User talk:PUC/2020

diff

Is there are rule against it? There are a couple of small benefits:

1. If, a new L2 is added, no need to add it. Some new editors forget this.
2. If you copy/paste an entry to another busy page, it makes it easier to format.

What's the downside? I've seen this in one of about pages. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev: There might well be a rule (or not), but I don't feel like looking for it. In any case, the vast majority of entries don't do that, and imo it's better to be consistent. I guess if you want to keep using it I won't object, but I don't think that's a good idea. PUC – 15:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

taxlink

As far as I know, the template 'taxlink' is supposed to be used only when there's no Wiktionary entry for that specific taxon. If one tries to use the template in such case and one clicks 'Show preview', the preview page will display the instructions to this end. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It is you!

Bary! Barytonesis, my guru! It is really you. How nice to see you - thanks for this. I always remember your lessons, back in 2018, when you patrolled me: I have been studying since then (Fromkin) and now trying to move to 2nd year curriculum! Truly: I appreciate your effort to teach me, to introduce me to your science, since I was a random ignorant user.
So, it is PUC -At first, I thought from Puck-. Hope you are corona-well. Stay safe!@ ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ | 23:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

m'enfin!

This is, apparently, short for mais enfin (when carelessly prononunced?). Should it have an entry, or be mentioned at m’? Equinox ◑ 13:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Removals and edit summaries

I would like to request that when you remove something from an entry, you indicate so in the edit summary. Disclaimer: Unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary does not have any formulated requirements on edit summaries. My request is not based on policy but rather on my common sense, which may not really be common. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: Ok, I'll try to take up the habit. PUC – 11:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

(se) mésailler, mésaillé

I'm reading a book about French colonial history which uses this verb. It seems to meet CFI (and mean "marry below one's station")... should it be created (with a conjugation table) at mésailler or se mésailler? - -sche (discuss) 02:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Your interest in "if"

Hello, PUC. Notwithstanding your interest in my edits, I'm not satisfied that being unable to see how they're an improvement qualifies as a reason to discount them. If you had read the corresponding tag for my initial edits you would have seen the purpose in addressing the circularity issues that were apparent in the original entry.

Namely, the parenthetical text merely repeats what's in the definitional text. As Wiktionary strives to eliminate such circularity/reflexivity wherever practicable, the edits conform to that standard of practice. More specifically:

• "Tell me whether you can see her. (the speaker wants to know whether the addressee can see her)" provides no linguistic reference point; "Tell me whether you can see her. (the speaker wants to know the positive or negative instance of the addressee's ability to see her)" supplies linguistic reference points for "whether" (i.e. stemming from the "whether or no" phrase attested from the 1650s) and "ability to" relates to the meaning denoted by "can."
• "Tell me if you can see her. (if the addressee can see her, then he or she must tell the speaker something)" includes identical verbiage that lacks any provision of further linguistic reference points; "Tell me if you can see her. (if the addressee can see her, then he or she must let the speaker know") supplies a linguist reference point for "tell" in order to establish which of its several meanings is intended.

Despite the foregoing, I admit a bit of negligence in failing to provide a cognate meaning of "if" in the final parenthetical I provide above. At the time the definition was beginning to seem hopelessly circular/reflexive. I welcome anyone to improve that part of it. --Kent Dominic (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Have you seen Wiktionary:Tea_room#if? Equinox ◑ 12:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. --Kent Dominic (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Idioms within idioms

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2020/February#Idioms_within_idioms --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Backinstadiums: 1) You should never replace headword templates with plain text. 2) I've already fixed the headword. Don't revert me again. PUC – 17:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@PUC: I've done it couple of times if you want to check --Backinstadiums (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

What's the point ?

as_I_live_and_breathe&oldid=59371736 : translate this third meaning. I think that in a literal use. What's the point put this third sense?. The same for other languages.--BoldLuis (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Patch box entry

Hello; I was in the process of trying to enter patch box (without a dash), as the primary entry for patch-box, the current entry in the Wiktionary. Per Merriam-Webster, the correct spelling is without a dash. Thank you for correcting my capitalization error. Unless you have an objection, or alternate source for the spelling, I would like to proceed with making "patch box" the primary entry, and "patch-box" the alternate spelling. I haven't worked on Wiktionary much, so your help and suggestions would be appreciated. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@OvertAnalyzer: Hello. I don't have an objection. I simply want to avoid needless duplication of content, so if you intend to reverse the main entry and "alternative form" entry that's fine by me. PUC – 13:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

médiathèque

Hey Puck, would you be able to track down early hits for médiathèque? The oldest attestation date in a reference work is early seventies, but I strongly suspect it's a few years older than that. If so, we can straightforwardly state that mediatheek was borrowed from French. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo:

This 1969 book apparently has it ("Bref, il est peut-être temps de modifier le nom de ces institutions qui de bibliothèques sont devenues de véritables "médiathèques"."), but I can't see the relevant passage, unfortunately.

Or does this instance from 1870 count? PUC – 16:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that's the exact same year the oldest Dutch hits are from (example). That's probably too flimsy to assert a borrowing from French, even though that is a far more likely direction... The result from 1870 is of course not valid. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

parler de corde dans la maison d'un pendu

Oh PUC it's annoying when you create entries with no definition (translation). That's Wonderfool behaviour. I unfortunately don't know this one; what does it mean, in simpler words? Then maybe I can give you an English version. Equinox ◑ 23:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't think of a good translation for this. Is it by accident (like put one's foot in one's mouth) or could it be deliberate and malicious? Equinox ◑ 22:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

rolling boil

Please add French before I actually convince myself it's le rouler-bouler. Equinox ◑ 21:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"Passive" and "active" for adjectives?

Heya PUC, question for you.

Your predecessor :) Barytonesis added labels to the English suspicious entry here back in October 2017. I'm not at all familiar with "active" and "passive" as descriptions of adjectives; as I learned the terms, this is limited to descriptions of verbs. See also Appendix:Glossary#passive_voice and Appendix:Glossary#active_voice. I'm worried that this usage may be overly jargon-y, and may not be well understood by our readers. Would you object to changing these labels?

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 05:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Removed, looking back I realise they were not terribly useful anyway. PUC – 19:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

split -ment categories

I see you've created both Category:French adverbs suffixed with -ment and Category:French words suffixed with -ment (adverbial), the former using |pos= and the latter |id=. IMO they should be converted into the former as a standard, with both parameters funneling into the same category. My rationale is that it looks less clunky, and there isn't a relevant adjective for every part of speech. Thoughts? Ultimateria (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ultimateria: Yes, I was thinking about that just a few days ago. I have a slight preference for Category:French words suffixed with -ment (adverbial), because it makes it clearer that there are two different (and etymologically unrelated) suffixes at work, and that they're the ones determining the POS.

However, I also agree that it's clunky. The problem is that with the current infrastructure, it's not possible, AFAIK, to get to a less clunky category name that would still make it clear what we're dealing with (Category:French words suffixed with adverbial -ment, maybe?) when using the affix/suffix templates; the only other option is indeed Category:French adverbs suffixed with -ment, which is imo a bit less clear but can be arrived at by template.

So, in conclusion: yes, let's use Category:French adverbs suffixed with -ment.

(What did you mean by "there isn't a relevant adjective for every part of speech"?) PUC – 10:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I see your point about distinguishing the etymologies of -ment, but at least that info is one click away from the category and its pages.

I meant that there's an adjective for adverb in adverbial, but not for every part of speech. I was thinking very hypothetically that a category might use a part of speech that doesn't have an adjective, like gerundive...which apparently exists? So never mind haha Ultimateria (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Re. "take place"

Differentiating syntactical construction (or form) from lexicographical meaning is pretty standard from a linguistic standpoint. E.g. see "media" or "data" in Merriam-Webster. I've changed "structure" to construction" in the take place entry accordingly. The distinction needs to be noted for anyone who might mistake "take place" to be a phrasal verb rather than a verb phrase. Cheers. --Kent Dominic (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@PUC: If you're obstinate in failing to see the need to include my edit as it appears under the "Verb" section, I'm not opposed to your taking the initiative to moving it the "Usage notes" section. As it is, however, this knee-jerk Undo reflex is getting wearisome. If you persist, I'll ask for proper resolution in the Tea Room. Cheers. --Kent Dominic (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@PUC: Oops. I hadn't seen that you'd already added the verbiage under your newly-created Etymology section. All's well. Cheers. --Kent Dominic (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

sac à dos

The reason I asked is that the words for "backpack" in many European languages are borrowed or calqued from German (the word originates from Switzerland) and the French terms are obviously analogous. Often those borrowings took place in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: A 1869 occurrence. The term is italicized; I take that to mean it was a recent coinage. The next occurrence appears to be from 1899; unfortunately I don't have access to the whole book, so I can't check that that's right.

There's also sac à dos d'homme, attested even earlier. I'd say à dos d'homme is a single unit; compare à dos d'âne.

I don't know if that helps? PUC – 13:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The result for sac à dos d'homme is from 1809, right? I think that is far too early for a calque from Standard German. So unless Rochambeau was familiar with Swiss Alemannic, which seems improbable, it seems it's independent. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Yes, but I'm not convinced sac à dos is an ellipsis of sac à dos d'homme rather than a calque from German Rucksack, as you were suggesting initially. Is the 1869 occurrence compatible with the calque theory? PUC – 13:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that is compatible, yes. It's a quite early occurrence for sure, but there are earlier German attestations, like [1]. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: In that case, I would mention both possibilities: ellipsis or calque from German (I have a slight preference for the latter). What do you think? PUC – 19:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Does the old attestation of sac à dos d'homme refer to something resembling a backpack or did it apply to something like a bindle or swag? I'm okay with mentioning both possibilities. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

vieux jeu etymology

vieux jeu from Vulg. Lat. vĕclus, in turn from Lat. vetŭlus.--Backinstadiums (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Backinstadiums: Yes, but we don't need that kind of detail here. This belongs at French vieux, and it's already there. PUC – 10:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@PUC:why not in vieux jeu too? --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

cheap shot

Re: [2] You will be pleased to hear that you wrote absolutely textbook-perfect English that a lot of native speakers would struggle to get right. However: why bother putting it there? cheap shot isn't such an elaborate entry. Equinox ◑ 01:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

French FWOTDs

Do you think you could get farfelu, croc-en-jambe, beu and frileux ready for being featured? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

lbor

Hello teacher! The problem here with {{lbor}} is that it places the lemma also in normal loans. Discussed here (the templated improved, but it still mixes lbor+bor instead of lbor+der). Normally, I do not do etymologies, but I always remember what you taught me. Thank you, ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ | 05:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

drieklank

I'd say that all the changes in your edit are justifiable. I don't know either why that sense about the phonological triphthong was categorised as musical, but it was already done in an old edit by Verbo; maybe it was just a slip of the mind or the finger. I didn't know you edited Dutch, by the way. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Thanks! And yes, I've taken up learning Dutch irl (for several reasons, the main being that I'd like to live in Flanders for some time). PUC – 11:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, cool. Are you using learning materials for Belgian Dutch in particular? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: I am; I must say I'm not too fond of the Dutch Dutch accent :p

Right now I'm going through the lessons found on this website. These are short dialogues, pronounced by a mix of Flemish and Dutch speakers, and sometimes what sounds to me like L2 speakers whose mother tongue is French. What I like about these is that they seem to be pronounced at a good, natural pace. (I don't like slowed down audio in general, I think it does language learners a disservice in the long run.)

I've also found this website, as well as this long list of online resources, but I haven't explored those yet.

As for printed materials, I have a De Boeck / Van In grammar (as well as a couple of other resources - _targeted towards French L1 speakers - from the same publishing house, such as "common mistakes to avoid" and "useful turns of phrases"), but I haven't started studying it seriously.

If you have specific recommendations I'd be interested. (It's too soon for me to use that, but what single-volume monolingual dictionary would you recommend?) PUC – 22:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Bah, the standard Dutch realisation of /œy̯/ is the sexiest sound in the universe though (the Belgian realisation is tied for second sexiest).

I don't know a single-volume general dictionary with a specific focus on Flemish. Both Prisma and Van Dale single-volume unabridged have rather extensive coverage. I've heard quite a few complaints from Belgians about incorrect genders in Van Dale (gender isn't always the same across the border) but Van Dale might be singled out because Prisma is used less there. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: I'm not necessarily looking for a dictionary with a focus on Flemish. Any good dictionary of Dutch would do, even if it's Dutch Dutch. So, Van Dale, Prisma, something else? PUC – 13:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but be sure to get a more recent edition (after 2000) because these tends to specify national varieties better. You can use the online WNT at [3] and Etymologiebank at [4]. Woordenlijst is useful for checking official spellings, but you often have to use creative workarounds because a lot of amply attested terms are not included (and I've also seen a few unattested words there).

overlaten is a compound by the way, not a prefixed verb. This is indicated by its stress and separability. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Thanks for the recs and the tips!

Re overlaten, duly noted. Must I infer that the particle is a prefix iff it's not separable? Or is it more complicated than that? PUC – 11:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's a better heuristic than stress (because prefixes can be primarily stressed in some cases where there are two prefixes). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

you don't say

I'm not enterprising enough to create a Do tell page in follow-up to the you don't say synonyms. Maybe you are. If so, please do!
Cheers. --Kent Dominic (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You're on my team. --Kent Dominic (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

revert at de aap komt uit de mouw

I thought I'd explain why I reverted your edit. I feel that let the cat out of the bag has a strong connotation of inadvertence. The current definition supports that intuition. The Dutch expression does not carry that connotation. Then there are the differences in syntax. Moreover, some Afrikaans expressions derived from de aap komt uit de mouw have been influenced semantically and syntactically by let the cat out of the bag. These differences with the Dutch are more difficult to delineate if the Dutch is translated with a variant of let the cat out of the bag. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: No worries, and thanks for the explanation. (And thanks for checking my Dutch entries too!) PUC – 16:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't check them systemically, by the way, I just look through the edits that happen to show up in my pings. I can do that though, if you like. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Yes, gladly. PUC – 17:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find many significant mistakes really, most edits were entirely fine and you mostly edit in other languages so it's a bit tedious for me to go through your edits. Beside that you are an experienced editor, so you know how to format. So what do you say about pinging me whenever you're unsure of an edit?
The changes at ingewikkeld and losmaken may be interesting purely from a language learner's perspective. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No need to apologise for the Old Dutch at schakel, we all copy something erroneous at some point; that's basically what wikis are for. I must say the second vowel of the Old Dutch also looks fishy; I'll ask about that later. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

passer sous le bureau

I like passer sous le bureau because it's such a surprising variation on the English translation under the table. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Opgeruimd staat netjes is another such. In English we say "she cleans up nice" to describe a Cinderalla-type transformation from ugly to pretty. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vox Sciurorum: Interesting, thanks for the comparandum. Should we have an entry for clean up nice / clean up nicely? PUC – 15:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I think clean up (“to become clean, handsome, smart in appearance...especially when it is out of character to be seen as such.”) is sufficient though not ideal. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

French agent

It turns out that this already existed in Middle French and maybe in late Old French as well. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)