text:
precession

Etymology
From, , from , from.

Noun

 * 1)  Precedence.
 * But as it will not do to talk entirely at random, as Montaigne does, and Ralph Waldo Emerson tries to do, we must take up some little thread or threads. and string our thoughts thereupon, keeping up also a relation among them of precession and succession.
 * 1)  The wobbling motion of the axis of a spinning body when there is an external force acting on the axis.
 * 2)  The slow gyration of the earth's axis around the pole of the ecliptic, caused mainly by the gravitational torque of the sun and moon.
 * 3) Any of several slow changes in an astronomical body's rotational or orbital parameters.

Translations

 * Bulgarian:
 * Czech: předcházení
 * Finnish:

 * Ancient Greek: μετάπτωσις
 * Czech: precese
 * Dutch:
 * Finnish:
 * German:
 * Greek:
 * Norwegian: presesjon
 * Polish:
 * Russian:
 * Spanish:

 * Ancient Greek: μετάπτωσις
 * Bulgarian: прецесия
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin: 進動, ,
 * Czech: precese
 * Dutch:
 * Finnish:
 * French:
 * German:
 * Greek:
 * Hungarian:, (állócsillagoké)
 * Irish: luainíocht
 * Japanese: 歳差,, 首振り運動
 * Kazakh: прецессия
 * Korean: 세차(歲差)
 * Polish:
 * Russian:

 * Swedish:

title: precession


text:
precession of the equinoxes

Noun

 * 1) The slow westward shift of the equinoxes along the plane of the ecliptic, resulting from precession of the earth's axis of rotation, and causing the equinoxes to occur earlier each year.

Translations

 * Spanish: precesión de los equinoccios

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: precession of the equinoxes


text:
rotation

Etymology
Borrowed from. .

Noun

 * 1)  The act of turning around a centre or an axis.
 * The earth's rotation about its axis is responsible for its being slightly oblate rather than a sphere.
 * 1) A single complete cycle around a centre or an axis.
 * Earth's moon completes a rotation every twenty-seven days or so.
 * 1) A regular variation in a sequence, such as to even out wear, or people taking turns in a task; a duty roster.
 * Applying crop rotation to a field avoids depleting soil nutrients the way repeated use of a single crop might do.
 * In rotation, each member of the group would be responsible for the beacon fire.
 * The medical resident finished a two-week rotation in pediatrics and began one in orthopaedics.
 * 1)  An operation on a metric space that is a continuous isometry and fixes at least one point.
 * The function mapping (x,y) to (−y,x) is a rotation.
 * 1)  The set of starting pitchers of a team.
 * 2)  The step during takeoff when the pilot commands the vehicle to lift the nose wheel off the ground during the takeoff roll. (see also: V2)
 * 3) Repeated play on a radio station, etc.
 * The new single enjoyed heavy rotation on MTV.
 * The new single enjoyed heavy rotation on MTV.

Synonyms

 * turning
 * revolution
 * rota, roster, duty roster, schedule, turn, turn and turn about, cycling

Translations

 * Afrikaans: rotasie
 * Amharic: ሽክርክር
 * Arabic:
 * Armenian:
 * Belarusian: вярчэ́нне
 * Bulgarian:
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:, ,
 * Dutch:
 * Finnish:
 * French:
 * Galician:
 * German:
 * Greek:
 * Hindi:
 * Indonesian: ,
 * Italian:
 * Japanese: ,
 * Kazakh: айналу
 * Korean:
 * Latin: rotatio
 * Malay:
 * Malayalam: തിരിയല്,
 * Maori: tāwhirowhironga
 * Old English: ymbhwyrft, wendung
 * Ottoman Turkish: چرخ
 * Persian:
 * Polish:
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian:
 * Spanish:
 * Swedish:
 * Tagalog: inog
 * Telugu:
 * Thai:
 * Turkish:, , ,
 * Ukrainian: оберта́ння, верті́ння

 * Armenian:
 * Belarusian: абаро́т
 * Bulgarian:
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Dutch:
 * Finnish:
 * French:
 * German:
 * Greek:
 * Italian:, giro completo, , ciclo completo
 * Japanese:
 * Korean:
 * Polish:
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian: ,
 * Swedish:
 * Tagalog: inog
 * Turkish: ,
 * Ukrainian: оборо́т, о́берт, вито́к

 * Belarusian: чаргава́нне
 * Bulgarian:
 * Finnish:
 * Greek:
 * Italian:, rotazione delle colture
 * Russian:
 * Ukrainian: чергува́ння

 * Armenian:
 * Dutch:
 * Finnish:
 * Greek:
 * Maori: hurihanga
 * Russian:
 * Swedish:
 * Vietnamese: phép quay

 * Turkish:

Etymology
.

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) act of turning a physical object or a coordinate system around a center or an axis

title: rotation


text:
coordinate system

Noun

 * 1)  A method of representing the position of any individual point in a space of given dimensionality as a tuple of numerical coordinates.
 * 2) * 1992, D. H. Maling, Coordinate Systems and Map Projections, 2nd Edition, Pergamon Press, page 27,
 * In this chapter we review some of the fundamental ideas about the plane coordinate systems which are used in surveying and mapping, both from the viewpoint of studying the mathematics of map projections and the practical tasks which arise in cartography.

Translations

 * Arabic: نِظَامُ إِحْدَاثِيَّاتٍ
 * Armenian: կոորդինատային համակարգ
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Czech: soustava souřadnic
 * Danish:
 * Dutch:
 * Esperanto: koordinatsistemo
 * French:
 * German:
 * Hindi: निर्देशांक तंत्र
 * Hungarian:
 * Italian: sistema di coordinate
 * Japanese:
 * Korean:
 * Kurdish:
 * Northern Kurdish:
 * Latin: systēma coōrdinātārum
 * Norwegian:
 * Bokmål: koordinatsystem
 * Nynorsk: koordinatsystem
 * Polish:
 * Portuguese: sistema de coordenadas
 * Romanian: sistem de coordonate
 * Russian:
 * Somali: iskuxidh nidaamyo
 * Spanish: sistema de coordenadas
 * Swedish:
 * Tagalog: tayuwatan, kaayusang katayuwat

title: coordinate system


text:
Laplace transform

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  an integral transform of    $$f(t)$$ to a  function $$F(s)$$; given by:
 * $$F(s) = \int_0^\infty f(t) e^{-st}\,dt.$$

Translations

 * Catalan: transformada de Laplace
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin: 拉普拉斯變換, 拉普拉斯轉換, 拉卜拉士變換
 * Finnish: Laplace-muunnos
 * French:
 * German: Laplace-Transformation
 * Hindi: लाप्लास रुपांतर
 * Hungarian:
 * Icelandic: Laplace-mynd, Laplace-færsla
 * Japanese: ラプラス変換
 * Portuguese: transformação de Laplace, transformada de Laplace
 * Romanian: transformată Laplace
 * Russian: преобразова́ние Лапла́са
 * Swedish: Laplacetransform

title: Laplace transform


text:
legislator

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) Someone who creates or enacts laws.
 * 2) especially a member of a legislative body.
 * 3) especially not any individual member of a legislative body but the abstracted author of a statute or statutes relevant for the.
 * 1) especially not any individual member of a legislative body but the abstracted author of a statute or statutes relevant for the.
 * 1) especially not any individual member of a legislative body but the abstracted author of a statute or statutes relevant for the.

Translations

 * Albanian:
 * Arabic: مُشَرِّع, مُشَرِّعَة
 * Armenian:
 * Azerbaijani: qanunverən, qanunverici
 * Belarusian: заканада́ўца, заканада́вец
 * Bulgarian: законода́тел, законода́телка
 * Catalan: legislador, legisladora
 * Chinese:
 * Cantonese: 立法者
 * Mandarin: 立法者
 * Czech: zákonodárce,
 * Danish: lovgiver, lovgiverinde, lovgiverske
 * Dutch:, wetgeefster
 * Esperanto: parlamentano, parlamentanino
 * Estonian: seadusandja
 * Finnish:
 * French: ,
 * Georgian: კანონმდებელი
 * German:, Gesetzgeberin . Gesetzesmacher, Gesetzesmacherin
 * Greek:, νομοθέτις
 * Ancient: νομοθέτης
 * Hindi: ,
 * Hungarian:
 * Indonesian:
 * Irish: reachtóir
 * Italian: ,
 * Japanese: 立法者
 * Kazakh: заң шығарушы
 * Khmer:
 * Korean: 입법자, 립법자
 * Lao: ນິຕິບຸກຄົນ
 * Latin: lēgislātor
 * Latvian: likumdevējs, likumdevēja
 * Lithuanian: leidėjas
 * Macedonian: законодавец
 * Maori: kaihanga ture, kaiwhakature, kaiwhakaarature
 * Norman: législateu
 * Norwegian:
 * Bokmål: lovgiver
 * Nynorsk: lovgivar, lovgjevar
 * Old English: ǣlǣdend
 * Ottoman Turkish: قانونجی
 * Persian: قانون‌گذار
 * Plautdietsch: Jesazjäwa
 * Polish:, ustawodawczyni, , prawodawczyni,
 * Portuguese:, legisladora
 * Romanian:, , , legislatoare
 * Russian: ,
 * Serbo-Croatian:
 * Cyrillic: законода́вац, законо̀да̄вка
 * Roman: ,
 * Slovak: zákonodarca, zákonodarkyňa
 * Slovene: zakonodajalec, zakonodajalka
 * Spanish: ,
 * Swedish:, lagstifterska
 * Tagalog: mambabatas, lehislador, lehisladora
 * Tajik: қонунгузор
 * Thai: ผู้บัญญัติกฎหมาย
 * Turkish:
 * Ukrainian: законода́вець, законода́виця
 * Urdu: قانون ساز
 * Uzbek: qonun chikaruvchi
 * Vietnamese: người làm luật, người lập pháp
 * Welsh: deddfwr

Etymology
.

Etymology
In Classical Latin, the word is usually written separately:

Noun

 * 1) * c. 130-180 , Gaius, Institutiones, 3.76
 * "la"
 * "la"

- nec me praeterit non satis in ea re legislatorem voluntatem suam verbis expressisse

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  legal expert

Etymology
..

title: legislator


text:
bí

Noun

 * 1) feces

Etymology 1
From.

The present indicative independent affirmative analytic form is from, from (compare 🇨🇬), from.

Verb

 * 1)  to be

Usage notes

 * Only used with adjective or prepositional phrases as the predicate, never with noun phrases, for which the copular particle is used instead.

Conjugation
Although the present dependent is generally used instead, the present independent affirmative is immune to in most dialects and never would be subject to.

Etymology 2
From.

Noun

 * 1) pitch, resin

Pronoun

 * : he, she, it; they two
 * : his, hers, its; theirs (for two people)

Etymology 1
Inflected forms of, derived from , from.

Verb

Descendants
The following forms are descended from the imperative:

Verb

Verb

 * 1) to peel
 * 2) to open up; to tear
 * 1) to open up; to tear

Derived terms

 * bí nhác

Etymology 1
From, from. Cognate with 🇨🇬, proto-Monic *cmpiir (modern 🇨🇬), 🇨🇬 sᵊpir¹, 🇨🇬 [Cuang] hmpiːr ("melon").

This word was originally referred to some kind of native gourd (pumpkins are from the Americas), most likely the wax gourd, now also commonly called ; or maybe it was (and is still) just the word for cucurbits in general.

Noun

 * 1) pumpkin
 * 2) other plants in the  family

Etymology 2
.

Adjective

 * 1)  mysterious, secret, unknown

Verb

 * 1)  to not know

title: bí


text:
mysteries

Noun

 * 1)  a number of secret societies or cults

title: mysteries


text:
Laplacian

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * Of, or relating to Laplace.

Translations

 * Czech: laplaceovský
 * Italian:
 * Portuguese: laplaciano
 * Spanish:
 * Swedish: Laplace-

Noun

 * 1)  The Laplace operator.

title: Laplacian


text:
estnisk

Adjective

 * 1) Estonian; from; of; or pertaining to Estonia, the people of Estonia or the language of Estonia

title: estnisk


text:
snooze

Etymology
. Compare 🇨🇬 or 🇨🇬.

Verb

 * 1)  To sleep, especially briefly; to nap, doze.
 * 2)  To pause; to postpone for a short while.
 * 1)  To pause; to postpone for a short while.

Translations

 * Arabic: غَفَا
 * Bulgarian:
 * Catalan:, dormitejar
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Dutch:
 * Finnish: ,
 * French: faire une sieste, faire un somme,
 * Galician: durmiñar, tutar, sonetar,, trasvaiar, dormentar, dormexar, cochar,
 * Georgian: წაუძინებს, თვლემს
 * German:, , ein Nickerchen machen
 * Greek:, παίρνω έναν υπνάκο
 * Hungarian: ,
 * Japanese:
 * Maori: hāmoemoe, kānewha, kānewhanewha, newha, nenewha
 * Polish:
 * Portuguese: ,
 * Romanian: ,
 * Russian:, , ,
 * Scottish Gaelic: dèan dùsal
 * Spanish:
 * Swedish: ta en tupplur

Noun

 * 1) A brief period of sleep; a nap.
 * 2)  The snooze button on an alarm clock.
 * 3)  Something boring.
 * 1)  The snooze button on an alarm clock.
 * 2)  Something boring.

Translations

 * Arabic: غَفْوَة
 * Bulgarian:
 * Catalan:, , capcinada,
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Finnish: ,
 * French:
 * Georgian: ხანმოკლე ძილი
 * German: ,
 * Greek:
 * Japanese:, うたた寝
 * Ottoman Turkish: اویقو
 * Persian:
 * Polish:
 * Portuguese: ,
 * Russian: коро́ткий сон, лёгкий сон, ,
 * Scottish Gaelic: dùsal, norrag
 * Spanish:
 * Swedish:

 * Finnish: unettava
 * Spanish: ,

title: snooze


text:
Wiktionary talk:Entry layout/archive 2002

The current layout won't work as the etymology/thesaurus/quotation section could be different for each subdefinition.

One way to get around this is to use disambiguation like Wikipedia, or just by numbering separate articles so we would have dog(1), dog(2), dog(3) with the article dog pointing to all of these. --Imran 11:09 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)

 * So, the basic definitions would be left on the main page but the etymology and usage examples would be on diambiguation pages?

 * Yes --Imran

 * That should work but for the most common usage, or words with very concrete etymology, should the entry remain on the main article? -- Tobes

 * Etymology could vary for different meaning of a word, I can't think of any English examples off the top of my head, but in Arabic the word for philosopher is sufi from the Greek suf (Wisdom), but the Arabic word for mystic is also sufi but it comes from an early arabic word rather than from the Greek root. So I think anything but the basic def. should be off in its own page. --Imran 00:48 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

- I think that we should go for some form of standarized markup system for the individual sections (etymology, spellings, et al) as a dictionary will neccessarily be more standardized than an encyclopedia, it would also allow on the fly conversions of formatting.--Imran 11:09 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)

 * Are you suggesting using something like XML (or a wiki equivalent), or simply standardizing entries using the existing syntax? XML is theoretically more attractive, especially when dealing with large numbers of entries, but it's not very practical for having random people create entries. If we stick to a simple template with headers and ordered lists, it should be fairly straightforward to pick out the individual sections with Perl or some other data mining tool if the need arises. -- Merphant

 * As long as we follow a standard it shouldn't matter how we do it. --Imran 00:48 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

 * I think at the moment it would be good to evolve a comprehensive template using the existing syntax and stick to it. Maybe we could put a link to the template specification in the edit page to make sure that it is followed. Perhaps later we could simplify things by modifying the edit page to provide different boxes for noun,verb,synonym,translation etc? Arvindn 11:43 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC)

Moving most of the Template article here leaving only the currently proposed template.

The ultimate goal of this page is to create a standard Wiktionary entry template that is flexible enough to handle multiple definitions, etymologies, synonyms, etc. and can thus be used for all Wiktionary entries. Since Wiktionary is so new, most entries tend to evolve on their own anyway, but please use this page as a guide. If you see something in a Wiktionary entry that works better than what is here, please incorporate it into this article.

Part of speech, e.g. noun

[Syllable1-Syllable2] pronunciation1 / pronunciation2

 * 1. Definition text goes here.
 * Synonyms: synonym1, synonym2, synonym3.
 * Antonyms: antonym1, antonym2, antonym3.

 * 2. Another definition, still a noun.
 * Synonyms: etc.

A different part of speech, e.g. verb

[Syllable1-Syllable2] pronunciation3 (if necessary)

 * 3. Defintion for the verb; synonyms, as above.

== Etymology == Etymology details go here

== Translations ==
 * 1) Word (language code)-Complications with translation...
 * 2) Word (language code)

Thoughts on what to include, copied from "Wiktionary:Wiktionary Definition Standards" (defunct):

A definition template could consist of the following:
 * the word, including:
 * Word split up into syllables.
 * alternate spellings
 * plural formation (for nouns)
 * past tense and past participle (for verbs)
 * comparative (for adjectives)
 * derivation or etymology
 * identification of usual part of speech (see the Wikipeda article on many parts of speech of the
 * definitions (one of two orders)
 * most common meaning to least common
 * first use to most recent use

 * usage examples, where needed, with each definition
 * synonyms
 * antonyms
 * other related words or relationships

-Tobes

My suggestions * compound noun (e.g : trade union in trade), phrasal verbs, proverbs at the end of the template. * it is not really to be include in the template : languages should be classed alphabeticaly --Youssefsan
 * Inclusions of the translations at the same level that synonyms (it is more easy for words with a lot of meanings and various categories)
 * Inclusion next to the translations, remarques for translatiosn (e.g : false friends)

I agree with the first two point (esp. the first) but I'm not sure how useful the third will be. Anyway, I've hacked your vision of point one at dog. --Maveric149

One thing that has to be notd is that some words are spelt teh same in diffrent langauges. So possibly a is needed and then a repeate of teh template? -fonzy

Another thing to consider is that words that are spelt the same in a language do not necessarily have the same etymology. For example, the Dutch word riem can mean (1) belt, (2) oar or (3) ream. (1) derives from Old English reoma, (2) from Latin remus and (3) from Arabic rizma. We should think about how to differentiate between them. We could group the meanings of a word which have the same etymology, but it's not really clear to me how to do that in an uncomplicated way. Ideas? D.D. 11:46 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

See what I've said at Talk:Wiktionary:Entry layout explained --Imran 12:03 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

 * Ok, thanks. I must have overlooked it :-) D.D. 12:09 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

See also portmanteau and talk:portmanteau for the following:

AFAIK, fr: and nl: do not have a separate adjective for portmanteau in the linguistic sense. Mot-valise and mengwoord are both nouns and mean portmanteau word. To write "nl: mengwoord (adj)" and "fr: mot-valise (adj)" is not correct. I've tried to clarify that after nl:. Any comments? D.D. 12:35 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier in this respect to number the meanings through without starting again at a new word class? D.D. 12:40 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

What about flexional forms in languages with flexion? Or every langauge should develope its own template? I suggest to put it right beneath the spelling, unless flexional forms depend on definition (like in some rare cases in Polish). --Youandme 22:12 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

Copied mainly from the talk page with some mods,

The current layout of different defintions of the same word won't work as the pronunciation/etymology/thesaurus/quotation and basically every section could be different for each alternative definition.

So I propose a system of disambiguation, numbering seperate articles so we would have dog (noun-1), dog (noun-2), dog (verb-1) with the article dog pointing to all of these including a short definition of each one. --Imran 23:56 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

 * This seems reasonable and would lead to better and easier to follow entries with clear and easy to use ==Synonyms==, ==Antonyms==, ==Etymology== and ==Translations== sections. But I am worried about long-term maintenance of the resulting articles. Isn't there a hierarchy of most common to least common definitions in any definition list? Suppose a person makes an entry with three definitions in summary on it. Each of these link to [word (noun-1)], [word (noun-2)] and [word (verb-1)]. But then somebody else comes along and sees that the ordering of the nouns is backwards and that there are three more common defintions for the verb that should go before verb 1. Thus pages would need to be moved. Then somebody else comes along in 10 years and corrects the ordering of the list again to reflect new usage (placing noun 3 in the number one spot). Such is the case when you hard code hierarchical information in page titles. A better system is needed but I can't think of one right now. But you do have the right idea. --mav

 * Maybe we should abandon the hierarchy by commoness, as in many cases it's going to be rather arbitary anyway and is likely to lead to pointless arguments and editwars.

 * I thought about wikipedia style disabmbiguation, but for some words that could cause problems, for instance differentiating between the two meanings of nonhumanoid (as non-humanoid and nonhuman-oid, two similar but different meanings).

 * I think perhaps we should arbitarily number them with out noun/verb/etc as someone pointed out a word can be more than one of these--Imran 00:28 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)

I've taken my proposed system and tried it out on Portmanteau, I've also used a standarized layout on each of the definitions which hopefully is easy to understand/use while at the same time being logical/simple enough to be automatically parsed for information by software. What do people think --Imran 11:43 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)

 * IMHO, numbered entries like that would be a navigation and maintenance nightmare. Arbitrary numbering is extremely unsatisfying, and meaningful ordering is asking for people to try to change the order if they think it's not correct... Better would be categorical disambiguation: Portmanteau (linguistics), Portmanteau (baggage), Portmanteau (collaboration) if you simply must separate them that aggressively. I suspect though that in most cases it's of little help to separate them that much, or even counterproductive -- you have multiple copies of pronunciation keys and etymologies to keep in sync, and it's more work as a reader to browse if you've found yourself at the wrong one or just want an overview of the various uses of a word. --Brion 11:57 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)

 * On the first point, arbitary number is pretty much the only way to do it and is pretty much the standard way for most dictionaries, and we might as well have a rule saying if the articles already there then there is no point in moving it. On the second as I said above wikipedia style disambiguation would be nearly impossible for words like nonhumanoid which have two very similar but different meanings. On the third, two words that are spelt the same way can be pronounced differently for different definitions and have different etymologies. On the fourth for an overview you can just look at the main article, Portmanteau in this case, which will give you the basic definition. If you can come up with a better way to deal with these problems please do, as I agree this system of break-up isn't perfect, but it's the best way I can think of to deal with these problems. --Imran 12:10 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)

 * You gave the answer yourself with the example... Nonhumanoid (non-humanoid) and Nonhumanoid (nonhuman-oid) are your disambiguations. --Brion

 * It's not an entirely satifactory solution, as some of the disambiguations will be on topic, others a break up of a word as you give, and others by the tense of the word (for instance the word read), I don't think either solution is satisfactory but I'll be happy to go along with whatever is most popular. --Imran 21:13 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)

 * An alternative idea, how about using the date of the earliest quotation for disambiguation ?, that way we have a standardized form of disambiguation across all articles, it doesn't impose an artificial ordering on the main word page and contains some information about the word in question. Perhaps also with language for non-english words, so for instance we would have Pope Julius (1521) or Klein (1530-de)--Imran 11:47 Dec 17, 2002 (UTC)

A proposed template for articles:

An article should include one main definition, with optional sub-definition for words that derive from the main word. So for instance the article Walk would have the main definition of walk, but also have sub-definitions for walking, walked, walker, etc.

An article should have some of these sections (in this order):

(language) ==Definition== ==Alternative spellings== ==Pronunciation== ==Etymology== ==Quotations== ==Derived words== ==Synoyms== ==Translations== ==References==

(language) should be the full form ISO name of that language in italics, so it would be (english), (french), etc.

As most of the rest of the sections could contain different entries for the sub-definitions then as to the definition the word being defined should be stated in each section being preceded by a semi-colon.

So for instance for Walk and Walked under definition would be,

;Walk (verb) : Move using feet from one location to another at a relaxed rate. ;Walker (verb) : Someone who walks.

Which comes out as,

 * Walk (verb)
 * Move using feet from one location to another at a relaxed rate.

 * Walker (verb)
 * Someone who walks.

Pretty much the same applies for all the sections.

The pronunciation should be laid out like the following,

;Portmanteau :(UK) SAMPA:/pO:t'm{nt@u/, IPA:/pɔ:t'mantəʊ/.

With the country {(UK), (US), (AUS), et al} first, followed by the pronunciation system (SAMPA/IPA) a colon and then the pronunciation between the slashes.

For quotations instead of using a ":" to indent the section use a bullet point "*" before the date/reference and put the quotation on the next line preceeded by a "*:". See Portmanteau, 1. for an example.

--Imran 12:05 Dec 17, 2002 (UTC)

Good work, but can you try the template out on something, somethig which an show teh full extent of the template.

 * I've made an example with Leap it still needs a bit of filling out (especially the pronunciation as I don't know how to do the IPA/SAMPA stuff), but most of the principles are there. One of the things I was keeping in mind while making the template was to make something which would be fairly easy for a computer to parse so that if sometime in the future we wanted to change template it could be automated fairly easily. --Imran 15:39 Dec 17, 2002 (UTC)

 * Does anyone object to the above format, if not I'll start converting articles to it ?

 * Why not try doing a version of abate (from the 1913 Webster's) or dog (based loosely on a structure inspired by WordNet)?

The format suggested in portmanteau is very undesirable. All the major definitions of a word need to be on the same page unless it is just too complicated. Fred Bauder 17:29 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)

 * All the basic definitions are on the same page, it's only the more detailed pages that are seperate. Could you clarify what you mean ? --Imran 22:03 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)

The basic definitions are there but very stripped down. I want to see the whole thing on one page (at least for simple words like portmanteau). A word like the would, of course, require several pages. I also don't like the way the page is spaced with so many empty lines. I like the format in dog and pumpkin much better. Fred Bauder 01:27 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)

 * Are you reffering to the fact that the definitions given on the portmanteau page are shorter then the definitions on the linked pages, if so that's only because I wrote that page in a hurry, I have no objection to disambiguation page listing full definitions as given on the disambiguated pages.

 * As discussed further up on this page we can't really have anythin but the definitions sharing a page, as virtually every sections could be different and misleading. For instance if someone wanted to call a german person Pumpkin under definition 4, and used the suggested translation Kürbis it's likely to cause some confusion...

 * On the issue of spacing thats due to the way wikipedia is processing the various headings and not due to artificially added blank lines, it shouldn't be too hard to change the code so a users preferences can change the number of empty lines --Imran

I'm not happy with having article(quotedate) to me it would look like the date the word came about.

 * We could always have it as the date of the earliest known quote, in which case it would be the earliest attestation (known to us).

Also you can have a simple then the word again. That would be good in my opinion.

 * Which bit are you talking about (or demonstrate on the portmanteau page) ? --Imran 21:09 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC)

yes, but i think doing that is too messy. I prefer having all meanings of teh word on one page. -fonzy

 * I've no real problem about them being on the same page but there are a few reasons for seperating them, (1) Shorter pages would make reading/editing articles easier especially for people with slower internet connections (2) It allows direct linking to individual definitions. (3) Casual browsers have a tendency not to scroll a webpage so might look at the first definition and leave without noticing the other defs. (4) The majority of people will probably only want defs which should be grouped together. --Imran 22:22 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC)

After looking more deeply into the Portmanteau material, I became more than ever convinced that a premature splitting of articles is the wrong way to go. There is no doubt that some articles will need splitting when they get too long. By that time the basis for splitting will become obvious in many cases. Articles that are less than 32K in length seem to function quite well in the software as long as they are not just continuous masses of links to other articles. There's no rush. In Portmanteau (1500) I questioned the date of the first usage. From what I could find out it should be 1584. If my findings are corroborated that would necessitate a change in the article title to Portmanteau (1584). If that's the case I expect that similar problems will arise more frequently than we want. That will mean more work for everybody, which is great ..... if we're getting paid.

There is little doubt that Wiktionary's formats will need to be more strongly hierarchized than Wikipedia's. Given the very positive multilingual visions that many of us have, it would be tragic if those visions were shattered because of an irretrievably inappropriate, inadequate or inflexible structure.

I plan to propose hierarchical guidelines which will reflect much of the discussion which has taken place. Eclecticology 06:49 Dec 24, 2002 (UTC) See also User:Eclecticology/Vision

Further to the above I will be suggesting an order for topics about a word. This follows the principle that the more general topics and those least likely to fork should come first. Thus I would provisionally propose the following order Detailed reasons for choosing this order will be developed on the vision page noted above. Eclecticology 22:24 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)
 * 1) Alternative and obsolete spellings
 * 2) Etymology
 * 3) Pronunciation
 * 4) Part of Speech
 * 5) Definition
 * 6) Quotations
 * 7) Derived words and phrases
 * 8) Synonyms
 * 9) Translations
 * 10) References


text:
Wiktionary talk:Entry layout/archive 2003

I think this page needs to be made clearer. -fonzy

 * You're right! I'll take a a closer look at it based on what I've learned by trying to apply my "vision page" mentioned above.  Surprisingly, I haven't received too much flak on what I have done with individual articles.  There are still some issues about the template that I need to sort out in my own mind, but this may inspire me to deal with some of them.  Eclecticology 09:22 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)
 * One thing that is missing for sure is a section for declension schema of the word (Slavonic wored cannot be discussed without that, entries on German and French words would profit as well). As well, I'm puzzled by "Etymology" being so high in the hierarchy. Shouldn't "Definition" preceed it? Youandme 09:55 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I know I'm joining this discussion late, but I have some comments on the proposed templates. First, I think the definition should be closer to the top of the page. On some entries, you have to scroll down to see the definition. The only thing that should be first is the pronunciation and part of speech. I would think alternate spellings could be just before translations.
 * I can't agree, even though I understand your concern. There is a certain logic about what comes before or after a definition.  Much of what comes before are subjects that lead to different definitions.  What you say would work just as well in cases where there is only one definition or usage for a word, but things are a lot more tricky when there are multiple definitions.  Etymologies, in particular, lead to different situations.  Other words can appear with separate parts of speech.  -EC

I agree with the comment that there are too many blank lines. The issue of not having the definition close enough to the top of the page could be somewhat mitigated by being a little bit more economical with the lines. For instance, instead of using the heading "noun" for a definition, the heading could be the word itself (bold), followed by the part of speech in parentheses, and alt. spellings. The current layout makes it difficult to find the actual definition, because the only thing that jumps out are the headings, and there isn't a heading that says "Definition."
 * I have no problem with removing some of the blank lines. This is more a software problem than anything that's always intentional.

 * I've never been completely satisfied with using the part of apeech as the heading, and I've developed a certain momentum about doing it the way it appears. Perhaps changing the heading from "Noun" to "Noun defined" might be acceptable. -Ec

I don't like the idea of separating definitions onto different pages. One of the things I enjoy in reading dictionaries is trying to see how the different definitions are connected. Perhaps HTML anchor links could be used for the multiple definition problem, so that all the definitions are up front, but link to the full entries further down the page. This would satisfy the problem of not having to jump back and forth between pages to try to get the full meaning of the word, while not having to scroll through a very long page to find the definition you're looking for. Also, I'm no HTML wizard, but wouldn't this resolve the numbering problem? The anchors would follow the words, not the numbers. Of course, this wouldn't solve the problem of too long pages.
 * I also oppose regularly spreading a word across multiple pages. Those that are still there will either have a special reason or it's a left over from an earlier attempt to deal with this.  If it's the latter case, then by all means consolidate.

The Wiktionary seems like a worthwhile project, but formatting is much more important here than in the Wikipedia. (oh - any word on changing the entries to be lower case unless they are proper nouns?)  -Aion 19:01 Jul 13, 2003 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with this last paragraph. Eclecticology 02:03 Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)

I came here intending to contribute (I enjoy Wikipedia), but found the system flawed in basic organization. Portmanteau is much closer to what I see as necessary than any other plan I've seen. I'm strongly considering starting a new wiki on my own machine to create proof of concept of A) what I see as the only feasible organization schema for something like this B) a dictionary done the way I would do one (which is different from formatted the way I would do so... it's complicated) and C) I'd probably end up using it as a base for my mad master plan of making a 'Standard According To Me' version of English (which might evolve into something that doesn't quite qualify as English). A would work in Wiktionary. B? Possibly, but I don't think most people would go along with it. C? (barring far-future speculation) No. To end ramble and say something that actually makes sense for the most part: Go with the Portmanteau system, though it still has minor execution flaws (the dating to identify is rather dodgy - arbitrary numeration seems to be the best primary identifier. -- JakeNelson 11:22 Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)

How about our adding an item "mnemonic devices" for example sentences which could help individuals remember the word. These could be English-English for more complex words (whether for foreign learners of English or high school students, etc.), or if the words are non-English, the mnemonic could employ the foreign word to help make it more memorable to English-speakers....If these do not seem as essential, they could be put towards the bottom. I think Wiktionary is a logical place for these things since it help people remember the words they are taking the time to look up, and it could distribute the work of thinking up good mnemonics... Brettz9 03:13, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)


text:
Neoplatonism

Etymology
From.

Proper noun

 * 1) A school of philosophy based on the teachings of Plato and, subsequently, Plotinus; it was the foundation for paganism.

Translations

 * Armenian: նորպլատոնականություն,
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Finnish:
 * Georgian: ნეოპლატონიზმი
 * German:
 * Greek:
 * Hungarian:, újplatonizmus
 * Irish: Nua-Phlatónachas
 * Italian:
 * Kazakh: жаңа платонизм
 * Portuguese:
 * Romanian:
 * Russian:

title: Neoplatonism


text:
Wiktionary talk:Entry layout/archive 2004

"As most of the rest of the sections ..."
I defy anyone to explain what this sentence means.

I have been making some changes to reflect how I think we are doing things nowadays. (I hope I'm not living in some kind of bubble with my own reality). Please let me know if the changes I made are OK or not. If they are OK, then I will also go and change the articles they refer to. Although, I must say I never was very happy with the link to Portmanteau. Since I'm not a native English speaker, it took me a while to become convinced it wasn't a linguistic term or the name of some person who had studied linguistics... Polyglot 00:16, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I noticed that you have started to dewikify language names in definitions. I thought the links were quite useful. There are some little known laguages and it is nice to be able to find what language it is by just clicking on it. Maybe we should link to wikipedia about languages instead of wiktionary. Poszwa 10:06, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Is it really necessary to be able to click on them? If there is a language one wants to know more about, one can enter it in the search box. How often is it going to be necessary and is it worth it to have the same links all over again in each entry? In the entry for the language's name it makes sense to link on to Wikipedia. Polyglot 12:33, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * I pretty well agree with this, but I have been cautious about de-linking to avoid a storm of protest. I have, however, been delinking those section headings which recur regularly.  Although I agree with delinking the languages in the translation lists, I would still be inclined to make them bold.  Eclecticology 02:42, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It would really help me get up to speed if the template, and cited leap sample, were fleshed out in a couple areas:
 * 1) US vs UK (and I assume usually the rest of the Commonwealth/former colonies) spelling and pronunciation. Currently there's no guidance how to handle that. Of course, it's gets dicier with -t vs -ed than -or vs -our: US is pretty much exclusively -or, but has partial adoption of -t: slept is fully adopted (I don't know of anyone that would use sleeped). But, say, dreamt and dreamed are closer to 50/50, and, further complicating things, are sometimes considered to be slightly different. For example, the same person might be more likely to say "Martin Luther King dreamt of equality", but would also be more likely to say "Last night I dreamed I was on a desert island".)
 * 2) Other forms of the word: I know verbs and nouns and past and present tense, and kinda know adjectives and adverbs, but once you get into past participle, intransient, etc. I am completely lost. I can write very well, I just don't know the terminology for what I am doing--I couldn't diagram a moderately complex sentence to save my life. EG Where would "leaping" go? (mostly copied this from a page that people here aren't likely to read)
 * Also, I think the anticipate article is a good example of why antonyms and synonyms should also be subbed under the different defs, which is similar to the 'multiple defs' ref to pronunciation and etymology, but currently not explicity stated by the template page. Niteowlneils 19:58, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is no one way to deal with US/UK variations except to describe the possibilities. Usages often ovelap so it's never clean cut. Canadian usage is often intermediate between the British and American. No template can possibly handle everything.
 * I don't disagree with that. I guess my comments are more directed at the Leap article (but solely because of its citation from the template). What I was trying to say, is that, for a page that is being referred to as a good role model, it would be helpful if it at least showed one of the ways to do things.

Including other forms is worthwhile, but apart from dialect variations, these tend be very few in English. One of the strengths of the language is in the ability of a word to be used as a part of speech other than what is generally perceived, and still be understandable. "Leaping" usually goes to the bottom of the cliff. :-) The terminology that you mention is often independent of the form, which makes me wonder whether your questions really relate to specific words.  They seem to focus on the meta-language of language.  How much of the terminology do you need?
 * Thinking about it more, I guess there are probably enuf exceptions that even if all forms were reflected in the Leap article, it wouldn't be wise for me to try and build other articles by simply following the model, without actually understanding the termingology. Like I said, I know noun and verb, and have a fuzzy handle on adjectives and adverbs (and about the same for article and preposition, I guess), but nothing else. Since I write (and read and speak) proper/correct (American) English, I really am not motivated to spend the time to learn the terminology to describe it. I guess I'll just leave that stuff to someone else, and focus on things I do know, like fixing spelling and grammar (to play off the old pornography quote, 'I can't describe/define bad grammar, but I know it when I see it'.)
 * That's a fair assessment. None of us should expect ourselves to do more than we can.  There are still many, many, many words to be added that do not involve ambiguities or grammatical complications.  The terminology about writing and grammar can be every bit as complicated and full of jargon as the terminology about any other specialized area of study.  If you contribute the words from your owm areas of study and interest, that contribution will be just as valuable, and perhaps more accurate.  Old words (like "leap") based in Anglo-Saxon are among those which pose the greatest problems for lexicographers. Eclecticology 07:47, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The anticipate article has a good distinction between the words "anticipate" and "expect". This reflects one of the strong points of the 1913 Webster, but I don't know how much help a template can be with this sort of thing. Eclecticology 00:24, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, because 4 of the 5 words are used in the definitions, their connection is clear. However, which meaning(s) is "obviate" a synonym to (rhetorical q)? On the other hand, it later occurred to me that it might be simpler to just put the def number parenthetically in the list, like for the anticipate article "To prevent (1);...". The only downside I can think of is that if defs are added anywhere but at the bottom of the list, the numbers would have to be manually updated.
 * You have effectively raised the biggest drawback of synonyms, and, by extension, of an entire thesaurus. In most cases there is no such thing as an identical synonym.  The words in a list of synonyms give alternatives whose meaning (or mileage?) may vary.  A good writer will seek suggestions from such a list, but will reflect on the implications of adapting such a word for his own purposes.

 * I absolutely must agree that leap is a terrible example for the template. I should have looked at it closely before I gave my previous answer.  It was added a mere five days after the Wiktionary project started, and has not kept up with the development of the template since that time.  Even my own amendments are more than a year old.  Either leap should be seriously revised, or a better example found.  A more straigtforward word would make a better example for a beginner. Eclecticology 07:47, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Derived vs Related?
I notice a lot of varying practice about what goes under "derived terms" and what goes under "related terms". Maybe this should be explained better? To me I figure "derived" and "related" to have their basic linguistic meanings—e.g. confusion is derived from confuse, bunkbed is derived from bunk (and bed), disk is related to dish and discus, and relations like spoon to fork I would probably put in "see also"—but perhaps I am on the wrong track here? —Muke Tever 14:51, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I would be inclined to agree with you. Unfortunately the precision that some people employ in their use of the language may be a little short of our expectations.  This is well reflected in their lexicographical skills.  I take comfort from the knowledge that I am neither derived from nor related to these people. :-) If you feel that someone has said "related" when "derived" would be more correct, do feel free to make the change. Eclecticology 21:28, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Derived" is merely a subset of "related". Do you really want separate headings for each different type of relationship? And do you want to be the one to figure out ambiguous relationships and say which was derived from which? In my opinion uniformity is best. We should work out one set of headings to be used everywhere. If we choose to separate "derived" and a bunch of others from "related" that's great. But haphazardly changing a few of the easier pages in the meantime probably isn't a great help. — Hippietrail 02:24, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * The purpose of "derived" is to list compounds and simple derivations, while "related" is for more distant and less transparent etymological relations. This division is from the Entry layout explained and debating its usefulness probably belongs in Wiktionary talk:Template. I should say though that I don't entirely understand your objection.  \x{2014}Muke Tever 12:39, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * It just seems a bit messy to have one specific heading and one generic heading - especially when it comes to back-formations and other non-obvious relationships. For instance, most people wouldn't realize that "burgle" is derived from "burglar". Also by "derived" do we mean that these words came into existence after the headword or just that these words consist of the headword plus derivational morphemes? Now if we do have both, since derived terms are a type of related terms, then "Derived" should be a subheading under "Related" — Hippietrail 12:51, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * If most people wouldn't realize that burgle is derived from burglar, it's Wiktionary's job to make it so (we are a dictionary, after all) and if someone makes a mistake in relating a term, someone who knows better will come along and fix it (it's the wiki way\x{2122}).
 * Now perhaps I'm seeing the terminology slightly different than you are, because by "derived" I expect what may be called "daughter terms", and by "related", "sister terms", which probably contributes to not being able to see them as the same thing, or one as a subset of the other. \x{2014}Muke Tever 13:20, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with Muke on this. Derived terms show what that word has led to; the ancestry of the term is considered under etymology.  "Related" links parallel developments.  These especially need to be remembered when we are dealing with counter-intuitive back-formations.  Uniformity is a wonderful ideal, but if a dictionary is to be essentially descriptive that uniformity must give way to accurate description.  The contrary might be true if we were following a philosophy of prescriptive dictionaries.  A lot more work needs to be done in our own understanding of the language before we can start telling people how to use it.

 * It is worth remembering that there was a general concept that underlaid the structure of the template for a word in any given language. The template reduces to three general parts:  what leads up to the word (including etymology, pronunciation and spelling variants), the word itself (notably its definitions), and how the word relates to its environment (including derivatives, synonyms and translations).  In one sense Hippietrail is right.  The derived words are a subset of the related words, but the bigger set seems too broad to be useful. Eclecticology 18:06, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Usage notes
We ought to fit these in, to clarify situations where words are sometimes misused, and give words that should be used instead. -- Smjg 11:52, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Go ahead. That category was not a part of the original template, but its need became apparent as more of the Webster entries were added.  Some adjustments may still be needed to existing articles.  Eclecticology 16:42, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Proposed international template
Aloha! I intend to use the template below on hungarian wiktionary. It have the features:
 * handles words in more than one language (1st level header)
 * handles nouns/verbs/etc (2nd lvl)
 * handles more than one meaning in the same language (3rd lvl)
 * every meaning is followed by its info, namely:
 * it's meaning and thesaurus entries, example sentence,
 * etimology (history of the word)
 * whatever you come up with related to the word
 * translations in every language.

Example (fictional, translated to english):

(word: Hold) == Hungarian == === Noun === === Verb === ... == English == === Verb === ...etc, same kind of stuff.
 * 1) meaning explanation; synonyms; examples in italic
 * 2) * etimology: it was originated from the word "template" (greek)
 * 3) * base word: whatever
 * 4) * Translations:
 * 5) ** English: moon
 * 6) ** German: arsch
 * 7) another meaning; its synonyms; it's examples
 * 8) * fluff about this meaning
 * 9) * Translations:
 * 10) ** English: prik
 * 1) ** English: prik
 * 1) to hold something, meaning, synonyms, examples

Hold Hold ... same words in other language wiktionaries (interlang links on top or bottom of the page).

Basically it is not compulsory to use # and * to create numbers and hierarchical display, but I'm a HTML guy and love order. It can be created manually by writing the numbers and bullet or blockquote the info associated to the words/meanings.

This system is logical. Shows every language, every meaning, contains links to translated words in the same and the native wiktionaries, and contains interlanguage links to the same words in the native wiktionaries.

Judge whether it's user friendly or not. Feed me back. Thanks. --grin 11:12, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Ultimately, the Hungarian Wiktionary is autonomous about its own rules. Still I wonder why you would move the etymology to a place after the definition.  The definitions are, of course, the heart of any listing.  My tendency has been to show any material that contributes or leads to an understanding of the word before the definition; the material that follows derives from the word and depends on its meaning.

 * The "#" in the definitions provides soft numbering so that these numbers can be changed automatically when a further meaning is included. Eclecticology 18:43, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I noticed the active debate about the order, and it is not accidental that I did not comment on those: I do not feel myself qualified enough to decide. Both point suits me. I probably put etymology after the meaning because I suspect we (hu:) wouldn't have much etymological material in the foreseeable future. Other reason could've been that (I thought that) separate meanings are the way to differentiate between separate origins of the word... I mean, if there are two words look the same but mean completely different things, I thought they might have different etymologies. Can they? In such a case it seems to be logical to put etymology after the meaning.

 * Since dictionaries put etymology before the meaning I can accept that, too. I would change hungarian 'dog' accordingly (that's our template article) but you see, I do not have the etymology of dog.... *sigh*

 * I take this as a positive feedback about the template. :-) --grin 09:04, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The problem of identical words with different etymologies is probably a much bigger issue in English than in most other languages. Fowler's English Usage gives "calf" as an example.  Its meanings as a part of the leg and as a young cattle have completely different and unrelated origins.  Each of these etymologies gives rise to its own range of words.  However distinct Hungarian may be from everything around it, it is bound to have been influenced by its immediate Romance, Slavic and Germanic neighbours.  The extent to which their words may have been adapted to the Hungarian language are a part of Hungarian history.

 * You can't be expected to know everything, and tracing a word's ancestry can be difficult. You do what you can.  If you can't fill in a word's etymology, leave it blank for another person to do. Eclecticology 20:29, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

=Recent talk=

Proposal: Part of speech headers to include word
Rather than repeating a word under the type of speech section like so:

Noun
May

I propose that it follows the type of speech, like "===Noun: May===". This saves a line for all of these sections, looks much better, and makes it so that the proper capitalization and spelling are viewable from the table of contents. It is also much more formatically accurate, because every one of these appears right below the section title entwined with the section title as though it were a title itself. Also, if the decision is not to have case-sensitivity for page names, then this would show the proper capitalization in the table of contents and allow unique sections for words of different capitalization. What are the disadvantages of this? - Centrx 22:41, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * One disadvantages of this is that it makes it harder to link to sections from other pages. The link May will direct me to the "Noun" section of "May".  However, this will not work if the section is actually headed "Noun: May".  Of course, the link could be changed to May (all those "May"s) but you would have to visit the link first to see which system has been used.

 * Another disadvantage (as is the case for any change of this sort to the format) is that it requires changes to many hundreds (if not thousands) of pages and tends to be carried out very slowly as pages come to be edited, rather than wholesale. — Paul G 09:04, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation Format
The template page directs us to format pronunciation as a definition list, but all of the example articles use unordered lists. Which is correct? Looks like the template page should be updated. —Mzajac 17:08, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * There is no need to have the pronunciations numbered. The order of the systems should not matter. Eclecticology 00:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The template page and the FAQ do not account for words with multiple pronunciation/definition pairs, such as content ("open content" vs. "a content person") and he ("he is a person" vs. "he is a Hebrew letter"). In adding the Hebrew letter definition to he, I used content as a model. -- Adam Katz 07:47, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You were on the right track. I've restructured that part of he a little, especially to get rid of the double horizontal line from the middle of the Hebrew letter section.  Let me know if this is not consistent with your intent. Eclecticology 09:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fast response, that should be fine. ... (continued in next section) -- Adam Katz 10:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Letter/Character Format
(continued from above pronunciation section) ... I was following the format used for the greek letters (see alpha or pi), which stick the last/next notation in the pronunciation section. All 23 letters I've entered use that format ... yet I like yours better. This is only really problematic for the few that I bothered to add the pronunciation section. Suggestions? -- Adam Katz 10:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think I'm beginning to see the problem. He represents the only Hebrew letter that can be mixed up with so many things from other language.  There are corresponding English words for "nun" and "shin", but not nearly so problematic.  So I looked at the simpler case of vav.  In that the part that now reads

 * Letter of the Hebrew alphabet: ו
 * Last: ה
 * Next: ז

should really be under the title ו itself, and the links too should then be to the letters themselves. This tends to explain why we ended up with apparently redundant information. We're mixing up the Hebrew letter with the English name of that letter. I have not looked much at the Greek, but it may have a similar problem. I hope I have not confused you too much; we obviously need your help. Eclecticology 18:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * re-did all 22 english entries for hebrew letters plus all 22 letter entries for hebrew characters plus the Category:Hebrew letters that links them all together. I ripped out all last/next notation from each letter and put it in the character and linked them both together.  See also my next note. -- Adam Katz 05:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am have run into issues of inconsistant naming schemes for alphabets; see Category:Hebrew letters and Appendix:Roman script, not to mention Wiktionary:English index. Greek points at an empty Greek alphabet. User talk:219.173.119.31 just made the Arabic alphabet based on my initial Hebrew convention. -- Adam Katz 01:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Format for idioms
What is the proper way to put idioms in a Wiktionary definition? Is there a standard, or has a precedent been set? I feel "Idioms" should be a separate section, distinct from "Usage" which should deal more with grammar issues. The question then is how to format the Idioms section. I think, at least, the idiom should be in a bold font, in order to mimic that of a dictionary entry, as it's essentially a separate definition. A format I tried can be found at Matter (September 14, 2004 03:12 version). The emdash is pleasing, but it is cumbersome to type &mdash;, so a simpler format would certainly be welcome. Suggestions? --Brim 03:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Well it depends what you mean by "idiom". This term seems to be used in different ways. A single word can have idiomatic senses along with it straightforward senses. Some people just think of idomatic phrases as idioms. Because of the fuzzy terminology I've just been putting everything under "Related terms", but then there is also "Derived terms" - and that is also fuzzy. This is obviously inadequate but it seems difficult coming up with a good way of categorized the various relationships between one word and other words and phrases, including idioms. I'd love to hear more discussion on this topic please! — Hippietrail 01:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I was referring more to standard idiomatic uses of common words. See the example under Matter, in which several phrases containing the word are used in ordinary everyday speech but have special meanings which can't be learned from reading the dictionary definition of the main word.  For example: "as a matter of fact", "for that matter", and "no matter".  These should almost have entries of their own, but since they're technically idioms, I placed them as such in their own category.  I was hoping we could come up with some sort of standard so that idiomatic uses of other words could be formatted similarly to each other. —Brim 01:48, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes all of those phrases should have their own entries. If "Idioms" is to be a separate heading, it should come beneath "Derived terms" and "Related terms". They should not be capitalised. They should not be defined on the page but merely linked to, and then defined on their own page. — Hippietrail 02:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comparative and superlative
Seems to me, we should recommend always giving the comparative and superlative forms of adjectives, even if they're only "more X" and "most X". See, for example, what I've done with Reprehensible. - dcljr 05:33, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Part of Speech "Additional considerations:" - about what?
I don't understand what the "Additional considerations:" are aditional to. Are they regarding how to write Parts of Speech section headings, or generally how to write definitions, or something else. This should be clarified. JesseW 20:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Revised. I hope it helps. Eclecticology 21:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is "Spelling example"?
"Spelling example" is used multiple times on the page, but it's never explained. It appears to be the line of the form: " {the word} ({plurals, comparitives, etc.}) ", but I'm not sure. Also, if it is this line, it should definitely get it's own section, beacuse it's not obvious in format - when do you use plurals, superlatives, etc, what about alternate spelling, etc.  JesseW 20:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. Various people have contributed to this, and have attempted to say the same thing in several different ways.  That's bound to lead to confusion.  The page needs editing and pruning. Eclecticology 21:33, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to work on it, but I don't know what "spelling example" means. :-) Should I just go with my impression I gave above, or is that wrong? JesseW 05:14, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I would abandon the term completely. Your guess about what it means seems right.  Maybe "inflections" might be more to the point.

 * Alternate or variant spellings are something else which should go in an earlier section in the article. Eclecticology 14:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"A very simple (copyable) template"
Sorry for nit-picking, but isn't it spelt copiable? I didn't edit it because a Google search shows copyable being used a LOT (more than copiable), and I thought maybe it was an American spelling or something... or are both acceptable? :S

Hyphenation?
What about hyphenation points? All real dictionaries have them! There's nothing in the documentation or the sample templates that I could find on how to indicate hyphenation (although a few actual entries seem to use an ad-hoc scheme). One fine point: I've heard that Australians hyphenate words differently than USers.

 * I've avoided hyphenation myself because I don't feel I'm well enough acquainted with the "correct rules". Usually we all know how many syllables there are but it's a bit fuzzier to decide which consonants in clusters belong to the preceding or following syllable. I'm sure there are rules for this but I'm not sure who decides them - perhaps there are several sets of rules in different countries or from different ages or created by different people. Since I don't know such details I've left this area alone.

 * I also feel that what we've got currently is ad-hoc and I doubt whether the people entering them have followed specific rules. It might be a good idea even to tag them if they're been properly researched so users can see which are "official" and which are "ad-hoc" — Hippietrail 23:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with Hippietrail's approach on this, and tend strongly to avoid them unless a hard hyphen is required. Hard and fast rules for hyphenation should be avoided.  It works much better to have general rules that can be modified by common sense.  BTW, Oxford spells the expression "ad hoc" without a hyphen. Eclecticology 19:14, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

distinct words under the same token
I've been trying to find something in the help section to assist with the problem of words that are distinct and unrelated (each with its own etymology, and sometimes its own pronunciation), but are necessarily in the same entry as they are the same combination of letters.

Consider the heteronym sake.

Here we have two distinct words. The first, a much older word in English, is entirely distinct from the second, which has more recently been taken from Japanese. To simply include both words under noun as separate senses doesn't seem like a great idea, because each is an entirely different word, with a different pronunciation, etymology, and set of translations.

Yet I'm not satisfied with the way I tried to solve the problem. It seems like there should be a way to distinguish the words at the base level, but that would require revisiting the very template that the wiktionary uses for its entries.

Consider how much more sensible this is:

Noun

 * 1) The benefit or survival of something.
 * 2) etc.

Etymology
blah blah

Translations
Some stuff.

sake2
also saké or saki

Noun

 * 1) Japanese booze.

Etymology
Japanese: 酒

Translations
etc.

English continued

 * Yes almost the same format has been used by others in other articles but without superscripting the etymology number.

 * However I don't think this is flexible enough. In this case the two words have the same spelling but different pronunciation and different etymology - the neatest case. In other cases two "words" have the same sound but different etymology, or different etymology but the same sound. It is even within the realm of possibility that there exist words which share etymology and sound but have diverged into very distant meanings - though none spring to mind. Another more subtle but more common case for us is that the sound may or may not be different, but we just don't have etymologies yet. I have seen articles which boldly declare "etymology 1" and "etymology 2" without having actual etyms under those headings. The author has decided this division will "always work", but has not done the research to see that this is in fact true.

 * What I think we should do is to collect some words for each case above, probably in a category somewhere, then look at how various dictionaries format their entries. Does anybody know if there are terms for when two words share spelling but a) not pronunciation, b) not etymology, or combinations thereof. That will give us names for the categories. — Hippietrail 14:07, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jun-Dai 14:37, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC):
 * I think it should be based on etymology. That would make the cleanest case (and I think that's the way most dictionaries do it).  For each etymological case, you can have a multitude of senses as well as different parts of speech.

 * Also, the answer for (a) is heteronym. Not sure about (b), though.  Also, most heteronyms are different in their parts of speech.  Compare conTENT (verb or adjective) and CONtent (noun) or afFECT (verb) and AFfect (noun).  In most cases, I think the noun is stressed on the first syllable and the adjective/verb on the second.  Many heteronyms share the same etymology (though not content).

 * In that case I propose Category:English heteronyms and Category:English words with same spelling but different etymology. Words which do not yet have articles can simply be listed in the category pages themselves for now.
 * We should try to do a bit better than assuming and thinking adn guessing. Also we shouldn't base our decisions on "most" since it's the uncommon cases which need to be considered to find the best solutions in a long-term project like Wiktionary. — Hippietrail 15:00, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Jun-Dai 15:54, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC):
 * So for the long term, what should we do for the formatting of entries that contain multiple distinct words, like sake and bass? After all, the only thing that bass-as-in-fish and bass-as-in-low-pitched have in common is spelling.  It seems logical to separate words of different etymologies but the same spelling at the highest possible level (i.e., split it directly under the language and before the part of speech).  Obviously this needs more thought, that so far that seems like the sensible arrangement, with the current arrangement as I'm seeing it in the various entries being a bit muddy (where bass-the-fish is just listed as the 4th sense of a word, the first three being bass-as-in-low-in-pitch), because it will require a split in the etymologies and translations, and in this case, pronunciation as well.  i.e., it's easier to go:

 * bass1
 * pronunciation(s)
 * etymology
 * definition
 * translations
 * bass2
 * pronunciation(s)
 * etymology
 * definition
 * translations

 * There isn't that much grey area where words with different etymologies and the same spelling are confused. Words with different etymologies will almost always have quite different meanings and different translations (I can't think of an exception), and so they should really just be considered different words, unless there is a very clear case of converging etymologies forming a single definition (I can't think of a single case).

 * Something much like this format seems good, I agree. But we already divide at part-of-speech boundaries. What can happen is that two parts of speech share an etymology but differ in pronunciation, but then another etymology comes along and shares on of the pronunciations. I've seen something very much like this happen but can't recall the word.
 * Also, remember that we're dealing with all languages, many of which have far less syllable possibilities than English. Chinese and Polynesion languages springs to mind. We try to keep the format for entries in all languages as close as possible. So a solution to the varying etym/pron/part-of-speech-meaning combinations should be general and work for all languages, otherwise we're just going to have to solve the problem again later anyway.
 * I think the kind of thing to keep an eye out for with converging etymologies is re-analysis, where sound change makes unrelated words sound more similar, and then people start to believe those words are related. So it is surely very rare for total synonyms but not so much for words with close meanings. Also, exact spelling matches are more likely to occur in single syllable words. So while I can't think of one off the top of my head, I'd expect them to exist - probably those of us without a keen interest in etymology haven't spotted them anyway just because we do believe they are more closely related than they are! — Hippietrail 16:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * True, but we can easily note where pronunciations differ based on the sense or part of speech, or where the pluralization differs, etc. (consider: "ten head of cattle"). These distinctions are not as important as an etymological distinction, where the meaning of the word (and translations of the word) are generally substantially different.  If the pronunciation is the same as another etymology of the same token, it isn't that important, we can duplicate the pronunciation for the second entry/etymology, since it is more of a coincidence than anything.
 * The other point you make is interesting. While I can understand the value in keeping the formats similar/consistent between languages, it seems to me that it is also important to recognize that different languages can't always contain the same format, as the basic principles of the language differ.  This relates to the discussion we're having at かく.  Many simple letter combinations in Japanese are really just the spelling out of a pronunciation of some kanji, kanji compound, kanji+kurigana, or kanji as used in some compound.  This justifies the existence of a furigana section for the hiragana entries where kanji exist for those words, even though this is a concept that doesn't really exist in any other language that I know of.  If we limit ourselves to formatting that applies to English words and phrases, then we are crippling our ability to be a useful English-language reference of Japanese words.

 * It's true that we must accommodate different languages differently. But the way to achieve this is by developing a flexible framework which stays mostly the same for all languages and has ways of extending for those languages which require more, rather than just saying "this doesn't fit so let's do a whole new format". (I'm not saying that's what you're doing but people have taken that attitude before).
 * In one article, I forget which, I did actually reproduce the pronunciation section for exactly this reason. I'll try to use my parser to find all the articles with multiple pronunciation or etymology sections later.
 * Print dictionaries, at least small format ones, usually do not divide words by part of speech and they have a two-level distinction of sense (I forgot the term they use for the other level). So you will have a seperate headword "foo1" and "foo2", several senses for each headword, verbs and nouns in together sometimes, merely with a "v" or "n" prefix. I looked at one OED a few months ago to see how they handled some of this and they basically just stuck a new pron in between the senses. Their concept of sense, etymology, and pronunciation were not tied together. But my notes are elsewhere, I didn't know all the best examples to look up, different dictionaries solve the problems differently, even different editions of the OED have different solutions. Not to mention that different languages can have even more needs (Arabic and Hebrew have their own challenges)
 * So yes let's not limit ourselves, but lets also try to preserve as much standardization of formatting and terminology (etc) as we can. Now it's really time for bed (-: — Hippietrail 16:51, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I certainly support general attempts to standardize formatting for bot English and foreign entries, but the standards still need to be adaptable to changing circumstances when that is appropriate. One of the reasons why the etymology heading should take precedence over the part-of-speech headings is that it gives a broader basis for subdivision. Pronunciation comes next, then the parts of speech. A new pronunciation will lead to its own new set of headings. "Sake" is an easy case because the separate origins and pronunciations align easily with each other.

In some cases we can put the pronunciation before the etymology, but that gives the distinct message that the word is always pronounce the same for all etymologies. A word like "calf" with a constant pronunciation but two very distinct etymologies would fall into that category. "Lead" has two distinct pronunciations and etymologies; "read" has two pronunciations arising from the same etymology and part of speach. Eclecticology 19:58, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the good analysis, Eclecticology. I think we should make this the official new structure. Each "headword" can have one or more etymology headings. Each etymology can have one or more pronunciation heading (but there can be multiple variant prounciations per heading). Each pronunciation heading can have one or more part-of-speech heading. For headwords which do not fit this pattern, sections can appear twice if they have to.

 * This leads us to the next question: Since heading levels show the structure (as shown in the TOC, as interpreted by my wiktionary parser), we should really change the heading levels to reflect this new structure. Currently we have:
 * ==Language
 * ===Pronunciation
 * ===Etymology
 * ===Part of speech
 * ====Synonyms/Antonyms/Derived/Related/Translations
 * What we should have is:
 * ==Language
 * ===Pronunciation
 * ====Etymology
 * =====Part of speech
 * ======Synonyms/Antonyms/Derived/Related/Translations
 * But does the wiki software allow level-6 headings?!
 * The other issue is how to arrange the headings before etymologies have been established? Maybe in those cases we should retain the current "unstructured" heading heirarchy. — Hippietrail 05:40, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * But does the wiki software allow level-6 headings?!
 * The other issue is how to arrange the headings before etymologies have been established? Maybe in those cases we should retain the current "unstructured" heading heirarchy. — Hippietrail 05:40, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The other issue is how to arrange the headings before etymologies have been established? Maybe in those cases we should retain the current "unstructured" heading heirarchy. — Hippietrail 05:40, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the system does allow for level 7, but you only need level 6 in your example where you completely forgot level 3. Generally heading levels need to be flexible; there should be no need to deepen a level unless doing so reflects some basis for division. Pronunciation is a remarkably unstable feature for differentiations. We can easily spot the obvious ones that matter, but beyond that it's too easy to fall into the murky pool of dialect differences.
 * Thanks - fixed! — Hippietrail 13:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My proposal was really to put etymology ahead of pronunciation in the hierarchy for most cases, except for words with multiple etymologies which retain the same pronunciation in all cases. Although I don't advocate splitting articles, it is still conceivable that this could become necessary for some words in the distant future. In such circumstances etymology would be a natural break point.

If we don't know the etymology it can be left blank. Two separate etymology headings can still be used if we don't know what they are but at least know that there exist more than one. Eclecticology 13:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The problem is it's very hard to guess in regards to etymology. We can see that a word has two different pronunciations and/or two different meanings, and still have no idea, or make false assumptions about etymologies based on this - it is very very easy to be wrong when guessing in the field of etymology. — Hippietrail 13:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This may not be as much of a problem as you suspect. If we don't know anything about the etymology we can put the heading and simply leave its contents blank.  If we suspect that there is more than one etymology we can still have "Etymology 1" and "Etymology 2" etc. to attest to that simple fact even if they both remain blank.  The wonder of the wiki is that someone else can come along later to fill in the blanks.

 * As an aside, I've used numbered etymology headings from the start. It has been a practical approach, but if anyone has an alternate solution for how we phrase these headings that's less ugly that would be great.  These should be short and easily remembered by anyone. Eclecticology 18:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hyphenation?
Note: I have moved this from the deleted Hyphenation? so it can be preserved for posterity. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

(maybe this belongs better in Wiktionary talk:Template?)

I've noticed that Wiktionary is exceptionally sparse on hyphenation information. (Clarifying, by "hyphenation" I mean only how hyphens are placed when breaking a word at the end of a line, and not "syllabification", which is a pronunciation issue.)

I think this is good dictionary information (other dictionaries don't hesitate to include it) but I'm not sure of the best way to do it. My first instinct was to put it in the citation form, thus:

 * === Adjective ===
 * mil·len·ni·al

—with bullets instead of hyphens, as English dictionaries put it, but this might interfere with other languages—such as Catalan with its l·l digraph, or languages that modify spelling when hyphenating, e.g. changing a digraph like ck to c·c, or decomposing ligated characters such as ß to s·s (I remember a rule like the first exist[ed] in some language; I don't know if the second was ever practiced but it may be).

Alternatively there might be a === Hyphenation === section but that feels a bit ... ostentatious for what is possibly a dying art anyway. Opinions? —Muke Tever 18:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Personally, the dots work the best for me. To overcome the problem regarding languages that include the dot as part of their writing system, I would encourage using the dots but putting them in a different color. — V-ball 20:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it is only necessary to list hyphination points that don't work with the standard algorithm. However, the algorithm is different for each language.  If using a forign word in an English document, and it needs breaking, do I use the English conventions or the conventions for that word?  If the latter, than a standard link to "hyphinate this word" pointing to a program which does it would be fine.  It can check for a === Hyphenation === section under the == Language == section for the word, and if absent, use the generic procedure.  —Długosz

I tend to consider hyphenation as adjunct to the pronunciation issue. By limiting it to that section we aren't misleading anybody into believing that these hyphens are a part of the normal spelling of the word. Hyphens elsewhere would only appear if the word is regularly spelled with a hyphen. A foreign word in a text should follow the rules of its own language when being hyphenated, not the rules of the host language.

I always view the kind of program that does anything like automatic hyphenation or spell-checking with extreme suspicion. We need to be able to override any automatic procedure. Eclecticology 00:02, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that automatic hyphenation is not the way to go. I never trust MS Word or Corel WordPerfect because they often get it wrong. I always check in either a "real" dictionary or an online dictionary run by a company like Oxford or Merriam-Webster (sp?).

 * I also agree that such information should be included in the Wiktionary. It would make it just that much more helpful and that much better of a resource.

 * V-ball 01:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


text:
Plato

Etymology
Via, from , from , either because of Plato's robust body, or wide forehead or the breadth of his eloquence.

Proper noun

 * 1) The Greek philosopher, 427–347 BC, follower of Socrates.
 * 1) The Greek philosopher, 427–347 BC, follower of Socrates.
 * 1) The Greek philosopher, 427–347 BC, follower of Socrates.

Translations

 * Arabic:
 * Hijazi Arabic: أفلاطون
 * Aramaic:
 * Assyrian Neo-Aramaic: ܦܠܵܛܘܿܢ
 * Armenian: Պլատոն
 * Old Armenian: Պղատոն
 * Bulgarian: Пла́тон
 * Catalan: Plató
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Czech:
 * Esperanto: Platono
 * Finnish:
 * French:
 * Middle French: Platon
 * Galician: Platón
 * Georgian: პლატონი
 * German: Plato,
 * Greek:
 * Ancient: Πλάτων
 * Gujarati: અફલાતૂન
 * Hebrew: אַפְּלָטוֹן
 * Hindi: अफ़्लातून, फ़लातूँ, ,
 * Hungarian:
 * Icelandic: Platon
 * Ido:
 * Ingrian: Platona
 * Irish: Platón
 * Italian: Platone
 * Japanese: プラトン
 * Khmer: ប្លាតុង
 * Korean: ^플라톤
 * Lao: ປະລາຕົງ
 * Latin: Plato
 * Lombard: Platon
 * Macedonian: Платон
 * Marathi:, प्लेटो
 * Norwegian:
 * Bokmål: Platon
 * Nynorsk: Platon
 * Persian:, فلاطون, پلاتن, فلاتن
 * Polish:
 * Portuguese: Platão
 * Romanian: Platon
 * Russian:
 * Spanish: Platón
 * Swedish: Platon
 * Telugu: ప్లేటో
 * Thai: เพลโต
 * Turkish: ,
 * Ukrainian:

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Proper noun

 * 1) Plato, a Greek philosopher

title: Plato


text:
Laplace operator

Noun

 * 1)  A differential operator,denoted ∆ and defined on $$\mathbb{R}^n$$ as $$\Delta = \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_i^2}$$, used in the modeling of wave propagation, heat flow and many other applications.
 * 2) * 1975, Various translators, V. Ja. Sikjrjavyĭ, A Quasidifferentiation Operator and Boundary Value Problems Connected With It, V. I. Averbvh, M. S. Birman, A. A. Blahin (editors), Transactions of the Moscow Mathematical Society for the Year 1972, Volume 27, [ТРУДЫ МОСКОВКОГО МАТЕМАҬИЧЕСКОГО ОБЩЕСТВА ТОМ 27 (1972)], American Mathematical Society, page 202,
 * The first notion of a Laplace operator for functionals on a Hilbert space was introduced by Levy in [l], and the idea was developed further in [2]. Levy's results depended on the posthumous work of Gateaux [3] in which the Dirichlet problem in Hilbert space was considered (without any concise definition of the Laplace operator).

Usage notes
May be regarded as the divergence (∇·) of the gradient (∇) of a function; i.e. Δ = ∇·∇ (= ∇²).

The class of elliptic operators is a generalization.

Translations

 * Estonian: Laplace'i operaator
 * Finnish: Laplacen operaattori
 * French: opérateur laplacien
 * German: Laplace-Operator
 * Hebrew: לפלסיאן
 * Icelandic: Laplace-virki
 * Korean: ^라플라스 작용소
 * Persian: عملگر لاپلاس, لاپلاسین, لاپلاسی
 * Polish:
 * Portuguese: laplaciano
 * Russian:, опера́тор Лапла́са
 * Spanish: operador de Laplace,
 * Swedish: Laplaceoperator, Laplacian

title: Laplace operator


text:
ludography

Etymology
From, and from , after.

Noun

 * 1) A curated list of games
 * 2) A list of the games mentioned in a publication
 * 3) The oeuvre of a game designer
 * 4) * 2019 Nicolas Courcier, Mehdi El Kanafi, The Legend of Final Fantasy VII: Creation - Universe - Decryption "Nomura's Influence" (Third Editions ISBN 9782377840021)
 * Some very specific obsessions recur throughout his ludography: themes involving the subconscious, the nature of the mind, and the manipulated hero.
 * 1) a list of all the board games a designer created.
 * 1) a list of all the board games a designer created.

title: ludography


text:
Talk:ludography

Wikipedia Edit History
This page was Transwikied from Wikipedia. Below is the edit history for the Wikipedia article.
 * Time: 2003-09-25T15:12:55Z - By: w:User:Rossumcapek - Comment: Initial creation of page
 * Time: 2003-09-25T15:13:52Z - By: w:User:Rossumcapek - Comment: tweaking image tag
 * Time: 2003-09-25T15:17:19Z - By: w:User:Rossumcapek - Comment: corrected cite
 * Time: 2003-09-25T20:25:27Z - By: w:User:Michael Hardy - Comment: highlighting the title phrase
 * Time: 2003-09-25T20:25:56Z - By: w:User:Michael Hardy
 * Time: 2004-06-28T20:04:19Z - By: w:User:Zoicon5
 * Time: 2004-08-13T14:48:48Z - By: w:User:Rossumcapek - Comment: more wikilinks, reword, fix ext. link
 * Time: 2004-09-13T20:41:17Z - By: w:User:172.155.0.3
 * Time: 2004-09-13T20:43:41Z - By: w:User:Andris - Comment: Reverted edit of 172.155.0.3, changed back to last version by Rossumcapek
 * Time: 2005-03-09T20:44:06Z - By: w:User:Emmem Vaxeme
 * Time: 2005-06-03T11:29:25Z - By: w:User:Percy Snoodle - Comment:

Earliest use
This was hidden as a comment on ludography:

"The earliest use of the term that has been found (as of 2004) is from the April 1998 issue of Simulacrum magazine, the Quarterly Journal of Board Wargame Collecting. A scanned image of that cover can be found here."

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:ludography


text:
nutgraf

Etymology
Clipping of.

Noun

 * 1)  The sentence or paragraph that summarizes a story.

title: nutgraf


text:
Talk:nutgraf

Wikipedia Edit History
This page was Transwikied from Wikipedia. Below is the edit history for the Wikipedia article.
 * Time: 2005-06-02T23:06:48Z - By: w:User:141.154.36.43
 * Time: 2005-06-02T23:10:59Z - By: w:User:Craigy144 - Comment: delete
 * Time: 2005-06-02T23:11:28Z - By: w:User:Siroxo - Comment: proper tag
 * Time: 2005-06-02T23:11:43Z - By: w:User:Siroxo - Comment: err this is it

title: Talk:nutgraf


text:
doze

Etymology 1
From, from , from , from , from.

Cognate with 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, dialectal 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, also compare 🇨🇬. More at.

Verb

 * 1)  To sleep lightly or briefly; to nap, snooze.
 * I didn’t sleep very well, but I think I may have dozed a bit.
 * 1)  To make dull; to stupefy.
 * 2) * October 29, 1693,, a sermon preached at Christ-church in Oxford before the university
 * They left for a long time (as it were) dozed and benumbed.
 * 1) * October 29, 1693,, a sermon preached at Christ-church in Oxford before the university
 * They left for a long time (as it were) dozed and benumbed.

Translations

 * Aromanian: nsumnedz
 * Belarusian: драма́ць, падрама́ць, задрама́ць
 * Bulgarian:
 * Catalan:, ,
 * Crimean Tatar: yantaymaq
 * Czech: dřímat
 * Dutch:
 * Esperanto: dormeti
 * Finnish:, ;
 * French:
 * Galician: durmiñar, dormexar, dormentar,, trasvaiar, , tutar, cochar, sonetar, botar (unha) soneca
 * Georgian: თვლემს, სთვლემს, ჩათვლემს, ჩასთვლემს, წაუძინებს
 * German:
 * Greek:
 * Ancient: νυστάζω
 * Ido: ,
 * Indonesian:
 * Italian:, dormicchiare
 * Latin: dormītō
 * Luxembourgish: dösen
 * Malay:
 * Maori: turehu, kānewha, kānewhanewha, hāmoemoe, newha, nenewha, hāmoemoe, kurehu
 * Norman: haûter
 * Old Church Slavonic: дрѣмати
 * Polish:, podrzemać
 * Portuguese:, tirar (uma) soneca
 * Romanian:, ,
 * Russian:, , , ,
 * Scots: dover
 * Scottish Gaelic: dèan dùsal
 * Serbo-Croatian:
 * Slovak: driemať
 * Sorbian:
 * Lower Sorbian: drěmaś, pódrěmaś
 * Upper Sorbian: drěmać
 * Spanish: ,
 * Swedish: slumra,
 * Ukrainian: дріма́ти
 * Vietnamese: ngủ gật

 * Finnish: typerryttää

Noun

 * 1) A light, short sleep or nap.

Synonyms

 * See Thesaurus:sleep

Translations

 * Bulgarian:
 * Catalan:, capcinada
 * Finnish: ,
 * Georgian: თვლემა, ჩათვლემა, წაძინება, მირულვა
 * Ottoman Turkish: اویقو
 * Portuguese: ,
 * Russian: ,
 * Scottish Gaelic: dùsal

Verb

 * 1)  To bulldoze.

Etymology
From.

Numeral

 * 1)  twelve

Etymology
.

Numeral

 * 1) twelve

Etymology
From, from.

Numeral

 * 1)  twelve

Etymology
From.

Numeral

 * 1) twelve

Etymology
From, from.

Numeral

 * 1) twelve

Etymology 1
From, from , from.

Numeral

 * 1) twelve

Etymology 2
.

Noun

 * 1)  shotgun gun which fires loads consisting of small metal balls

Etymology
From, from , from.

Numeral

 * 1) twelve

title: doze


text:
make sense

Verb

 * 1)  To be sensible, coherent, reasonable.
 * 2)  To decipher or understand.
 * 3)  ; to be pleasing or beneficial; to work, be operative, or be advantageous to.
 * 4)   To be in the realm of the ordinary, to be not particularly developed.
 * 1)  To decipher or understand.
 * 2)  ; to be pleasing or beneficial; to work, be operative, or be advantageous to.
 * 3)   To be in the realm of the ordinary, to be not particularly developed.
 * 1)  ; to be pleasing or beneficial; to work, be operative, or be advantageous to.
 * 2)   To be in the realm of the ordinary, to be not particularly developed.
 * 1)  ; to be pleasing or beneficial; to work, be operative, or be advantageous to.
 * 2)   To be in the realm of the ordinary, to be not particularly developed.
 * 1)   To be in the realm of the ordinary, to be not particularly developed.

Translations

 * Asturian: tener sentíu
 * Bulgarian: има смисъл
 * Catalan: tenir sentit, fer sentit
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin: 有意義,
 * Czech: dávat smysl
 * Danish: give mening
 * Dutch:, zijn,  zijn
 * Esperanto: havi sencon
 * Finnish: olla järkeä
 * French:, ,
 * German: Sinn ergeben, sinnvoll sein, Sinn geben, Sinn machen
 * Hungarian:, , , van értelme
 * Irish: ciall a bheith le
 * Italian: avere senso
 * Japanese: ,
 * Norwegian:
 * Bokmål: gi mening
 * Nynorsk: gjeva meining
 * Persian:
 * Polish: kleić się,
 * Portuguese: fazer sentido
 * Romanian: avea sens
 * Russian: име́ть смысл, быть поня́тным,
 * Scottish Gaelic: dèan tuigse
 * Spanish:, ser lógico, ,
 * Swedish: vara begriplig,, verka/låta/kännas/vara vettig, mejka sense , rimla
 * Turkish:
 * Welsh: gwneud synnwyr

 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin: ,
 * Dutch:, ,
 * Finnish:
 * German: schlau werden aus, ,
 * Hungarian:
 * Irish: ciall a bhaint as
 * Italian: dare un senso, ,
 * Japanese: 納得する
 * Norwegian:
 * Bokmål:, ,
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian: ,
 * Spanish:
 * Swedish:, , , få ut något av
 * Turkish: anlaşılabilir

title: make sense


text:
Nhật Bản

Etymology
, from.

Proper noun

 * 1) * Đạo đức và luân lí Đông Tây [Eastern and Western Ideas on Morality and Ethics]:
 * 1) * Đạo đức và luân lí Đông Tây [Eastern and Western Ideas on Morality and Ethics]:

Adjective

 * 1)  Japanese

title: Nhật Bản


text:
radome

Etymology
, originating from the 1940s.

Noun

 * 1) A radar dome.
 * 2) * 2019, Joel Martinsen (translator), Supernova Era, Tor, page 233:
 * Radar antennas were distributed in large quantities throughout the base, half of them in white radomes that looked as if some gigantic bird had laid a clutch of eggs at random.
 * Translated from 超新星纪元 by Cixin Liu, 2004.

title: radome


text:
off the radar

Prepositional phrase

 * 1)  Unlikely to happen or be important in the near future, or tending to escape detection or attention.
 * An accession of the Republic of Turkey to the European Union seems to have moved off the radar.

title: off the radar


text:
Wiktionary:Formatting Policy Proposal/layout 1

[See this in use at corporal and can.]

English
[''English is the first language listed, after English, we should chose an order, alphabetical? chronological by date begun?'']

Etymology 1
From the Hrunkian hrunky.

Pronunciation
[we don't subdivide the pronunciations, instead if there are alternates for a single etymology and used for different definitions we just make a note of for which terms they are used.]
 * /hrunk/ (noun 1, noun 2b, verb 1 and 2)
 * /hrUnk/ (noun 2a)

Noun
hrunk [the order of the definitions is arbitrary, but commonality is the most logical one in my opinion.]
 * 1) definition
 * example/quote/citation
 * 1) general def for nested def [where applicable]
 * 2) * nested def 1
 * example/quote/citation
 * 1) * nested def 2
 * example/quote/citation

Synonyms
 * crunk

Antonyms
 * shunk

Idioms
 * hrunky as a hrunk

Related Terms
 * hrunkish

See Also
 * hlunk

Translations
 * língo hrúnk

Etymology 2
From the Hrunkian hrunky.

Pronunciation
[second etymology only needs pronunciation if different]
 * /hrunk/ (noun 1, noun 2b, verb 1 and 2)
 * /hrUnk/ (noun 2a)

Noun
hrunk [the order of the definitions is arbitrary, but commonality is the most logical one in my opinion.]
 * 1) definition
 * example/quote/citation
 * 1) general def for nested def [where applicable]
 * 2) * nested def 1
 * example/quote/citation
 * 1) * nested def 2
 * example/quote/citation

Synonyms
 * crunk

Antonyms
 * shunk

Idioms
 * hrunky as a hrunk

Related Terms
 * hrunkish

See Also
 * hlunk

Translations
 * língo hrúnk

Transitive Verb

 * 1) definition
 * example/quote/citation
 * 1) * nested def 1
 * example/quote/citation
 * 1) * nested def 2
 * example/quote/citation
 * example/quote/citation

hrunk off
 * 1) to hrunk the hrunk
 * example/quote/citation

hrunk up
 * 1) more hrunkage
 * example/quote/citation

Synonyms
 * crunk

Antonyms
 * shunk

Related Terms
 * hrunkish

See Also
 * hlunk

Translations
 * língo hrúnk

Hrunkian
[secondary articles follow the same format, minus translations.]

Etymology 1
From the Hrunkian hrunky.

Pronunciation
[we don't subdivide the pronunciations, instead if there are alternates for a single etymology and used for different definitions we just make a note of for which terms they are used.]
 * /hrunk/ (noun 1, noun 2b, verb 1 and 2)
 * /hrUnk/ (noun 2a)

Noun
hrunk [the order of the definitions is arbitrary, but commonality is the most logical one in my opinion.]
 * 1) definition
 * example/quote/citation
 * 1) general def for nested def [where applicable]
 * 2) * nested def 1
 * example/quote/citation
 * 1) * nested def 2
 * example/quote/citation

Synonyms
 * crunk

Antonyms
 * shunk

Idioms
 * hrunky as a hrunk

Related Terms
 * hrunkish

See Also
 * hlunk

Transitive Verb

 * 1) definition
 * example/quote/citation
 * 1) * nested def 1
 * example/quote/citation
 * 1) * nested def 2
 * example/quote/citation
 * example/quote/citation

'hrunk subito
 * 1) to hrunk the hrunk
 * example/quote/citation

hrunk cogito Synonyms
 * 1) more hrunkage
 * example/quote/citation
 * crunk

Antonyms
 * shunk

Idioms
 * hrunky as a hrunk

Related Terms
 * hrunkish

See Also
 * hlunk

[more languages follow the same format.]


text:
landaulette

Etymology
Diminutive of ; see.

Noun

 * 1) A small landau.
 * 2) A motor car with an open driver’s seat and an enclosed rear section with one cross-seat and a collapsible roof; sometimes used for weddings.

title: landaulette