User talk:Mx. Granger

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Ultimateria (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

How did you determine that these were created in error; did you confer with their creator? Or do you just mean that you believe them to be wrong? —Ruakh_TALK 05:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

The entries were created automatically by User:MewBot from the conjugation template on farti. The template was for a transitive verb, so forms like "fartaton" were created. But "farti" is an intransitive verb, so these forms are actually impossible.Mr. Granger (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see now: you posted in the Tea room, and CodeCat (talk • contribs) suggested you add {{delete|created in error}}. I don't think that's good advice in general — I think {{delete|created in error}} should be reserved for cases where the actual creator says, "Oops, I created that by mistake", rather than cases where a random person decides (however justly) that it shouldn't have been created — but in this case CodeCat is the owner of the bot in question, so I guess it works out. (And of course, it's not a big deal to begin with.) —Ruakh_TALK 05:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Just so I know for the future, if I run into more pages like these, how would you recommend I label them? Mr. Granger (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Does moviĝo only cover sense #1 of movement? I think we can and should do a lot better then most printed bilingual dictionaries in not using single, highly polysemous, English words to define Esperanto words.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, that's a good point. (As it happens, moviĝo refers to physical movement; movado refers to social change.) I'll try to remember to specify with words like these. Mr. Granger (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Even though it may not be pronounced with the full tone, it is still spelt “yīgè” in dictionaries, like Yellow Bridge. 〜britannic124 (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

It seems you're right about that. All the same, I'm going to add "yīge" as a second pronunciation, because it really is said with a neutral tone. Mr. Granger (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes we really do need some standard way to include both "dictionary tones" and post-sandhi tones for multisyllablic Chinese entries. — hippietrail (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, the tone sandhi is a separate issue. If it were up to me, we would write "yíge", with the tone sandhi, but for some reason our policy in WT:About Chinese#Tone sandhi is to ignore tone sandhi when writing pinyin. I actually don't understand the rationale behind that at all - do you?

For neutral tones, I'm not sure what to do. I sort of think it has to be handled on a case-by-case basis, because there are some words (like 我们) that always have a neutral tone, and others (though I can't think of one at the moment) that can have either a full tone or a neutral tone. And there are some words (like 孙子) that have different meanings depending on whether it's a full tone or a neutral tone. Mr. Granger (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mr. Granger,

I do think your rollback on Forseti was in error, the claim that Forseti would be mythological is a w:POV, perhaps a widely shared POV amongst followers of the god of genocide, but still a POV. Reverting it, giving a reason for the revert, is OK. Abusing your extra powers to force a certain religion, is not OK. --80.114.178.7 21:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Here are my reasons for reverting your edit:

1. Most English speakers know what Norse mythology is, so the context label "Norse mythology" helps clarify what the term "Forseti" refers to. The term "Ásatrú" is much less well-known, and the definition "(Ásatrú) The god of justice" is unlikely to help most readers understand the meaning of "Forseti".
2. Based on Wikipedia as well as my own experience, it is much more common to refer to Forseti as a Norse god than as an Ásatrú god.
3. Your removal of the word "Æsir" left the definition appearing to assert that Forseti is the god of justice, rather than simply the god of justice within one particular religion. The original definition does not make any assertion about the existence or nonexistence of Forseti; it merely categorizes Forseti within the same group of gods as Odin, Nanna, Thor, and so on.
4. Category:en:Norse mythology seems to be Wiktionary's standard way of categorizing words for Norse gods, and I don't see that there's any good reason to treat "Forseti" otherwise.

Mr. Granger (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Those aren't reasons to use rollback in my (not so) humble opinion.

Forseti isn't just a Norse god (he's known southwards), but most of all, Ásatrú is less mythological than, say, Christianity or US exceptionalism. You may disagree, and that's a good reason to start a discussion (even, perhaps, after reverting my edit), but it's not a reason to abuse your special rights. --80.114.178.7 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

On your points

1. You seem to assume your surroundings are "most English speakers". --80.114.178.7 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
2. How do you distinguish Æsir and Ásatrú when used attributively? Forseti isn't an Æsir god, he's an Áss. --80.114.178.7 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
3. I did not, I gave the context "Ásatrú". Your version uses mythology, which is a strong claim of non-existence in those versions of English that I know of. --80.114.178.7 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
4. That's just "following the lemmings", not a good reason to use rollback. --80.114.178.7 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please calm down. Perhaps you're used to Wikipedia where rollback is less often used; here, because of the low number of rollbackers, we use it often. The label 'Norse mythology', which seems to be your prime bone of contention, is perfectly valid. It's not a truth or value judgement; it's merely to help people understand the context of the word without having to do further research. Other mythology-specific contextual terms are not helpful here, as they force the reader to look up the terms elsewhere, which rather defeats the point. And to be honest we are not interested in debating any of the various topics you reference. Cheers! Hyarmendacil (talk)

I think I am calm. I also think that using "Norse mythology" vs. "Christianity" or "Judaism" is a value judgement. Abrahamist mythology is, like Ásatrú, just a bunch of myths (as in "commonly-held but false belief, a common misconception"). --80.114.178.7 14:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Æsir god" just looks strange, there is no god of the Æsir, the Æsir are gods (or not, if one is free of those superstitions). Ehmm, I mean strange like PIN number looks strange if one knows what PIN is. --80.114.178.7 14:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please don't delete meanings just because you haven't heard of them. There'd be no point in a dictionary if it only contained what we already knew. A check of GBooks, including linguistic refs, is enough to show 'populous' is a common way to speak of languages with many speakers. In fact, apart from paraphrases like the one I just gave, it's the only unambiguous way of saying it that I'm aware of.

As for e·dzi·no, /dz/ is a single consonant and so shouldn't be divided, any more that naǔa would be syllabicized *na·ǔa. Actually, maybe it should just be edzi·no, depending on whether you allow a single letter to be separated in hyphenation. kwami (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for listing that source for 'edzino'. Interesting that /dz/ is analyzed as a single consonant.

As for 'populous', Google Books gets 26 hits for "populous language" compared to more than 1,000 hits for "populous country" - this suggests to me that "populous language" is not a particularly representative example of how the word is used, and probably shouldn't be used in our example sentence. (As for another way to phrase a sentence like that, I would say "widely spoken language", which also gets over 1,000 GBooks hits.) —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 07:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Widely spoken" means something different. English, Spanish, and French are each more widely spoken than Chinese, but Chinese is more populous than all three of them put together. Some people say "most spoken", but that somehow sounds incorrect to me; I keep thinking compared to what, "most written"? "most signed"? Languages have "speaking populations", which I suspect is how "populous" comes in. You may be right about it not being a good example, but on the other hand I didn't want to leave people thinking it only had that narrow range of people in a geological area, even if that's how it's mostly used. But it's not really a separate meaning, either, so I didn't want to create a separate entry. Not sure if religions are described the same way. But edit as you see fit; I won't revert again.

People often assume that dz is two consonants because Zamenhof said Esperanto is 'one letter–one sound', but it isn't really. /dz/ and the diphthongs are exceptions; /dz/ was probably just not common enough to bother creating a new letter, especially since it's spelled dz way in most European languages. You can tell from how he compounds things that he had – or at least expected others to have – various kinds of assimilation, so for example b d g z become p t k s before p t k s, and vice versa, and v would probably become ŭ at the end of a syllable, so you have to say lavo-baseno, because *lavbasena would be a homophone for laŭbasena. That all contradicts the "one letter–one sound" principal. The phonology is awfully close to Belorusian, which does these kinds of things. kwami (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Huh. That's so interesting. Does the Plena Analiza Gramatiko have all this phonological information? Or if not, is there another work you can point me towards? And just out of curiosity, do you know of any other morphemes in Esperanto (besides edz) that have the /dz/ sound? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 07:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, the PAG discusses how /dz/ is a single phoneme but the letter j has two values (as a consonant /j/ and an element /i̯/ of vocalic diphthongs).

There's adzo "adze", but other than edzo it's a rather rare sound. You find it sometimes in proper nouns. BTW, AFAIK d+z would still be a sequence, just as ts isn't the same as c. kwami (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to trim cites at main entry page, but please retain all cites at Citations:fucking machine so as to be a more expansive page for archival purposes. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

All right, I'll leave them be, but I think it's utterly silly to have four citations that are all unambiguously referring to the same URL. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why have you removed my edit (transcription)?

The source I have used: http://lexin.nada.kth.se/lexin/#searchinfo=both,swe_swe,fem; It clearly shows: fem [fem:] (long "m")

The transcription used in that dictionary is not IPA. They use å in it, for example, which isn't an IPA character. So the length mark might mean something very different from what it does in IPA, they probably have their own conventions for it. —CodeCat 18:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

To see how IPA transcriptions are used for Swedish on Wiktionary, see Appendix:Swedish pronunciation. —CodeCat 18:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Yes, it's clear that they do not use IPA. I just checked their conventions. The meaning of the "colon" is explained: http://lexin.nada.kth.se/lexin/#main=3;searchinfo=both,swe_swe,sex; "Längd Långt ljud betecknas med kolon omedelbart efter det långa ljudet, t.ex. skalla [²sk'al:a] och skala [²sk'a:la]" (Long audio designated colon immediately after the long sound, such as score [²sk'al:a] and scale [²sk'a:la]). So, sounds like a length sign.

But the length is not a phonemic difference in Swedish. It's "automatic", a consonant after a short vowel is automatically lengthened. So it's really only the vowel length that matters, and that's the only length that should be indicated I think. —CodeCat 19:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree. w:Swedish phonology#Phonotactics has some information that looks relevant. As a side note, the IPA symbol for length is ː, not a colon. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

The broad transcription of the story doesn't have long consonants, but the narrow one does. I think Wiktionary follows the same rule, at least the appendix has the same transcriptions. —CodeCat 19:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Makes sense, thank you. I think this issue could be closed.

Why did you revert my edit? Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Because the information you added, while perhaps appropriate for an encyclopedic article about literacy, did not constitute additional definitions of the term "literate". If you feel that the shades of meaning of "basic" and "functional" literacy are important, I suggest incorporating that information into the Wikipedia article Literacy, or adding a quotation, usage example, or maybe a usage note that illustrates their use. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I didn't make that up. See the entry of L&S: "As the pass. of perdo, only pereo, perditus, perire appear to be in good use.—The only classical example of a pass. form in the pres. is: “perditur haec inter misero lux non sine votis,” Hor. S. 2, 6, 59". The same holds for vendo - veneo, or facio - fio. facior, facitur would easily be attestable by Google Books as well; that doesn't mean they are correct.

I also read this on a forum: "Well with some of them (based on the reasearches) we really can securely say that for example: perdor, perderis, perditur, perdimur, perdimini, perduntur or "vendor, venderis... etc" seem strange to a classical Roman who would consciously use a synonym in that kind of construction.

So you are right: the passives are not missing (and there are few attested examples for "perditur" (for instance) ), but there was a real existing tendency not to use them in the place where they are semantically expected."

I think that for a language as Latin, which is not anybody's native language, we should really stick with the correct forms, or the attested mistaken forms. The mistakes we, moderns, make, were not necessarily made by Romans. --Fsojic (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Okay, so here's how I interpret the situation (correct me if I'm wrong): It looks like the passive forms of perdo were not often used by the Romans (although they must have been sometimes, given the quote from Horace). But at some point in history people started using them - medieval Latin, I guess. Because they're attestable, we should have entries for them, but probably with a usage note in the entry for perdo explaining the situation. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I wanted to ask you about the usage note you added. Are you sure that what you said about the RAE position is accurate? It does not sound right to me. The word guión is only one syllable, which is why the accent is redundant. Previously, guión was accented because (as I understand it) of the last three letters, -ión, which heretofore had always to be accented (acción, avión)...or else because the last two letters, -ón, had always been accented (cajón, rayón). This made the unaccented guion look odd, incomplete. But (as I understand it) it was decided that, in keeping with pure logic, the single-syllable guion did not need an accent because the accent has no effect. I’m not suggesting that you’re mistaken, I’m just check to see if you’re sure, because it does not seem reasonable that guión would ever be pronounced as two syllables. If it were two syllables, it would need to be spelled guiyón. —Stephen ^(Talk) 11:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not completely sure, but I think my usage note is accurate. I'm going off of this source, which says:

Como consecuencia de la aplicación de estas convenciones, un grupo limitado de palabras que tradicionalmente se habían escrito con tilde por resultar bisílabas (además de ser agudas terminadas en -n, -s o vocal) en la pronunciación de buena parte de los hispanohablantes —los que articulan con hiato las combinaciones vocálicas que contienen—, pasan a considerarse monosílabas a efectos de acentuación gráfica, conforme a su pronunciación real por otra gran parte de los hispanohablantes —los que articulan esas mismas combinaciones como diptongos o triptongos—, y a escribirse, por ello, sin tilde, ya que los monosílabos no se acentúan gráficamente, salvo los que llevan tilde diacrítica.

Las palabras afectadas por este cambio son formas verbales como crie, crio, criais, crieis y las de voseo crias, cria (de criar); fie, fio, fiais, fieis y las de voseo fias, fia (de fiar); flui, fluis (de fluir); frio, friais (de freír); frui, fruis (de fruir); guie, guio, guiais, guieis y las de voseo guias, guia (de guiar); hui, huis (de huir); lie, lio, liais, lieis y las de voseo lias, lia (de liar); pie, pio, piais, pieis y las de voseo pias, pia (de piar); rio, riais (de reír); sustantivos como guion, ion, muon, pion, prion, ruan y truhan; y ciertos nombres propios, como Ruan y Sion.

Aunque la ortografía de 1999, donde se establecieron las citadas convenciones, prescribía ya la escritura sin tilde de estas palabras, admitía que los hablantes que las pronunciasen como bisílabas pudiesen seguir acentuándolas gráficamente. En cambio, a partir de la edición de 2010, se suprime dicha opción, que quiebra el principio de unidad ortográfica, de modo que las palabras que pasan a considerarse monosílabas por contener este tipo de diptongos o triptongos ortográficos deben escribirse ahora obligatoriamente sin tilde.

So unless I'm misunderstanding, which is possible, there are indeed speakers who pronounce guion as two syllables, but the RAE recommends writing it without the accent anyway, to promote "unidad ortográfica". —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it says that some speakers add extra time (mora timing) to the initial vowel so that what is supposed to be monosyllabic (1 mora) takes twice as long, equivalent to two syllables. But these words have always been considered to be one syllable (or if part of a longer word, a single syllable), and pronouncing them longer was improper (except in some cases of poetry or song where the metrics required more time...as in "vaya con Di-os, mi vida"). This only came up as an argument when in 1999 they recommended dropping that accent mark since these were monosyllables. That’s when some people started claiming that they could be bisyllabic for some speakers, and that those speakers should be allowed to continue writing the accent. What they say now is that these were always monosyllables, and pronouncing them longer is wrong (except as noted above), and that dropping the acute is compulsory.

So I think your usage note gives far too much weight to the idea that these syllables were ever considered bisyllabic. They were not, they were always monosyllabic, and some people just mispronounce them. The reason that the accent is now required to be removed is that the syllables are monosyllabic (and it does not indicate a change in pronunciation, since they have always been monosyllabic). —Stephen ^(Talk) 13:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I see. But the source I linked doesn't say that the two-syllable pronunciation is incorrect—it says, "Esta convención es puramente ortográfica, por lo que no implica, en modo alguno, que los hablantes deban cambiar la manera en que pronuncian naturalmente estas voces, sea con hiato o con diptongo." So it seems reasonable to me to indicate that the RAE currently acknowledges that there are some speakers who pronounce the words with two syllables, no? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think your usage notes gives much too much weight to that idea. A lot of people will give it extra timing, but it is not considered correct and is not taught in schools. In school you will learn that these words are monosyllabic, cannot be divided into more syllables, and you learn the proper spelling. Nobody is taught that you can pronounce longer, but some people, especially foreign students, will take it upon themselves to do it anyway. The usage note should not even mention having two syllables. If there is a note at all, it should only stress that it is a single syllable and cannot be divided. Pronunciation has not changed. The only that that has changed is that, since the word is monosyllabic (as it has always been), the accent is superfluous and now must be removed. —Stephen ^(Talk) 14:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. I'm uncomfortable completely omitting the mention of the two-syllable pronunciation, considering that the RAE acknowledges that some native speakers use it. How does something like this look to you?

"This spelling is deprecated by the Real Academia Española, whose position as of 2010 is that the proper pronunciation of guion is as one syllable, and even speakers who pronounce the word as two syllables should write it without an accent."

—Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think it lends legitimacy to the two-syllable argument, and guión was never considered to be two syllables by anyone. It has always been considered to be one indivisible syllable. The two-syllable argument is something that a small number of people thought up fifteen years ago to try to preserve the old spelling, and even then it was never a serious argument, and the two-syllable faction would not have accepted an official decision to actually consider it two syllables and therefore subject to hyphenation at gui-ón. It was not really considered by anyone to be two syllables; they were only arguing that for some people the IPA would be /gion/ instead of /gjon/. I that it is a big mistake to suggest that it is two syllables and I would not mention the phrase "two syllables" anywhere. I don’t see that it needs a usage note at all, but if you have to have one, then I would only say that some speakers pronounce it /gion/ instead of /gjon/, and that the acute accent is no longer permitted, since it has no effect on the pronunciation. —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'll trust you on this. I've removed the usage note. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

You are wrong, User:Stephen G. Brown. Words such as "guion", "fiar" and others are pronounced in two syllables by most speakers in Spain and regions of Latin America. This is not a mistaken pronunciation, just a dialectal variation. At the same time, "cliente" is pronounced in three syllables, but "diente" in two. "Guion", "fie", "hui", etc. are considered to be composed of only one syllable solely for orthographic purposes. Please see:

http://prosodia.upf.edu/home/arxiu/publicacions/cabre/cabre_exceptional_hiatuses_spanish.pdf --128.148.231.12 23:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I created this template for Esperanto words. It can automatically detect the part of speech based on the ending, and shows the appropriate inflections and categories. —CodeCat 18:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wonderful! —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I removed the attention category from this for now as it doesn't really work with terms containing multiple inflected words. It might be improved using Lua, like {{eo-head}}. —CodeCat 14:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good evening, is there some speakers who pronounce [ˈbæskɛt] ? 138.229.21.208 00:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's possible, especially if they were hyperarticulating. I don't think I've ever heard that pronunciation, though. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

[ˈbæskɛt] is considered as an incorrect pronunciation ? 138.229.21.208 23:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure it would be understood, but I think it would probably sound unnatural or be indicative of a foreign accent. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 02:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

In American English, the word service is often pronounced [ˈsɚvɪs] or [ˈsɚvəs] ? 138.229.20.210 20:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

[ˈsɚvəs] sounds slightly more natural to me, but I'm not entirely sure. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can you record the word fête in English please ? 138.229.20.210 21:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'd rather leave that to someone more familiar with the word—I'm not sure I've ever heard someone say fête out loud. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 21:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can you record the word tulip please ? Because the pronunciation of this word is absent in Wiktionary. 138.229.20.210 21:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sure. I'll put that on my to-do list and get to it sometime in the next couple of days. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 21:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

 Done —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 23:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you ! Did you pronounce as [ˈtuːləp] ? 138.229.20.210 12:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 12:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

But [ˈtuː.lɪp] is more standard ? 138.229.20.210 13:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure. I think I would only pronounce [ˈtuː.lɪp] if I were emphasizing the word, as in "No, I didn't want a rose—I asked for a tulip!" —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs)

But the word gossip can be pronounced either [ˈɡɒsɪp] or [ˈɡɒsəp] ? 138.229.20.210 14:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that sounds right to me. I think the /ɪ/ in tulip behaves similarly to the /ɪ/ in gossip. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

But I hear [ˈɡɑsɪp] here. 138.229.20.210 15:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Probably because I was pronouncing the word in isolation.

Speakers (myself included) are often pretty bad at consciously describing how they pronounce words. I think you'll probably get more useful information by searching for the words "gossip" and "tulip" on Youtube and listening to how people pronounce them in videos there. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The word napkin is always pronounced [ˈnæpkɪn], never [ˈnæpkən] ? 138.229.20.210 16:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

[ˈnæpkɪn] sounds more natural to me, but [ˈnæpkən]/[ˈnæpkn̩] isn't jarring. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

This pronunciation is [træz] or [traɪ̯z] ? 138.229.20.210 23:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sounds closer to [traɪ̯z] to me, although the second consonant isn't a [r], and I think there's a vowel after the [z]. Maybe [tʁaɪ̯zə]? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

But the [ə] is very short. 138.229.20.210 00:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is. So maybe [tʁaɪ̯zᵊ]. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

This pronunciation is hard to know that it's [sœɡõdæχ] or [sœɡõdɐɛ̯χ]. 138.229.20.210 00:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. If I had to guess, I'd guess the latter, but I'm really bad at distinguishing vowels by ear. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

This one is it clear ? "Tate" or "tight" ? 138.229.20.210 00:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like [taɪt] to me. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can you record the word tête-à-tête [ˌteɪɾəˈteɪt] please ? 162.222.81.116 16:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but as with fête, I'd rather leave that to someone more familiar with the word. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can you record the word cabin please ? Please pronounce [ˈkʰæbɪn]. 162.222.81.116 16:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not going to take requests if you're going to tell me how to pronounce words. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Because you want to pronounce it with your accent ? 162.222.81.116 16:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can you record the word sung please ? Because it's absent in Wiktionary. 162.222.81.116 17:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

 Done. You know there's a template {{rfap}} for this kind of thing, right? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 17:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

But this recording is not clear. 162.222.81.116 17:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean that the audio quality is poor, or that it's difficult to tell what sounds I'm articulating? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The audio quality is poor. 162.222.81.116

Sorry. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

This pronunciation is it really [ˈdaɪɛt] ? 162.222.81.116 18:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sounds more like [ˈdajɪt] to me, but I don't know. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely not [ˈdajɪt], but [ˈdaɪɛt] or [ˈdaɪe̞t] are possible. 162.222.81.116 19:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The first syllable is clearly [tã], but the second syllable is [peɪ̯t] or [pæɪ̯t] ? 162.222.81.116 00:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's [peɪ̯t]. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Maybe [pɐɪ̯t] ? 162.222.81.116 01:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Maybe. (Like I said, I'm not very good at distinguishing vowels by ear.) —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 02:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can the word welcome be pronounced [ˈwɛlkɐm] ? 162.222.81.116 12:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The standard pronunciation is /ˈwɛlkəm/, but /ˈwɛlkʌm/ is wrong ? 162.222.81.116 20:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know, there is no difference between /ˈwɛlkəm/ and /ˈwɛlkʌm/ in standard American English. My understanding is that there is no /ə/ phoneme (at least in American English): [ə] is just a realization of phonemes such as /ʌ/ in unstressed syllables. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• [sɐm] :
• [ˈheə̯nsəm] :

Do you hear a difference ? 162.222.81.116 22:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

So, /ʌ/ and /ə/ are different. 162.222.81.116 00:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

No. The /ʌ/ in handsome is unstressed, whereas the /ʌ/ in some is stressed—as a result, they are articulated differently. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The word visit is generally pronounced [ˈvɪzɪt] or [ˈvɪzət] ? 162.222.81.116 00:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

[ˈvɪzət] sounds slightly more natural to me, but [ˈvɪzɪt] is not jarring. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is there some Americans who pronounce the name Fung as [fʊŋ] ? 138.229.16.216 00:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. Off the top of my head, though, I can't think of any English words with the sequence /ʊŋ/, so I wonder if it might be phonotactically prohibited. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can the word careful be pronounced [ˈkɛɹfʊl] ? 138.229.16.216 00:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I pronounce the word [ˈkeəɹfl̩], with a syllabic [l]. For some reason, my computer is displaying the diacritic under the f instead, but it's supposed to be under the l. My dialect has the Marry-merry-Mary merger, so I don't know how speakers of other dialects pronounce the first syllable. And I'm not really sure what other speakers do with the second syllable. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The word dictionary is pronounced [ˈdɪkʃənɛɹi] or [ˈdɪkʃəneəɹi] ? 138.229.16.216 00:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

For me, [ˈdɪkʃəneəɹi]. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The word tight is pronounced [taɪ̯t] or [tɐɪ̯t] ? 138.229.16.216 13:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Depends on the speaker, although [taɪ̯t] is more common in the United States. I think I say [tɐɪ̯t], or something like it, but like I said, I'm bad at distinguishing vowels by ear. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• [taɪ̯t] :
• [tɐɪ̯t] :

Can you hear a difference ? 138.229.16.216 14:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I'm not sure which one is closer to my pronunciation. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The word tête is pronounced [tɛt] in French of France, but [taɪ̯t] in Quebec French. 138.229.16.216 16:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

You hear [ˈfɔɹəst] or [ˈfɔɹɛst] ? 138.229.16.216 16:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

[ˈfɔɹɛst] —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

[ˈfɔɹɛst] is existent ? 138.229.16.216 16:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Apparently so. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 17:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Goodness can be also pronounced [ˈɡʊdnɛs] ? 138.229.16.216 17:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've heard [ˈɡʊdnɪs] and [ˈɡʊdnəs], but not [ˈɡʊdnɛs]. 138.229.16.216 15:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The word chicken is generally pronounced [ˈtʃɪkɪn] or [ˈtʃɪkən] ? 138.229.16.216 17:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think both pronunciations are common. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Message [ˈmɛseɪdʒ] is surely wrong ? 138.229.16.216 21:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I've never heard that pronunciation, and it's very jarring to me. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 21:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The word on is often pronounced [ɑn] or [ɒn] ? 138.229.16.216 22:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think [ɑn] is rare. 138.229.16.216 22:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think it varies by speaker. But why are you asking me all these questions? I know the IPA and I'm a native speaker, but I'm no phonologist. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Because I just want to know how to pronounce it in American English, but I live in Montreal. 138.229.16.216 22:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I know the IPA by heart ? How to pronounce [ɹ] and [ɻ] ? I don't hear the difference between [ɹ] and [ɻ]. 138.229.16.216 23:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Fortunately, [ɹ] and [ɻ] are completely interchangeable in American English, with many speakers pronouncing something in between the two. The best advice I can give you is that [ɻ] is pronounced with the tip of your tongue pointed nearly straight up, whereas [ɹ] is pronounced with the tip of your tongue pointed at or below your alveolar ridge. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 23:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

This one is [ɹɛd] or [ɻɛd] ? 138.229.16.216 23:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

My best guess is [ɻɛd], but I don't really know. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 23:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

My younger brother has effaced your sentence. 138.229.16.216 15:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Mmk, no worries. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's [ivaɪ̯χ] ? 138.229.16.216 16:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like it to me. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not [ivæχ]? 138.229.16.216 16:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. It could be. Like I said, I'm not very good at distinguishing vowels by ear. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Have you already heard someone pronounce the word lung as [lɔŋ] ? 138.229.16.216 20:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not that I can think of. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 21:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

So, this pronunciation is [ɫʌŋ], [ɫɐŋ] or [ɫɔŋ] ? 138.229.16.216 21:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's [ɡɔt̚] ? 138.229.16.216 21:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Either that or [ɡʌt̚], I think. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Generally, the phoneme /ʌ/ realizes to [ɐ] ? 138.229.16.216 23:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I was taught to transcribe the sound of a stressed /ʌ/ as [ʌ] and an unstressed /ʌ/ as [ə] in American English. The exact quality varies by dialect. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

But I hear [kʰɐt] with the sound [ɐ] here. 138.229.16.216 01:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could be. Like I said, the exact quality of the vowel varies by dialect. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's pronounced [ɐ] in your accent ? 138.229.16.216 01:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think it's closer to [ʌ], but I don't really know. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Do you know the difference of [ʌ] and [ɐ] ? [ʌ] is close to [ɜ], and [ɐ] is close to [a]. 138.229.16.216 13:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I know the difference. I'm just not very good at identifying vowels by ear, including in my own speech. One of these days I should record myself saying a stressed /ʌ/ and look at the spectrogram to see what it is. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• French accent :
• Canadian accent :

The difference is obvious ? 162.246.52.108 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• French accent :
• Canadian accent :

This difference is obvious too ? 162.246.52.108 15:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, although less conspicuous than for guêpe. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-Yx2vIuQaM
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv7ZmzcXARc

Do you hear a difference ? 162.246.52.108 15:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Huh? These look like music videos. What am I supposed to be distinguishing between? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The pitch of the music is difference ? 162.247.120.215 20:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why are you asking me this? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Because I just want to know if you know the musical keys. The first version is in F-sharp major, and the second version is in F major. 162.247.120.215 20:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I see. Well, I can't identify keys by ear. I don't have much musical training.

I've been answering a lot of questions from you, and I'm not really interested in doing so anymore. If you have requests for pronunciation information or audio recordings to be added to articles, feel free to ask me (or better yet, use {{rfp}} and {{rfap}}), but otherwise I won't be responding anymore. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I will put {{rfp}} where ? 162.247.120.215 20:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please see mayonnaise. 138.229.20.165 12:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The US recording of mayonnaise is not there. 138.229.20.165 13:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the recording ! 138.229.20.165 13:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I hear a "boom" at the end" in the file, can you remove it please ? 162.247.120.9 21:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, can you record the name Wilson please ? 138.229.17.197 23:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you ! 138.229.17.197 00:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can you record the words kite, thank you, Halloween and tempest please ? 199.59.78.19 16:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you can be pronounced as [ˈt̪ɛ̃ŋkjuː] in informal speech ? 199.59.78.19 01:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

[ˈt̪æŋkjuː] is incorrect ? 138.229.17.174 00:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, can you record the word author, smoothie, dentist and call please ? Because I would like to know Californian accent. Thank you in advance. 138.229.26.26 21:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I saw you created ʔúlki in Coast Miwok. You added as reference the Bodega Miwok Dictionary by Callaghan, Catherine A. Do you still have this dictionary with you. I would be interested to know the translation of "water" in this language? If it is possible to get this information, could you also provide me the exact reference for this translation (the page where the translation is given)? Thank you in advance. Pamputt (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't have the dictionary with me, but I'll write myself a note to look up the word for water next time I go to the library (probably in a week or two). —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 12:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. I ask you that because I started to find the translation of the word "water" in all the languages (and the translation in Coast Miwok is missing). I know you already have a such list but the difference with "mine" is I try to find a reference for each translation. To do that, I create the article in that language and I add a reference for it. I di not count precisely bu I think I got around 3000 translations of "water" :D. I will have one more with your help ;D Pamputt (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Pamputt The Coast Miwok word for "water" is líwa, found on page 45 of the Bodega Miwok Dictionary by Catherine A. Callaghan. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. I added it also on the French Wiktionary. That said, it is a bit surprising because this word also exists in Lake Miwok and means "to be deep" (speaking about water). Moreover, I already found the translation in the languages of the same language family and the word for water is a bit different compared to that one (Plains Miwok: kiˑk, Bay Miwok: kiko, Southern Sierra Miwok: kikˑy-, Central Sierra Miwok: kíkˑy-, Northern Sierra Miwok: kikˑy-) Pamputt (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

That seems suspicious, but assuming you used the dictionary correctly, I don't think we can corroborate it. Just about all of the books I have at my disposal on Miwok lects are by Catherine Callaghan, and I suspect it's the same for you, so I think we're forced to trust her. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

It is a bit weird. Callaghan gives the following etymology: "From PMiw [Proto-Miwok] *líwa 'deep, water.'" She also lists a number of Coast Miwok compound words that include líwa, such as ʔómu líwa ("whiskey", literally "bad water") and ʔúpuh líwa ("bath water"), which suggest that it's probably not a typo or similar error. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

How did you find those great citations? I'm in the process of adding -phyte words, and was unable to find good citations for the following:

actophyte

aigiaphyte

aiphyllophyte

aithalophyte

aletophyte

alsophyte

amathophyte

ammochthophyte

ancophyte

axonophyte

bathyphyte

benthopheustophyte

coryphophyte

I would love to know the methods by which you found those citations. See here for discussion. —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 01:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi JohnC5. Here's how I found them: I searched for "aletophyte" and for "aletophytes" (in quotation marks) on Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google Groups. (Google Groups isn't usually very helpful for academic terms like these, but you never know.) I tried this method for a couple of the words in that list, though, and I couldn't find anything—they really look unattestable. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Very cool. Google books I use all the time, but I had not thought of Google Scholar or Groups for trying to find attestations. I'll start using these in the future. Thanks! —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 02:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The way that I worded that wasn't meant to be condescending, but nevertheless I prefer your wording better. Thanks much! Tharthan (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Fancy becoming an admin once this vandal's gone away? --Type56op9 (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sure! It would certainly be useful next time something like this happens. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 12:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Accept here please --Type56op9 (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your vote has passed, you are an Admin. Please add your name to WT:Admin. Also, see Help:Sysop tools. —Stephen ^(Talk) 23:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted your change at pocketpussy because I don't think it's proper to simply declare a tradename genericized. The term "fleshlight" is not that common and I wouldn't even say generally known. If someone were to ask "what's a 'pocketpussy?" would it make sense to reply "Oh, you know, a 'fleshlight'" ? I think not. This isn't like saying a flying disc is a "Frisbee". Personnally, I could probably figure out what a the term being defined is but I wouldn't know what a 'fleshlight' was if I hadn't run across an ad, nor would it give me any clues by it's name. 'Artificial vagina' is, however, quite clear, even if you've never encountered one for human use and only knew of those used for livestock or none at all.--BewareofDoug^{(talk • contribs)} 20:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay, fair enough. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

"there's no need to go into so much detail about which parts of the definition apply to which derived words"

How about a short note indicating there is no doctrine, ideology, or principle associated with atheism?

Maybe remove the term?

The definition perpetuates false beliefs and reinforces the stigma plaguing atheists. JohnAndrewMorrison (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any reason to remove it—atheism is a good example of the usage of the suffix -ism. Moreover, atheism (at least sense 1) is associated with an ideology: the belief that there is no god. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 11:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your identification of atheism being an ideology is exactly why the notation needs to be made. From Wiktionary: ideology - Doctrine, philosophy, body of beliefs or principles belonging to an individual or group. Not a single belief, or nonbelief as the case is, but a body of beliefs or a codified belief system. Saying atheism is an ideology implies things can be done in the name of atheism, but they can't. It allows blame for past acts of people (Hitler, Marx, Pol Pot) to be assigned to atheism when the fact is these people just happened to be atheist; they were driven to acts of violence by other ideologies (e.g. communism, socialism, naziism) or personal shortcomings, not because they were atheist. This is the negative stigma I refer to. — This unsigned comment was added by JohnAndrewMorrison (talk • contribs).

I disagree with several of the statements you've just made, and in particular with the idea that stating that the word atheism is sometimes used to refer to an ideology implies that Hitler was evil because he was an atheist. To reiterate my point, atheism (in the narrowest sense) refers to "a doctrine, ideology or principle" (per the relevant definition of -ism). If you disagree with this, I encourage you to bring it up in the WT:Tea room, where we can get the opinions of other editors. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 23:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Did you look at the definition of atheism here on Wiktionary? The only mention of doctrine is in the "loose" definition and says a lack of belief in a doctrine. "To reiterate my point, atheism (in the narrowest sense) refers to "a doctrine, ideology or principle" (per the relevant definition of -ism). " Is a circular argument, it is fallacious. You are saying he definition of atheism given in -ism is accurate because that is the way it is defined in -ism. You have completely made my point. If you compare the Wiktionary definition of atheism with the definition it is given in the -ism entry you have to conclude the -ism definition is wrong. I never said it was asserted that Hitler was evil because he was atheist. What is asserted is there are claims that the atrocities he committed were in the name of atheism. You can disagree with my claim that atheism is used to assert the atrocities of Hitler, Pol Pot, Marx, etc., were done in the name of atheism, it is just an opinion. I have personal experience, more than a dozen people arguing this point with me, and demonstrable truth it is. Here is Aslan Reza, a recognized expert in religion wordwide, saying exactly this. It at 14:30 of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGBsmvRbpck. I will post this discussion in the Tea room as suggested.

I moved the squish citations to Citations:squish. They might be useful someday. DCDuring TALK 02:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can we please discuss recent removals at the respective entry's talk pages?

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I could really use some help and advice, Mr. Granger, and I'm most willing to listen to polite explanations -- can you please discuss with me? -- Cirt (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy to discuss. It seems that while I was eating dinner, you made comments in a number of different places. I'll start responding to them now. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 23:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Two main questions: Can I cite Usenet if it's a post in a different language? Why is Google acceptable to archive links, but not w:Internet Archive ? -- Cirt (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Usenet posts in other languages can be cited—but generally only for words in other languages. So, for example, an English-language post could be a citation for an English word, and a German-language post could be a citation for a German word, but not vice versa.

I think the Internet Archive question is a good one. These standards were already in place when I became active here, but as I understand it, the reason for allowing Usenet is more than just the fact that it's archived by Google. See Dan Polansky's second comment in Wiktionary:Requests for verification#parcelcopter for some more information. It is also generally agreed that the Wayback Machine is not an acceptable source for citations—for one thing, its pages are taken down on request by the owner of the original site or if the site puts up an appropriate robots.txt page. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

But no one has put up a robots.txt page. So why can't we use them? And thank you for the language answer, that helps me save Polandball from into extinction. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Right, but someone could post a robots.txt page in the future, in which case the page would no longer be accessible. The point is that we need to be confident the cited source will still be there many years in the future. Some past discussion can be found at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2012/March#More on the Wayback Machine. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

That discussion at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2012/March#More on the Wayback Machine seems to allow for Wayback Machine links on the Citations page. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, so if you feel that they're important, you can re-add them. They won't stop the entry from being deleted, though, unless we can find three independent, durably archived citations in a single language. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Doing... -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

 Done = I've added Usenet Google Group archived durably cited attestable entries. Three (3) Usenet cites in Polish language, and one in French language and one in Italian language. Question: Is this now satisfactory to not have this information be disappeared from this website? Thank you for your help and advice, I really appreciate it, -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Three independent Polish Usenet citations would be enough to keep an entry for the Polish word "Polandball" – but they have no impact on the entry for the English word. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes but we can keep the page, itself, here locally on this site? -- Cirt (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Update: We now have on the Citations:Polandball page = three (3) Usenet cites in Polish language, three (3) Usenet cites in French language, and three (3) Usenet cites in Italian language. Hopefully this is now sufficient to keep this page from being disappeared from this site? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I see some cites were removed from Polandball.

Is there a place somewhere else on the page we can add those back, like a new section for other languages -- on the entry page, itself, in addition to the Citations page ?

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

If someone adds a French, Polish, or Italian entry for Polandball, then that would be an appropriate place to put French-, Polish-, or Italian-language citations. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean on a different website or on this page, lower down on the same page? -- Cirt (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I mean lower down on the same page. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay can we do that please? I haven't done that before. How do we go about creating sections for those? Thank you for your help, -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I've added the other language entries to the page. Please see DIFF. Someone should coin a phrase: Usenet. It's Wiktionary's GOLD. GOLD I tell ya, GOLD. Better than Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's COMBINED. The future is USENET. LOL ... -- Cirt (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

So, what is the next step? Does it look better? How does it look so far? -- Cirt (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, the new entries don't have the standard formatting for French, Italian, and Polish entries, so I've added {{attention}} tags to ask editors familiar with those languages to take a look. I suppose the next step is to wait for that to happen. Other than that they look fine. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 12:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Esperanto suffixes "-mis" and "-retro" (among a few more), where actually borrowed into Esperanto from Ido. I do know that Ido is a child of Esperanto ("ido"), but that does not mean that Esperanto never took words from Ido. I was just citing the Esperanto Wiki page for Ido: https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ido_%28lingvo%29#Influo_al_Esperanto. Amikal - Algentem (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

My mistake. Thank you for pointing that out. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ho, nula problemi! Thank you for pointing out how to better structure my edits (still getting used to it!) - Algentem (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

You removed the sense "(slang, in double negatives) anything" as being the same as the sense "something trifling, or of no consequence or importance". Classically, this is used like,

Police officer: "Did you see the murder?"

Witness: "I didn't see nothing

This does not mean something trifling here. The murder, that is, the thing claimed not to have been seen, is not trifling or of no consequence. Something trifling cannot be substituted and retain the sense, whereas anything can. SpinningSpark 08:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, my edit summary must not have been clear. It's not the same as the "something trifling" sense—it's the same as the "not any thing" sense. All other English negative words (as far as I know) work the same way—I didn't see nobody, I didn't go nowhere, I don't want no trouble, etc. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 12:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

AFAIK there is no other way than using WT:VIP.
It was like this:

1. I corrected WT:About German
2. It got reverted
3. I tried to discuss the issue with the reverting person, see User_talk:Metaknowledge/2015/Jul-Dec#Wiktionary:About_German. His answer was pretty much that he hasn't enough knowledge to discuss the issue and he used an ad hominem argument ("whom I trust much more than you" obviously is an ad hominem argument)
4. I corrected WT:About German again and tried to discuss the issue at Wiktionary_talk:About_German#Orthographic_Conferences_of_1876_and_1901.
5. The correction got reverted again and no reply was given at the talk page.
6. WT:About German got blocked from editing.
7. I used WT:VIP.

What else can I do? I can't correct WT:About German, and the vandals do not discuss at Wiktionary_talk:About_German#Orthographic_Conferences_of_1876_and_1901 and do not have enough knowledge to dicuss the issue anyway.
Also: At WT:About German it is "or the the Second Orthographic Conference of 1901". It should be obvious that the "the the" is incorrect, but the vandals didn't even correct that, even though the error was mentioned before. -84.161.7.126 15:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Calling people vandals is about as ad hominem as you can get around here, so I would suggest you drop that debating point. WT:VIP is for the purpose of bringing vandalism to the attention of the admins so they can act on it. Not only are the actions in question those of admins, but other admins have weighed in, so there's no need to bring it up there. Referring to this as vandalism is a serious misuse of the term. Vandalism is doing things for the purpose of doing damage. Right or wrong, CodeCat did what she did to protect the project from what she considered to be misinformation: if her actions are vandalism, so are yours.

As for what to do about it: the Beer parlour is the correct venue for policy discussions, including discussing the conduct of admins. If you bring it up there, I would suggest you drop the inflammatory accusations of vandalism and stick to the substance of your disagreement. We have active admins who are native speakers, and at least one non-native who is a linguist that works with German at a professional level, so your concerns will be considered by people who understand the issues. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

RFV for Esperanto word Darvin. --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Citeable, though seemingly less common than Elizabeta: [1] [2] [3] —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 02:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you ! I didn't see that :) Leasnam (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was considering changing it to Dude, that was some dank weed!...thoughts/objections ? Leasnam (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good to me. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I guess I was fooled by what seemed a straightforward statement: "As an international dictionary, Wiktionary is intended to include 'all words in all languages'."

I never really considered the fact that 'word' was defined as having to be in "widespread use" or " permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year" and, if not, it was then, therefore, not a word in a language to be included. Nor would I have ever thought that anyone would be policing such inclusion.

I do not intend to be a Wiktionary lawyer that holds everyone to the letter of the CFI, but I will certainly keep these criteria in mind if I make a page -- just not question others who might not be so circumspect in following the letter of the CFI.

As a user, if I am looking for a definition of a word I come across, I want to find it. All the more so, if it is a rare word. The rarity of a word means I am much more likely to not know it's meaning and, so, in need of finding a definition for it. But what is written in the CFI, is written, and obviously needful as a guideline. So I will myself abide by and obey it. Now, thank you, I am aware of this and so will no longer question those who wish to question the attestation of a word. I can only hope the word I may have to find a definition for was not purged because it was deemed too rare for inclusion. Even though I obviously disagree with the policy, I do wish to to be a good citizen of the Wiktionary community and I really do appreciate you informing my ignorance. I especially will look into the suggestion about including a BabelBox. Thanks for that pointer, also.

Sollupulo (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Mr. Granger

I see you are a fan of this word. There appears to be some helpful information regarding the proposed etymology here:

http://andc.anu.edu.au/australian-words/lambert-additions-corrections/third

Regards

Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The user appears to be inserting a lot of possible protologisms for a constructed language. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 20:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll RFV some of them. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

First time using this. I'm visiting your page because I got (and get) a good laugh out of your recording for the onomatopoeia "moo." I also have interests in etymology and found your "likes" to be very interesting. Just saying hello. ̴̴

Can u please transfer a boy to a Spanish language T Chaita 15:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I assume you mean "translate" - a boy in Spanish is un niño. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello ! Look At My Votes ! Their Fixed ! 95.49.114.217

You don't think that the grandaunt/great-aunt definition is used? It seems plausible enough, no? Tharthan (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it seems plausible, but after several months at WT:RFV, no one had provided citations, so I removed the sense. If you can find three citations meeting WT:CFI, please feel free to add the sense back with the citations. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 23:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why my vote is inelegible?

Elchsntre (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Per Wiktionary:Voting policy, a user's account "must have at least 50 edits in total to the main, Citations, Appendix, Rhymes, Wikisaurus, or Concordance namespaces on English Wiktionary by the start time of the vote" to be eligible. You only had 17. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Currently, CFI allows for Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue (Occidental), Lojban, Novial, and Volapük to be in mainspace, despite the fact that I suspect some of them have so little material that nearly all our entries would fail RFV. (In fact, Klingon is not allowed in mainspace, but its durably archived corpus probably rivals that of Lojban, for example.) This suggests to me that fewer of them should be in mainspace, perhaps only Esperanto and Ido, and that the others should be moved to Appendix space like Toki Pona and Quenya. I wanted to get your thoughts on this before I proceed to further discussions or a vote. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's a good point. Esperanto and Ido certainly have enough published works for us to cite plenty of words, and I think Volapük does too. My understanding is that the other four have much smaller corpora. I don't know much about Novial, Interlingua, or Interlingue/Occidental, but Lojban's published corpus is very small—very common Lojban words like .i, la, and mo look like they're citeable from Usenet, but I'm not sure whether ordinary words like muvdu are citeable.

I think starting a discussion sounds like a good idea, at least to figure out whether it's even possible to cite a significant number of words in languages like Lojban or Interlingua. WT:About Lojban#Criteria for inclusion says that the criteria for Lojban are less strict than for other languages, but I don't know if there's consensus for that—if there is, I think WT:CFI should be edited accordingly. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hah, I'd never seen that someone made up their own rules for inclusion of Lojban words. That's not been consensus at any point. And I've seen you send a lot of Volapük words to RFV, but I'll trust you if you think Volapük should remain in mainspace. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yeah—unfortunately, we've had one or two prolific editors creating lots of unattested Volapük entries, so I've been RFV-ing some of them a few at a time. But I think there's enough on Google Books for Volapük to be worth including in the mainspace. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 21:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Incidentally, I've evolved on this issue myself. Please feel free to contribute to the BP discussion. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

You removed a definition I added as redundant to another definition. Lemme be honest: I think the definition you kept isn't a particularly cleanly-written definition, and as such, if only one of them is kept (and I'm not 100% sure they mean exactly the same thing), I think mine would be the better one to be kept. Purplebackpack89 23:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, feel free to rephrase the existing definition more clearly. Your definition ("Used as an intensifier") does not cover all of the examples under the existing sense, IMHO, so we shouldn't use it to replace the existing sense. And unless we can find examples that aren't covered by the existing senses, I don't see any reason to add a new one. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 23:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm just going to paste what I've already said, and like I said, can ANYONE cite a single source for that "crocodile tears"? It is of equal il/legitimacy if there is nowhere else that has ever mentioned that besides the page itself, every example links their source right back here in a recursive loop. Give me one reason why that tears tripe isn't as fake as the mouths explanation? You can't. Meanwhile it has been mentioned multiple times in the same discussion on the lernu forums "My understanding is that crocodiles are supposed to have big mouths and small brains, which is how the expression originated.", which is further corroborated in J.F. Conroy's Dictionary and Phrasebook where it also gives kajmani and aligatori as accepted terms for the same action denoted by krokodili. Therefore it is clear that the connotation is to the physical resemblance of the creature, and not any invented "tears" nonsense, as "alligator tears" and "cayman tears" are not accepted idioms, and yet they are used for the same verb anyway.

At least I can cite a non-wiki source, whereas there is not a single shred of evidence for the one you seem to have no problem with. "Crocodiles having large mouths have nothing to do with crocodile tears"? Yeah that's right, and crocodile tears have absolutely nothing to do with the verb. The administrative favoritism in play here is plainly evident.

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits&diff=47225534&oldid=47225513

Not being American, "Tsarnaev" simply didn't ring any bells for me so I assumed good faith. Having looked it up, it's probably vandalism but since I can't see what was in the +3888 edit he made I can't be sure. Urban dictionary does have a definition for a tsarnaev, but as far as I can tell there's nothing in common use.

It still might be good faith, but it's probably vandalism. Just wanted to let you know I had no way of knowing which it was (without looking it up) when I replied to his message. The reason I didn't look it up was, again, good faith. I assumed it would have been slang or something and a thing that may or may not pass CFI. In fact, it still might be, but a couple of searches don't seem to turn up anything. W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. My edit summary wasn't intended as a criticism of your response. Seeing that the discussion had no chance going to go anywhere useful, I just decided it would be best to remove it altogether. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I disapprove of your move of the Trump/LA Times quote from the first sense to the second. Don't you think the Trump quote supports the first definition as well? Many stories that talk about the alt-left link it to antifa. Purplebackpack89

We should only have two separate senses if we can't adequately explain all the quotations with just one sense. In other words, to verify the new sense, we need quotations that unambiguously support it and not the existing sense. So, in my opinion, if the Trump quotation is ambiguous between the two senses, we should assume that it supports the existing sense unless we can find three unambiguous quotations for the new sense. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

If two senses become one (which I continue to maintain shouldn't happen), the older sense needs re-wording. How does Donald Trump's use of the word "alt-left" support "a section of the political spectrum... [that] holds paradoxically conservative views"? Clearly not at all. We either need to lose that clause or move the Trump/LA Times quote back to sense one. To me, there's clearly two definitions:

1. 2017: Very leftists in all respects and violent towards fascists/Nazis/Confederates.
2. 2016: Not all that left and not all that violent toward fascists

In essence, I believe that the 2017 definition (sense one, currently) can be used fairly interchangeably with antifa, but the 2016 definition (sense two) cannot. As 73.81.113.64 notes at the RfV, the 2016 definition of alt-left is often used to refer to people who previously voted Democratic, but voted Trump in 2016. That is clearly a different group than the antifas. Purplebackpack89 16:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

You've left out a key part of the definition. It says "such as holding paradoxically conservative views" and then gives another example as well. I think Trump probably wasn't trying to say that the protesters held paradoxically conservative views, but I do think it's reasonable to suppose he was referring to "a section of the political spectrum that is left-wing while in some way illegitimate or contemptible".

I understand that you believe that there are two different definitions, but I don't see see any clear evidence for this distinction in the citations in the entry. Anyway, my user talk page is probably the wrong place for this discussion—the tea room, RFV, or even Talk:alt-left would be better. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello! How is it possible in Wikipedia to create an SOP entry to unite all the translations of it?--Sae1962 (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I believe there is consensus for keeping SOP phrases as "translation targets" in certain limited cases, where they are SOP in English but aren't in many languages. An example is day after tomorrow. I don't think this should be done with fake news, though, because presumably it can translated to most languages simply by combining the word for "fake" with the word for "news". —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your observation that sense 1 of etymology 2 means "to have anal sex as the penetrative partner" in most cites seems correct to me, but I think the other cites could plausibly mean "to have anal sex" as well and there is not much that indicates a different act. Also, I had removed "to sodomise" from the definition because of its negative connotations. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, in the 2015 Usenet quotation, it's clearly not referring to anal sex—the author explains in detail what he means. The other 2015 quotation could possibly mean "to have anal sex as the penetrative partner", I guess, but that seems quite unlikely. Based on the context, the June 5, 2005 quotation also looks to me like it's more likely to mean "have sex with" than the more specific anal sex definition, but I'm not certain. So I added the additional qualification to the definition to cover those three quotations. But if you think it would be better to give "to have anal sex as the penetrative partner" as the only definition, I guess that's fine, if we disregard the 2015 Usenet quotation and accept a strange interpretation of the 2015 book quotation.

I added the word "sodomise" because, based on the citations, "boof" seems to have a negative connotation too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think you're correct that "to have anal sex as the penetrative partner" is too broad, and that the 2015 Usenet sense doesn't refer to penetrative sex. I'd guess many people would informally call that anal sex though, even though there doesn't seem to be any anus involved. What about phrasing it as "to have anal sex with someone, usually as the penetrative partner; to have butt sex"?

As for negative connotations, I am not convinced the quotations about prison rape indicates a sense like "against their will" or "to rape anally" rather than just a vulgar register, but I'll drop the point. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

"to have anal sex with someone, usually as the penetrative partner" works for me. I think "butt sex" is too informal for a definition. You may be right about the connotations; if you want to remove the word "sodomise", that's fine with me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

All right, I've put that as the definition, and placed sodomize under "See also". ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I just want to bring something to your attention. You added a 'See also' section to 山高皇帝遠 and the code you wrote was: l|zh|天高皇帝遠. User:Justinrleung changed it to zh-l|天高皇帝遠 in this edit: [4]. The advantage of zh-l over l|zh is that zh-l automatically shows a pronunciation (usually Mandarin Pinyin). Your way wasn't really wrong, but most entries are using zh-l instead of l|zh. You probably already knew all this. Anyway, keep up the good work- your original edit was good, but maybe not 'perfect'. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know! I didn't know about zh-l. Most of my time on Wiktionary has been spent editing English, Esperanto, and Spanish, but lately I'm starting to spend more time editing Chinese entries. I'll try to remember to use zh-l in the future. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

• foreign :

Hello Mx. Granger. This pronunciation is recorded by a French-speaking woman, she said [ˈfɒɹeɪn], it's a wrong pronunciation? If yes, I will remove it in the article. 138.229.19.202 20:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I would call it wrong, yes, or at least detectably non-native. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, the "eo-head" adds the wrong categories because of the "-oto" participle ending, but "pispoto" is not a nominal participle, but a noun. We discussed this issue last year in the Grease pit here. J3133 (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Never mind, I didn't know Module:eo-headword/exceptions exists. J3133 (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mx. Granger. To this pronunciation, we should write [fʌŋ] or [fɒŋ] ? 138.229.19.202 17:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure that it's not the normal [ʌ]. 138.229.19.202 11:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the locations that we support are in MOD:zh/data/dial. For Wuhua, we currently don't support Meilin, just Shuizhai, Huacheng, Changbu and Mianyang. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung Thanks! It seems that the Meilin words are often the same as in Shuizhai and Mianyang, but not quite always. Is it alright to add Meilin to the module? Alternatively, do you know any other reference where I can check to see if the term I know is the same as in Mianyang, Shuizhai, or Meixian, so I can add it for one of those locations? —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think it'd be okay to add Meilin if you're familiar with the dialect spoken there or have access to native speakers there. I think we could call it "Wuhua-ML". My sources for the Wuhua dialects are mainly 廣東五華客家話比較研究 (which records the four dialects) and 五华客家话研究 (which records Huacheng). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 14:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I've added "Wuhua-ML" to the module. You can add whatever you need to. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Yes, all the Hakka words I'm adding come from a native speaker from Meilin. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

When deleting entries at RFV or RFD, please take care to delete all inflected forms as well. Thanks! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reminder. I don't know how I missed that. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello- you wrote "If you see me making a mistake, please let me know so I can do better in the future." I would like to point out what I see as a likely mistake. In the etymology on the Diaoyutai Islands page, you have failed to include the 釣魚臺群島 name in the etymology. Here is a dictionary from the Republic of China (Taiwan) where the name of the islands is given in Chinese characters: [5]. This is probably just a minor oversight, but it is significant, so I thought I would bring it to your attention. Thanks for your time and work. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, you're right. I used simplified characters out of habit, but of course in the case of a Taiwanese term traditional characters are more applicable. Probably best to include both forms. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much for your attention in guiding on what to do on Wiktionary regarding the Dagbani language Alhassan Mohammed Awal (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

No problem! —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Besides K&W saying that the "alt" pronunciation is "inevitable", that's what our sound file has. I just checked it on Praat. kwami (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

We should probably be focusing on phonemic transcriptions instead of phonetic transcriptions for Esperanto. In fact, I think at some point Template:eo-IPA did present the transcriptions as phonemic – I'm not sure when or why the slashes were changed to square brackets. Focusing on phonemic transcriptions would allow us to abstract away from assimilation that varies by speaker, and it would avoid problems in other entries too (like stranga, which is more likely to be pronounced with [ŋ] but is currently transcribed with [n] in our entry). —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Phonemic transcription would handle [ŋ] (and also [ɱ], which no-one argues about) but not voicing assimilation, since that's a phonemic distinction. oranĝkolora would still be /orant͡ʃkolora/. (Well, phonemic transcription would take care of [ɣ] for /x/, but there can't be many of those.) To the extent that anyone does say ?/orand͡ʒkolora/, that would be a second phonemic transcription. Also, with a phonemic transcription we'd need to remove the stress marks.

I think the argument against phonemic transcriptions is that they don't tell you how to pronounce the word unless you already speak the language. kwami (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think the most natural analysis is that oranĝkolora has three morphemes, /orand͡ʒ/, /kolor/, and /a/, which combine to yield the underlying representation /orand͡ʒkolora/. For those speakers who have retrogressive voicing assimilation (which as far as I know is not all speakers), it would apply to that underlying form.

"the argument against phonemic transcriptions is that they don't tell you how to pronounce the word unless you already speak the language" – in principle that's true, but for Esperanto I think it's more useful and practical to provide broad phonemic transcriptions rather than try to cover the highly speaker-dependent phonetic realizations. We can also provide stress in phonemic transcriptions – technically that makes them not fully phonemic, but that is okay. In practice many transcriptions are somewhere between phonetic and phonemic, even in specialist works, and that's especially true in dictionaries that aim to be practically useful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

You're right of course that broad, nearly-phonemic phonetic descriptions are quite common, but that's merely a matter of defining how narrow we wish the transcription to be. Again, I think [ɱ] is instructive here. We don't include that in our key, despite it being nearly universal. (I challenge you to find anyone from any language background who pronounces emfazi with ⟦m⟧ in natural speach.) There's thus no reason we shouldn't also omit [ŋ]. The difference is just that English-speakers are generally aware of [ŋ] but oblivious to [ɱ]. The design of a broad phonetic key can be like the design of the IPA itself: include those distinctions that are phonemic and include anything else only if there's a practical reason to include it (like stress). I don't see any advantage to placing that between slashes and pretending it's phonemic.

As for the underlying form, that's morphophonemic ⫽orand͡ʒkolora⫽, so that would be a second deviation from phonemic transcription. We might want to add such a transcription, but it's neither phonetic nor phonemic, and I'd rather not make intentionally false statements in a reference work. kwami (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

This reminds me of an argument some of us are having with the table showing the progress of the soccer World Cup, where we show some teams advancing to the next round, and others failing, before they even play a match. The defense is that's how everyone does it, and everyone should understand that we don't actually mean it, so we are justified in making, and indeed even should make, those false claims. But someone like me comes along and wonders why some teams have already advanced to the next round before all the matches are played, and the natural conclusion is that they're so far ahead that the other teams can't possibly win, rather like calling an election for one candidate before all the votes are counted. But no, the table is fiction and you can't tell from it whether the "advancing" teams will advance or not. We can't predict whether people will believe obvious falsehoods, like I believed that table while many soccer fans find it's obvious, so IMO it's best to avoid them. kwami (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me /orand͡ʒkolora/ is the phonemic representation, which is articulated with [d͡ʒ] by some speakers and with [t͡ʃ] by others. I may be missing something, but I don't see why we would need to posit an alternate phonemic representation /orant͡ʃkolora/. In any case, it's unfortunate that the sole transcription currently in the article reflects only a subset of speakers and is inconsistent with most reference works on Esperanto. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

/d͡ʒ/ and /t͡ʃ/ are distinct phonemes in Eo, so /orand͡ʒkolora/ and /orant͡ʃkolora/ are phonemically distinct. (At least for people who can pronounce /orand͡ʒkolora/.) At least, I believe that's how it works -- if you can prove me wrong, I'll have to reconsider quite a few things. Anyway, I have no problem with listing both, but I think we should include the less obvious pronunciation, especially when that's the one used in the sound file. kwami (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Right, part of my point is that /orand͡ʒkolora/ and /orant͡ʃkolora/ are phonemically distinct. The representation /orand͡ʒkolora/ is sufficient to explain the [t͡ʃ] articulation (for speakers with retrogressive voicing assimilation) and the [d͡ʒ] articulation (for speakers without it), so I don't see the need to postulate the additional and distinct phonemic representation /orant͡ʃkolora/.

In any case, listing both phonetic transcriptions seems reasonable to me; thanks for finding this solution. I see what you mean that there's value to including the less obvious pronunciation that corresponds to the sound file. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Could you tell me more about this word? What dialect is it from? Where did it originate from? Things like that, please 78.8.215.147 12:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't really know, I'm afraid. It clearly represents a nonstandard pronunciation (omitting the sound represented by the first y in everybody), but I don't know where this pronunciation is or was used. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply