text:
Wiktionary talk:Phrasebook

Phrase book
Hi fellow wiktionarians.

What do you think about starting a phrase book section? The idea occurred to me since a Spanish speaker asked me to help her to learn English. She was thinking about doing it by e-mail. But why not do it through Wiktionary? It would be nice that the phrases can also be listened to spoken by a native speaker. For English that would probably mean storing at least two sound files (US and UK), although Australian, Scottish, Irish etc could also be interesting, but not essential.

Would it fit in Wiktionary? I would think it does. Can we upload sound files? I don't think we need to have a separate section or anything. It can simply be among the other entries.

What do you think? I'll try to start by putting some example entries.Polyglot 22:38, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea and I'm curious what structure will evolve. Actually I would like to see every word used in a "sample phrase" in text at first, but it would also be fun to listen to it. Henryk911 20:32, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * I like the idea as well, but I wonder who is going to record the sound files? Webkid 08:39, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Everybody who feels like doing the effort and who can connect a microphone to his/her computer. Uploading them is not hard. It's the same procedure as for uploading image files. There is an explanation of how to link to them once they are uploaded. Let your voice be heard! :-) Polyglot 11:21, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wikibooks already has quite a few language textbooks - see Languages bookshelf for a list. However I think a dictionary is also a good learning tool (I like browsing my dictionary rather than attending class). That's the idea behind Wiki Language School and Learners Wiktionary. See also Wiktionary talk:Phrasebook. Flammifer 22:06, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi, I'd like to mention Occleve - the Open Content Learning Environment here, which is both a language learning system and a phrasebook, includes sound clips... and has a custom front end which runs on your mobile phone, so you can learn on the move. It downloads the tests directly from its wiki. So I think it's fair to say it does quite a lot of what was being discussed above. However, it uses XML not wikitext. So far it just contains English-Chinese tests, however I'm hoping that will change! --Joe Gittings 12:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

 * There is also List of phrasebooks - Wikitravel that gives some useful phrases for a traveler. --Thomas was here ☺ 14:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested also. I was about to start a similar project :) My idea was to create a database of the most common/useful words or expressions in any language and combine text, images/animations and audio to help the learning process. My idea is that the more images or audio samples for a given word we have, the better.

There's many reasons for this:
 * Compare accents.
 * Sometimes you encounter a sound you don't have in your own language, and it's good to know how different people pronounce it, as it helps see the possible variations and teachs the learner that there's no such thing as a "perfect pronunciation". eg. the way german or swiss pronounce "ich bin".

What I also wanted is use this (I hope vast) collection of information to build my own language courses, games, etc, as I want to do my own research about the most effective ways to teach/learn a language. Multilang 08:54, 05 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, this would be a great idea, but do you propose simply putting the sound files on the already existing pages or in a separate "Phrasebook" section?--Bakutaro 14:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Hold on people. While a phrasebook is a useful thing, that doesn't mean Wiktionary is the place for it. In fact it's pretty much specifically excluded in the Criteria for inclusion. What this amounts to is including a bunch of phrases that aren't worthy of inclusion as entries of their own under the reasoning they are useful in a phrase book. And it makes them look like any other word entry, which is not good in my opinion. Wikibooks is the better place for this I think. - Taxman 15:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

--Liplop 23:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is a great idea; but not on Wiktionary. How about starting a WikiPhrase site, specially made for learning other languages?

"how much does it cost"
I have removed the following sentence : "Only one - the most generic variant should be included to avoid duplications (no need to add "how much does it cost?" if how much is it? already exists)."

Given that "how much does it cost" is actually a very common phrase, the existence of "how much is it" should make no difference to the inclusion of "how much does it cost". The phrase is also used in the form "How much does it cost to do a thing", a form that does not appear with "how much is it" AFAIK. --Dan Polansky 07:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

CFI
This keeps coming up as if it's never been discussed at all before, but no one seems to actually take part in forming a CFI for phrasebook entries so let's have at it, shall we? I think the following are reasonable, and simple and can be made more specific as needed:
 * 1) Relative simplicity. Sentences with relative clauses and whatnot will be too complex, while I'm blind, I need a dictionary and I'm allergic to penicillin  are simple and potentially useful.
 * 2) Usefulness is completely subjective, so please for the love of god don't bring it up as a talking point.
 * 3) Demonstrable by quotations (I think 3 is fine, isn't that what our normal CFI requires?) from books, films or whatever. Chances are if a phrase can't be found on the internet already, it probably won't be looked for here.
 * Do not try to use google book searches with "intitle:phrasebook" as a reason to delete, as not all phrasebooks label themselves in their titles as phrasebooks.

More ideas? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 18:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I think utility should be the primary criterion for inclusion into a phrasebook. A phrasebook is a book of utile phrases. Utile to whom, and how we decide whether a term is utile, are, I agree, tough questions. The first will need to be fully answered before we can address the second. —msh210℠ (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in complete agreement with msh, utility should be the primary criterion - listing translations of useful phrases into the target language is the entire point of a phrasebook. I think we should define "useful" as meaning "useful for a member of the target audience". Who are our target audience, well I think that non-fluent speakers in the following groups are people would be at the very list a good starter for 10:
 * Tourists / leisure travellers (example useful phrase: "Where is the beach?")
 * Business travellers (example phrase "I have a meeting with the chief executive")
 * Beginner and intermediate language learners (e.g. "How do you say 'thank you' in French?")
 * There may be others, but I think that should cover the major groups. I have purposefully excluded advanced language learners because I feel that they shouldn't need a phrasebook, just individual bits of vocabulary that a dictionary can provide better. Once we have got basic agreement on our target audience, we can decide how we determine objectively what is and is not useful - imo inclusion in a paper phrasebook should normally mean it gets included here, but non-inclusion in the same should not be used as a reason to exclude it here. Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

 * We can't just favor one group over another. We've never had a specific target audience, and neither should we... that completely defeats the point of a wiki project. If we favored X over Y we wouldn't allow minority languages at all. Utility is important, but arguably everything is or will be useful to someone somewhere. But when we try to define what is useful, then we end up shitting on someone somewhere. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 19:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do — or should — certainly have a target audience for the phrasebook: people who have use for something traditionally called a phrasebook (and so would look to ours). —msh210℠ (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Re: "relative clauses and whatnot will be too complex"
 * Many polite formulations of requests require indirect clauses. Perhaps we could have generalized reminders of politeness considerations on every page or include more polite indirect formulations under a direct headword.
 * "Where is the nearest petrol/gas station?" is a bit cruder than "Could you tell me where the nearest petrol/gas station is?"
 * Re: "Usefulness"
 * Usefulness seems a goal that is hard to convert into operational criteria. If we could, it would be exactly what we want. But, "If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a trolley car." I think our best hope is to bootstrap our way into phrasebook CFI by:
 * collecting situation sets that other phrasebooks use to group their phrases;
 * populating only them initially, preferably only with expressions that are in at least one (two, three ?) of the phrasebooks;
 * inferring rules based on our judgment of the merits and demerits of what other phrasebooks do.
 * Re: References. Perhaps we could construct some lists of good phrasebooks for comparison. Is there an equivalent to Onelook for phrasebooks? BTW, it would be particularly useful to find some usable ones that were compatible with our license practices. I stumbled across one reprinted by Dover that was originally from the US War Department (ie, predating its renaming as "Department of Defense" in 1947). DCDuring TALK 19:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

 * There are a lot of phrasebooks, and I feel the problem with picking a few will just invite more of the same bias we've been seeing. As I've pointed out elsewhere, there are phrasebooks dedicated to slang and colloquialisms, and still others that are dedicated to crudeness and vulgarities. Not everyone here wants to accept that, but we're a wiki - not etiquette instructors. So while getting phrases from phrasebooks is useful, I don't think we should put too much emphasis on that. I've never seen are you allergic to any medications in a phrasebook, but I'd argue that it's one of the most useful (and potentially lifesaving, if you get a careless doctor) that we have. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 19:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, I have expressed my opinions about the phrasebook and that I think we don't have the infrastructure to support it as well as it deserves to be supported here. However, if we are to have a phrasebook here then these are my thoughts regarding it.
 * It should be segregated by namespace. This is the best mechanism for organization that we have at our disposal and it would be a pity not to use it.
 * It should be divided by situation, but it should also be trivial to limit the number of languages displayed. I should be able to define my "situation" (i.e. I speak English but am in China so I would like to see English phrases with Mandarin and Cantonese translations, preferably with transliterations for those phrases.
 * I should cohabitate with the main dictionary. There should be all kinds of links from the phrasebook to the main entries for as many words and collocations as possible.
 * We should "advertise" the existence of the phrasebook on the main page as well as in the nav bar. Wikisaurus is pretty hard to find, and that is linked to by many, many pages.  Phrasebook has the potential to be harder to find.
 * Whatever layout we end up with should be machine readable in such a way that it could provide content for any number of frameworks which may wish to use it. If I could throw together an iPhone app based on the data and make a lot of money from it that would be ideal.
 * All of those are for the phrasebook as a whole, as for the content I am not as clear. I am sure about a few things, one is that I am never going to need to describe the relative size of my genitalia to any non-English speaker.  It is entirely reasonable that someone will need to find out where the airport is and where the nearest restroom is.  They will probably need to ask about the cost of things.  Let's, at least for a start, restrict ourselves to a set of circumstances which are obviously solid phrasebook territory.  Once we have that established let's discuss whether there is a giant market for a sex tourism phrasebook which we ought to target.  I understand that as contributors we all have our different designs on how things should be, but this project isn't primarily about us, it is about everyone else.  We ought to consider that when we generate content. -  20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with all that, fwiw, including the bit about Wikibooks, except that I care little about making sure it's machine-readable. In particular, I don't think that that should be at another ideal's expense. —msh210℠ (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I too am firmly of the opinion that the phrasebook does not belong in the main namespace. This does present issues of how to find it. The easiest solution is to make sure that by default searches display results from the phrasebook namespace and display them with equal prominence to main namespace pages. There should also be prominent links from as many pages as is reasonable and I think nouns for things phrasebook users are likely to want to interact with in some way are key. For example, if am in country where I don't speak the language and need to know how to get to the airport then I would start by looking up "airport" so a prominent link at the airport entry to the phrasebook entry for "where is the airport?" and the section that includes phrases likely to be useful at an airport would be very useful. Off the top of my head other words like this would be "toilet", "ferry", "embassy", "beach", "museum", "hospital", "dentist" and "hotel". Equally useful would be links from question words that occur commonly in phrasebook phrases, e.g. "where", "how", "what". If someone comes up to you and asks "Where airport?" you know what they want even if it isn't grammatical. The links should be both prominently graphical for those with graphical devices but also textual for those who do not. Thryduulf (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I live in...+ city name (phrasebook entry)
Hi,

I'd like to add an entry demonstrating the usage of I live in + (city name), as the answer to where do you live? Not sure if I should choose a real city name, like I live in Melbourne or put dots I live in .... Any thoughts? When I created I'm English, not everyone was happy (I am not English, just chose this word). --Anatoli 23:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 * The phrasebook is surprisingly controversial. My first thought is that there are too many cities to include them all, so I would say maybe just capital cities or the most populous cities in the world. Maybe the top 20 or something. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 00:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I was thinking to limit this example even further - down to one, one city would suffice but which one? Do we really need 20? Even taking into account that e.g. in Russian cities can conjugate differently, Москва в Москве, Мельбурн - в Мельбурне, as a demo one example would suffice, IMHO. As the author I'll create I live in Melbourne but I'm worried this could spawn thousand similar entries. Ok, I suggest one example, you suggest 20. Please confirm and explain why you think we need more than one. Any other opinions? --Anatoli 00:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I originally only wanted I don't speak English and do you speak English, but you're never going to get everyone to agree on the one city we should use. I personally don't see what makes Melbourne so special. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 01:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make Melbourne special. It's the dictionary translation that matters. Do you suggest London or New York or your city? I'm happy to replace Melbourne if there is a consensus on what city should be chosen or no city at all. --Anatoli 01:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Eg. "tôi sống ở" is not a complete phrase in Vietnamese, need a city name as used in phrasebooks. --Anatoli 01:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I guess you're not willing to accept that you're never going to get any majority consensus on any one city to use. Bring this up on with on his talk page and see what he says. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 03:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

 * No, I'm not that stubborn :) Perhaps, bring it up in BP as well?

 * : Let’s do London, as it’s an old, Anglophone city, though I would also be fine with Rome. Melbourne or New York are odd as they are from lands originally inhabited by the natives. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  20:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

the entire Phrasebook.
So, this is a dictionary. A phrasebook is a somewhat related concept, but in terms of execution it is not what we are about here. There is this whole other project which is set up to publish books in a Wiki format, it is called Wikibooks. We should export all of the current content into a number of nascent Wikibooks phrasebooks and delete them here. They don't make sense here, they aren't particularly useful the way we have them designed, they are not central or relevant to our primary mission. Think about how phrasebooks are actually used. An electronic phrasebook, one which is accessible from a smartphone, say, would be an incredibly useful tool. Any incarnation of a phrasebook within the confines of Wiktionary would be severely limited in its usefulness. Why not nip this whole thing in the bud and put the effort into a phrasebook which can grow and evolve to suit need rather than trying to make it fit here, where it doesn't and wont ever properly fit? Get rid of it and let's get back to writing a dictionary. - 19:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it's literally turned into a joke, with entries like you wouldn't find this in a normal phrasebook. When people started creating things with zero Google hits, it basically turned to shit. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The "joke" entries were added by Wonderfool, in case you've forgotten. Some jokes being added doesn't mean we should take down the whole project. --Yair rand (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Erghhh...
 * The phrasebook has basically the same goal as Wiktionary, which is to help people understand languages.
 * The phrasebook relies the same contributor base as the rest of Wiktionary.
 * The phrasebook works quite well here, relying on tools that were built for regular Wiktionary entries but also work well for the phrasebook. (WT:EDIT)
 * Wiktionary is not exclusively a dictionary. Read the main page: "Wiktionary has grown beyond a standard dictionary and now includes a thesaurus, a rhyme guide, phrase books, language statistics and extensive appendices." and that's barely half of the huge amount of language-related content that Wiktionary has grown to hold. The phrasebook is a perfect fit.
 * This doesn't belong on RFD.
 * Is this a joke?
 * --Yair rand (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Delete all the entries. They do nothing but frustrate anyone who is trying to look up a given phrase in a given language. I'd be happy to have this as an appendix, if someone can think of a format. Yair's points are mainly valid, but all irrelevant. Conrad.Irwin 20:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree with moving it out of the dictionary namespace. An appendix could work. WikiBooks could work. Equinox ◑ 20:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Though I thought that the language skills of contributors here would allow us to make a big contribution, the lack of maturity and discipline among some (or the desire to sabotage ?) seems likely to make this an impossible project. I think we should give the effort a little more time to determine whether those willing to contribute can avoid making the phrasebook an embarrassment to the rest of the project. DCDuring TALK 20:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yair, you confuse deliberate joke with joke. I think Daniel. and Atitarev have had more joke entries than me, Wonderfool and Vag, who've been making deliberate jokes, which sadly are no sillier than the serious entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Which of my entries did you find amusing or not useful? Let's move the discussion to BP. We should keep the phrasebook. --Anatoli 20:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a subject for Beer parlour rather than RFD, which is for individual entries. A decision about a whole class of entries should not be made through the RFD process. --Dan Polansky 20:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, in theory, but we don't have enough editors for it to matter. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the number of editors has to do with anything. RFD is a wrong process for a whole class of entries. --Dan Polansky 20:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In reality, it's the same people who are going to be commenting. All that will change is bit after Wiktionary
 * That RFD is accessible to the same editors for comments as Beer parlour has no bearing on RFD being an inappropriate place for requesting the removal of the whole phrasebook from the main namespace. By that argument, you could merge all the discussion pages into one, arguing that "it's the same people who are going to be commenting". Beer parlour is watched by more people than RFD, I estimate. Beer parlour is the place where policies are made and changed. --Dan Polansky 08:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

 * The serious entries are quite nice and I find them helpful. The silly entries are vandalism. Regarding frustration, I personally have tried to look up a given phrase in a given language and I was not frustrated, so it is not accurate to say that it does nothing but frustrate anyone who is trying to look up a phrase. I have not been able to find anyone who was frustrated, except in the cases where a phrase or language is still absent.
 * If the silly entries are going to continue, we may as well delete all of it. Moving it to another namespace will make the entries invisible and inaccessible, and it would be better to just delete them rather than move them. If they are moved, all work on them will cease and the existing phrases will be made useless.
 * Anyone who has made joke entries does not appreciate or value the phrasebook and they should stop making phrasebook edits altogether. If phrasebook is edited only by editors who see the value in it, it will remain useful and we should keep it where it is. —Stephen 21:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 * The idea of an internet phrasebook has lots of merit. We don't have the capacity to execute it with any reasonable success here.  Why are we putting forth the effort?  The technical end of what an internet phrasebook should be able to do is not and should not be supported by the Mediawiki implementation here.  The Mediawiki implementation at Wikibooks is intended for just such projects.  How about the people who are passionate about phrasebooks start up a Wikibook or two and we can use this particular wiki for a dictionary. -  21:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah transwiki to Wikibooks. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Wikibooks sucks. They have a few random good things that I've seen, but mostly... not good. Also our formatting is way more accessible, with the entry in English and the translations section... I don't know how well that would go over on wikibooks without making separate books for every language, which those of us who are into multiple language would just find irritating.... — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 01:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I spent a lot of time and effort translating phrasebook entries, I admit I enjoyed the work. Would be sad to see them go. I think we do have the capacity to create a good online phrasebook but it will probably have a limit. We have too many silly, repetitive or useless entries, which make the idea less attractive. The worst thing is adding obscenities, which has already upset a few editors (it seems it has attracted some too). Can anyone write a CFI proposal? --Anatoli 23:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the phrasebook does belong on Wiktionary, as a phrasebook is just a specialised kind of dictionary - a dictionary of phrases rather than a dictionary of words. I would move them to a new (pseudo-) namespace, and make that namespace searchable by default. That way we get the benefit of separation while making the entries in it as easy to find as they currently are - if not slightly easier, as you could search the phrasebook for e.g. love to find e.g. "I love you" and "I love her" without being taken straight to love. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete the whole shebang per TheDaveRoss. In its current form the Phrasebook threatens to make the entire project a joke. Keep proverbs, though. --Hekaheka 17:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Move the whole shebang to appendix space, and redirect entries to appendices grouping phrases by broader areas of utility (looking for food, looking for shelter, looking for medical assistance). Wikibooks is not a developed enough project to effectively host this kind of material, and it surely belongs somewhere. bd2412 T 17:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Keep for now. Stephen is, I think, quite right that Appendix-space has been where many good ideas have gone to die.  I don't think that has to be the case this time, but I think those of us who think the Appendix will work better need to put that appendix/namespace into full, demonstrably-superior working order before there are any bulk deletions or moves. -- Visviva 13:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I do a lot of work on appendices, and I think they will be an excellent resource once we come around to a good system of indexing them. bd2412 T 20:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hekaheka, bd2412, Visviva, etc. I think a phrasebook belongs here, but not in its current form (note that set phrases such as good bye belong to the phrasebook, but should also be kept as normal pages). Redirects are a very good idea to make everybody happy. But the format has to designed, we should not hurry, let's take all the time required. Lmaltier 05:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Here is what an internet phrasebook should be able to do:
 * Provide the means to select a language set and display only phrases and translations relevant to that language set.
 * Not display phrases for which translations into the target language do not exist.
 * Provide intuitive and quick navigation options.
 * Be down-loaded into an easy, readily available framework for offline use.
 * Be accessed with smart phones and other similar devices.
 * Be free.
 * Provide comprehensive, useful phrases for each supported language.
 * I think we can excel at numbers 6 and 7 but have absolutely no means to provide 1 through 5. If you have to be online and in a web browser which supports Mediawiki then you limit severely where you can use the phrasebook.  If you have to hunt through two hundred translations to get the language you want then the phrasebook will be less useful.  The only thing which Wiktionary has which makes it a reasonable place for the phrasebook is the community, and I say that the community can work together on Wikibooks as easily as it can here, or on phrasebook.wiktionary.org or whatever. -  19:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Those are excellent points. This suggests that Wiktionary can't really be an Internet phrasebook. However, it may still be possible for Wiktionary to provide the content for external Internet phrasebooks (thinking here of something like Ninjawords), if we want to do that. In that case a separate namespace seems more than warranted. —Ruakh TALK 14:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't know why you say it can't be accessed through smartphones? I regularly access and sometimes edit Wiktionary using Internet Explorer on my ~5-year-old Windows Mobile-based smartphone. If I'm just reading I usually do so through Wapedia.mobi (as it loads the pages quicker) but it works directly too. The only problems I have are incomplete UTF8 support, and very long pages not always loading properly (this only affects big discussion pages like the tea room, beer parlour, etc. I've not had problems even with large entries). These issues are not insurmountable and probably don't exist on more modern devices.
 * Also, regarding your point about offline reference, I'd have thought the database dumps and/or book creator that Wikipedia links to in its sidebar would be perfectly adequate for this job. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Actually, I'm working on something which can give users language specific translations at a glance. See User:Atelaes/Customization/Translations.  This is still in development, and is not yet ready for prime-time, but I hope to see it there within a few months.  Just to note.  Also, support for smartphones is, while existent, rather shabby at present.  However, Wikipedia has made some enormous strides in that area, and there is no reason to expect that we can't do the same.  In short, let's not confuse current format with eternal format.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How workable would your script be on a page like Appendix:I don't speak/full - it strikes me that it might just be pretty nift-tastic. Conrad.Irwin 01:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Just tested it and it does work, at least for me (try setting your language for Russian, which seems to be the most common language there). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A phrasebook is not a dictionary. It's something very different. No dictionary has phrases such as I'm eighteen years old among its entries. Nonetheless, publishers are often the same, because the general objectives of a phrasebook and of a bilingual dictionary are about the same. This is why I think that the phrasebook may belong to the Wiktionary, but organized differently, as a phrasebook, not as a dictionary. But keeping it only in Wikibooks might be a good solution too. Lmaltier 16:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete or Move to the Appendix namespace. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Not keen on the Appendix: thing unless it's temporary. I would consider eventually moving all entries to a Phrasebook: namespace, for now just a pseudo-namespace. The only problem with the latter is that we have very strong groupthink on the titles of pages here. People have argued thesaurus entries for each word instead of a categorical scheme, and what's the point if that can just as easily be done with synonyms on the actual dictionary entry? I tried to make titles like Wikisaurus:fat (obese) showing the most common word and an unambiguous gloss, but the response I got was we don't do things that way here, as if there's a way we did things on a subproject as young! Not to mention that someone with power decided the name would not be Thesaurus: after all despite what was possibly stronger support for that option. The Citations: space as I had envisioned it would be case insensitive and combine various hyphenations for very good reason. Aside from the obvious benefit of comparing use for different spellings like color and colour on the same page, there's unavoidable ambiguity in that the case and hyphenation cannot always be determined due to sentence capitalization and end-of-line splits, respectively. But then without maturation of the new space, the citations page got attached to each entry which steamrolled right over that idea. So yeah, move all phrases to appendices if that will help us determine what the content should be, but in the end this should really be its own sub-project. DAVilla 08:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Pawley on idiomatic constructions
I came across the following on reading Pawley's classic article.

Should individual phrasebook items refer to entries in a distinct space of "constructions"? DCDuring TALK 16:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Modifying CFI for phrasebook entries
Many points were raised already in the CFI discussion above, but it doesn't seem like any conclusion was reached. I think the primary change needed to CFI to reflect how we treat phrasebooks is this: I don't believe that phrasebook entries should go in a different namespace. While it is a good idea in principle, not all entries that are useful or eligible for a phrasebook are necessarily only for the phrasebook. A phrasebook would include common greetings like hello for example, but we would not want to put them in another namespace, nor would it be desirable to duplicate them. 01:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Phrasebook entries are exempt from the idiomaticity requirement.
 * I believe this also exempts them, indirectly, from the "conveying meaning" requirement, because a nonidiomatic phrase has an evident meaning by virtue of being SoP. I don't know if this means that mentions are permitted as attestations, but it would allow us to say "these 3 phrasebooks have it, therefore we can have it too".
 * To counterbalance that, they are required to be typical and/or useful phrases.
 * What is considered to be useful is subject to debate, and was discussed to some degree above. I don't have a clear answer to this, but it should include an idea of what audience we are targeting and what situations the phrases will be useful to them in.
 * They should have the template to indicate that the entry is subject to this exemption and extra requirement.

Can we attempt "Basic English" in the glosses?

 * I miss you, phrase. Indicates that the speaker has spent more time than is emotionally comfortable away from the interlocutor.

Apart from the problem of this being more of a commentary than a definition, I'm not sure how this gloss is helping anyone. If you can't understand "I miss you" then you're not going to understand the definition. For ordinary words, it makes sense to have precise and technical definitions, but for SOP phrasebook entries it's counter-productive. Should we add as a guideline that phrasebook definitions should attempt to use Basic English or something similar? Pengo (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This why phraseologists, discourse analysts, and indeed most students of linguistics make poor lexicographers until they take on board the meaning of lexicography as a practical enterprise. If you are naive enough to believe that our contributors care much about users other than folks just like themselves, then you might also believe that an exhortation might change contributor behavior. The main purpose I think it might serve would be to get someone to write some Python or Perl to identify definitions that used words outside some restricted vocabulary and then for various folks to make many lists of defining vocabulary for different classes of words. I'm not familiar with all the well-established possibilities that are in the public domain, but am aware that there are some. This could lead a substantial and overdue review of some of our entries that would greatly benefit from such a review. DCDuring TALK 03:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see any point in having definitions at phrasebook entries, since they would already be deleted as SoP if not for the phrasebook exemption. They should not have sense lines, only translations. Equinox ◑ 03:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent points, DCDuring and Equinox. Not sure where to go from here. DCDuring - Methods I know of for measuring tend to be very simple, using simple vocabulary lists, word length, or sentence length. I guess it could be interesting to judge glosses based on some of these metric or measures to find the worst offenders though. —Pengo (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My skepticism is just as to whether we have contributors who are willing to even attempt to write in simple English. It doesn't seem to be a challenge people get much enjoyment from overcoming. I somewhat enjoyed for a few times and found it tedious and unappreciated. I think the best thing we can do given our tools and skills is to focus attention on definitions that use words that are not even in a dictionary like Longmans DCE. Obviously if the context of the word is specialized or newish (eg, Internet), then the defining words may need to include some terms not in a basic English dictionary. Another approach is to rework any definition that uses obsolete, archaic or dated terms or terms with digraphs. Perl is reasonably well suited to making such lists. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

here you are, all the best, get lost, etc.
So do we just include all interlocutory interjections in this thing, even when clearly non-SOP?__Gamren (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I think the phrasebook is supposed to contain only phrases that would be useful for someone in the real world. Equinox ◑ 16:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

 * How about "are you threatening me?" for a new phrase? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 * It has to be useful and qualify as a phrase normally included in phrasebook. Existing published phrasebook can be used as a guide. The phrasebook now includes I've been robbed, I've been raped, which is maybe beyond the scope, I don't know. I don't know about the inclusion of "are you threatening me?". We don't have phrasebook CFI but we should have. Ask User:Dan Polansky. I think he worked on the CFI. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

 * As I typed, the phrase could be said for one's personal safety. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The proposal Votes/pl-2018-12/Phrasebook CFI did not pass; perhaps it could be amended. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Please see my suggestions over at Beer_parlour
More input is needed. Also, do changes to Phrasebook need to be formally approved by a vote? Fytcha (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Separate namespace
I would be interested in reviving the proposal for a separate namespace that came up in 2015 here. I think there are other arguments in favor of a separate namespace that didnt get raised. If each entry were given its own page, we could dispense with the t-boxes and give each language a full L2 header to itself, which would give us room to add usage notes instead of trying to cram all of them into the t-box. And since those L2's would be on the same page, there wouldn't be any more problems with redlinks. — Soap — 20:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Wiktionary talk:Phrasebook


text:
Wiktionary:Multiple etymologies

Multiple etymologies
I'm looking for feedback on how to format words with multiple etymologies, pronunciations, and so forth. I've had a go at it in forte, but I'm not very happy with the result. -- Ortonmc 18:42, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * I think you have the right idea. The trick seems to be in maintaining some degree of flexibility in applying different levels of headings and indentations.  Forte was not a good choice as an example since the two usages do have a common etymological root in Latin. Eclecticology 02:53, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think it's better to use a format that clearly distinguishes the etymologies as separate words. I took a stab at this be reformatting forte, and I'd like to see what others feel about this format. After looking through the various formats that others have been using, I think this one is a significant improvement for tokens with multiple etymologies (words). If consistency is incredibly important, we might do this for tokens with only one etymology

 * I've put together two more variations at user:dmh/forte and user:dmh/forte2. I think I like forte2 the best. -66.26.58.221 14:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) (-dmh)

 * Unfortunately your second link is empty. As for the first one, I think it makes sense to separate them out by etymology, rather than join them together and comment on the etymology and pronunciation.  After all, the two entries for forte aren't really the same word, they just happen to be the same string of letters (and come from a common, distant root through quite different paths).  Also, having the notes about which etymology is relevant, etc., seems a little verbose.  Creating separate entries marked with numbers is a little more in keeping with how other dictionaries do it, and also with how it is currently advised at Entry layout explained.

 * The second version should be there now. It's a bit of a philosophical question whether the various senses of forte are the same word.  They're certainly much closer together semantically than the various senses of e.g., fly, which all have the same etymology.  The only wrinkle with forte is that one sense is borrowed through French and the other from Italian.  Given that both are essentially modern dialects of Latin, this doesn't seem like such a big deal.

 * To me, the basic unit is a sense, anyway, to the extent we can describe these cleanly. It might be nice to have fly (to travel through the air), fly (to be accepted), and fly (the opening of a pair of trousers) all separate, and one could argue that they just happen to be the same string of letters.  We group these disparate senses together anyway, not only because they all come from the same roots, but because that's how we represent them in text.  Even in the (very rare) case of totally unrelated words with the same spelling, the senses should be grouped under the same spelling.  The only question here is how best to indicate the different origins -63.86.210.252 16:29, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) (-dmh)

 * It's certainly true that the two fortes are closer in meaning that the various senses of fly, but I still think that there's an important distinction (which, in the case of forte is also made in the pronunciation) between new meanings that develop out of an English word, and seperate words that come into the English language with the same spelling, and that we ought to push that distinction to the highest level possible (as shown in the template page). Any situation where two words come into the English language and manage to fuse into one meaning would call for a special case, but I've never heard of such a thing.

 * Incidentally, it is in some sense merely convenience that we group words together based on spelling. After all, sake (the alcoholic drink) and soju are closer than sake (the alcoholic drink) and sake (all other meanings), yet we put them both on the same page.

 * While an argument can certainly be made that fly (the opening of a pair of trousers) and fly (to travel through the air) are entirely different words, because the meanings are no longer connected, it opens up a tremendous grey area where we would have to start making the distinctions between how far the meanings have to diverge before we can consider them a separate word. We could allow the wiki philosophy to sort each case out, but I think it's better to keep them together, because any divergence is going to be recent, at any rate, whereas every case of words diverging etymologically but joining together in their English spellings is going to be substantially older.  But where the two meanings have different etymological roots there is no grey area.  The only grey areas are in those cases that we don't know about, in which case I would argue that we should keep them as senses of the same word until certain that the etymologies differ.

 * So I would argue that we should treat cases where words with different etymologies share the same spelling as coincidences, since that's essentially what they are. That's not to say that there's no reason for forte (from Italian) and forte (from French) to have the same spelling, it's just that forte (from French) could have just as easily come into English as fort.

 * I disagree that we should consider forte(1) and forte(2) as different senses of the same word. They should share the same page in the wiktionary, and they should both be categorized under English, but I think they should have nothing in common in our formatting beyond that.

 * I'm not sure how much farther we can usefully carry this but . . . I think the forte2 version agrees with what you say, execpt perhaps takes it further. I give forte(talent) and forte(sword) separate headings, because even though they share the same etymology, they differ in pronunciation.

 * Personally, I think the difference between French and Italian borrowings is fairly minor (especially compared to the two entirely different origins of sake), but it's more important to document what difference there is than to make a pronouncement on its size. I don't care for the forte1/forte2 approach, because I believe most people looking up a word will be primarily interested in the meaning.  In other words, etymology is interesting and valuable, but secondary.  How important is it, really, to know that one sense came to us from Latin through one of its northern dialects and one from one of its southern dialects?

 * Here's how I would rank the various versions by weight that they give to etymology
 * forte (and Ortonmc's version): Heavy weight
 * user:dmh/forte2: medium weight
 * user:dmh/forte: light weight

 * Personally I think medium weight is about right. -dmh 18:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not entirely opposed to separating the distinct definitions into separate words, but in such a case, I would do it in a clearer manner, as here: User:Jun-Dai/forte3. Nevertheless, I think the grey area introduced by trying to divide meanings of a word with the same etymology might be problematic, and it would probably lead to some inconsistency throughout the wiktionary.  In any case, I'd like to see what some other people in the community think, and if it's decided that there should be a change in the template (to forte1, forte2, or forte3, or something else altogether), then the Entry layout explained page should be updated.  As it stands, the forte page is the one that most accurately reflects what is written there.

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

title: Wiktionary:Multiple etymologies


text:
Wiktionary:Beer parlour/Chinese language issues

Chinese character meanings
Chinese Characters, Han Characters, or whatever is the most correct term at the moment, usually have a meaning when they stand alone. The modern written Chinese language, however, mostly uses terms with two or more characters. I would like to add these single character meanings to the translation lists of English words but what should I write in the language field? I might begin adding them under "Han Character" soon unless somebody provides a better solution. Hippietrail 04:14, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Chinese translation
I am wondering if there is a standard for the translation in Chinese, since there are two different writing system in Chinese: traditional Chinese (繁體中文) and simplified Chinese(简体中文), should I add both of them in the translation? and should I also add Chinese Pinyin for English readers? and which kind of pinyin should I used? there are some different system in mainland and Taiwan (esp in Taiwan)? --Samuel 17:58 Jul 27, 2003 (UTC)

 * In Unicode, isn't the difference between Simplified and Traditional purly a choice of which font is used? That is, there is only one code point for the word in the abstract, regardless of how it's drawn. —Długosz

 * No. An example is simplified 龟 (U+9F9F, gūi, "turtle") vs. traditional 龜 (U+9F9C, same).  Some places are more "simplified" than others; e.g. Japanese uses many "traditional" glyphs but does use 龟... what it would come down to is changing languages by changing fonts, which is not the Right Thing to do.  As far as how to express things in the translations, that may be a bit complicated.  Probably the best thing to do is divide the lines:

 * Chinese, Simplified: 龟 (gūi)
 * Chinese, Traditional: 龜 (ㄍㄨㄟ, guei)

 * ...with the simplified in hanyu pinyin (for Mainland China) and the Traditional in tongyong pinyin and bopomofo (for Taiwan). (Perhaps the zhuyin needn't be linked; perhaps the pinyin should? I am thinking of the Japanese translations, which generally link the kana.)

 * For characters that are the same in simplified and traditional, a simpler format could be used, similar to other languages:

 * Chinese: 一 (ㄧ, yī, yi)

 * (with the same reservations about what representations should be linked) ...As a Chinese speaker (Samuel), which way do you think would be most useful (and most like the forms for other languages)?. —Muke Tever 17:33, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How to use Pinyin
Similar to the above problem of when to use/include simplified and traditional characters, what should we do when we want to include the Pinyin phoneticization? Look at one of the example 'good entries' fox. * Chinese: 狐狸 (húlí) Here the Pinyin uses the marked tone characters "húlí". Another way of writing the same thing is "hu2li2". See the Wikipedia section on Tones, where they mention that some computers may not be able to display some tone characters.

Since some people may not be able to correctly display Pinyin tone characters, should we also include the numbered phonetics variant, as demonstrated in Pinyin under Translations?

Shenme 03:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wiktionary talk:International & national trademarks

International & national trademarks
Many International companies and trademarks are the same in all countries which use Latin-script alphabets but have local versions in non-Latin-alphabet countries. Also some such began in a non-Latin-alphabet country with a non-Latin version and use the local version in the home country and the Latin version internationally. I'd like to add some of these which I've collected but what should I put in the language field? International? Latin? Latin Script? Hippietrail 04:14, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Have a look at the entries for the elements. hydrogen, beryllium. There is something like translingual there I think. Polyglot 11:21, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Delete?
WF tagged this for deletion because it's old (he hates old things). He may be right though. Will it ever go anywhere? Equinox ◑ 04:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we can just make it redirect to the 'modern' page... - -sche (discuss) 21:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


text:
Wiktionary:Capitalization in definitions

Capitalization in definitions
I have noticed that about 50% of the definitions are capitalized and 50% are not. Should we standardize this now? The proportion of defs ending with a period "." also seems about 50%. Let's make a decision. Hippietrail 22:27, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * My preference is for full sentences, with initial capitals and ending in a full stop ("."). Although definitions are not sentences, my feeling is that this format makes for greater readability.  Some printed dictionaries prefer the uncapitalised format without full stops to save space and ink - we aren't restricted in this way.  Maybe we could have a vote among the sysops or the major contributors.  In any case, let's hear what other users think. -- Paul G 12:19, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I have no opinion on initial capitals. I prefer to have the full stop at the end, because occasionally you want to add additional explanatory sentences after the definition, and it becomes necessary in these cases. Ortonmc 15:59, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * After only 8 days, I've become acutely aware of this issue. Full sentences with initial capitals, and full stops works for me.  I wondered if there was a standard, and maybe there is now?  How would we get this moved to the style page where new users can find it?  I agree with the earlier comments...  Brevity is not our goal here, since the bits are essentially free. Full sentences makes it much easier to transition into unusual situations where you want to make additonal comments about the definition.  Semicolons, commas, and phrases can also lead to misunderstandings, since there's not really concensus for interpreting them. -- CoryCohen 03:34, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm against capitalization of the first word of a definition simply because wikifying it will for many (most, I suppose) words in many languages (most, I suppose) require piping it to the lower case version. I also prefer semicolons instead of full stops. Ncik 17:00, 03 Jul 2005

 * I am strongly for capitalization (still, after the switch) mainly for two reasons: 1) lower case sentence fragments look stupid and unprofessional, 2) We don't wikify every word in a sentence, and many definitions are not wikified at all, therefore the first word shouldn't matter most of the time since it is easy to use the pipe syntax on those rare occasions. --Connel MacKenzie 4 July 2005 16:53 (UTC)

 * As far as the stupid and unprofessional claim is concerned: Most of the definitions are not proper sentences (in most cases because there is no subject), hence don't deserve to be capitalized. Making the definitions proper sentences require them to have a subject, and this means, by the nature of the definitions, that we would have to repeat the word we are defining in each definition. Example "ram": "a male sheep" would become "A ram is a male sheep". Ncik 01:15, 04 Jul 2005

 * A sentence begins with a capital letter and ends with a full stop, but not everything that begins with a capital letter and ends with a full stop is a sentence. They can be viewed as abbreviated sentences: the definition "D" for a word "W" stands for "W means D".  Writing definitions in this way does not therefore make them into sentences, and no one is likely to mistake them for sentences.  I don't think there is any harm in this.

 * I wouldn't go as far as to say that definitions in lower case look "stupid", but they certainly look incomplete, at least to my eye. — Paul G 16:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wiktionary:Big implementation problems with Wiktionary

Big implementation problems with Wiktionary
Please read this carefully - maybe even twice. I don't mean to offend anyone - these are serious issues and concerns regarding my first impressions of Wiktionary.

Having come from Wikipedia, which I regularly use and contribute to, I have just decided to check out this sister project, and have found it to be next to useless! Selecting random page gave me 5 oriental character definitions in a row, none of which had a page title (my browser doesn't display the font). The articles that I did find were pretty much unreadable (e.g. hold), appearing more like a list than a definition and full of irrelevant material (translations etc.)

For the Wiktionary to be at all useful, I would suggest the following changes as essential:
 * All articles names in English. If non-roman script is used it should be solely as a parenthetical illustration within the article of how it would be written in its native language.
 * The formatting of articles has got to change. A dictionary doesn't suit the heading and sub-heading approach used by Wikipedia.  It should use a different (or expanded) mark up, ideally flagging different components of a definition (word, pronunciation, type, definition, translations, etc.)  Also, the word being defined is rarely the most prominent item on the page.  For example, I was randomly presented with donner, and it took a while to figure out what I was reading.  I thought the word I had been given was French!
 * Allow people who actually use the dictionary to disable certain sections of the article. I find it very hard to read articles that contain long lists of the word in other languages after each definition.  These should be optional (and in my opinion default to disabled) or replaced with a 'translations' link. An expanded mark-up should make this very easy to implement.  Other items that could be optional are pronunciation guides, synonyms/antonyms,
 * All foreign words should be moved to a separate namespace. When I look up a random word on an english dictionary I expect to get an english word.  I don't object to the usefullness of having definitions of foreign words, but without some kind of separation it makes the dictionary seem like a joke.

I think this is a minimum list of things that needs to be implemented before the project can be taken seriously. I am very much behind the idea, and I am fully appreciative of the effort that people are putting into it, but until these issues are resolved I kind of feel that everyone's wasting their time.

--HappyDog 03:05, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Response to HappyDog
(Further responses from HappyDog marked -HD).

Random page & Oriental character definitions

 * 1) The reason you get many Chinese characters when selecing "Random Page" is simply because many many Chinese characters have (bare bones) articles here compared to the relative few Western European words. This is because a lot of work has been put into the Chinese characters. If you want to change the ratio, you are welcome to add lots of Western European words.
 * 2) *I understand this. It's a little like Wikipedia's US census information stubs (for which there has also been a lot of argument for and against the removal).  I guess it's a problem when developing something like this from scratch in that natural biases are bound to occur.  Hopefully it will sort itself out as the Wiktionary develops, but at the moment the Random Page function is nearly useless (I just tried it again and 6/10 were chinese characters). -HD
 * 3) The Chinese character articles do have page titles. Every article is the word (or phrase) the article is about. When the article is about a Chinese character, the page title will be a Chinese character. If you want to be able to read the Chinese character titles, install a Chinese character font. If you do not care to read them, then do not read articles on Chinese characters. If you want to read a random Western European article then be patient and select "Random Page" a few more times.
 * 4) *The point is, it's only because I understand (a) how the wiki works and (b) how computers work that I realised that this is a problem. If I didn't I would have either thought the wiki was broken (it looks pretty broken in these situations) or just been terribly confused by it.  I would suggest at the least that they are renamed to something like Chinese character: 'x'.  It might even be sensible to add a msg: tag saying 'Charcters not displaying properly? click here for advice.' or whatever. -HD

Irrelevant material

 * 1) Wiktionary is not simply a definition dictionary but also a translating dictionary. The reason we seem to have many more translations than definitions at this point is because we currently have more people who are interested in translations than are interested in or good at making definitions.
 * 2) *That's fine. I respect the huge scope of what you are trying to acheive.  However perhaps some sort of 'current status' on the front page with a little paragraph to that effect would allow visitors to know exactly what to expect.  The important thing is not to make new visitors turn away because the Wiktionary doesn't live up to their expectations. -HD
 * 3) On the extremely subjective of subject of relevance, obviously what is relevant to one person is not what is relevant to all. The translations are very relevant to many of the current contributors. If you think good definitions or good pronunciation fields or something else is more relevant, then please please add more of them.

Article names in English
If a language is in a non-roman script, then each word of that language is only correctly spelled in its native script. For many languages there are several different ways to represent words in roman script. No serious study can be made of foreign words if you only look at English representations of them. Now English translations and transliterations are added but sometimes it's easier to find the correct native way to write a word than to find the correct transliteration.
 * This is true. This suggestion was primarily in response to the Chinese character issues.  My feeling is that if a page's title can't be read on a default browser set up then it is not a good title.  See my suggestion for the Chinese characters. -HD
 * I have a browser, set up in a default way on Mandriva Linux with all the fonts for all the languages installed and everything displays just fine. I still can't read it though, but that's another problem. If Wiktionary wants to describe all words in all languages, it would be stupid not to do so in the native scripts. Polyglot 22:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Article format
I completely agree. But I think we have to be very pragmatic in the early stages because we haven't been able to "feel" exactly what the better format would be. A general idea for a new format is easy but a good dictionary has many intricacies that need to be planned for well and to make a good plan you need experience in building a dictionary. I think when Wiktionary is more mature it will become easier to design a new format. Doing so at this stage would mean redoing it again in the future.
 * And not doing it now will mean doing it in the future, with articles that don't have any kind of structure at all. I know that dictionary needs are complex, but even just to add a tag round the translation section, a tag round the pronunciation section would immediately give a useful benefit, and help automate future changes as well.  The tags I would suggest are:, , , , . -HD
 * I'm not sure who made the observation about needing experience, but I agree. I think it's pretty obvious that the Wiktionary needs more structure, but being a dictionary of all languages, it's not at all clear to me what that structure is.  Languages are messy things that tend to defy any rigid structures.  Is there some concensus that we would like more "dictionary" specific macros to help standardize representation of the data?  If so, then I'm happy.  The details will work themselves out as we really learn what we're doing... I hope. -- CoryCohen 03:52, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Disabling sections
I agree here too. The online OED has a version of this but I think it could be better. This requires non-trivial code changes to the Wiki engine as well a new format and I don't think Wiktionary has any hackers of her own yet.
 * I know it will need changes to the code, and I will happily volunteer to help make those changes (I am in the process of setting up my own wiki anyway). Don't know how quickly they would happen as I am pretty busy at the moment, but if people can decide on the implementation I would give it a go.  If the above tags are enabled, then it would simply be a matter of showing or ignoring sections based on a user option. -HD

 * I agree completely that disabling sections should be a priority for feature development. In particular, translations, meanings in multiple languages, and quotations all seem to be likely to overwhelm the reader if they grow too large. Do we still lack a developer?  What language is Wiki in? Perl? -- CoryCohen 03:46, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Foreign words & namespaces
Firstly, Wiktionary is not an English dictionary but a dictionary of all languages, written in English. I do however think the various languages are too tightly connected currently. Namespaces are one proposed solution to this but there may be others and I think it may have been discussed before.
 * If you could point me to the discussion that would be useful. I am not proposing a namespace for each language, just a single foreign: namespace.  However this may be too limited to be of full use. -HD

Hippietrail 06:14, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I totally agree with Hippietrail. We do what we can with the means that were really created for Wikipedia. Translations are what I look for when I open a dictionary, so they are extremely relevant to me. I also don't expect things to be 'intuitive'. Most things take a bit of getting used to and a bit of study how they are set up. It's worth it to invest some time into them. Of course, since this is a project where volunteers contribute, you will find that it will be shaped along the interests of those volunteers. Please be welcome to give it your touch as well and contribute what has your interest. Cheers, Polyglot 10:26, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I too generally agree with the position taken by Hippietrail and Polyglot. Of course there is room for improvement. Perhaps the idea of tags might work; it seems as though it would replace what are now headings. The Chinese character problem is a reflection of a much broader issue across the entire net. We agreed to Unicode at a very early stage of Wiktionary. It attempts to deal with a large range of issues in a multilingual world. It would be wrong to completely dumb down the system while waiting for people to update their browser. People with old browsers should have a right to see what they could always see, the Unicode additions would mean that there is a lot more material that would now become available.

Personally I tend to work more on the English definitions than on the translations, but if other prefer working on the translations that's fine too. I admit that there are times when I consider some of the contributions by my colleagues are perfectly useless, but rather than wasting my time complaining about their efforts I can benefit the project much more by stressing my own efforts. Eclecticology 00:59, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Views of another (primarily) Wikipedian

 * 1) I understand the issues of Chinese chars showing up via the random page, similar to the predominance on Wikipedia of small towns (someone there actually listed all small town pages on VfD!), and that the long term solution is to expand the English defs. There has been talk on WP of adding code to suppress the small town entries from random page--if it happens there, hopefully we can leverage the code to suppress the Chinese chars here (at least for the time being).
 * 2) I have no problem with Wikt being a translating dict, but agree that should be made more clear on the front page. As for unicode/special chars, I don't agree with the newer vs. older argument--my newer non-IE browsers (Opera, Mozilla, Netscape) can display the chars used in the IPA/SAMPA uses, for example, just fine, unlike my older IE 5.5. However, even my newer browsers can't display the Chinese chars. If this is to be an English dictionary, page titles, and initial descriptions/usages should be in some format a default English-language browser installation can display. I generally resent having to install additions (especially things like Flash or Shockwave) to view English Internet content. It also raises accessibility concerns.
 * 3) One thing that wasn't mentioned that I think makes Wikt look bad is the Search page--instead of Google and Yahoo, with the search term in both (like WP), Google is listed twice, with $1 in one search box. Somehow that needs to get cleaned up. Also, the page should have the create this page if you can shortcut link.
 * 4) I don't know a good solution to the pronunciation system alternatives. I find the AHD (probably not the best term to use here) and m-w.com forms MUCH more understandable, and easier to learn/remember, as they use more letters, and accents like I was taught in grade school, instead of (to me) random symbols. (That's aside from the display problems.) If extended ASCII included the correct accented vowels for the "long" forms, I would strongly support that type of system. However, since it doesn't, I can't get as strongly behind it. The suggestion of optionally always displaying the guide does have merit, especially since SAMPA/IPA is so cryptic. Using gifs or jpgs for the symbols might be another alternative. Realistically, assuming I stay (I don't know if I can take how much slower Wikt seems to be), I'll probably just ignore this area, as it is gibberish to me, and focus on what I know (spelling and grammar), and what I am interested in (antonyms and synonyms), and let others backfill.
 * Wait a minute, I just looked at hold, and the AHD version uses the correct symbol, and is immediately understandable to me, unlike the other two. Assuming the other long vowel symbols are similarly available, I'm back to strongly supporting using that system, at least in addition to IPA/SAMPA--it gets around the display problems, and is immediately understandable to those of us that were taught that system as children (is it really only in the US?)--I would face a steep learning curve to be able to decipher the IPA and SAMPA versions.

 * 1) I would also like to see the template, and cited leap sample, fleshed out in a couple areas.
 * 2) 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".)
 * 3) 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? Niteowlneils 16:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


text:
Wiktionary:Using UK/US spellings and vocabulary

Policy discussion moved to Spelling Variants in Entry Names - Draft Policy --Richardb 07:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

'''A policy development page has been created, where this discussion will now be focused. This material is now here, on this page, for archival purposes only. Please do not add further to this page. Go to the Policy Development page Policy Think Tank on American or British Spelling''' and its associated discussion page--Richardb 08:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Using UK/US spellings and vocabulary
Is there an official Wiktionary policy on favouring (or favoring) UK or US spellings and vocabulary in headwords and definitions? If Wiktionary were a "British" dictionary (I put British in quotation marks because Wiktionary has no geographical location) then we might have a page for, say, "humour" with full treatment of the word, and another for "humor" that was merely a cross-reference to "humour". Similarly, British spellings and vocabulary would be used in definitions (eg, "shop" rather than "store" in the definition of "grocer's", "stationer's", etc).

At the moment, because some contributors are British, some are American and some were taught English by British-English-speakers and some by American-English-speakers, inevitably they add pages for spellings and words in their own language, sometimes with and sometimes without cross-references to spellings used in the other country (and Canada, Australia and New Zealand, of course).

I think there is little point in duplicating entire pages for the sake of deleting or adding a 'u' ("humo(u)r"), so would suggest we have what I have described above (one full page for one spelling and another with just a cross-reference). But which would be the "default" version of English? Being British, I am biased towards British English, of course.

It could be said that it doesn't matter which page gets the full treatment, so we might have "humour" and "color" in full and "humor" and "colour" as the cross-references, but my feeling is that Wiktionary should be consistent. This is a bigger issue when it comes to differences in vocabulary - for example, a non-native speaker might have to visit "drugstore" if this is the definition given for "pharmacy" where they might otherwise have understood an equivalent definition ("a chemist's shop") written in British English.

This could get contentious, of course, and I have no desire to start a transatlantic flame or edit war. What do other Wiktionarians think, both about whether this is a problem or not and, if it is, how it might be solved? -- Paul G 12:15, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Did this ever get solved? I'm still avoiding adding definitions that differ in American and British English.

 * At the moment the solution is: if you see it added one way, you can always add a page that redirects with the other form. That way you'll always get to a page with the definition on. But as Paul said, it lacks consistency. Then again so do a lot of things on Wiktionary at the moment. What I'm finding more difficult is making the definitions themselves "international", because each definition is going to be written one way or the other. Some longer entries lack any consistency, since an American may have added them, then a British person edited them, and so on.

 * I think a standard would be nice, but who would decide on it? I want to know what people think too, or at least how we should handle this (or tell me if it's been sorted already). --Rob 17:49, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

 * It would be good to have a policy on this. It's probably worth point out that this is not a UK/U.S. thing but really a International English/U.S. thing. —Christiaan 20:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Apparently, this flamewar has moved to Beer parlour and Requests for deletion. --Connel MacKenzie 21:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
Appendix talk:Index/All languages

Language indexes
Is there any good reason why the language indexes have randomly different formats? For instance, the English index includes words whether or not defined, in a single column, while the German index seems to have only a selected few, in a hyphenated form and a little exploring shows a bunch of definitions of German words to be missing. It seems more useful to have the indexes be "complete" by filling them up with as many words as possible, then the color of links tells you what you have and don't have. Stan Shebs 06:36, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * No good reason at all, except that not many do the work that is required for such indexing. So I have no problem agreeing with you.  These have been developed by many people, each with his own view, before any attempt was made to standardize them.  I see now that you have put the German material into better shape.  That's great! Eclecticology 07:47, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

WiktionaryLang extension
Take a look at the work in progress which will make manual indeces obsolete: http://wiktionarydev.leuksman.com/index.php/Special:WiktionaryLang
 * I can't use that list to hunt for Austronesian languages if I want to do a linguistic comparison. But I can do that with the manual index.  Sorry, but you'll have to do a heck of a lot more than put together a little alphabetical list to make the manual categories obsolete. --EncycloPetey 02:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure could. It would be pretty easy actually. Put up a request. — Hippietrail 02:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Telugu Indexing
Can someone help me in the Index:Telugu languages. I have started to some extent. Whether I am doing some errors. It is difficult to do the indexing manually. Can it done using some bot.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

English Index
Am I missing something, or is there an Index for every language except English here? Someone please point out if I'm missing something glaringly obvious, I'm just looking for an alphabetized list of all entries in this wiki (for either All languages or just English). Thanks --Tomatoswoop (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

title: Appendix talk:Index/All languages


text:
Help:Special page

"Special pages" are pages which are automatically generated by the MediaWiki software which runs Wiktionary. They all have names beginning with "Special:" and thus can be linked to from any user page, talk page, or page in the Wiktionary: namespace, by using internal links of the form:
 * Special: pagename

Special pages should not be linked to from the dictionary entries in the main namespace.

A list of (almost) all available special pages can be found at Special:Specialpages. These pages cannot be directly edited by users; if you have a comment or suggestion about a special page, you should post it to this talk page.

In the following list the long form of each special page name is followed by the short form used in links (shown as pagename in the above example).

Random pages
etc.
 * Random pages work with both Special:Random as with Special:Randompage.
 * The random page function is also available for other namespaces:
 * Special:Random/Wiktionary
 * Special:Random/Image
 * Special:Random/Category

de:Wiktionary:Spezialseiten pt:Wikcionário:Páginas especiais

title: Help:Special page


text:
Template talk:list:punctuation/en

Language bias in msg::punctuation
The msg::punctuation text (see, for example, colon) has an American English bias. # is marked as "pound", but the pound sign was originally "£" and still is in the UK; "hash" might be a better neutral term. Similarly, [ and ] are marked as "bracket", but the UK, "bracket" refers to a parenthesis while [ and ] are called "square brackets". Square bracket might be a better neutral term here. "Period" is also American; the UK uses "full stop" - perhaps, in the absence of a neutral term, both could be included here. What are others' thoughts? And how would I go about editing this myself?

Furthermore, having looked more closely at this list, - is not a minus sign, it is a hyphen. The plus, minus and equals signs are not punctuation marks - they are mathematical symbols. I think this list should be restricted strictly to punctuation marks, namely those marks used to make sentences more readable (comma, colon, semicolon, question mark, etc), not a list of miscellaneous symbols (percent, dollar, etc) - these belong in a different list.

Semicolon is one word, not two. The dash needs to be added.

 * This is the reply I wrote before the above was updated:
 * It's worse than that. # should be labelled as pound/hash/sharp though in Australia it's usual name is "hash". I've always thought that brackets was the generic term but also the "official" term for what is colloquially known as "squre brackets" as opposed to parentheses (round brackets) and braces (curly brackets). Anyway the "worse" part I was referring to is the fact that most of the symbols in this section are not punctuation at all! They are merely symbols. Punctuations are that subset which are used to punctuate a sentence. Under this definition I would not include ampersand, minus, equals, underline, dollar sign, percent, backslash, greater than, plus, less than, pound. Or just change the text to "symbols", "signs" etc. Hippietrail 13:26, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Quite, and then move it out of "colon" et al - maybe make it a separate page that can be linked to, rather than a msg::. Who wrote this?  How can the general user edit it?

 * By the way, I was the author of the first three paragraphs on this topic. I forgot to sign them. -- Paul G 18:29, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Resuscitating an old discussion, I have edited this template to remove the symbols that are not puncutation marks, and have added a fe that were missing. I believe this template is now complete. — Paul G 10:24, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Since this seems to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, shouldn't this be moved to Template talk:punctuation and deleted from the clogged Wiktionary namespace? --Connel MacKenzie 20:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Trivial issue performed. — Vildricianus 18:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Strike out, since fixed (so others don’t have to waste time reading this). H. (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

space taken
I would prefer that this be placed in a different location and that it be much more compact. In a nice box with shading, it would still attract enough attention. Possible locations include on right-hand side (in a vertical layout) or at the bottom of the entry or the first language section (Translingual or English). This is part of my general campaign to densify our entries (especially the first screen). DCDuring TALK 19:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

 * See Requests_for_cleanup for an initial discussion. is probably what you have in mind. After playing with both this one and that one to try to standardized the articles, I found the float-right template unattractive for several reasons.
 * Since it's on the right-hand side, it messes with other objects there (TOCs, wikipedia boxes, pictures).
 * Since it's floating, on some of our shorter Translingual sections the box is too tall and juts out the bottom (into other sections sometimes).
 * Since it's floating, and shaded, it attracts too much attention. (We should be drawing attention to the definitions if anything.) It's just a list of similar items, so it should go under the appropriate subheading ("See also" or "Related Terms") like all other entries.
 * I'm all for making the template more compact and stream-lined. I've made this one nicer than it was before (and just made it 3 columns to make it more compact on your suggestion). Please feel free to do more of this, but I don't think we should make it like the wikipedia boxes. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 09:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I took a stab at a 5-column layout. Feel free to revert or improve. The obvious problem is that the punctuation marks themselves should not be "small". Some of the distinctions lapse into invisibility. OTOH, the labels could perhaps be smaller yet. DCDuring TALK 10:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * created and used to orphan . --Bequw → ¢ • τ 18:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

title: Template talk:list:punctuation/en


text:
Wiktionary:Abbreviations in Webster

The 1913 Webster Unabridged Dictionary is often used as a source for definitions, as its copyright has expired so it is in the public domain. Numerous abbreviations, sometimes not intuitive, appear in the source; this page catalogs them for reference. For abbreviations of literary works and authors, see Wiktionary:Abbreviated Authorities in Webster.

A

 * a., adj. = adjective
 * abbrev. = abbreviated
 * abl. = ablative
 * Abp. = Archbishop
 * acc. = accusative
 * Acous. = Acoustics
 * act. = active
 * adv. = adverb
 * Agric. = Agriculture
 * Alban. = Albanian
 * Alg. = Algebra
 * Am., Amer. = America, American
 * Am. = Amos
 * Am. Cyc. = Appleton's American Cyclopedia
 * Anal. Geom. = Analytical Geometry
 * Anat. = Anatomy
 * Anc. = Ancient, anciently
 * Angl. Ch. = Anglican Church
 * Antiq. = Antiquities
 * aor. = aorist
 * Ar. = Arabic
 * Arch. = Architecture
 * Arch. Pub. Soc. = Architectural Pub. Society
 * Arith. = Arithmetic
 * Arm., Armor. = Armorican
 * AS. = Anglo-Saxon. We classify this as "Old English", so use.
 * Astrol. = Astrology
 * Astron. = Astronomy
 * aug. = augmentative

B

 * Bank. = Banking
 * Beau. & Fl. = Beaumont & Fletcher
 * B. & Fl. = Beaumont & Fletcher
 * Bib. = Biblical
 * Bib. Sacra = Bibliotheca Sacra
 * Bibliog. = Bibliography
 * Biol. = Biology
 * Bisc. = Biscayan
 * B. Jon. = Ben Jonson
 * Bk. of Com. Prayer = Book of Common Prayer
 * Blackw. Mag. = Blackwood's Magazine
 * Bohem. = Bohemian
 * Bot. = Botany, botanical
 * Bp. = Bishop
 * Brande & C. = Brande & Cox
 * Braz. = Brazilian
 * Brit. Critic = British Critic
 * Brit. Quar. Rev. = British Quarterly Review
 * Burl. = Burlesque

C

 * C. = Centigrade
 * Cant. = Canticles (Song of Solomon)
 * Carp. = Carpentry
 * Catal. = Catalan
 * Cath. Dict. = Catholic Dictionary
 * Celt. = Celtic
 * cf. = confer
 * Ch. = Church
 * Chald. = Chaldee
 * Chem. = Chemistry
 * Ch. Hist. = Church History
 * Chin. = Chinese
 * Chron. = Chronology, Chronicles
 * Civ. = Civil
 * Class. = Classical
 * Class. Myth. = Classical Mythology
 * Col. = Colossians
 * colloq., coll. = colloquial, colloquially
 * Com. = Commerce, Common
 * comp. = compound, compounded, composition
 * compar. = comparative
 * conj. = conjunction
 * Con. Sect. = Conic Sections
 * contr. = contracted, contraction
 * Copt. = Coptic
 * Corn. = Cornish
 * corrupt. = corrupted, corruption
 * Cotgr. = Cotgrave
 * Cyc. Med. = Cyclopedia of Practical Medicine
 * Crim. Law = Criminal Law
 * Crystallog. = Crystallography
 * Cyc. = Cyclopedia

D

 * D. = Dutch (sometimes Daniel)
 * Dan. = Danish
 * dat. = dative
 * def. = definitions
 * Deut. = Deuteronomy
 * Dial. = Dialectic
 * dim. = diminutive
 * Diosc. = dioscorides
 * Disp. = Dispensatory
 * Disus. = Disused
 * Dom. Econ. = Domestic Economy
 * Dublin Univ. Mag. = Dublin University Magazine
 * Dyn. = Dynamics

E

 * E. = English
 * Eccl. = Ecclesiastical, Ecclesiastes
 * Eccl. Hist. = Ecclesiastical History
 * Ecclus. = Ecclesiasticus
 * Eclec. Rev. = Eclectic Review
 * Ed. Rev. = Edinburgh Review
 * e. g. = exempli gratia (for example)
 * Egypt. = Egyptian
 * Elect. = Electricity, Electrical
 * emph. = emphatic
 * Encyc. = Encyclopedia
 * Encyc. Amer. = Encyclopedia Americana
 * Encyc. Crit. = Encyclopedia Britannica
 * Encyc. Dict. = Hunter's Encyclopedic Dictionary
 * Eng. = England, English
 * Eng. = Engraving
 * Eng. Cyc. = English Cyclopedia
 * Engin. = Engineering
 * Eol. = Eolic
 * Eph., Ephes. = Ephesians
 * equiv. = equivalent
 * Esd. = Esdras
 * esp. = especially
 * Etch. & Eng. = Etching & Engraving
 * Ethnol. = Ethnology
 * etym., etymol. = etymology
 * Ex., Exod. = Exodus
 * Ezek. = Ezekiel

F

 * F. = French
 * f., fem. = feminine
 * Fahr. = Fahrenheit
 * Far. = Farriery
 * Feud. = Feudal
 * Fig. = Figurative, figuratively
 * Fin. = Finnish
 * For. Quart. Rev. = Foreign Quarterly Review
 * Fort. = Fortification
 * Fr. = French
 * fr. = from
 * freq. = frequentative
 * Fries. = Friesic
 * fut. = future

G

 * G. = German - use
 * Gael. = Gaelic
 * Gal. = Galen
 * Gal. = Galatians
 * Galv. = Galvanism
 * gen. = generally, genitive
 * Geneal. = Genealogy
 * Gent. Mag. = Gentleman's Magazine
 * Geog. = Geography
 * Geol. = Geology
 * Geom. = Geometry
 * Ger. = Germanic or German
 * Gk. = Greek
 * Goth. = Gothic
 * Gov. of Tongue = Government of the Tongue
 * Gr. = Greek
 * Gram. = Grammar
 * Gris. = Grisons
 * Gun. = Gunnery

H

 * H. = High
 * Hab. = Habakkuk
 * Hag. = Haggai
 * Ham. Nav. Encyc. = Hamersly's Naval Encyclopedia
 * Heb. = Hebrew
 * Her. = Heraldry
 * Hind. = Hindostanee
 * Hipp. = Hippocrates
 * Hist. = History
 * Horol. = Horology
 * Hort. = Horticulture
 * Hung. = Hungarian
 * Hydraul. = Hydraulics
 * Hydros. = Hydrostatics
 * hypoth. = hypothetical

I

 * Icel. = Icelandic
 * i. e. = id est (that is)
 * Illust. = Illustration, Illustrated
 * imp. = imperfect
 * Imp. Dict. = Imperial Dictionary
 * incho. = inchoative
 * ind. = indicative
 * indef. = indefinite
 * inf. = infinitive
 * intens. = intensive
 * interj. = interjection
 * Internat. Cyc. = International Cyclopeia
 * Ion. = Ionic
 * i. q. = idem quod(the same as)
 * Ir. = Irish
 * Is., Isa. = Isaiah
 * It. = Italian

J

 * Jap. = Japanese
 * Jas. = James
 * Jav. = Javanese
 * Jer. = Jeremiah
 * Join. = Joinery
 * Josh. = Joshua
 * Judg. = Judges

K

 * K. = Kings

L

 * L. = Latin
 * L. = Low
 * Lam. = Lamentations
 * Lapp. = Lappish
 * Lat. = Latin
 * LD. = Low Dutch
 * Lett. = Lettish
 * Lev. = Leviticus
 * LG. = Low German
 * LGr. = Low Greek
 * Linn. = Linnæus
 * Lit., lit. = Literally, literally
 * Lit. = Literature
 * Lith. = Lithuanian
 * LL. = Late Latin -

M

 * M. = Middle
 * m., masc. = masculine
 * Maced. = Macedonian
 * Mach. = Machinery
 * Mad. = Madam
 * Mag. = Magazine
 * Mal. = Malachi
 * Malay. = Malayan
 * Man. = Manège
 * Manuf. = Manufacturing
 * Mar. = Maritime
 * Math. = Mathematics, Mathematical
 * Matt. = Matthew
 * ME. = Middle English -
 * Mech. = Mechanic
 * Med. = Medicine
 * Metal. = Metallurgy
 * Metaph. = Metaphysics
 * Meteor. = Meteorology
 * mgr. = milligrams
 * MHG. = Middle High German -
 * Micros. = Microscopy
 * Mil. = Military
 * Min. = Mineralogy
 * Mir. for Mag. = Mirror for Magistrates
 * MLG. = Middle Low German
 * Moham. = Mohammedan
 * Mozley & W. = Mozley & Whiteley
 * Mus. = Music
 * Myst. = Mysteries
 * Myth. = Mythology

N

 * N. = New
 * n. = noun
 * Nat. Hist. = Natural History
 * Nat. ord. = Natural order
 * Naut. = Nautical
 * Nav. = Navy
 * Navig. = Navigation
 * N. Brit. Rev. = North British Review
 * Neh. = Nehemiah
 * neut. = neuter
 * New Am. Cyc. = New American Cyclopedia
 * New Month. Mag. = New Monthly Magazine
 * NF. = New French
 * NGr. = New Greek
 * NHeb. = New Hebrew
 * NL. = New Latin -
 * nom. = nominative
 * Norm. F. = Norman French
 * North Am. Rev. = North American Review
 * Norw. = Norwegian
 * Num. = Numbers
 * Numis. = Numismatics

O

 * O. = Old
 * Ob. = Obadiah
 * obs. = obsolete
 * Obsoles. = Obsolescent
 * OCelt. = Old Celtic
 * OD. = Old Dutch -
 * ODan. = Old Danish
 * OE. = Old English. We classify this as the early part of "Middle English", so use template . See the Webster 1913 entry on "English"
 * OF. = Old French -
 * OFelm. = Old Flemish
 * OFris., OFries. = Old Frisian (Old Friesic)-
 * OGael. = Old Gaelic
 * OGr. = Old Greek
 * OHG. = Old High German -
 * OIcel. = Old Icelandic
 * OIt. = Old Italian
 * OL. = Old Latin
 * Olr. (typo) or OIr = Old Irish -
 * ON. = Old Norse -
 * OLG. = Old Low German
 * OPer. = Old Persian -
 * OPg. = Old Portuguese
 * OPol. = Old Polish
 * Opt. = Optics
 * orig. = original, originally
 * Ornith. = Ornithology
 * OS. = Old Saxon -
 * OSlav. = Old Slavic
 * OSp. = Old Spanish -
 * Oxf. Gloss. = Oxford Glossary of Architecture

P

 * p. = participle, page
 * p. a. = participial adjective
 * Paint. = Painting
 * Paleon. = Paleontology
 * pass. = passive
 * Pathol. = Pathology
 * P. Cyc. = Penny Cyclopedia
 * Per. = Persian
 * perh. = perhaps
 * pers. = person
 * Persp. = Perspective
 * Pert. = Pertaining
 * Peruv. = Peruvian
 * Pet. = Peter
 * Pg. = Portuguese
 * Pharm. = Pharmacy, Pharmacopœia
 * Phil. = Philippians
 * Philem. = Philemon
 * Philol. = Philology
 * Philos. = Philosophy
 * Phon. = Phonetics
 * Photog. = Photography
 * Photom. = Photometry
 * Phren. = Phrenology
 * Phys. = Physics
 * Phys. Sci. = Physical Science
 * Physiol. = Physiology
 * pl. = plural
 * Poet. = Poetry, Poetical
 * Pol. = Polish
 * Pol. Econ. = Political Economy
 * Polit. Econ. = Political Economy
 * Pop. Sci. Monthly = Popular Science Monthly
 * pp. = pages
 * P. Plowman = Piers Plowman
 * p.p. = past participle
 * p.pr., p.ple. = present participle
 * Pr. = Provençal
 * Pref. = Preface
 * pref. = prefix
 * prep. = preposition
 * pres. = present
 * pret. = preterit
 * prin. = principally
 * Print. = Printing
 * priv. = privative
 * prob. = probably
 * pron. = Pronunciation, pronounced, pronoun
 * prop. = properly
 * Pros. = Prosody
 * prov. = provincial
 * Prov. = Provincial
 * Prov. = Proverbs
 * Ps., Psa. = Psalms
 * Pyro.-elect. = Pyro-electricity

Q

 * Quart. Rev. = Quarterly Review
 * q. v. = quod vide (which see)

R

 * R. = Rare
 * R. C. = Roman Catholic
 * R. C. Ch. = Roman Catholic Church
 * Rep. Sec. of War = Report of Secretary of War
 * Rev. = Revelation
 * Rev. = Review
 * Rev. Ver. = Revised Version (of the Bible)
 * Rhet. = Rhetoric
 * R. of Brunne = Robert of Brunne
 * R. of Gl. = Robert of Gloucester
 * Rom. = Roman, Romans
 * Rom. Cath. = Roman Catholic
 * Rom. of R. = Romaunt of the Rose
 * Rpts. = reports
 * Russ. = Russian

S

 * Sam. = Samaritan
 * Sam. = Samuel
 * Sat. Rev. = Saturday Review
 * Sax. = Saxon
 * sc. = scilicet (being understood)
 * Scand. = Scandinavian
 * Sci. = Science
 * Sci. Am. = Scientific American
 * Scot. = Scotland, Scottish
 * Script. = Scripture, Scriptural
 * Sculp. = Sculpture
 * Serb = Serbian
 * Serv. = Servian
 * Shak. = Shakespeare
 * sing. = singular
 * Skr. = Sanskrit
 * Slav. = Slavonic
 * Sp. = Spanish
 * Specif. = Specifically
 * Stat. = Statuary
 * subj. = subjunctive
 * superl. = superlative
 * Surg. = Surgery
 * Surv. = Surveying
 * Sw. = Swedish
 * Syd. Soc. Lex. = Sydenham Society Lexicon
 * Syn. = Synonyms
 * Synop. = Synopsis
 * Syr. = Syriac

T

 * Tart. = Tartaric
 * Teleg. = Telegraphy
 * term. = termination
 * Test. = Testament
 * Theol. = Theology
 * Thes. = Thessalonians
 * Tim. = Timothy
 * Todd & B. = Todd & Bowman
 * Trans. = Translation
 * Treas. = Treasury
 * Trig. = Trigonometry
 * Turk. = Turkish
 * Typog. = Typography

U

 * Univ. = University
 * Up. = Upper
 * U. S. = United States
 * U. S. Disp. = United States Dispensatory
 * U. S. Pharm. = United States Pharmacopœia
 * U. S. Int. Rev. Statutes = United States Internal Revenue Statutes
 * usu. = usually

V

 * v. = verb
 * v.i. = intransitive verb
 * v.t. = transitive verb
 * var. = variety
 * vb.n. = verbal noun
 * Veter. = Veterinary
 * Vitr. = Vitruvius

W

 * W. = Welsh
 * Wall. = Wallachian
 * Westm. Cat. = Westminster Catechism
 * Westm. Rev. = Westminster Review

Z

 * Zech. = Zechariah
 * Zeph. = Zephaniah
 * Zoöl. = Zoölogy

title: Wiktionary:Abbreviations in Webster


text:
Wiktionary:Rhymes

About
Wiktionary uses the dedicated namespace “Rhymes:” for grouping words by the rhyme they share. For a guide, see Rhymes:English; note that some languages may not have guides. For formatting of rhyme information in the mainspace, see. For an example page for an English rhyme, see Rhymes:English/eɪm, while for an example of how to link to that page from an entry that belongs to the rhyme, see. For an example of a non-English rhyme page, see Rhymes:Spanish/eɾo.

Rhyme pages are categorized per language, in Category:Rhymes by language and its subcategories such as Category:English rhymes and Category:Spanish rhymes.

Rhyme index
See also all rhyme pages in all languages.

title: Wiktionary:Rhymes


text:
cellular phone

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) A mobile phone using cellular technology.
 * 2)  A mobile phone using any technology (such as PCS).

title: cellular phone


text:
angrily

Etymology
From, equivalent to.

Adverb

 * 1) In an angry manner; under the influence of anger.

Translations

 * Finnish:
 * German: ,
 * Greek:
 * Ancient Greek: ὀργῐ́λως
 * Italian:, , con rabbia
 * Latin: iracunde
 * Middle English: angrily, angerly
 * Portuguese: raivosamente, enraivecidamente
 * Russian:
 * Spanish:, con ira

Etymology
From.

Adverb

 * 1) Angrily, spitefully; in an angry, spiteful or annoyed way.
 * 2) Ferociously, painfully; in a powerful and injurious way.

title: angrily


text:
anguish

Etymology 1
From, , , from , , from , from , from , from. See, the Germanic cognate, and.

Noun

 * 1) Extreme pain, either of body or mind; excruciating distress.
 * 2) * 1549,, "The Third Sermon Preached before King Edward VI:
 * So, ye miserable people; you must go to God in anguishes, and make your prayer to him.
 * So, ye miserable people; you must go to God in anguishes, and make your prayer to him.

Translations

 * Armenian:
 * Bulgarian:, ,
 * Catalan: ,
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Cornish: angos, gloos
 * Dutch:, , , hevig ,
 * Esperanto:, dolorego
 * Finnish: ,
 * French: angoisse de la mort, affres de la mort, ,
 * Galician: anguria
 * Georgian:
 * German:, , , , tiefer Schmerz
 * Gothic: 𐌰𐌲𐌻𐍉
 * Greek:, ,
 * Hungarian:, , ,
 * Irish: pianpháis, crá
 * Italian:, , , ,
 * Japanese:
 * Kapampangan: salbat, pamagsalbat
 * Khmer:
 * Korean: ,
 * Kurdish:
 * Central Kurdish: داخ
 * Latin: angor
 * Macedonian: ма́ка, ма́чење, стра́дање, па́тење
 * Manx: ard-ghuinn, angaaish
 * Maori: auētanga, kohuki, waiaruhe
 * Middle English: angwissh
 * Mongolian:
 * Old Norse: hrelling
 * Persian:
 * Plautdietsch: Angst
 * Polish:
 * Portuguese: ,
 * Romanian: ,
 * Russian:, , , ,
 * Sardinian:
 * Campidanese: affinu
 * Logudorese: amargura, batturellu
 * Sassarese: iscancagòri
 * Serbo-Croatian:
 * Cyrillic: аго̀нија
 * Roman:
 * Spanish: ,
 * Swedish:, , ,
 * Thai:
 * Vietnamese:

Etymology 2
From, , from , , from the noun (see Etymology 1).

Verb

 * 1)  To suffer pain.
 * 2) * c. 1900s, Kl. Knigge, Iceland Folk Song, traditional, Harmony: H. Ruland
 * We’re leaving these shores for our time has come, the days of our youth must now end. The hearts bitter anguish, it burns for the home that we’ll never see again.
 * 1)  To cause to suffer pain.

Translations

 * Bulgarian:, измъчвам се
 * Dutch:
 * Esperanto: angori
 * German: sich quälen,
 * Greek:, ,
 * Indonesian:
 * Italian:
 * Japanese:
 * Korean:
 * Portuguese:
 * Romanian:
 * Russian: ,
 * Serbo-Croatian:
 * Cyrillic: па̏тити
 * Roman:
 * Spanish:
 * Thai: ทุกข์ทรมาน, เจ็บปวด
 * Ukrainian: терза́тися

 * Bulgarian:
 * Dutch:
 * Esperanto: angorigi
 * German:
 * Greek: ,
 * Indonesian:
 * Italian:
 * Japanese:
 * Korean:
 * Portuguese:
 * Romanian:
 * Russian: ,
 * Spanish:
 * Thai:, ทำให้เจ็บปวด
 * Ukrainian: терза́ти

title: anguish


text:
angular

Etymology
From, , from , from. See angle.

Adjective

 * 1) Relating or pertaining to an angle, or angles.
 * 2) Having an angle or angles; forming an angle or corner.
 * 3) Sharp-cornered; pointed.
 * 4) Measured by an angle.
 * 5) Lean, lank.
 * 6) Ungraceful; lacking grace.
 * 7)  Sharp and stiff in character.
 * 1) Lean, lank.
 * 2) Ungraceful; lacking grace.
 * 3)  Sharp and stiff in character.

 * 1)  Composed of three or more rings attached to a single carbon atom (the rings not all being in the same plane).
 * 1)  Composed of three or more rings attached to a single carbon atom (the rings not all being in the same plane).

Translations

 * Bulgarian: ъглест, ръбат
 * Catalan: angular
 * Danish: kantet
 * Dutch:
 * Esperanto: angula, anguleca
 * Finnish: kulmallinen,, ;
 * French: ,
 * Galician: angular
 * German:
 * Hungarian:
 * Icelandic: hyrndur, skarphyrndur,
 * Indonesian:
 * Italian:
 * Latin: angulāris
 * Manx: uillinagh
 * Norwegian:
 * Bokmål: kantete, kantet
 * Nynorsk: kantete
 * Polish:
 * Portuguese:, angulado,
 * Romanian:
 * Russian:
 * Scottish Gaelic: oiseanach
 * Slovak: uhlový
 * Spanish:, ,
 * Swedish:
 * Ukrainian: кутови́й

 * Czech:
 * Esperanto: angula
 * Finnish:
 * French:
 * Indonesian:
 * Italian:
 * Manx: uillinagh
 * Portuguese:
 * Slovak: uhlový

 * Finnish:
 * French:
 * Indonesian: tampak tulang

 * Danish: firkantet
 * Finnish:
 * French:
 * German:
 * Icelandic: beinaber
 * Spanish:

Noun

 * 1)  A bone in the base of the lower jaw of many birds, reptiles, and fishes.

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1)  angle;

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1)   of or relating to angles
 * 2)  forming an angle

Etymology 1
Borrowed from, from , from.

Adjective

 * 1)   of or relating to angles
 * 2)  forming an angle

Etymology 2
From.

Verb

 * 1) to bend so it forms an angle

Etymology
, from.

Etymology 1
.

Etymology 2
From.

title: angular


text:
animated

Adjective

 * 1) Full of life or spirit; lively; vigorous; spritely.
 * 2) Endowed with life.
 * 3) Composed of inanimate objects or drawings that have the illusion of motion through the use of computer graphics or stop-action filming.
 * 1) Endowed with life.
 * 2) Composed of inanimate objects or drawings that have the illusion of motion through the use of computer graphics or stop-action filming.
 * 1) Composed of inanimate objects or drawings that have the illusion of motion through the use of computer graphics or stop-action filming.

Synonyms

 * ,, ; see also Thesaurus:active
 * , ; see also Thesaurus:alive

Translations

 * Armenian:
 * Catalan:
 * Czech:
 * Finnish: henkevä,
 * French:
 * Galician:
 * German:
 * Irish: ceolmhar
 * Korean:
 * Maori: hauoraora
 * Russian:
 * Spanish:, ,
 * Swedish: ,
 * Ukrainian: жва́вий, пожва́влений

title: animated