo has a clear directionality of horizontal left-to-right, starkly contrasting with Arabic and Chinese, two of the six official UN languages. As such, the tile logo is the only translingual choice left and it was also elected in m:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran Speak your mind my past 03:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You expertise would be most appreciated at user talk:Chuffable#Volapuk_entries. Thanks!​—msh210 16:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

One definition given is "A specific instance of intellectual property, such as a particular design". Do you recognize this use? I was going to RFV it, but figured I should check with you first. Thanks.​—msh210 19:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't exist in any sense that is not redundant to the first definition. bd2412 T 22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.​—msh210 16:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff, how do you find these? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I was looking through red links on my watchlist, and my deleted user contributions. bd2412 T 23:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User has been adding many Middle Chinese entries, which is great. He wikilinks the reconstructed pronunciations from the Unihan database (see the 王 edit and Unihan's info), though he does put a '*' before it to show it's reconstructed. Shouldn't these be unlinked per our defacto policy on reconstructed terms? Or is this standard practice when dealing with Chinese transliterations? Thanks. --Bequwτ 15:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely, if they are reconstructed, and therefore unattestable, we would never have entries for them, thereby making any links to such pages permanently red and pointless…  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to but in. Could you check the latest update (Mandarin) to Q. I can't tell if it is real or vandalism. SemperBlotto 17:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am just as much in the dark about it as you! Seems like the links added are real Chinese instant messenger lingo, so not vandalism per se. However, it is likely that they have not existed long enough to meet the CFI. bd2412 T 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't add capital initials to expanded initialisms (e.g., in ACV, which stands for apple cider vinegar, not Apple Cider Vinegar).[1] In English, capital initials are usually used for proper nouns only. If in doubt, use the pattern of capitalization found in the Wiktionary entry, in other dictionaries, or in a Google Books search for the term or phrase.

I see you've been using AWB to automatically capitalize many entries. How would you feel about undoing these changes?

Regards. Michael Z. 2010-03-10 14:40 z

I have not been automatically capitalizing entries; I have been automatically bolding the letters that make the initialism, and manually capitalizing entries where it appeared to be warranted (which was in a bare handful). bd2412 T 23:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you check is it a "Pinyin syllable"? 19:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not a syllable, it's two of them, already covered at da and ling. bd2412 T 02:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi bd2412. I was wondering: What is the minimum length of a definition which, if copied verbatim, would constitute an actionable copyright violation? I assume that one-word definitions for pure synonyms wouldn’t constitute copyright violation, such as, for secrete#Etymology 1: "separated", and nor would "having wings" for winged; however, what is the threshold? The specific case that spawned this question is that of the OED's six-word definition for herbose. Could you please comment on that particular case, and on the general threshold? Thanks.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

<butting in> Actually, the OED's definition is five words - I added an extra "in". </butting in> SemperBlotto 17:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, SB, I hadn't noticed that addition.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The individual entry isn't really the issue, is it? If we say that short definitions are okay to copy, we will end up copying lots of them, i.e. far larger swathes of text, verbatim, and end up having to do a massive and expensive trawl to remove them later when quite justifiably accused of plagiarism. I think it's safest to rephrase everything (of course, "derivative works" can infringe, too — I don't mean every single entry should be based on another dictionary's definition!). Equinox 17:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
"Always reword." is a sensible principle, but not always workable; for example, it isn't really possible to reword those two example definitions without awkwardness, verbosity, or inaccuracy ("Having been separated."? "Possessed of wings."?).  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I've seen the definition for retsina as "A Greek wine". You definitely can't copyright that. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree; if one could, it would be utterly unreasonable. For example, for vinho, I didn't think it necessary or practical to alter the OED's definition of "Portuguese wine."  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, we have to think at dictionary level. Suppose a dictionary consisted only of three-word definitions, and we copied them all. That wouldn't be acceptable. Equinox 17:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
It would not be possible to construct a dictionary like that, so such a scenario is impossible.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
It would be possible if it only contained certain words: those that can be defined in three words. That's plenty of words. And it would still be infringement to copy them. Equinox 20:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Copying definitions from other copyrighted dictionaries is always forbidden, whatever the number of definitions and the length of these definitions. But it's not forbidden to create one's own definitions, and this may lead to definitions also found in other dictionaries, especially bilingual dictionaries, e.g. we define the French word psychologue as psychologist. This might be a copyright violation (or not; probably not, because there is no really original work in this definition) but, anyway, it's obviously impossible to tell, impossible to prove anything, because this is the natural definition in a bilingual French-English dictionary. Still, the rule is very important: never copy copyrighted dictionaries. Lmaltier 20:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I was talking about copying, not independently coming up with the same text (which is fairly possible). Equinox 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I forgot something: don't reword copyrighted definitions either. You may consult them, but you must forget them before creating your own definitions. It might be easy to prove copyright violation for numerous slightly reworded definitions. Furthermore, it sometimes happens that dictionaries include false information to make copyright violation detection easier. Lmaltier 21:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, definitions are statements of fact so the copyright for definitions is thin. If a definition is presented such that there is no simpler way to define the word, it is uncopyrightable because the idea has merged with the expression. Here, I think the copied definition is poetic enough (and able to be restated in terms that are somewhat clearer to understand) that we're better off with the new wording. bd2412 T 00:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, bd2412. That sounds like a very reasonable regulation.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"The community has voted against it (toneless Pinyin)", is it true?

Something is missing in the following text you added:

The found plaintiff's service of process effective, although the defendant refused to receive the complaint

Is that supposed to be something like this?:

The court found the plaintiff's service of process to be effective, although... --Espoo 12:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes, fixed. bd2412 T 16:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't an error, even in fairly formal usage. It is so common that many verbs like find are deemed to have copulative senses. OTOH, it seems to bother non-native speakers, so it might not belong in a usage example. An alternative reading is that the "be"-less form is an ellipsis. DCDuring TALK 11:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a brief discussion in the Tea Room of the attributive use of this in food products, eg, "protein shake", "protein bar". Has the US FDA or any other food regulatory yet weighed in on this with regulatory definitions? I had taken a quick look, but only in bgc. Glad you're employed. Hope it has some interest for you. DCDuring TALK 11:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I had also looked at .gov searching for "protein" and "label". No joy. DCDuring TALK 13:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no standard of identity that I can find. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. DCDuring TALK 15:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've created this and would appreciate your checking it for accuracy.​—msh210 19:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The rule against perpetuities is generally phrased as "No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after the death of some life in being at the creation of the interest". Other expressions of limitations on inheritance are not considered different rules against perpetuities, but rather variations of the rule. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hm, I'm not sure I understand the difference between variations of the rule, which are different from it, and different rules. Is my "Any rule that prevents [] a certain length of time [] " wrong: should it be instead "The rule that prevents [] twenty-one years [] , or any variation of that rule"? That just seems too confusing. Note that rules against perpetuities (in plural) is well attested. Thanks for your input.​—msh210 15:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I may be wrong, that's just how I learned it. One rule; comparable rules are just deviations from the original. bd2412 T 02:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so I've split it into senses: one for the rule and one for its generalizations (because citations show that they're also called rules against p., not just "variations on the rule against p."). Thanks for your help.​—msh210 18:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that works. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I urge you to vote. (I don't know which way you'll vote, but I want more voices, especially English Wiktionarians' voices, heard in this vote.) If you've voted already, or stated that you won't, and I missed it, I apologize.​—msh210 17:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, June starts in a week, and if this is going to happen it's probably going to need a bit of work before it starts. Are you going to bring it up in the BP? --Yair rand (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on the reaction this proposal initially received, I think I may wait a while longer before I bring it up again. Honestly, at the moment I don't have the time to work on something like that myself. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I would really appreciate you taking a look at User:Tooironic/xìngshì. I think this formatting policy would make our lives a whole lot easier. I am calling upon all veteran Mandarin editors to make suggestions of improvement at the talk page. Cheers. ---> Tooironic 23:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's kind of sparse. bd2412 T 01:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Your expertise may be useful at [[WT:TR#a_plurality_of]], if you have a chance. Thanks.​—msh210 18:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think keeping combinations of entries with several meanings is a good idea. Your argument seems to be they should be kept no matter how obvious the meaning is, a sort of "the readers don't matter" approach. Bus route is more justfiable as it can only have one meaning, I think. Yet as long as you speak English, you're gonna know what it means. Isn't this a case of "screw the reader - I like the entry, let's keep it"? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  • How, exactly, does it harm the reader to have a lexically correct entry in the dictionary? If they know the meaning, no one is going to force them to look it up anyway. It is only if they do not know the meaning of a collocation that they will look it up, in which case having the entry will help them. It seems odd to presume that the readership of a reference work will consist only of those who do not need to things look up, and will exclude those with limited English skills, and those coming from English speaking regions which do not happen to use specific collocations. Just because you've are fortunate enough to have been educated to the point where these things seem obvious to you does not mean they are obvious to the entire English-speaking world, or to those with partial English skills. On that basis, I frankly can't fathom your seeming hostility towards these entries. bd2412 T 22:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, under this logic, what would we allow? idiomatic sentence doesn't refer to a prison sentence, school building doesn't refer to a school of fish. Per Michael on the deletion debate, the definition is a "drawer for junk", it's the sort of thing where we could dispense with the definition and keep the rest.
The whole disagreement is over the underlying question of whether a dictionary of our scope is for decoding or encoding. Learner's dictionaries tend to be for encoding, but are highly selective, trying to help users find the most common expressions. They are inclusive of many common collocations that barely meet the most inclusive definition of idiom. Comprehensive ("unabridged") dictionaries are aimed at helping users decode. There are no comprehensive learner's in print because there has little market for it. Once a user has developed a basic set of idioms, the rest are picked up by exposure. We are boldly going where no lexicographer has gone before, without the assistance of professional lexicographers, apparently without recognizing it let alone preparing for it. DCDuring TALK 14:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
First, we are not constrained by the space considerations of a paper encyclopedia. Now, I'm not taking "not paper" as an excuse to load up the dictionary with phrases that are indisputably sum of parts (such as orange lamp or idiomatic sentence). With word combinations, there is a spectrum of idiomatic character, and perhaps of the character of being considered as a lexical unit. My impression is that, on that spectrum, the phrase junk drawer is very much towards the end of fire truck or tennis racquet, and not towards the end of school building or patio furniture. I think bus route is probably a bit less defensible on lexical grounds, but is the kind of phrase that it might be very important for a speaker of limited English to find here. Given a few days to think about it, I could probably articulate the set of characteristics which leads me to this impression. This is very reminiscent of the work I did in the Trademark Office, where we were constantly evaluating applications for trademark registration to determine whether marks were merely descriptive of the products, and what associations that consumers would be likely to draw from a name that might cause confusion with another mark. Second, I think the degree of concern raised over entries like junk drawer and bus route hinges far too heavily on the inside baseball of the workings of this project. They are counter to the way real-world users use the Internet. It is strange to suggest that it takes a "screw the reader" mentality to wish to include an attested, possibly useful, lexically correct entry, which (like all of our entries) no user will actually ever see unless they search for the term, or intentionally click a link leading to the page. The objection would only apply if readers were somehow forced to look up the phrase "junk drawer" or "bus route". Does anyone imagine the OED staff said, "oh, screw the readers, we're including bus route"? I suppose there is a slim but tangible potential harm to having too many entries if they are not well policed, but it is neither a drain on the servers nor a harm to the users to allow entries where the degree to which they are idiomatic or set phrases is hazy. bd2412 T 17:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, BD2412. Please use the code {{grc}} in etymologies; {{el}} is for Modern Greek. PS In the case of pansphygmograph it's even better to etymologize like this. --Vahagn Petrosyan 01:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. bd2412 T 01:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh... some of those are nouns and some are verbs. The definition is for a noun, but the inflection line is for a verb. Are you still working on this entry? --EncycloPetey 19:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a noun. I think in that one use, it's a verb disguised as a noun, more or less like a verbal. In any case, I doubt it will meet the CFI as a noun, which it clearly does as a verb; the noun form (which does meet the CFI) would be farspeech. bd2412 T 19:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
It's clearly not a verb, and has all the hallmrks of a noun: article, an adjective modifier, a floowing adjectival prepositional phrase. However, you are correct that it might not meet CFI. I think it would be wrong to call it a verb, so if the noun does not meet CFI it could be placed unsorted on the Citations page for others to fret over at some later date. --EncycloPetey 19:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable solution. That is the only example that presents a problem. bd2412 T 19:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. When you create a new entry, are you using a script or something that causes the edit summary to be the name of the entry? If you left it blank, it would show the actual content of the entry, which is probably more useful to anybody scanning Recent Changes. Equinox 21:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, I just copy and paste. Five years I've been doing this, and I was not aware that leaving the edit summary blank would do that! bd2412 T 21:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Do you know whether "without more" means something special in legalese, or if it's just standard English "without" + "more" (i.e., "with nothing further")? (For examples see e.g. google:"without more" site:law.cornell.edu.) Thanks.​—msh210 (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As a point of reference, I've heard w:John Sexton pronounce the second word with two syllables. Of course, he may be alone in that.​—msh210 (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I have never heard that the phrase has a legal meaning beyond the obvious SOP meaning. It does not appear in Black's, Ballentine's, or Bouvier's law dictionaries. It is a common collocation, but there are many common preposition/noun collocations (see Wiktionary:Votes for deletion#in default). bd2412 T 13:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your input.​—msh210 (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi BD2412,

Should we have a noun sense "the judge presiding over a case" for presiding as in this quotation? :

  • 2010, Nick Cumming-Bruce, “Swiss Reject U.S. Request to Extradite Polanski”, in The New York Times, 2010 July 13:
    The director fled on the eve of sentencing in California because of fear that the presiding intended to renege what his defense lawyers said was a deal to avoid a prison sentence.

I tried some Google-searches, but I couldn't get a clear picture of how exactly it's used.

Thanks in advance!
RuakhTALK 16:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like an error to me. I've never heard the presiding judge or officer referred to as anything other than the presiding judge or presiding officer. If this usage is intentional, it might still be just a fanciful noun usage of an adjective (as in, we have towels for the wet). bd2412 T 17:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I have added an adjective sense. bd2412 T 18:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Great, thank you! —RuakhTALK 18:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
My pleasure. bd2412 T 18:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
But it doesn't seem to be an adjective. See Wiktionary:English adjectives or User:Visviva/POS testing. Gradable? Usable after "become"? DCDuring TALK 19:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I could be wrong. It doesn't seem to show up as an adjective in any other dictionaries. bd2412 T 22:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The adjective tests we use correlate fairly well with the inclusion practices of other dictionaries. If anything, we include more participle- and noun-derived adjectives than our fellow lemmings do. DCDuring TALK 23:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
It looks like you were right that it was an error: it's now been changed to read "presiding judge". Maybe someone at the NYT reads your talk-page. :-P   —RuakhTALK 23:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I intend to do that, but not systematically. I do it whenever I see one of those pages that, unfortunately, for no good reason if you ask me, have to be entered with the incorrect quotes. At least let us show the correct ones then. I even remember having done that for a lot of these appendices before, but the pages seem to be gone?? H. (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not these appendices, I don't think - every one that has been created is still here. This actually can be done in a systematic manner. bd2412 T 20:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Definition from Wiktionary
Content avaible with GNU Free Documentation License

Powered by php Powered by MySQL Optimized for Firefox