User talk:Surjection/archive/2021

Archives: 2018 • 2019-1 • 2019-2 • 2020-1 • 2020-2

Please add a new topic by clicking or tapping here. Remember to add a subject.

Please return my right

Hi, I wasn't aware that I'm not allowed to delete pages using extended mover. I'll not repeat it, so please re-grant me that right. Thanks. 🔥𑀰𑀩𑁆𑀤𑀰𑁄𑀥𑀓🔥 16:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, I deleted only pages that were tagged by auto-patrollers, so it wasn't vandalism or anything wrong. 🔥𑀰𑀩𑁆𑀤𑀰𑁄𑀥𑀓🔥 16:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

No. It seems pretty obvious the community cannot trust you with the right. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 17:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, please restore all the moved pages, the pages weren't wrong, and it took me a considerable time to make them. 🔥𑀰𑀩𑁆𑀤𑀰𑁄𑀥𑀓🔥 17:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, don't re-grant me the right, but please restore the pages. Thanks. 🔥𑀰𑀩𑁆𑀤𑀰𑁄𑀥𑀓🔥 17:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I cannot restore the pages because they were created incorrectly. The best I can do is provide the page content they had before they were deleted. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 17:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, please do so. It took me a lot of time to create them. Thanks. 🔥𑀰𑀩𑁆𑀤𑀰𑁄𑀥𑀓🔥 17:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

[1] — surjection ⟨??⟩ 17:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much. 🔥𑀰𑀩𑁆𑀤𑀰𑁄𑀥𑀓🔥 17:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much

Thanks so much for these editions. Kind regards. --37.11.120.5 02:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hieroglyphics

Why were my edits to those pages with hieroglyphics reverted? If I'm not wrong, the majority of Wiktionary entries do not have a line break in articles featuring Egyptian hieroglyphics, and the ones I edited were outliers that I was trying to correct. 102.115.150.244 06:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, based on the хата#Ukrainian (which I have never edited) and the display on 𐎿𐎤𐎢𐎭𐎼 after my edit, it appears that the template does not render the terms for the Scythian language. This might need to be corrected. 102.115.150.244 06:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The whole <div> hack is a kludge that does not have widespread acceptance and should not be added to entries without widespread consensus. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 07:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Tamil Nadu

You reverted my edit. The whole thing was wrong. So, I changed it to remove the plagiarism there. Gershon Jonish (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong there. The Portuguese entry (I don't think you noticed that it is the Portuguese entry) getting it from Hindi is totally plausible. That doesn't mean it doesn't originally come from Tamil, just that it passed through Hindi. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 09:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Where is the citation that the Portuguese entry was taken from Hindi. This is a state in India where Tamil is spoken. Hence, it is named as Tamil Nadu. Nadu means Land in Tamil. Like Deutschland where they speak Deutsch. Hindi is not the only spoken language in India. Tamil is older than Hindi. How could have the people of Portugal use Hindi as an intermediate language. In fact, when Vasco da gama, a portuguese sailor reached India he first landed in the south where Tamil was spoken.

Another thing is that there is already an etymology in English. Why there has to be a seperate one for Portuguese. A seperate one Hindi doesn't exist in the first place. — This unsigned comment was added by Gershon Jonish (talk • contribs) at 14:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC).

You are free to request a citation for the etymology (even though it is pretty obvious), but not edit war to restore the non-etymology back as you are doing right now, which is why I have blocked you for disruptive editing from the page.

"This is a state in India where Tamil is spoken." is insignificant, as my previous message already detailed. The Portuguese term coming from Hindi does not preclude that Hindi got it from Tamil (which it did, as that is where the term originated).

"Tamil is older than Hindi" on the other hand proves that you are not here in good faith, but only seeking to edit tendentiously. I suggest you stop before you get permanently blocked for it.

"Why there has to be a seperate one for Portuguese." Because we have an etymology for every entry, regardless of the language that entry is for. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 15:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You are thinking that you are some superior person with access to block someone so that you can do anything. Wrong content is being delivered. You're the one claiming that. You should be the one to give a citation. You are the one who started the edit war. Spreading false information and claiming that it is correct. — This unsigned comment was added by Gershon Jonish (talk • contribs) at 15:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC).

You are free to start a discussion on WT:ES if you feel the etymology needs to be altered. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 20:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Tausug

Why not call the Tausug language *sulu kieli in Finnish? --Apisite (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It's ungrammatical and I don't see much reason to call it that anyway. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 09:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Surjection: What would be grammatical then? --Apisite (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Using the genitive case as sulun kieli. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 15:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The guy who deletes translations

I deleted those translations because I like more native words. 小巴西人 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@小巴西人 That is not a valid argument for removing correct translations. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 21:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Surjection You're right, sorry, it's really a not valid argument. — 小巴西人 — This unsigned comment was added at 01:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC).

@Surjection By the way, Do you like loan words? — 小巴西人 — This unsigned comment was added at 01:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC).

If a comment from the side is allowed, I would wish to point out that we don't "like" or "dislike" words here. Our aim is to document the words as they are actually used by the speakers. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Got it. --小巴西人 — This unsigned comment was added at 13:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC).

hyökkäyskanta

This is a similar word as was keskuus which we earlier discussed. This term is only used in adessive, ablative and allative, at least according to the Kotus dictionary and the old Nykysuomen sanakirja. Thus I suggest this page is made to a REDIRECT to hyökkäyskannalla (“on the offensive”) and entries created also for hyökkäyskannalta and hyökkäyskannalle. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That indeed seems to be the case. Since mainspace redirects are to be avoided, I'll just delete it and create the adverb entries. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 21:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I created hyökkäyskannalla and hyökkäyskannalle, but hyökkäyskannalta does not seem to be attestable. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 21:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. For some reason, hyökkäyskannalta is in the Kotus. With some goodwill, one can actually find the three citations required. Two were from the electronic gaming world and one from a text contemplating religious debate. Thus, I added that too, plus puolustuskannalla, puolustuskannalta and puolustuskannalle. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

slurs in wiktionary definitions

Is there some reason that the g-slur needs to be in this definition? --172.125.237.54 19:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It's very much comparable to how the Finnish term is as a derogatory term. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 20:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Already

I completely missed the addition of that new section (I think I saw the Arabic text and mentally filtered out that part of the page as a non-English definition) but thanks to your revert message I now see what happened. As it stands, the movement of the semantically-loaned usage of 'already' into a separate etymology heading still seems odd given it shares a morphological etymology with the other usages. E.g. the page for French souris -- the word wiktionary gives as an example of a 'semantic loan' -- does not separate the loaned usage from the others. Is there a policy on dealing with this or is it just done on a page-by-page basis currently? 65.175.175.141 22:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think thers is any consistent policy, and it could be argued that semantic loans should be under the same etymology. Specific entries are usually discussed over at the Tea Room, if you think this is a matter for the community to talk about. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 22:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Talk:haste makes waste

Hello Surjection. I noticed that you recently deleted Talk:haste makes waste which, based on my watchlist emails, was just beforehand edited by the user Islander of Woman. You didn't leave a specific explanation for the deletion so, in the interest of transparency and personal curiosity, can you provide some insight into why you deleted the page, assuming your at liberty to do so. Does it have anything to do with a belief that Islander of Woman is a WF sock puppet? —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Not directly. A {{delete}} was simply added onto the page, which had some random story on it (which had been there since 2014). — surjection ⟨??⟩ 20:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, very innocuous then. Thanks for the response and take care. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Edits to neekeri

Mind taking a look at neekeri? I've reverted some recent anon edits which I thought were a bit questionable, but I'd like a second (native) opinion. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Most of it was just redundant to the existing entry. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 20:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

My one month ban

Since my one month ban is over, I'm first gonna ask what were my editing errors precisely, so I won't repeat them in the future.

But also, concerning the use of cuneiform, I think I didn't explain myself well. I didn't simply pick the signs corresponding to the syllables from the table and add them to the descendants section, I cross checked the Elamite and Akkadian terms with the actual cuneiform inscriptions and only when I found that the inscriptions' and the tables' signs were the same did I use them for the descendants section on the Wiktionary pages. I always left them blank when I wasn't sure the signs were the same as on the inscriptions.

And, lastly, I'd like to add that I only have a very limited set of data to add to Wiktionary, that I had already added most of it by the time I got IP banned, and that once I'm done I'm probably not gonna edit Wiktionary anytime soon unless I obtain more data. If you permit it, can I add the final amount of data I have to the Wiktionary pages? 102.116.146.68 11:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The error was not simply paying enough attention to the sources and making sure you understood them correctly; User talk:102.115.140.229 had some examples. You should prioritize quality, getting things as right as possible, over quantity, the speed at which you add the data. If you're not certain about something, just don't add it. If you need further help, I suggest you ask Vorziblix when it comes to Egyptian/hieroglyphs, Victar for Old Persian and Profes.I. for Semitic/cuneiform (but understand that they might not be able to respond to you immediately, if at all, and that asking too often might be considered pestering). — surjection ⟨??⟩ 13:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Surjection/archive/2021 I see that you have invited me to your usertalkpage in case I objected to your reversion of my edit, so I came here to learn. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The Roleback

It is an error! Because it is purely English quote!

2001:16A2:C062:5A88:C108:DA1C:455B:E10B 09:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it isn't (relatively-standard modern) English, as definitions are supposed to be. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 09:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

olema

Hi, I strongly believe this section of olema should be deleted. There is no situation where you could use the agent participle of olla, because the verb is a copula, i.e. it doesn't have an object, no accusative nor partitive. -- Puisque (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

If you check the edit history, you can see this has been going on back and forth for years.[2] It would be nice to have that form, but if there are no examples of where you could use it, then it does not exist (and the verb has only the infinite forms -maan/-masta/-malla/-matta forms). -- Puisque (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, they should be deleted indeed as I don't think they can be used even with regards to the verb's only transitive meaning. Even though it is possible to say e.g. ollaan hippaa ("let's play tag"), heidän olemansa hippaleikki (intended meaning: "the game of tag played by them") would sound ridiculous. Thus olema and all its forms should be deleted. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It indeed seems that it's not used, so I'll remove it. I remember creating it because I thought I had found some uses (but I guess I never actually got around to adding any evidence in the form of citations). I tried looking for some again, but every use I can find from BGC is either (1) a scanno, (2) a typo or grammatical mistake or (3) one that has been explicitly marked as reconstructed (with * or **). I can find some evidence for a rare (and probably archaic) noun olema, but I doubt it would be attestable either. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 15:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

What is etymology?

As I find through entries on Wiktionary, I often see "Etymology". What exactly is etymology? 128.194.2.86 15:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a dictionary; use it: etymology. Equinox ◑ 16:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

rose-colored glasses

Hi! I imagine you know the English phrase rose-colored glasses (optimism, happy expectations). I think there might be a Finnish idiom with similar surface but different meaning. A Finn told me that "vaaleanpunaiset lasit" (pink glasses) suggests that someone is naive (perhaps like English green). Is that true? Should there be an entry? Equinox ◑ 06:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I think he might've confused it with rose-colored glasses, which can be glossed here as being "naively optimistic" about something. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 07:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

kontrolloimaton

You made a mistake in the second participle definition, you put the wrong verb lemma. User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 12:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Finnish_redlinks

I've probably misunderstood the purpose of this page. I assumed it would contain all Finnish entries linked to but not yet in existance, and instead, it seems to list off every Finnish entry, or possibly every entry with a redlink (which almost all of them do have thanks to inflection). What's the point of this category? Llittleserie (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it contains every page that links to a Finnish page that does not exist yet. Someone probably requested such a category be created once upon a time, but I haven't really found much use for it. If I were to decide, it wouldn't exist and instead we'd have some automatically created page which lists the redlinks themselves. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 14:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

How would one go about requesting a category? Llittleserie (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

There isn't really any centralized way to do that. What kind of category would you like to see? — surjection ⟨??⟩ 09:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

One as discussed above – a place to find pages linked but not yet extant. And it shouldn't include redlinks from inflectional tables because the spam would make it as unusable as Category:Finnish_redlinks. Llittleserie (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is not possible due to technical restrictions - only pages that exist can be listed in categories, for one. The best alternative would probably be to manually generate such dumps from the data and placing a list under a user page. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 18:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like you're describing User:Jberkel's User:Jberkel/lists/wanted/latest/fi. — Eru·tuon 04:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Erutuon Thank you! This looks useful. Llittleserie (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, that would defeat the purpose I'd have for it – that being to quickly find needed defintions, like a sort of auto-request-system. Now, would it be difficult to automatically populate a category like the one in the title of this convo with the exception of excluding all links in the templates Template:fi-decl-X and Template:fi-conj-X? Llittleserie (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't think of any way to implement that. How would it defeat the purpose, though? The table generated and placed on a user page could have the redlink as well as the pages that link to it. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 19:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The way the redlink categories are implemented is absolutely horrible from a technical point of view, and was only allowed because enough people found it useful. Adding more overhead to an already inefficient system that runs in every link generated by any template anywhere on Wiktionary would be an extremely hard sell- probably not worth the effort. I think you still might be able to use the current setup by only looking at entries in other languages. That would eliminate all the inflection-template hits and give you only entries that have links in either the translations or the etymologies. Both have their problems because they tend to attract people who have no clue about the languages they're linking to- but at least they're all entries a human being made a decision to link to. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thracian

Where should I address requests for creating templates to enable rendering entries for Thracian language terms and for the modification of the already existing templates so Thracian terms can be represented by the Latin alphabet in addition to the Greek alphabet already accepted by Wiktionary? Antiquistik (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

WT:BP would be my guess. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 14:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

lopullinen

Hi, I was just curious, given the meaning of this word, are there any derived terms (mainly compound words I suppose) that you could add to this? I quite like the extensiveness of Wiktionary's current coverage of the Finnish language, but I'm sure there are many more terms (without even considering nonlemmas) that are as yet undefined here. I'd also like to thank you for all your hard work, from defining terms to admin work and whatever else. It's always nice to see people putting in so much work here on Wiktionary. :) User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 13:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Might be, but I'm not entirely sure. I can't immediately think of any compounds that have lopullinen in them, as it's mostly used as a separate word. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 14:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe -loppuinen is more akin to what you're likely looking for. Llittleserie (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

-stella

Does this suffix deserve an entry of its own? It isn't really an independent suffix, but rather just the shape -ella assumes when affixed to -staa-type verbs. Thirteen articles currently contain a redlink to it. Would it be more sensible to go through each of these entries separately and replace the current mention of a pseudo-suffix with a mention of whichever rare, dialectal or possibly theoretical verb (hienostaa, hurjastaa, kuulustaa etc.) they descend of? The main problem in this is I'm not sure all of these verbs ("tyhmistellä", for example) have been treated in literature before. The verbs are as follows:

• hienostella
• hurjastella
• kainostella
• kuulustella
• mielistellä
• pyristellä
• sirostella
• tuskastella
• tutkistella
• tyhmistellä
• ujostella
• vilpistellä
• vitkastella

Llittleserie (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

If the -staa verb is unattestable, the only real option is to consider -stella as its own suffix (especially since there are this many verbs for which it applies). There are some parallels (-tella for one). — surjection ⟨??⟩ 13:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I rose my leg until it met the threshold. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tavata

The sentence in the subject doesn't make sense in the address mentioned. Please, as a Finnish language knower you are, I'd like to ask you to put it right, because the "to rise the leg" until the threshold is a weird (or impossible) thing. Maybe "to rise the leg" until the jamb (of the door) or until the top of the door frame fits better. What do you think?

Regards,

Roger Monteirorogerio (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Entirely aside from the "threshold" issue, the sentence is ungrammatical: in English "rise" is generally (with some extremely obscure exceptions) intransitive. Your leg can rise, but you can't "rise" it. The correct verb to use would be raise, which means "cause to rise". Chuck Entz (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the example isn't the greatest. I'll see if I can get something useful out of it. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 07:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

fuckshitdick

Hi S. It's that time again to impose a wikibreak upon myself. Would you like to do the honours of blocking me? Yellow is the colour (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)