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 Wiktionary:Information_desk

by the Wiktionnary

Could anyone between Alaska and Bunia, Congo please tell me the English definition for the word "Asamba"? Upon my search, I did find the word in a sentence which appears to be a bible verse, Misala 1:8. I am upon the assumption that it is Revelation 1:8, but the many bible versions and my ignorance of African-French dialects have led me into brick walls. I thank anyone that can enlighten me on this word.

This is the verse: Kasi bino az ua makasi Molimo Bipura akuma na likob na bino, nasima bino asamba Kala na Ngai. Many years of wondering and much gratitude for the slightest help.

THANK-YOU!! Baclarke

"Kasi bino azua makasi sika Molimo Bipuru akuma na likolo na bino, nasima bino asamba kula na Ngai" is in the first part of Acts 1, in Bangala; asamba is apparently a verb form of kusamba, to wash, bathe. I think this is Acts 1:5 in most English versions, referring to baptism. Robert Ullmann 16:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
One additional note: in kiKongo (s/w DRC, a long way from that area), "kusamba" means to pray, and "asamba" is a form as with most Bantu languages. Depending on where you originally found the word in the Congo, this might be what you are looking for? Robert Ullmann 16:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the current policy is rather vague on this one. It doesn't make clear what to do with extinct languages. Though I know that extinct languages might be included (because of all Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, Old... entrees) I don't know what to do with Old East Lower Franconian. If this one is allowed, it would make etymology for Limburgish a lot easier. --Ooswesthoesbes 12:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't find a link on en.wp: w:nl:Oud-Oostnederfrankisch --Ooswesthoesbes 12:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the English name would be Old East Low Franconian. —Stephen 13:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Ow. I came near :) --Ooswesthoesbes 13:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Robinson ("Old English and its Closest Relatives") notes that Old East Low Franconian is sometimes lumped together with several other dialects and collectively termed Old High German. --EncycloPetey 19:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes, but many people don't agree. --Ooswesthoesbes 16:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
True. The historical relationships between Germanic languages are some of the best researched (along with Romance languages), but the nomenclature applied to the various languages and dialects is terribly muddled and is inconsistent between authors. --EncycloPetey 21:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you get your definitions but I'm finding that about a third of them are either lacking the precise meaning or just completely wrong when compared to my Webster's dictionary. Does Wikipedia have the same error rate as this site? I don't think I will be visiting any of your websites from now on, too bad you were my homepage.

Too bad. Webster's is not always right either. Can you give some examples rather than simply walking away? This is a cooperative project, after all. -- ALGRIF talk 15:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
You do realize that Wiktionary has been around for less than five years, and that we are a multilingual dictionary? How long has Webster's been revising their definitions? Yes, we are still lacking, but for just five years worth of work, I'd say we've done remarkably well. When the OED project had been running for just five years, not a single volume had yet been published. Also, please note that there is a difference between "incomplete" and "erroneous". You don't seem to have made that distinction in your comment, as you have noted that information is missing, then refer to this as an "error rate". As Algrif has noted, Wiktionary is a cooperative project, and visitors are encouraged to contribute towards improvement of the content. Such updates are immediate. As a result, we include many English words that Webster's does not (such as gameboard), and we even have some words and definitions lacking from the OED. When you add to that our coverage of other languages (Italian, Spanish, Russian, Greek, Mandarin, etc.), our interconnectivity with Wikipedia articles, sound files, and other features, you'll find that we have much to offer that simply isn't available from Webster's. --EncycloPetey 16:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
We would need at least a few examples to give you a constructive response. Robert Ullmann 17:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Your attitude is messed up. Wiktionary is providing you a free service, for nothing in return. If you want to "walk away", that's your loss. We're not gonna cry over it. On the contrary, it saves the bandwidth for other people who actually appreciate our work. -- 19:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

When trying to get the definition of the word ajar, instead I get some gibberish file. Tried to do the straight seach and tried to go through the listings, same results.

—This comment was unsigned.

I would like to ask for some assistance with the {{RQ:Nippo Jisho}} template. There are at least two issues. Using ケンケン as an example:

  1. Needs a space before between Jisho and (page
  2. It somehow ruins the alignment of the following quotation beginning with #:.

Any assistance would be appreciated. Regards, Bendono 12:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Both issues have been corrected. For (1), I added a space before the "if" brackets. To correct (2), I moved the "noinclude" to the same line as the displayed content. The template technically included a carriage return before, which is what ruined the use of # for the next line. --EncycloPetey 18:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for both the fixes and explanations. Bendono 22:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to look up some information for a report on Placement Agency.. Can someone help me.. —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Probably. This is a dictionary. It can tell you what a placement is and what an agency is. Hope that helps. If not, don't ask a dictionary. -- Gauss 20:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
It's a company that serves as agents of those seeking to be placed. The placement may be of a household worker in a household or of a potential adoptive child in a home. (Other uses may also be possible, but those are the two that spring to mind.) If you're seeking anything beyond the meaning (or other dictionary information like the etymology), I recommend you ask at Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, instead of at Wiktionary, this site, a dictionary.—msh210 20:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

1) When I try to enter this expression, the apostrophe was automatically changed to "&" and the subsequent characters/words were omitted. How is it entered correctly? (It is cited at 'goat as a "Derived term".) 2) Now that the Wiktionary system has goat& instead of goat's breath, the system won't allow me to redo, thereby retaining goat& in cyberspace. How may it be deleted? Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas 16:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't show up in your contribs, so it probably just vanished into the ether. What does this phrase mean? Googling "goat's breath" is not very informative. -- Visviva 16:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a known MW software bug. One can't use some characters in the title with automatic preload. (The buttons on the "no-go-match" page.) You can certainly move the page if created wrongly. To create the page plant a link somewhere like this: goat's breath and follow it. Robert Ullmann 11:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, btw, it is a plant. Let me google a bit .... yes, but it is "goat's beard": Aruncus dioicus, or the Salsifies. Robert Ullmann 12:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Where should I raise this type of issue? Through lack of knowledge, I raise it here. Bank Holiday and bank holiday should be merged in some way. I suspect the capitalised version is the non-standard one, maybe taken from usage in calendars. The lower case version has a plural entry, and translations. Pingku 19:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The capital version could be changed to use the {{alternative form of}} template, instead of being a full separate entry. It isn't a regional variant. --EncycloPetey 19:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Done, thanks. Pingku 19:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Could someone advise if the word beer can be pluralized? i.e. I had a few beer. or I had a few beers.

Thank you...

—This unsigned comment was added by Keyne (talkcontribs) 00:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC).

A few beers. —RuakhTALK 01:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
And we have three beers on tap. - Pingku 17:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, is there a template to indicate when a sense of a word is specific to European French? To Canadian French?

Also, I've noticed that Torontonian and a number of other proper nouns are identified as "Canadian English." What is the logic behind this? How do people in other countries refer to Torontonians, if not by that word? The entry for New Yorker, correctly in my view, doesn't consider the word to be American English.

"people from Toronto". The term Torontonian is a localism, in Toronto and (some part of) Canada. "New Yorker", on the other hand, is known and used all over the world. Just the way it is. Compare Scouser, a localism for "person from Liverpool", but which I've heard in Nairobi from a Brit (who assumed correctly that I would understand it ;-), Liverpudlian, jocular but more well known, and "person from Liverpool" which is what most of the world would use.
To answer the direct question: {{Canada|lang=fr}} or {{Canadian French}} Robert Ullmann 12:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
That's a bit subjective. google news:Torontonian mostly pulls up Canadian hits, but it pulls up a few not (one Israeli, one U.K.), and the same is true of google news:"Toronto man". In this case I think we're better off without the sense label. —RuakhTALK 14:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
But what's striking about that is where it's not used -- like, for example, Detroit or Buffalo. To me, the UK and Israeli uses, like others in Archives, seem like affected pseudo-localisms (rather as if they had referred to a person from Ohio as a Buckeye). Even if that is not correct, the geographic distribution this term is, at the very least, peculiar. -- Visviva 06:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why one would expect the word Torontonian to be unknown outside Canada. Toronto has more than double the population of the number two city in Britain. Same goes for Montrealer. And yet people don't feel any compunction, say, in using Glaswegian in North America. And no, Buckeye is not an appropriate comparison; Ohioan would be. Torontonian is not a nickname. 12:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's appropriate to have the label. "Scouser" may be British English, but "Liverpudlian" is not. "Liverpudlian" is the word I would use, and I'm not British. I don't think the analogy is correct.
You've said how to mark senses specific to Canadian French. What about senses specific to European French? (This would be similar to a label for North American English.) These words may either be common to France, Belgium and Switzerland, but not used in Canada, or, as is frequently the case, may be known to be used in France but not in Canada, and have unknown status in Belgium and Switzerland. 02:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I made {{European French}} (AKA {{Europe}}) for that. An FWIW, the adjective for Toronto in French is torontois. Although in many cases they can little little known outside a certain geographic regions, French city adjectives are far more regular and common than English ones, so they are almost never considered to be geographically restricted (the only exception I can think of is if they would refer to different homonymous cities across the Atlantic). Circeus 07:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I knew the word torontois. A new French dictionary produced by the University of Sherbrooke will be coming out soon. A preliminary version will be online in January. It will identify the most common words and meanings specific to European French with an appropriate label, something dictionaries produced in Europe fail to do. That will be a reliable source for systematically labelling European words. By the way, thanks for teaching me the acronym FWIW. 12:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear All,

At present I am learning Finnish and using Wiktionary heavily to build my vocabulary especially with musical terms. I note that the fi: Music category only has a few words. Other words such as tauko which appear under the english word for 'rest' do not appear under this very useful category. If anyone can navigate me to the right section on how to do this I will happily start linking words as I find them and start populating fi: Music. Thanks!--Satish 00:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If the word already has an entry, and has the correct definition, you can add {{music|lang=fi}} to the beginning of the definition just after the "#" symbol. In the case of tauko, we don't have the musical sense yet, so you would need to add a definition like this:
# {{music|lang=fi}} [[rest]]
Hope that helps. -- Visviva 07:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Will try this soon... --Satish 02:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


A few days ago in the daily email I am so sure that the definition for Lambent was clever / witty without effort (or with luck). However when I look this up on your website it is clever / witty without unkindness. I was so sure of this that I took a bet with somebody and now stand to lose a small fortune ........ are you able to assist. I am not sure how to look up previous newsletters sent. Or am I just losing my marbles ?

Thanks so much Daphne

A year ago it did say "without effort" for approximately nine days. Since December 17, 2007 (just over a year ago), it has read "without unkindness". I don’t know anything about any newsletters. —Stephen 08:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
It was Word of the Day on 16 December, 2008. The American Heritage Dictionary has something like the sense we had then. DCDuring TALK 10:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
(note that DCDuring intended to say "16 December 2007" so it read "without effort ..." when it was WOTD) Robert Ullmann 16:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Oops. Yup. Thanks. DCDuring TALK 16:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The December 16th entry looked like this last year, and was updated 15 Dec at 03:11 UTC to this year's word. Something was reading ahead? Don't know what might be sending emails, but it sent you last year's word ... Robert Ullmann 16:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Is a portmanteau word like stagflation a "Derived term" of stagnation and inflation? That is, does "blending" create morphological derivatives? DCDuring TALK 15:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. "Derived terms" is sum-of-parts for our purposes; any term which is derived from the headword should be welcome in that section. To exclude portmanteaus would be needlessly theological, and would probably require excluding phrases as well. -- Visviva 07:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I wish to improve the definitions of geodesic, but haven't been able to find guidance appropriate to the situation. The situation is as follows. The definition currently provided is strictly incorrect, but widely used and even in Webster's, namely 1.(mathematics) the shortest line between two points on a specific surface. Without getting into the mathematics (see the Wikipedia entry for that), the reality is that the shortest line will be a geodesic, but not all geodesics are shortest. They are locally length minimising but not globally. Given that the term is so widely used in the sense described, both definitions are now clearly correct for vernacular English. How should this be reflected in the formatting and text of the descriptions provided? —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

If there are two widely used senses of geodesic and specific authorities recommend against using one, it's permissible to add both definitions, prefixing the faulty one with {{proscribed}}. Then add a ====Usage notes==== section (just above ====Translations====) where the proscribing authorities are quoted. Does that make sense? Rod (A. Smith) 05:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense, but I'm still not sure about just what is the best way to proceed. I have the feeling that proscription is a bit too extreme in this case. The alternative of just listing the alternative definitions with explanation in the Usage section is probably more appropriate. I've looked through the various usage templates to see if there is something which could be used to tag the existing definition, but don't see an obvious term. It seems to me that although the word has a clear definition, the (strictly incorrect) common usage has become so widespread, and for so long, that it is now an alternate and acceptable word in many situations. I think what I'm looking for is a tag which identifies a word as being "commonly used for something, and evolved from a similar term due to a long-standing error in understanding the original meaning." The hypercorrect tag looked interesting, but it seems to be specifically about errors in applying language rules. Colloquial and informal don't seem to suit either. Is there a word for the process of meaning evolution without the original meaning being archaic? —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

If no authorities actively proscribe the common sense, you can forgo the {{proscribed}} tag, but still add the technically correct definition and explain briefly in ====Usage notes====, as you say. Also, I might note in ===Etymology=== which definition the term originally had. (Also, remember to sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~.) Rod (A. Smith) 17:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for lack of signing, I hadn't created an account. I think I've finally found the right term, namely misnomer. Examples such as tinfoil sometimes being a misnomer for aluminium foil seem to me to be analogous. Might this not be a useful usage template? Kurvenbau 21:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be a useful template, but somehow, "misnomer" reads to me as even more of a proscription than "proscribed". That is, when I read "proscribed", I read "this entry is proscribed by someone" and not "we proscribe this entry", but when I read "misnomer", I think "this is an incorrect use of the word". I may be over-analyzing it, though, and maybe other editors' feedback would change my perspective. Rod (A. Smith) 01:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I have the same misgivings; "proscribed" can be supported by a quote from any usage guide, while "misnomer" suggests that the word has a true meaning, which is a very difficult statement to support. -- Visviva 05:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I have seen the words "loosely" and "strictly" used to mark such distinctions, didn't find them objectionable, and sometimes found them helpful. In the case of geodesic, is the deinition true for all convex shapes? (The proof or disproof is left as an exercise for the reader.) DCDuring TALK 16:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: misnomer v proscribe. I am a bit surprised because the Wiktionary entries for each term don't seem to reflect this.
proscribe is defined as:

1. To forbid or prohibit.
2. To denounce.
3. To banish or exclude.

and misnomer as:

1. A use of a term asserted to be misleading.
2. A term asserted to be widely used incorrectly.
3. A term whose sense in common usage conflicts with a technical sense.

Geodesic would be a misnomer on the basis of the third case, but none of the proscribe cases apply. Looking through the Wikipedia entry for misnomer, common usage of geodesic seems most akin to examples in the Difference between common and technical meanings section. As it states there tear gas is not a gas. Despite being a type 3 misnomer, tear gas is not only acceptable, but indeed the correct word for everyday use. Although geodesic has an absolutely clear (curvature based) mathematical definition, the usage outwith the mathematical community is more lax. There is no alternative single word which means shortest line so one would find it difficult to argue that someone using geodesic for this meaning should use a different word.

I don't quite understand the question about convex shapes. Geodesics are defined with respect to surfaces of any curvature. Kurvenbau 02:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the indirection in the definition of misnomer is a bit confusing. My understanding of misnomer would yield the following definitions:
  1. A term used in a misleading way.
  2. A term widely used incorrectly.
  3. A term whose sense in common usage conflicts with a technical sense.
Maybe I'm wrong, though, and "That's a misnomer" really means, "(regardless of what I think) some people assert that usage to be misleading or incorrect." Anyway, my post above wasn't meant to suggest that {{proscribed}} actually fits in this situation, because I don't know of any authority who proscribes geodesic in the sense in question. I was just trying to say that {{proscribed}} implies a third party's warning, but a hypothetical *{{misnomer}} template would suggest to me (based on my understanding of misnomer) that Wiktionary authors assert the common usage to be misleading or incorrect. I would probably tag the original sense as {{context|technical}} and tagging the other {{context|common}} or {{context|popular}}. Then, in the usage notes, explain how the common sense differs from the technical sense. Rod (A. Smith) 04:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you about senses #1 and #2, but I'm not sure about sense #3; I think that misnomer is essentially a prescriptivist term, and all of our "definitions" of it are attempts at descriptivist translations, so to speak. Specifically, I think that someone might describe the ordinary use of "bug" (which doesn't match taxonomists' definition) as a "misnomer", not just because its sense in common usage conflicts with a technical sense, but because they consider its sense in common usage to be "wrong" (and its technical use to be "right"). That is, I think our translation #3 is just a special case of the sense covered by our translation #2. —RuakhTALK 05:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added a page entitled ἀγγέλο into the Ancient Greek verbs category. I have sorted it into the alpha (α) category, but cannot get it to list alphabetically within that alpha list. Can anyone help me? The word should come immediately after αγγαρευω. Furthermore, I just realized that I spelled the entries title incorrectly. I should have used an omega (ω) rather than an omicron (ο). Can I rename the page?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Ancient_Greek_verbs 00:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Better? —Stephen 03:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! One more thing, however. Even though there is no entry for it, the word is still listed on the Ancient Greek verbs category page.

Done. The template {{grc-verb}} has an automatic categorization and sorting feature. The fact that the manual categorization (i.e. [[Category:Ancient Greek verbs|αγγελλω]]) was setup properly was nullified by the inflection template. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Note a "manual" cat with a sort key that occurs after the template will replace the sort key in the template. In this case the template does what is wanted so it isn't needed. (This is one reason why we want all the manual cats at end-of-language section, so they will act as intended.) Just noting that, entry is fine now. Robert Ullmann 13:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Of what value is the label "ergative verb", especially to a non-grammarian? Is it not merely inferred from the grammar of the intransitive and transitive uses of each verb, rather than something one can infer from any inherent characteristic (say, semantics) of the verb? DCDuring TALK 20:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Some editors have objected to "splittism", a perceived tendency to split one sense across multiple sense lines; this label would theoretically let us minimize that tendency, by uniting transitive and intransitive senses. (I mean, we can unite those senses even without such a label — and I've definitely done that myself, as in defining "-ify" verbs using locutions like "to become, or cause to become, ____" and then not including the label because I forgot it existed — but it's probably a good idea to use the label in such cases, because it gives us the opportunity to provide a helpful link.) —RuakhTALK 08:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
That says it was deemed convenient for the contributor and for the linguist. Based on experience I expect that there was little consideration and no evidence about usability. At what level is the concept "ergative" taught? I also would suspect that anti-splittism makes life even more difficult for translators in most languages. DCDuring TALK 11:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Re: "That says it was deemed convenient for the contributor and for the linguist.": I disagree. I think that for a contributor, it's more convenient to write them as two senses; you just copy and paste, and modify the right part. When you unite senses, you have to find a way to coordinate the different parts while keeping everything clear. (As evidence, I point to all the newbies who add duplicate senses rather than extending or improving existing ones.) And I really don't know what's "convenient" for a linguist — it probably depends what the linguist is trying to accomplish — but I can't for the life of me imagine that anyone here has deemed it so, or made that their consideration. On the contrary, the argument has been that large numbers of near-duplicate senses are hard for readers to slog through to find what they're looking for. Whether this argument is valid, I can't say. And yes, as you suggest, one major counter-argument is that it makes life harder for translators. (But of course, English often doesn't draw distinctions that other languages do. In general, I think the question should be whether two senses are the same English sense, so far as we can tell, regardless of how other languages view them. With ergative verbs, I think it depends on the verb; -ify is an ergative-verb suffix meaning "to become, or cause to become, ___", and I think it makes sense to accept that fact when defining words that end in it. On the other hand, more basic verbs, like cook, behave in complicated ways — "I cooked yesterday" and "the pasta is cooking on the stove" are both acceptable intransitive uses — and should probably be split.) —RuakhTALK 21:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I can see a point to the anti-split argument and have sometimes defined less common senses (technical, scientific, sports) in long entries that way. I have yet to find "ergative" used in any other dictionary. It is not defined in Longman's DCE. I just don't see the validity from the point of view of non-linguist users of using the word "ergative" as: 1., a visible category; 2., a context, or, 3., as an object of discussion in a usage note. I would be intrigued to find its frequency in any of the major corpera. DCDuring TALK 21:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
(1) As a non-native user, I find "explaining both in one definition" (eg the OALD for "break": to be damaged and separated into two or more parts, as a result of force; to damage something in this way) preferable to "separate definitions labelled intransitive an intransitive" (eg ours for "break": To end up in two or more pieces that can't easily be reassembled. and, six definitions later, To cause to end up in two or more pieces.), and both much preferable to "just using the ergative label", which I find more confusing than helpful (convinced as I am that 99 users out of 100 have then first to look up the word ergative itself). The first feels more coherent and thus more easily understood even if there are no in-between defs, though not overly so. (2) As a translator, I don't find too much of a difference between having sometimes to put two translations into one table and, alternatively, having sometimes to leave a table without a translation (or making a translation which would just be a passive voice or a reflexive verb in the given language, and thus most probably either linking red or leading to the same page anyway). --Duncan 22:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
"Ergative" has two hits on the BNC and zero on COCA, for whatever that's worth. If we were to combine the two corpora, which would be a completely invalid thing to do, that would come out to about 1 occurrence per 200 million words of running text. -- Visviva 02:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
It's primariy useful for foreign language verbs, where such verbs might require marking. Just like we'd mark that "ouvrir" is only transitive, the intransitive open is rendered by a reflexive in French, an "ergative" mark becomes necessary in languages where the split is not transitive/intransitive but ergative/absolutive. Circeus 04:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
But native speakers only find it useful twice in perhaps more than 20 million sentences, based on the two corpera. To me this would join "bitransitive" among the words not useful for users and probably discouraging potential contributors. I would think we could well use contributors from other trades besides language professions so that we could incorporate their jargon (woodworking, brewing, textiles, taxi-drivers, automechanics) into Wiktionary and not limit ourselves to an above-average and possibly toxic dose of language and computing jargon. DCDuring TALK 14:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to specify the languages I am interested in and excluding all others from appearing on the dictionary pages? Hi.ro 14:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Not currently, no. The idea has been discussed before, but we have no way to implement it right now. --EncycloPetey 01:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! Where do you all talk about non-Wiktionary stuff? --AZard 13:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! (Still Christmas for 1 more minute here in Korea.) Why would we want to talk about non-Wiktionary stuff? That's just crazy talk... ;-) -- Visviva 14:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
On the wikt, we pretty much stick to business (unlike, say, the 'pedia at times). You might like to hang out in the IRC channel. Lots of interesting discussions. (Which I can't get to now because I have a network problem with it again. :-( channel is #wiktionary on irc.freenode.org (think it's .org ...) Robert Ullmann 15:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I do have a present for you, Hobbes has some good advice about waiting for dinner. (hat tip to Pandagon) Robert Ullmann 15:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy (and Jill a dull gal). lol. That proverb has a Wiktionary entry. --AZard 16:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
We sneak some personal stuff in from time to time. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 17:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
That would be out in the real world. SemperBlotto 17:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Do the semi-standardised manually created proofreading marks have name? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 13:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Would one name be the word for the instruction to the typesetter, typist, or keyboarder? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 16:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever heard them called anything but proofreader's marks or proofreading marks. -- Visviva 16:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Via w:Proofreading (which has red-linking proof correction marks) and w:ISO 5776 I got to ISO 5776:1983, where they're called Symbols for text correction, but haven't seen anything one-word on the way, though it seems strange that there wouldn't be something less formal. --Duncan 16:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm a fan of graphics-text combinations. I have found that many common small graphics are in use, but have no common name. I was hoping that was not true for these and for some of the common comics graphics elements, such as the contents of maledicta balloons. ISO may be a source, but I'm not eager to spend to find out. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 17:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Images of the marks would increase the visual interest of some entries that otherwise would not readily have an associated image (eg, "delete", "insert", "stet"). DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 18:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I started adding some entries and realized that some definitions are capitalized at the beginning and with a period at the end (even if its just one word), while others are not. Is there a preference for one or the other? Gold Mouse 06:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no firm policy. Specifically:
1. I think there is general consensus that most definitions should start with a capital letter, with a possible exception for one-word glosses of foreign-language terms.
2. I myself have come to favor not ending definitions with a period, unless there is a particular reason to do so (e.g. the definition contains multiple elements which have to be separated by periods). They are not sentences, and we already use line breaks to provide the typographic separation for which printed dictionaries have to use the period. However, I converted to non-periodism fairly recently, and it's my impression that we non-periodists are still in the minority here. -- Visviva 07:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
There is indeed no set policy, but my practice is always to start a defn with a capital and to end it with a period. One is in good company to do so; the online OED does the same. -- WikiPedant 07:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Oddly, WikiPedant, it was your own citing of the Chicago Manual of Style in re image captions (at WT:BP#Formatting captions of pictures) that persuaded me to become a non-periodist. Funny how that works... I do think that we ought to apply the same principles to sentence fragments throughout the entry, whether they be in etymologies, captions, definitions or elsewhere ... whatever those principles may be. -- Visviva 08:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Here's the set policy (from WT:ELE): "Each definition may be treated as a sentence: beginning with a capital letter and ending with a full stop." Note it says may. If it is a sentence, it makes sense to have the capital and full stop; but most phrases, fragments, and single words that are not sentences don't need them. And "Turtle." looks very odd, I prefer "turtle" if that is the single word definition. (e.g. at tortue) Robert Ullmann 08:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Robert. While my views have changed over time (and so I have previously capitalized and placed a period after single word defs), I generally prefer both only when information needs to be broken up into sentence like structures (which are not always genuine sentences). When we're dealing with single word glosses, even a series of them, I think that lower-case and no periods is preferable. One reason for this is that it differentiates between noun and proper noun senses (not always, but sometimes). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 15:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all, this answers my question somewhat. For now I think I'll stick to capitalizing and ending with a period everything that's not one word. I agree "Turtle". does look a bit odd. I'll see what happens with time. It seems to me that my views on the matter can change. Gold Mouse 17:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between definitions and translations, but a lot of people get confused by the difference, or don’t see it at all. Personally, I don’t much care about how definitions are styled, although all of my English language dictionaries, such as the Random House, put capitals only where they are orthographically required, as in the names of the months. I’m concerned with translations, and I have only ever seen a single bilingual dictionary that capitalizes the first word of its translations (that being Larousse French-English), with the result that it is exceedingly difficult to figure out which French words actually have to be capitalized and which do not. Sentence-case capitals in translations is a horrible idea, but a lot of translations are receiving them simply because the English definitions have so many of them. Not only that, other Wiktionaries take their cue from the English Wiktionary and capitalize their own definitions and translations. And since Wikipedia automatically capitalizes the first word of every entry, and since many Wikipedia writers simply do not care about capitalization issues, it has become so difficult to determine which words in which languages must be capitalized and which do not take capitals. The best thing we could do is follow the format of the big American dictionaries and put capitals ONLY where they are required orthographically. But if not that, then at least translations should not be treated like definitions in this regard. —Stephen 21:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Note this German text, which explicitly distinguishes the Latin phrase (Dii ex machina) it uses from the surrounding German text by writing the former in Antiqua (AFAICT) whilst the latter is written in Fraktur, as was standard for German at the time (1820) and up until the mid-20th Century. This is an intended distinction that one cannot replicate in a citation unless one can “force” the display of the intended text in Fraktur. Is there any way that this can be done?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Here’s another example of that orthographic distinction, this time with dii ex machina decapitalised.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this the same as putting in italics? RJFJR 18:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it serves the same purpose of clearly marking a foreign phrase, but this method seems more akin to the way in which Japanese uses katakana.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Fraktur was the standard German script up to the end of WW II. It is a form of the Roman alphabet, but more like black letter than anything else. It wasn’t used as italics, it was used for all German text. And yes, there is a way to do this. You would just set up a template like {{Arabic fonts}} with an appropriate name, such as Fraktur fonts, and another such as {{Arab}} which calls the Fraktur template (see an older version of {{Arab}} to see how this is done. Then you would surround your Fraktur text with {{Frak}}. You would need to put the common Fraktur font names in the template, as well as the usual Roman fonts which most of us currently use. Then you would see Fraktur as long as you have installed a Fraktur font. —Stephen 21:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The point is that their use of non-Fraktur face is like our use of italics. Personally, given the high variability in support for various fonts, I think we're better off using ''…'' than trying to replicate the actual fonts used in a source, but I understand the appeal of the latter approach. —RuakhTALK 02:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know... The Fraktur script is awfully distinctive; most of the time when people pick up a book I'm reading in Fraktur, they ask if I'm studying Russian. ;-) I'm surprised that it doesn't have its own set of codepoints, given how larded down Unicode is with far less tenable distinctions. I guess I would favor Stephen's solution, though it would be ideal if it could somehow default from {{Frak}} to italics, or rather from non-{{Frak}} to italics (not sure how that could work). -- Visviva 03:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Note here that if you want to use a script template, the code is Latf, e.g. template {{Latf}}, not {{Frak}}. It being a script and not a separate set of characters, it is, of course, defined as a script code, not a Unicode block. Some characters unique to Fraktur (math symbols) do have their own Unicode codepoints. (And there is also a block for Fraktur characters on plane 1, i.e. in UCS/UTF-8 (which is what we use, not "Unicode" ;-)) Robert Ullmann 09:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, if you go to Dieter Steffmann and download and install the first Fraktur font on the page, which is Humboldt Fraktur Regular, then you should see this text in Fraktur:
Aber — wenn von Wei¢agungen auf den Heiland im A. T. no< ferner die Rede \ehn \oll, i¬ es mögli<, daß wir die typi\<e An\i<t der alten Zeit überhaupt fallen la¢en können? Kann wohl etwas lä<erli<er, wenig£ens unnatürli<er \ehn, als ein vier bis fünf Stellen des A. T. für wei¢agend zu halten, die, wahre Dii ex machina, in die pro\ai\<e, bedeutungslo\e Reihe der reinvergangenen alten Zeit, aller Analogie entgegen, \i< einge\<li<en haben \ollen? Keinen Unparteii\<en wird der Einwand ungläubiger Theologen: wenn es Typen geben \olle, \o mü£e ihre Ab\i<t von den Zeitgeno¢en \<on erkannt worden \ehn, \onderli< beunruhigen können. Denn was kann den uner\<öpi<en Weltgei£ hindern, um eine Harmonie zu begründen, die nur \einem Auge \i< ganz enthüllt, da und dort den Dingen Bedeutung zu geben, die dem men\<li<en Ver£ande im Augenbli>e verborgen bleibt, und in Hieroglyphen zu \<reiben, wovon wir nur den klein£en Theil en‡i¤ern können, der größte Theil er£ mit der Zeit zur Klarheit gelangt? —Stephen 08:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Stephen. This works on my Mac as well. --EncycloPetey 19:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Just curious, am I supposed to seeing seemingly randomly placed backslashes and other characters mingled in with the words? 50 Xylophone Players talk 01:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
No, if you install the Fraktur font, the backslashes and other characters becomes ligatures, which are required in this typestyle. The backslash, for example, is the so-called long s. —Stephen 03:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Stephen. It's kind of a short term dream of mine to have fonts to display all kinds of scripts. By the way do you know where I could fonts to display Khmer and Old Church Slavonic in Glagolitic script? 50 Xylophone Players talk 11:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was it removed...? Surely this is the one place where this word could have found a home.

There never was an entry for this word. --EncycloPetey 11:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What does it mean what USP is added after the name of a drug? E.g., "Lidocaine HCl Injection, USP 2%" or "Clarithromycin Tablets, USP". And (separate question) what does "USP/mg" mean? The answers to these two questions likely belong in the entry, either as usage notes or possibly as senses.—msh210 20:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

USP = w:United States Pharmacopeia. —Stephen 20:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, thanks, but we already have that sense, and the WP article doesn't explain what "Clarithromycin Tablets, USP" or "USP/mg" means.—msh210 20:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems to mean that the manufacturer used USP-specified tests to make sure that the specified ingredients were within the USP-specified ranges for the item. The testing methods and tolerances are specified in ingredient-specific "monographs". I wonder whether we might have to go to the USDA labeling standards to find out more about your specific context. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 21:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe "Clarithromycin Tablets, USP" means "USP grade"; and that "USP/mg" means USP units per mg. —Stephen 21:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Should we have [[USP unit]] then? Or [[USP grade]]? Or have them as usage notes s.v. USP? I suspect that the place most laymen see the term USP is on drug labels, and our current entry gives no indication what it means there.—msh210 21:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
You could have USP unit, but not USP grade. USP unit is a standard term, but USP grade is just explanatory. —Stephen 21:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Good idea! 21 CFR section 101.36(d)(3) (if I'm reading the unindented numbering correctly) says about dietary supplements: "Representations that the source ingredient conforms to an official compendium may be included either in the nutrition label or in the ingredient list (e.g., 'Calcium (as calcium carbonate USP)')." So I guess that makes USP an postpositive adjective, as used on labels.—msh210 21:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I edited the etymology of "abet" and found my edit deleted within a day. How may I track the change and, ultimately, contact the person(s) who deleted the change so we can discuss that change? Thanks. craigsalvay

Just click on the "history" tab at the top of the entry and the changes will appear, together with (linked) information who made them. --Duncan 18:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Since you have an account, you can just click the tab at the top that says "watch". However, in this case I'm inclined to agree with the reversion; a direct derivation from Hebrew is an extraordinary claim which would require extraordinary evidence. -- Visviva 04:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with Visviva. When one is claiming a non-evident etymological connection between distant languages, such as English and any non-Germanic or non-Romance language, one is supposed to show evidence/reliable sources/ in order to achieve cogency and persuasion. Evidently this is not the case in abet. Bogorm 12:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Contacting the person is not exigent, editing Talk:abet should suffice, that is its purpose. Bogorm 12:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to lock pages (or if it is even possible by a non-administator) and I would request to have my User Page;User:Dictionman locked from editting from any other user (exept me and the administrators) from editting my profile, as an anonymous user continues to vandalize my User page. --Dictionman 01:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Page protection is a sysop only function. Since there has only been one instance of vandalism, I suggest you leave it unless if becomes a trend. There is no way (that I'm aware of, anyway) to allow exceptions, so if I were to protect your page, you wouldn't be able to edit it, which would obviously be a hassle. However, if you have further problems, by all means contact any admin, and they can protect it for you. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Hang on a sec Atelaes, if this happens again can't you get a indefinite edit block for the page (for unregistered users only)? 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there an existing appendix explaining how the diacritics on Sp and Phil. language words work? I've searched around; if there is, it does a good job at eluding me. :P

What I plan is to have diacritic versions of a Philippine word to serve as its pronunciation. An entry would look like this (prospective pronunciation for bayanihan):


* bayaníhan

There are two other diacritics, which makes them á, à, and â. Basically, these three are all that's needed to pronounce Tagalog words; other pronunciation info could be looked into at an upcoming Wiktionary:About Tagalog. Spanish words here don't do this, so I don't know if it's a good idea. I'm hoping for:


* { { Tagalog diacritic } } bayaníhan -- new tag!

The IPA is to still be universal, while the latter is specifically for Tagalog and Spanish.

Amicably, Icqgirl 11:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Three things:
  1. You've used an apostrophe instead of a stress mark. A primary stress mark in IPA is added using ˈ, which is a character available under the "IPA" section of the Edittools, which is visible below any edit window. It has a drop-down menu allowing you to select from several scripts and character sets. You can probably find the various diacritical characters you're looking for there under Latin/Roman.
  2. Are you sure the IPA is correct that you've given? The [y] in IPA is a vowel. Based on the Tagalog article at Wikipedia, I'm assuming that the letter y is pronounced /j/ in Tagalog.
  3. For Tagalog, I assume you're intending to add a version marked with a diacritical to serve as a simplified pronunciation for people who already know the basic phonemes. Our Italian entries are now doing this, because that's how Italian dictionaries mark the stress. It should not require a template, unless you mean creating a template that simply identifies that this is what the diacritical version represents, which would be a good idea. However, I'm really not sure what it is you're proposing to add for the Spanish words. The Spanish words have their accents in the standard written forms anyway, so there would be no reason to duplicate this..
--EncycloPetey 18:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the IPA entries; I'm still learning the ropes. I'll correct them. Thanks for pointing my mistakes out. It does sound like /j/ is the character.
You hit the mark. Tagalog dictionaries provide the simplest way to note stress, and I want to copy that here as it seems to be most suitable for the language, and easier to read for those who have a grasp of its pronunciation. A template is called for, to serve as a link explaining how the marks work, for identification, and organization (listing down "marked" words in a category somewhere). What do you think would be a suitable name? Is tl-pron fine?
Right, Spanish words do use the stress marks already. Silly me.
Thanks again, EP.

Icqgirl 17:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The name {tl-pron} is the expected name for a template used to make the inflection line of a Tagalog pronoun. I recommend {tl-stress} instead, since that is (after all) what the template is really designed to show. --EncycloPetey 19:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey EP, I found your entry on buwan. Below the ==Noun== code there's the word with a diacritic. It seems more convenient to do such to all Tagalog words instead than having to try start and implement a new template (tl stress) for it. What do you think? It would just have to be noted that diacritics are not used in everyday writing. Icqgirl 10:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been decided that ===Alternate forms=== be used. --Icqgirl 07:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The transparent hoax that is the "Global Language Monitor" was making the rounds of news shows a little while back with the words of the year for 2008. It's a great concept, somewhat weakened in the execution by the fact that the words in question were obviously cherry-picked to entertain the media. (I defy anyone to come up with a plausible algorithm and data set that yields "greenwashing" as a keyword for 2008.)

Anyway, just for fun I ran Antconc over the last two years of the New York Times to find the words that were most distinctively frequent in that publication in 2008 as opposed to 2007. I thought folks might be interested in the results; at least they show what words have been salient in the (US) public discourse lately. The lowercase word forms with a log-likelihood keyness exceeding 1000 were:

  1. crisis
  2. bailout
  3. economy
  4. financial
  5. campaign
  6. banks
  7. recession
  8. economic
  9. voters
  10. stimulus
  11. prices
  12. election

(in that order). No surprises there... The top 10 uppercase words were Obama, McCain, Palin, Barack, Clinton, Paterson, Olympic, Favre, Olympics and Beijing. No scientific validity is claimed for any of this, though I do note that this list is at least based on, you know, data, rather than some guy in Texas spinning around in his chair.

BTW, I'm extremely impressed with Antconc's performance here -- tasked with processing two corpora of more than 25 million words each, it did not hiccup or crash, though it did take about an hour to complete the task. Definitely the best free desktop concordancer you're likely to find. -- Visviva 07:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there something like w:en:Template:SUL Box here in english wiktionary? --Wallach2008 20:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't think so, just put {{wikipedia}} on your userpage. Conrad.Irwin 20:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The SUL Box looks like a particularly useful template. We ought to consider having it here. --EncycloPetey 21:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
See WT:UBV.—msh210 21:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there something like this for declension? 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean, like a "Category:Language_name words lacking inflection information"? I don't think so, no. Inflection information is a lot less standard across languages than gender; I think we'd only want this sort of category for languages where we have the infrastructure for editors to add that inflection information (fairly) easily. —RuakhTALK 19:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
You can use {{attention|XX|can you add declension?}}, where XX is the language code. It works well with Russian, possibly also with Armenian, Finnish and Hungarian (but I’m only sure of the case with Russian). —Stephen 19:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks Stephen. 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
That (what Ruakh said) said, you can, if you foresee lots of use for it, invent a language-specific category for the language of your choosing, e.g. Category:Hebrew requests for verb conjugation table, categorize that category into Category:Requests (Hebrew) (e.g.), and add the category to entries (manually or, if there's some need for it, via a template). But {{attention}} exists, its categories are watched, and it should do the trick. Note incidentally the existence of {{inflreq}}, but that's meant for requesting a specific form, not a whole table.—msh210 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to add a custom menu item in the editTools drop-down menu, like on WP. I tried "window.charinsertCustom" in monobook.js without success. Some words in Old Norse has a "ǫ", and I always forget where I used it last time. So i would like to add an item for Old Norse to the list. – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 17:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You can create a custom list of items by creating a User:Your Name/edittools file. You can look at mine as an example. You also have to adjust your monobook, but I don't recall pecisely how. However, User:Conrad.Irwin should know, since he set up this feature. --EncycloPetey 02:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How would you describe the distinction between Abrasion/Attrition in geographic erosion? —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

I think this example using a river sums it up: With abrasion the river uses its load to wear away its beds and banks (through friction), making itself deeper and wider. With attrition, however, the load is wearing itself away. 50 Xylophone Players talk 01:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I am editing with a slow connection at the moment, is there a way I can stop all the characters and templates of various languages from loading each time I edit a page? It is terribly slow for me on this connection, and annoying to wait whilst one line of useless random letters after another unfolds. Kaixinguo 23:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. I have had the same problem from some computers, and agree that it has become a problem. However, there has been a tendency over the past few years to add everything that anyone would ever want to insert into the Edittools. The Grease Pit would be a better place to raise this issue, since it is a technical one. --EncycloPetey 02:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I really need to know what a spiral walk way is called usually used at sporting stadiums to let alot of people leave quickly. I thought it was called a vomitron but clearly not. Can someone please help me?? —This comment was unsigned.

I imagine you're thinking of the word vomitorium, which does fit, but is liable to be misunderstood. —RuakhTALK 02:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

At the wikipedia article w:Knowth I'd like to add the IPA pronounciation. I'm told the pronounciation is "Like the Engish word "now" with a 'th' on the end, more or less." Could someone put that in IPA for me, please? RJFJR 16:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

spelling for 'challis' ? or , as in 'cup of Christ"

See chalice. —Stephen 18:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to include wiktionary entries in a shareware product but was wondering about the licensing issues.

Is this the best forum to discuss this? If so I will expand my queries anon. If not could someone please point me to the best place?

See Wiktionary:Copyrights#Users.27_rights_and_obligations. In principle there should be no problem, but any derivative work must also be GFDL-licensed (this is some seriously retarded legalistic crap IMO). So it probably depends on exactly how you want to use the entries -- just a verbatim inclusion with the GFDL attached should be no problem, but if you're going to reformat or rewrite them in some way, that would also need to be released under the GFDL. Anyway, IANAL. -- Visviva 06:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As I want to display it in desktop software I want to convert it (to RTF so I can use a RichEdit control), and probably edit it down. So I think rather than chase whoever up for definitive legal judgement I'll just do it (and credit Wiktionary and provide the RTF (under the GFDL as you say) on the web somewhere as I interpret the GFDL).

excellent usage note, great help with something/a topic that genuinely has been confusing to me for the longest time, thank you so much!!

[See ? If I have something positive to say per any observation of mine, I will do so too! Winking smiley

[Though I still not understand why instead of providing a clear and concise and conscript explanation so many definitions opt for an assembly of synonyms instead, isn't the synonym section intended for that ? Would this be something that would be worth while to be discussed in the beer parlor?I definitely think it is something that defines in its own right the accessibility and usability of the English wictionary say for non-native speakers; English bein' the like de facto world language, thus I'd foresee that the English version will become the most extensive and exhaustiv one among the wictionaries, already sheerly by the volume of possible contributors [say 3,000,000,000 or so], and to be fair to that part of the users and contributors, it should also take into account this very majority constituted by non-native users, among the population able to use English, in its [Wiktionary's] construction and set up!

[am I mistaken, or is it easier for educated native speakers to glean the meaning of a definition from a group of synonyms? This is a sincere question, I would assume that say, a teenager in a steep learning curve in matters acquiring new vocabulary would also benefit from an explanation- style definition, as in my experience non-native speakers do, but how that looks for native speakers with an already well established and expensive vocabulary, I just don't know for sure, perhaps synonyms for such users are a convenient shortcut, on the other hand, even when in the beginning asking for some adaption time, I would assume that the latter population of users might be as well served by explanation- style definitions as by synonym- based ones; as there isnt anybody serious and engaged enough available in my direct physical surroundings to ask, thank you so much in advance for your invaluable feedback Wiktionarian community!!

Yes, this is da [please allow me that liberty with the definite article for just once in this essay smiley] part of me that holds an educational degree speaking, and as such, users and contributors with such a background should only be considered and constitute an enrichment for the wictionary community in my view! [but read about W. M. f. and you will find very similar things being said like that with every new surge of new users and contributors, in their experience the various projects only benefit and progress, and to me such makes sense, apart from that they presented this as a fact, which they mentioned in my impression to convince the "oldbies" about the advantages of new blood coming in, despite the initial perceived disturbances and training/guiding/help effort required]

Thank you so much for reading till here!!!--史凡 17:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I found the new entry templates hard to comprehend, and the tutorials and "help" to be of very little such. Anyway, I managed to create a new entry for a verb. The word is crackelate.

1)I don't agree with the automatically generated "present participle" and "simple past and past participle". How can I edit/modify these forms?

2)My main entry seems to have auto generated past tenses, which are covered in my main entry, but is now listed in the auto generated section, as non existing entries. How can I make these "not yet written" tenses/entries point at my original posting?

Rkov 20:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I’m assuming {{en-verb}} gave you something like:
to crackelate (third-person singular simple present crackelates, present participle crackelateing, simple past and past participle crackelateed)
This can be solved by explicitly stating the verb’s entire conjugation, expressed in wikicode thus:
Which renders:
to crackelate (third-person singular simple present crackelates, present participle crackelating, simple past and past participle crackelated)
I don’t really understand your second quæstion / point. Nota WT:ELE and that most of the information about a word is given at its lemma; the inflexions are also given entries, but they tend to be stubs with purely grammatical definitions. The non-infinitive forms of crackelate would be defined as:
  1. crackelates — “Third-person singular simple present indicative form of crackelate.”
  2. crackelating — “Present participle of crackelate.”
  3. crackelated — “Simple past tense and past participle of crackelate.”
Unfortunately, your original entry was deleted as a præsumed protologism. (All the words that Wiktionary includes, at least in principle, need to satisfy our criteria for inclusion — which crackelate, admittedly, prima facie does not do.) I have since looked for some citations to back up this word. It’s pretty rare, but I managed to find about four; I say about four because only two are clearly of a verb use, whilst one seems to be of an adjective which only looks like a verb form (crackelated), and another is of a plural nominalisation (crackelations). I’m not sure whether so little evidence would be enough to satisfy the criteria for inclusion; give it a shot — maybe the closely-related adjective and noun will be accepted in pursuance of the term’s verification.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What is it called when you swop the first letter of two words. —This comment was unsigned.

A spoonerism. -- Visviva 08:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I added a Spanish noun, but the "category" had defaulted to "English" and I don't know how to change it...

What Spanish noun are you speaking of? We have to see how you did it before we can tell you what’s happening. —Stephen 16:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The words were diablura and travesura. The problem was that you used the English noun template, instead of one of the Spanish noun templates. The prefix (en- or es-) names the language of the template you are using. For Spanish nouns, we currently use the templates {{es-noun-m}} and {{es-noun-f}}. --EncycloPetey 16:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm using Wiktionary as part of a dictionary program, but I'm hesitant that fetching an entire HTML page for every search is wasteful. Is then any way (like a PHP title=title&action=getSource) to fetch only the plaintext source of an article? Thanks --Estemi 23:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?action=raw&title=something . However, if you are doing anything serious, it's recommend that you download the XML dumps so that you don't hammer our servers. You may also be interested in the API if you are doing more than just the entry text. Conrad.Irwin 00:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Estemi 00:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Hungarian wiktionary are 100000 articles. I ask one of the admistrators to transfer it in the 10000+ the Hungarian wiktionary at the wiktionary.org. Thank you! Hi, Einstein2 from the Hungarian wiktionary.

Hi all. Do we yet have a function that automatically sends Wiktionary’s Words of the Day to subscribers’ e-mail accounts? If we don’t, how feasible would it be to create one?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Is retitle a real English word? There is an entry, but I think that it is a mistranslation from another language. I did not find the word in The OED, Miriam Webster, or Chambers.

Hi Bob & Tom. Teri here. First-time caller. .... Wait .. uh ..

I'd love some help with what I am trying to do. I am currently reading a book titled "The Final Move Beyond Iraq" (The Final solutions while the world sleeps) by Mike Evans.

What I want to do is create a chart mapping who is who in this book. ie

- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - president of Iran -Isser Harel - founder of Mossad, Isreal's intelligence agency Moshe Ya'alon - - retired Lt. General Isreal Defence Forces

I want to create a chart document which shows & tells me which religeous group inhabits which areas in the middle east, who the respective leaders are.... I need something to use a learning aid that is visual ... maybe even color coded, to learn and remember who all the 'players' are. I can't pronounce the names of the people and towns yet along remember them, so I'm trying to create a learning board for me. I'd want to see current boundaries, past boundaries, proposed etc. I guess I need an "ABC's" of the middle east et al. Can anyone help? It should probably resemble a family tree in some ways. I just gotta have a visual aid or I'll never keep all this data in my brain cells that are loosing connective pathways at a rapid speed.

Molto gracia!

the word slumlord. i feel it is not right. i believe a slumlord is someone who rents out bad broken down or poor condition housing. but slumlord stats bad too. but why does it mean he is a bad landlord?

i know a good slumlord. he gets screwed on his rent all the time and never kicks out his tenants always makes excuses for them how they are down on there luck. so why should he be generlized as a bad landlord or slum lord. what if i owned a big beautiful house and never did anything for my tenants? am i a slumlord or a bad landlord?

We just describe how people use words, which certainly can be unfair. DCDuring TALK 17:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Parthian shots - were made off horseback, using arrows, over the hindquarters, at the enemy, from which they were making distance between. Parting shots - in conversation is a usually aggressive comment made at the 'enemy' when leaving them or the subject at hand, of which there was some disagreement.

What's the difference? Are they related somehow?

P.S. Sorry about my definitions. But I didn't have an effective dictionary close handy.

parting shot probably derives from Parthian shot and they have similar meanings. A parting shot is a figure of speech for the heated last word in a testy argument; a Parthian shot is used literally to refer to the tactics of Parthian mounted archers, who would fire a salvo of arrows at the enemy, then move quickly out of range. —Stephen 17:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is my first post so forgive me if I am not doing this correctly. I am a newbie working with a developer to assemble a list of plural forms for a database we're building. We downloaded a dump only to find that the words and definitions were not contained in the tables. Which dump has the words, definitions, synonyms etc...?

Is it one of the dumps on this page? http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiktionary/20081214/

More recent is one of the ones on http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiktionary/20090203/, and he one that's every entry, including definitions, is pages-articles (I think).—msh210 17:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In geled, I gave the definition rank and specified the sense (The lines or rows of people in an organization). An editor changed the text to (A line or row of people, mostly about soldiers). That makes it less clear what sense is referenced, but may be better as a definition. What is the best practice for specifying senses in foreign language entries? – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 10:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If the modification is correct, and this word is used mostly in reference to soldiers, I would personally lean toward one of these:
  1. (military) ranks (the lines or rows of people in an organization)
  2. The ranks of an organization, especially a military one
If the word is distinct enough in meaning that an English gloss or glosses are not sufficient, then there isn't really any getting around having a real definition IMO.
Complicating the matter, I have no idea why that sense is at rank rather than ranks; it's even defined as plural. Does the same situation apply to the Danish word, or is geled normally used in the singular? -- Visviva 11:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I prefer something slightly more gloss-y:
  1. (military) ranks (rows of people)
  2. ranks (of an organisation, hierarchy etc.)
But this probably just demonstrates that we don't have a clear consensus on this sort of thing yet :) Ƿidsiþ 11:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
"Geled" is usually translated as rank, but the basic meaning is a disciplined line of people, as in a military formation. Conversely rank is usually translated to rang. The definition from sproget.da is:
  • two or more persons, often soldiers, standing side by side, shoulder by shoulder
    • things placed side by side in a row
In the sense, rising in ranks (Danish: stige i geledderne) it is usually used in plural, but basically the connotation is formation rather than ranking. – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 12:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

could you please explain whast this is and the treatments ,. thank you

I have tried to add "alcohol" to the etymology scriptorium but I cant seem to make it work. could someone help?J8079s 23:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. That is a little tricky. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Information_desk"
Personal tools
In other languages

Definition from Wiktionary
Content avaible with GNU Free Documentation License

Powered by php Powered by MySQL Optimized for Firefox