User talk:PUC/2019

We still don't have several senses of ramer, but does boulet ramé "bar shot" seem idiomatic to you? I reckon that the relevant sense is "to stake (a plant)"? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: I'll look at that later, I'm not familiar with that vocabulary. Happy New Year in advance! Per utramque cavernam 14:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, the same to you! ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo:, @Per utramque cavernam:. Hello, I was just passing by... For "boulet ramé", you can refer to [1], but click tab RAMÉ2 (= for admunitions), not RAMÉ1 (= for plants and deers). --AldoSyrt (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

You clearly dont have an idea of what heavy metal please dont rollback because wikipedia would be misleading Genesisfanfoxtrotbythepoun3678!! (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Genesisfanfoxtrotbythepoun3678!!: You're welcome to suggest improvements to the definition, but it's not going to be removed or cut down the way you did. Per utramque cavernam 23:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I think this rollback is in error. This french terme is documented.--88.136.24.72 11:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@88.136.24.72: I don't see anything on Google Books, and your edit is poorly formatted. Per utramque cavernam 11:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Did you read that book from Gaston Bonheur ? I gave the title--88.136.24.72 11:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC) |My edit is poorly formated ? And what about your state of mind ? --88.136.24.72 11:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@88.136.24.72: All right, found it, but that's not a valid quote per WT:CFI. For a term to be included here, it has to be used (as opposed to merely mentioned, as it is here) three times in durably archived sources. Find more quotes, then you can create an entry for trou de Bâle. Per utramque cavernam 11:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's poorly formatted. And buddy, if you start insulting me, you're gonna get blocked. Per utramque cavernam 11:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Would you like to be nominated for admin? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think I asked before (?). "I won't be here as often as before", you're not fooling anyone! Do it. Equinox ◑ 22:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

You don't have to use the tools often to make a contribution. DCDuring (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Proposed new rule: anyone who lasts six months without begging to be an admin becomes an admin. Even WF can't make that. Equinox ◑ 01:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo, Equinox, DCDuring: I would, yes. However, if one of you were to nominate me, I think this episode should be mentioned for full disclosure. I'd like to believe I've calmed down and matured a bit since last year, but still. Per utramque cavernam 23:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'll link to that. Do you want to be nominated right away? You technically have to accept a nomination on the same day, but accepting it a bit later is not problematic. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

He did accept so please create the vote (I am bad at creating votes). I did not know about that self-nom drama, but IMO not a very big deal. Equinox ◑ 11:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done. You (Puck, not Equinox) can accept here, please check the languages, time zone and email set-up and feel free to modify the languages in the nomination as well. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

You should not have reverted the term "cunning linguist". A "cunning linguist" is NOT "One who performs cunnilingus"; although these terms sound similar, they are not. Please undo your reversion and restore the proper definition to the page. Thank you. Walterblue222 (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

No. Per utramque cavernam 22:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's actually both, but the phrase is pretty much never used seriously and literally, and it's also the sum of its parts, so we wouldn't want an entry for it. That leaves the sexual meaning, which does get some usage- though it's far outnumbered by literal uses made to sound like the sexual one. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

You are mistaken. "Cunning linguist" and "cunnilingus" are not synonymous, or similar in meaning, and are not even homophonic.

"An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components. Non-idiomatic expressions are called sum-of-parts (SOP). For example, 'this is a door' is not idiomatic, but 'shut up' and 'red herring' are."

It is not "actually both"; being a 'cunning linguist' is NOT the same as performing 'cunnilingus' in spelling, punctuation, pronunciation or meaning.

There is no "sexual meaning" for 'cunning linguist', and claiming that there is based on misusage is not appropriate.

Here are some similar examples: "bulls hit" is not the same as "bull shit", "Felicia" is not the same as "fellatio", "assapanick" is not the same as "ass panic", a "bumfiddler" is not a "bum fiddler", a "cockchafer" is not the same as a "cock chafer", "formication" is not "fornication", "cummingtonite" is not "cumming tonight", "mastication" is not "masturbation, so on and so-forth, et cetera, etc., etc.

Undo your inappropriate, unjustified reversion and restore the accurate definition to the page. Thank you. Walterblue222 (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

If I read someone the riot act, I'm not literally reciting a piece of legislation. There's the literal meaning, which is not dictionary material, and then there's the figure of speech. In this case, there are some people who say cunning linguist as a humorous way to avoid saying cunnilingus. They're not confused, and I'm sure they know both terms. Language means what the people who use it understand it to mean. Dictionaries can't dictate that. Glad originally meant slick or smooth, sad originally meant heavy. The phrase "the exception proves the rule" originally meant "the exception tests the rule. Originally, the plural of pease was peasen, until people decided that pease was really peas and that it was the plural of pea- a word that didn't exist until then. Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary. We describe the language that's actually used- not what makes sense, and not what somebody says it's supposed to be. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Again, you are mistaken - and your argument is really self-defeating when you say that we don't describe the language based on "what somebody says it's 'supposed' to be" - when trying to support the assertion of "what somebody says it's 'supposed' to be".

The misuse of a word or phrase does not modify the original meaning - if this was the case words would not be universally understood to people speaking the language. Yes, language changes over time - but not in this manner, and not because a few people decide that a word or phrase should mean something different than it does globally, to billions of people.

By your logic, if a few people decide to begin calling the sun a shoe, then it would be appropriate to modify the dictionary definition based on the whim of this small group of people, despite the fact that billions of people speaking the language understand that the sun is the sun, and not a shoe. Walterblue222 (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Can you believe this joker? "Maybe if I delete the citations the meaning will go away!" [2] Equinox ◑ 16:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me, Equinox, but personal attacks are not appropriate. Please refrain from using them. Removing the citations is appropriate because the "meaning" was not correct or applicable. Walterblue222 (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

What would be a more acceptable noun to refer to someone who seems to have strong, erroneous beliefs about language and be ignorant of the norms of Wiktionary or lexicography, verbose, and resistant to learning? You can use Wikisaurus, Roget, or your favorite online thesaurus. DCDuring (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Are you asking a question or being rhetorical? A more acceptable noun than 'joker', to refer to me? Are you unfamiliar with the term 'joker'? "Someone who seems to have strong, erroneous beliefs about language" is not an appropriate definition of the term 'joker', nor is it an appropriate description of me, based on the statements made on this page.

"Ignorant to the norms of Wiktionary or lexicography" again, not applicable to the term 'joker'. "Verbose" - all right, I'll give you that one (as applied to myself, not the term 'joker') however, this is subjective.

"Resistant to learning" is another attribute that is inaccurate for both the term 'joker' and myself.

Amusingly enough, your poorly composed remark makes it abundantly clear that you, DCDuring, are not a 'cunning linguist'. Walterblue222 (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Walterblue222 You're starting to get on my nerves. Couldn't you acquaint yourself with the way we do things here, or go play elsewhere? Per utramque cavernam 19:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

No. Walterblue222 (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I blocked the user in question for edit warring and all subsequent inquiries (at least for a while) are best put on their user talk page. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 19:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

How often, if ever, are you uncertain of the gender of a word? Equinox ◑ 18:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox: Mh, good question. Not sure I can give you a meaningful answer; in general, I'd say it's relatively rare.

For rare terms such as piédouche, you have to check a dictionary, because it could be either.

Other than that, there are a few relatively common terms whose gender I never seem to remember, such as épithète or échappatoire. Besides, some nouns are often ascribed to the wrong gender (see a list here: I don't agree that all the words they've mentioned are problematic, but for some of them I'm always surprised when I'm reminded of their correct gender). Notice how it's mostly words ending in -e that are problematic. Mass/uncountable nouns beginning with a vowel are a source of difficulty too, as their gender is generally hidden: de l'ambre (intuitively, I would see it as feminine, but it's masculine), de l'acné (the reverse). Per utramque cavernam 18:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is that feminine correct (bottomme)? Equinox ◑ 18:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox: Huh, I hope not... Going by GB, it doesn't seem to be used. Per utramque cavernam 22:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Removing vaguely related terms from those sections is basically always fine. Some users, mostly Verbo and his alts, had a habit of filling those sections with rubbish (diff), so many Dutch related term sections contain useless links. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I added a lot of references and modern reflexes of the PIE word from different branches. what do you think its needed to fit as a "regular article" (and remove the template of "bad article" ?) ? I dont want to make like, a super excellent article, with like 40 references, since my try is to create dozens of PIE entries that are incomplete. --Lucumur (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

"A user suggests that this Proto-Indo-European reconstruction page be cleaned up. Please see the discussion on Requests for cleanup(+) for more information and remove this template after the problem has been dealt with."

cleaned up of what ? its super clean. I mean, the definition is like 10 words. and later comes the declension, and later the reflexes, later the references. what would be "dirty" here? --Lucumur (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev, Guldrelokk, Stephen G. Brown, Tetromino: Здравствуйте. Could I ask you guys for a favor again? As in the first semester, I have to write a text in Russian, and am supposed to make a presentation off of it. But as last time, I'm afraid it's riddled with grammatical mistakes... Could I ask you to have a quick look at it, and tell me if there are any obvious ones?

I really appreciate any help you can provide.

Chignon – Пучок 21:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Good job! Only minor, mainly stylistic corrections.

В две тысячи десятом году, четыре миллиона восемьсот пятьдесят восемь тысяч человек жили в Норвегии, и около восьмидесяти процентов жителей относились к среднему классу. По сравнению, в Соединённых Штатах Америки, менее шестидесяти процентов относились к среднему классу. Это значит, что по размеру среднего класса, Норвегия - одна из первых стран в мире.

Существует отрицательная корреляция между размером среднего класса и экономическими неравенствами. Значит, что в странах с большим средним классом мало есть неравенств. И действительно Норвегия - очень уравнительное общество. Вообще-то, по равенству, она занимала первое место в мире до прошлого года.

В Норвегии, только шесть процентов населения относятся к богатому классу, и только четырнадцать процентов относятся к бедному классу. Правда, двадцать самых богатых процентов разрабатывают четыре раза более чем двадцать самых бедных процентов. Это может казаться большое число, но надо сравнить это с ситуацией в США, где самые богатые разрабатывают восемь раз более, чем самые бедные.

Даже люди которые работают в ресторанах и в барах, получают хорошую зарплату. И больших разниц между различными профессиями нет. Врач разрабатывает более, чем официанты, наверно, но не намного более.

Почему у Норвегии есть такой большой средний класс, и почему есть такое экономическое равенство? По-моему, две причины есть.

Во-первых, есть прогрессивное налогообложение. Это значит, что богатые люди платят больше налогов чем бедные. Это обеспечивает перераспределение богатства.

Кроме того, Норвегия - государство всеобщего благосостояния. Это значит, что государство играет большую роль в экономии, и участвует во многих сферах жизни. Например, государственные университеты - бесплатные, и здравоохранение совсем не дорогое.

Вы вероятно хотите знать, как государство может позволять себе такие расходы. Потому что в тысяча девятьсот шестьдесят девятом году, нефть была найдена от побережья Норвегии, в Северном море.

Этим объясняется, что почти все могут жить удобно.

Сейчас, я хочу вам дать несколько чисел. В две тысячи семнадцатом году, доходы Норвежцев в среднем составляли шестьсот пятьдесят тысяч Норвежских крон (Валюта Норвегии - Норвежская крона) в год на человека, то есть шестьдесят пять тысяч евро, при нынешнем курсе десять Норвежских крон за евро, то есть две тысячи шестьсот пятьдесят евро в месяц на человека.

Это может казаться много, но жизнь там - очень дорогая. В общем, она (на?) сорок процентов дороже, чем жизнь в Бельгии, особенно в столице, в Осло, где квартплаты очень высокие.

По выходным, Норвежцы любят ходить в театр, и на концерты. Однако, не часто ходят в ресторан или в бар. В любом случае пиво там стоит очень много: например, в Осло, пинта стоит в среднем восемь целых пять десятых евро.

Норвежцам особенно нравятся деятельности под открытым небом, например гулять в лесах и в горах. Они с удовольствием занимаются спортом. Они особенно любят кататься на лыжах. Поэтому у многих Норвежцев есть вторая недвижимость за городом, в природе.

Хотя с незапамятных времен Норвежцы любили путешествовать, молодые люди путешествуют более, чем свои родители. Они в основном посещают европейские города, но совершают тоже дальние путешествия в Америку и в Азию. Вообще, представители среднего класса могут идти в отпуск по крайней мере один раз в год. — This unsigned comment was added by Chignon (talk • contribs).

Норвежский средний класс

В две тысячи десятом году четыре миллиона восемьсот пятьдесят восемь тысяч человек жили в Норвегии и около восьмидесяти процентов жителей относились к среднему классу. По сравнению, в Соединённых Штатах Америки менее шестидесяти процентов относились к среднему классу. Это значит, что по размеру среднего класса Норвегия - одна из первых стран в мире.

Существует отрицательное соотношение между размером среднего класса и экономическими неравенствами. Значит что в странах с большим средним классом есть мало неравенства. И действительно Норвегия - очень уравнительное общество. Вообще-то, по равенству, она занимала первое место в мире до прошлого года.

В Норвегии только шесть процентов населения относятся к богатому классу и только четырнадцать процентов относятся к бедному классу. Правда, двадцать самых богатых процентов зарабатывают в четыре раза больше чем двадцать самых бедных процентов. Это может казаться большое число, но надо сравнить это с ситуацией в США, где самые богатые зарабатывают восемь раз более, чем самые бедные.

Даже люди которые работают в ресторанах и в барах получают хорошую зарплату. И большой разницы между различными профессиями нет. Врач зарабатывает больше чем официант, наверное, но не намного более.

Почему у Норвегии есть такой большой средний класс, и почему есть такое экономическое равенство? По-моему, есть две причины.

Во-первых, есть прогрессивное налогообложение. Это значит, что богатые люди платят больше налогов, чем бедные. Это обеспечивает перераспределение богатства.

Кроме того, Норвегия - государство всеобщего благосостояния. Это значит, что государство играет большую роль в экономике, и участвует во многих сферах жизни. Например, государственные университеты - бесплатные, и здравоохранение совсем не дорогое.

Вы вероятно хотите знать, как государство может позволять себе такие расходы. Потому что в тысяча девятьсот шестьдесят девятом году, у побережья Норвегии, в Северном море, была найдена нефть.

Этим и объясняется, что почти все могут жить относительно хорошо.

Сейчас я хочу вам привести несколько цифр. В две тысячи семнадцатом году доходы норвежцев в среднем составляли шестьсот пятьдесят тысяч норвежских крон (валюта Норвегии - норвежская крона) в год на человека, то есть шестьдесят пять тысяч евро, при нынешнем курсе десять норвежских крон за евро, то есть две тысячи шестьсот пятьдесят евро в месяц на человека.

Это может показаться много, но жизнь там - очень дорогая. В общем, она на сорок процентов дороже, чем жизнь в Бельгии, особенно в столице, в Осло, где квартплата очень высокая.

По выходным норвежцы любят ходить в театр и на концерты. Однако, они не часто ходят в рестораны или бары. В любом случае, пиво там стоит очень много: например, в Осло, одна пинта стоит в среднем восемь целых пять десятых евро.

Норвежцам особенно нравится деятельность под открытым небом, например гулять в лесах и в горах. Они с удовольствием занимаются спортом. Они особенно любят кататься на лыжах. Поэтому у многих норвежцев есть вторая недвижимость за городом, на природе.

Хотя с незапамятных времён норвежцы любили путешествовать, молодые люди путешествуют больше, чем их родители. Они в основном посещают европейские города, но совершают также дальние путешествия в Америку и в Азию. Вообще, представители среднего класса могут идти в отпуск по крайней мере один раз в год. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev: Thank you Anatoli! Chignon – Пучок 20:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

No worries, BTW “another text” is better translated as «ещё один текст», not «другой текст» (a different text). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Bary! About the soft sign in greek, sorry that i do not know. wikibooks says μαλακό σημείο for (Ь/ь), and σκληρό σημείο for Ъ/ъ but I would not trust entirely. Specifically for russian, most websites either copy this term, or they just use the russian names: «ь» (μιάχκιι ζνακ) και «ъ» (τβιόρντιι ζνακ). --sarri.greek (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Sarri.greek: Yes, I wouldn't trust wikibooks either, μαλακό/σκληρό σημείο don't seem to be used anywhere else. I'm a bit surprised you don't have a proper translation for this. Does nobody learn Russian in Greece?! Chignon – Пучок 18:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Sarri.greek: You can always add an SoP translation, or if there is no established translation, you can add it in quotes: μαλακό σημείο n (malakó simeío), «μιάχκιι ζνακ» m («miáchkii znak»). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev: But I'm afraid SOPness is not the problem here ("μαλακό σημείο" would be no more SOP than the other translations, imo): it's simply not used outside of Wikibooks. Edit: looking around a bit, I see it's used elsewhere, for example in this book, which has an ISBN, and also here. That's almost good enough for me. Chignon – Пучок 10:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

If it were not used elsewhere but it is a valid translation (or the only possible translation, if you wish), you can still surround it with quotes to avoid any accusations that you use an unattested term. See my Russian translations at [[boat people]] or [[Darija]], where I used that "trick". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

As for "I don't want to canvass, but please vote at Wiktionary:Votes/2019-03/Excluding typos and scannos", I am not sure what you think you are doing. Like "I don't want to do X, but here I do X"? You could have said "A relevant vote is Y" in the same place without pinging anyone; the effect would be very similar without the curious contradiction. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Dan Polansky: Yes, sorry. Chignon – Пучок 11:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply