text:
User:Dhum Dhum/ILTests/nl/en/woord

Definities: Nederlands Vertalingen: Français | andere talen...

woordsoort

 * 1) list of translations

title: User:Dhum Dhum/ILTests/nl/en/woord


text:
User:Dhum Dhum/ILTests/nl/nl/woord

Vertalingen: English | Français

woordsoort

 * 1) lijst met definities

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

title: User:Dhum Dhum/ILTests/nl/nl/woord


text:
User:Dhum Dhum/ILTests/en/fr/word

Definitions: English Translations: Nederlands | other languages...

part of speech

 * 1) liste de traductions

title: User:Dhum Dhum/ILTests/en/fr/word


text:
User:Dhum Dhum/ILTests/fr/en/mot

Définitions : Français Traductions : Nederlands | autres langues...

catégorie grammaticale

 * 1) list of translations

title: User:Dhum Dhum/ILTests/fr/en/mot


text:
User:Dhum Dhum/ILTests/fr/fr/woord

English | Nederlands

catégorie grammaticale

 * 1) definition1(f) vb.:example1(f)
 * 2) definition2(f) vb.:example2(f)

title: User:Dhum Dhum/ILTests/fr/fr/woord


text:
User:Dhum Dhum/ILTests/nl/fr/woord

Definities: Nederlands Vertalingen: English | andere talen...

woordsoort

 * 1) liste de traductions

title: User:Dhum Dhum/ILTests/nl/fr/woord


text:
User:Dhum Dhum/ILTests/fr/nl/mot

Définitions : Français Traductions : English | autres langues...

catégorie grammaticale

 * 1) lijst met vertalingen

title: User:Dhum Dhum/ILTests/fr/nl/mot


text:
User:Dhum Dhum/ILTests/fr/fr/mot

Traductions : English | Nederlands

catégorie grammaticale

 * 1) liste de définitions

title: User:Dhum Dhum/ILTests/fr/fr/mot


text:
thin

Etymology
From, , , from , from , from – compare  – from , from.

Cognate with 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬. . Also related to.

Adjective

 * 1) Having little thickness or extent from one surface to its opposite.
 * 2) Very narrow in all diameters; having a cross section that is small in all directions.
 * 3) Having little body fat or flesh; slim; slender; lean; gaunt.
 * 4) Of low viscosity or low specific gravity.
 * 5) Scarce; not close, crowded, or numerous; not filling the space.
 * 6)  Describing a poorly played golf shot where the ball is struck by the bottom part of the club head. See fat, shank, toe.
 * 7) Lacking body or volume; small; feeble; not full.
 * 8) Slight; small; slender; flimsy; superficial; inadequate; not sufficient for a covering.
 * 9)  Of a route: relatively little used.
 * 10) Poor; scanty; without money or success.
 * 1)  Describing a poorly played golf shot where the ball is struck by the bottom part of the club head. See fat, shank, toe.
 * 2) Lacking body or volume; small; feeble; not full.
 * 3) Slight; small; slender; flimsy; superficial; inadequate; not sufficient for a covering.
 * 4)  Of a route: relatively little used.
 * 5) Poor; scanty; without money or success.
 * 1) Slight; small; slender; flimsy; superficial; inadequate; not sufficient for a covering.
 * 2)  Of a route: relatively little used.
 * 3) Poor; scanty; without money or success.
 * 1)  Of a route: relatively little used.
 * 2) Poor; scanty; without money or success.
 * 1) Poor; scanty; without money or success.

Synonyms

 * ; see also Thesaurus:narrow
 * ,, , , , ; see also Thesaurus:slender or Thesaurus:scrawny
 * , ; see also Thesaurus:runny
 * , ; see also Thesaurus:diffuse
 * , ; see also Thesaurus:diffuse

Noun

 * 1)  A loss or tearing of paper from the back of a stamp, although not sufficient to create a complete hole.
 * 2) Any food produced or served in thin slices.
 * chocolate mint thins
 * potato thins
 * wheat thins

Verb

 * 1)  To make thin or thinner.
 * 2)  To become thin or thinner.
 * The crowds thinned after the procession had passed: there was nothing more to see.
 * 1) To dilute.
 * 2) To remove some plants or parts of plants in order to improve the growth of what remains.
 * 1) To remove some plants or parts of plants in order to improve the growth of what remains.

Adverb

 * 1) Not thickly or closely; in a scattered state.
 * seed sown thin

Etymology
From.

Determiner

 * 1) thy, your singular
 * 2) thine, yours

Etymology 1
From.

Determiner

 * 1) thy, your singular
 * 2) thine, yours

Declension
Declension of thīn (strong only)

Etymology 2
See here.

title: thin


text:
ground

Etymology 1
From, from , from. Cognate with 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1)  The surface of the Earth, as opposed to the sky or water or underground.
 * 2)  Terrain.
 * 3) Soil, earth.
 * 4)  The bottom of a body of water.
 * 5) Basis, foundation, groundwork, legwork.
 * 6)  Reason, (epistemic),.
 * 7) Background, context, framework, surroundings.
 * 8)  The area on which a battle is fought, particularly as referring to the area occupied by one side or the other.  Often, according to the eventualities, "to give ground" or "to gain ground".
 * 9)  Advantage given or gained in any contest; e.g. in football, chess, debate or academic discourse.
 * 10)  A place suited to a specified activity.
 * 11) The plain surface upon which the figures of an artistic composition are set.
 * 12)  A flat surface upon which figures are raised in relief.
 * 13)  The net of small meshes upon which the embroidered pattern is applied.
 * Brussels ground
 * 1)  A gummy substance spread over the surface of a metal to be etched, to prevent the acid from eating except where an opening is made by the needle.
 * 2)  One of the pieces of wood, flush with the plastering, to which mouldings etc. are attached.
 * 3)  A soccer stadium.
 * 4)  An electrical  connected to the earth, or a large conductor whose electrical  is taken as  (such as a  ).
 * 5)  Electric shock.
 * 6)  The area of grass on which a match is played (a cricket field); the entire arena in which it is played; the part of the field behind a batsman's popping crease where he can not be run out (hence to make one's ground).
 * 7)  A composition in which the bass, consisting of a few bars of independent notes, is continually repeated to a varying melody.
 * 8)  The tune on which descants are raised; the plain song.
 * 9) The pit of a theatre.
 * 1)  A flat surface upon which figures are raised in relief.
 * 2)  The net of small meshes upon which the embroidered pattern is applied.
 * Brussels ground
 * 1)  A gummy substance spread over the surface of a metal to be etched, to prevent the acid from eating except where an opening is made by the needle.
 * 2)  One of the pieces of wood, flush with the plastering, to which mouldings etc. are attached.
 * 3)  A soccer stadium.
 * 4)  An electrical  connected to the earth, or a large conductor whose electrical  is taken as  (such as a  ).
 * 5)  Electric shock.
 * 6)  The area of grass on which a match is played (a cricket field); the entire arena in which it is played; the part of the field behind a batsman's popping crease where he can not be run out (hence to make one's ground).
 * 7)  A composition in which the bass, consisting of a few bars of independent notes, is continually repeated to a varying melody.
 * 8)  The tune on which descants are raised; the plain song.
 * 9) The pit of a theatre.
 * 1)  Electric shock.
 * 2)  The area of grass on which a match is played (a cricket field); the entire arena in which it is played; the part of the field behind a batsman's popping crease where he can not be run out (hence to make one's ground).
 * 3)  A composition in which the bass, consisting of a few bars of independent notes, is continually repeated to a varying melody.
 * 4)  The tune on which descants are raised; the plain song.
 * 5) The pit of a theatre.
 * 1) The pit of a theatre.
 * 1) The pit of a theatre.

Synonyms

 * earth

Translations

 * Apache:
 * Western Apache: niʼ
 * Arabic:
 * Armenian:
 * Azerbaijani:
 * Baluchi: زمین
 * Belarusian: зямля́, грунт
 * Bulgarian:
 * Catalan: ,
 * Chamicuro: c̈hijta
 * Chechen: латта
 * Chinese:
 * Dungan: ди
 * Mandarin:
 * Coptic: ⲓⲧⲉⲛ
 * Czech:
 * Danish:
 * Dutch: ,
 * Egyptian:
 * Finnish: ,
 * French: ,
 * Georgian: მიწა, ხმელეთი
 * German:, , , ,
 * Greek:
 * Ancient: ἔδαφος
 * Hebrew:
 * Higaonon: bugta
 * Hiligaynon: duta
 * Hindi: ,
 * Hungarian:
 * Icelandic:
 * Irish: talamh
 * Italian: ,
 * Japanese: ,
 * Javanese:, siti
 * Khmer:
 * Korean:
 * Kyrgyz:
 * Lao:
 * Latin:
 * Lü: ᦡᦲᧃ
 * Macedonian: земја
 * Manchu: ᠨᠠ, ᡶᠠᠯᠠᠨ
 * Navajo: niʼ
 * Norwegian:
 * Ojibwe: aki, ᐊᑭ
 * Old English: eorþe
 * Old High German: grunt
 * Old Portuguese: chão
 * Oromo: dachee, lafa
 * Persian:
 * Iranian Persian:
 * Plautdietsch: Grunt, Ieed
 * Polish:
 * Portuguese: ,
 * Romanian: ,
 * Russian: ,
 * Sanskrit:
 * Serbo-Croatian:
 * Cyrillic: зѐмља
 * Roman:
 * Sicilian:
 * Slovak:
 * Slovene:
 * Southern Altai: јер, тобрак
 * Spanish: ,
 * Swedish:, ,
 * Tagalog:
 * Tajik:
 * Thai:
 * Tocharian A: tkaṃ
 * Tocharian B: keṃ
 * Ugaritic: 𐎀𐎗𐎕
 * Ukrainian: ,
 * Urdu:, بُھوتَل
 * West Frisian:
 * Yagara: dhagun

 * Arabic:
 * Armenian:
 * Aromanian: pimintu
 * Azerbaijani:
 * Belarusian: зямля́
 * Bulgarian:
 * Burmese:
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:, ,
 * Dalmatian: tara, tiara
 * Dutch: ,
 * Finnish: ,
 * French:
 * Friulian: tiere
 * Galician: ,
 * Georgian: ნიადაგი, მიწა
 * German:, ,
 * Greek:
 * Ancient: ἔδαφος, γῆ, χθών
 * Haitian Creole: tè
 * Hindi:
 * Hungarian: ,
 * Indonesian:
 * Ingrian: gruntti, maa
 * Irish: talamh
 * Italian:
 * Japanese:, ,
 * Javanese:, siti
 * Kabuverdianu: txon
 * Khmer:
 * Korean:, ,
 * Lao:
 * Lombard: tera
 * Macedonian: зе́мја
 * Maltese: art
 * Occitan:
 * Old English: eorþe
 * Persian:
 * Iranian Persian:
 * Plautdietsch: Ieed
 * Polish: ,
 * Portuguese: ,
 * Romanian:
 * Russian:, ,
 * Sardinian: terra
 * Scottish Gaelic: talamh, ùir
 * Spanish:
 * Swedish: ,
 * Thai:
 * Tocharian A: tkaṃ
 * Tocharian B: keṃ
 * Ugaritic: 𐎀𐎗𐎕
 * Urdu:

 * Armenian:
 * Azerbaijani:
 * Belarusian: дно
 * Bulgarian:
 * Catalan:
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin: ,
 * Czech:
 * Dutch:
 * Finnish: ;
 * French:
 * German:
 * Greek:
 * Hungarian: ,
 * Irish: talamh
 * Italian:
 * Korean:
 * Macedonian: дно
 * Old Church Slavonic:
 * Cyrillic: дъно
 * Old East Slavic: дъно
 * Old English: grund
 * Polish: ,
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian:
 * Serbo-Croatian:
 * Cyrillic: дно̏
 * Roman:
 * Slovak:
 * Slovene: dno
 * Spanish:
 * Ukrainian: дно

 * Armenian:
 * Azerbaijani:
 * Bulgarian: ,
 * Czech:
 * Dutch:
 * Finnish: ,
 * French: ,
 * German:
 * Greek:
 * Hungarian:
 * Italian: ,
 * Korean:
 * Old English: grund
 * Polish: ,
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian: ,
 * Spanish:, ,
 * Swedish:

.
 * Finnish: ,

 * Azerbaijani: fon, zəmin
 * Bulgarian: фон
 * Dutch:
 * Finnish: puitteet,, ,
 * German:
 * Hungarian: ,
 * Irish: bonn
 * Italian:
 * Korean:, 테두리
 * Maori: papa whenua
 * Russian:
 * Spanish:
 * Swedish:

 * Finnish:

 * Finnish:

 * Finnish: maaasto,

 * Finnish:

 * Finnish:

 * Finnish:

 * Arabic: مَلْعَب كُرَة قَدَم
 * Bulgarian:
 * Catalan:
 * Finnish: jalkapallostadion
 * French: terrain de football,
 * Hungarian: ,
 * Irish:
 * Italian:
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian:
 * Spanish: campo de futbol

 * Azerbaijani: torpaqalama, torpağa birşəldirilmə, yerlə birləşdirmə
 * Bulgarian: заземя́ване
 * Catalan: punt de terra
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:, ,
 * Dutch:
 * Finnish: maajohdin,
 * French: ,
 * German:, Masseleitung, Masseverbindung,
 * Greek:
 * Hungarian:
 * Irish: sreang thalmhaithe
 * Italian: ,
 * Japanese:, 地線
 * Korean: 접지(接地), 어어드,
 * Polish: uziemienie
 * Portuguese: ,
 * Romanian: împământare
 * Russian: ,
 * Spanish: polo a tierra, toma de tierra
 * Swedish:, jordledare
 * Tagalog: sayad

 * Finnish:

 * Arabic:
 * Esperanto:
 * French:
 * Indonesian: ,
 * Japanese: ,
 * Latin: ,
 * Slovak:
 * Telugu:

Verb

 * 1)  To connect (an electrical conductor or device) to a ground.
 * 2)  To electrocute.
 * 3)  To punish, especially a child or teenager, by forcing them to stay at home and/or give up certain privileges.
 * 4)  To forbid (an aircraft or pilot) to fly.
 * 5) To give a basic education in a particular subject; to instruct in elements or first principles.
 * 6)  To hit a . Compare fly (verb (regular)) and line (verb).
 * 7) To place something on the ground.
 * 8)  To run aground; to strike the bottom and remain fixed.
 * 9) To found; to fix or set, as on a foundation, reason, or principle; to furnish a ground for; to fix firmly.
 * 10)  To cover with a ground, as a copper plate for etching, or as paper or other materials with a uniform tint as a preparation for ornament.
 * 11) To improve or focus the mental or emotional state of.
 * 12)  To complement a machine learning model with relevant information it was not trained on.
 * 1)  To hit a . Compare fly (verb (regular)) and line (verb).
 * 2) To place something on the ground.
 * 3)  To run aground; to strike the bottom and remain fixed.
 * 4) To found; to fix or set, as on a foundation, reason, or principle; to furnish a ground for; to fix firmly.
 * 5)  To cover with a ground, as a copper plate for etching, or as paper or other materials with a uniform tint as a preparation for ornament.
 * 6) To improve or focus the mental or emotional state of.
 * 7)  To complement a machine learning model with relevant information it was not trained on.
 * 1) To found; to fix or set, as on a foundation, reason, or principle; to furnish a ground for; to fix firmly.
 * 2)  To cover with a ground, as a copper plate for etching, or as paper or other materials with a uniform tint as a preparation for ornament.
 * 3) To improve or focus the mental or emotional state of.
 * 4)  To complement a machine learning model with relevant information it was not trained on.
 * 1) To improve or focus the mental or emotional state of.
 * 2)  To complement a machine learning model with relevant information it was not trained on.
 * 1)  To complement a machine learning model with relevant information it was not trained on.

Translations

 * Azerbaijani: evdən çıxmaq qadağan etmək, evdən çıxmağı qadağan etmək, evdən çıxmasını qadağan etmək
 * Czech: dát domácí vězení
 * Dutch: huisarrest geven
 * Finnish: pistää kotiarestiin, pistää arestiin
 * French: ,
 * German: Hausarrest geben
 * Hungarian: szobafogságra ítél, , büntetést ad,  , büntetésből eltilt
 * Portuguese: deixar de castigo ,
 * Spanish:
 * Swedish: ge husarrest, ge utegångsförbud

 * Dutch: een vliegverbod opleggen
 * Finnish: määrätä lentokieltoon
 * French:
 * German: Startverbot erteilen
 * Hungarian: repüléstől eltilt, felszállást letilt, nem enged felszállni
 * Polish: ,
 * Swedish: belägga med flygförbud, ställa på marken

 * Finnish: oppia perusteet

Etymology 2
Inflected form of. See also.

Adjective

 * 1) Crushed, or reduced to small particles.
 * 2) Processed by grinding.
 * 3) * 2018, H Glimpel, HJ Lauffer, A Bremstahler, Finishing Tool, In Particular End Milling Cutter, US Patent App. 15/764,739
 * An advantage of such a finishing tool is that, after the machining, the workpiece has high surface quality. The surface which is produced appears finely ground to polished by means of this procedure.
 * 1) Processed by grinding.
 * 2) * 2018, H Glimpel, HJ Lauffer, A Bremstahler, Finishing Tool, In Particular End Milling Cutter, US Patent App. 15/764,739
 * An advantage of such a finishing tool is that, after the machining, the workpiece has high surface quality. The surface which is produced appears finely ground to polished by means of this procedure.
 * 1) * 2018, H Glimpel, HJ Lauffer, A Bremstahler, Finishing Tool, In Particular End Milling Cutter, US Patent App. 15/764,739
 * An advantage of such a finishing tool is that, after the machining, the workpiece has high surface quality. The surface which is produced appears finely ground to polished by means of this procedure.
 * 1) * 2018, H Glimpel, HJ Lauffer, A Bremstahler, Finishing Tool, In Particular End Milling Cutter, US Patent App. 15/764,739
 * An advantage of such a finishing tool is that, after the machining, the workpiece has high surface quality. The surface which is produced appears finely ground to polished by means of this procedure.
 * An advantage of such a finishing tool is that, after the machining, the workpiece has high surface quality. The surface which is produced appears finely ground to polished by means of this procedure.

Translations

 * Azerbaijani:
 * Bulgarian:
 * Catalan:
 * Czech:
 * Finnish:
 * French: ,
 * Galician:, mudo
 * Georgian:
 * German:
 * Greek:
 * Ancient: ἀλητός
 * Hungarian: ,
 * Italian:
 * Kalmyk: үүлсн
 * Latin: molitus
 * Lithuanian: maltas
 * Polish:
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian:
 * Sanskrit:
 * Serbo-Croatian: mljeven
 * Spanish: ,
 * Swedish:
 * Ukrainian: ме́лений

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1) Earth
 * 1) Earth

title: ground


text:
data structure

Noun

 * 1)  Any form of storing and organizing data in a computer so that it can be accessed efficiently.

Translations

 * Catalan: estructura de dades
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin: 數據結構
 * Danish: datastruktur
 * Dutch: gegevensstructuur,
 * Estonian: andmestruktuur
 * Finnish:
 * French: structure de donnée
 * German: Datenstruktur
 * Greek:
 * Hebrew:
 * Indonesian: struktur data
 * Japanese: データ構造
 * Korean: 자료 구조
 * Macedonian:
 * Norwegian: datastruktur
 * Polish: struktura danych
 * Portuguese: estrutura de dados
 * Romanian: structură de date
 * Russian:
 * Serbo-Croatian: podatkovna struktura
 * Spanish: estructura de datos
 * Swedish:
 * Vietnamese: cấu trúc dữ liệu

title: data structure


text:
Talk:about

I suggest put more easy to understand quotations ( better examples than literature, specially if they are poems - more diffucult to understand, generally- ).
 * I've no objection; feel free to add them to those that are already there. I've been adapting the 1913 Webster entries, and giving more specific identification to the Shakespeare quotes, but the meanings have not stood still in the 90 years since.

About derivated terms, better a link to the verb ( and in any case, include examples of use ).Mac 16:42 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
 * I should probably have wikied the derived terms so that there is a place to give fuller explanation when needed. In general they seem well placed at the end of the article than immediately after the verb. (But then "about" is not to my knowledge used as a verb.)  As to examples, I agree; go ahead and add them in.

 * On a completely different point (which should probably be discussed elsewhere) I wonder how useful it is to link to "noun" from every word that is one. I would tend to prefer a glossary that could be accessed from an entry on the quick bar and which would list explanations of certain common terms. ☮ Eclecticology 18:27 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

 * I like the idea of the quick bar. I didn´t know about it. So go ahead ;) I think a "wikification" of all the worlds in an article would be interesting. Similar to the What is plug-in for webpages. Everybody no has the same cultural level and such this wikification would be interesting to see the meanings of more than one word and go back easily to the main article :-? Mac 20:58 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Here's a good example of what I was talking about before. I'm not going to rfc this, because it's certainly clean enough to be usable. But at the very least, the quotations could use an overhaul, and as always we should check BNC, google and whatever else for interesting usages. -dmh 19:07, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Canadian audio
I hate to break the news to everyone but that Canadian audio file is inaccurate and clearly joke vandalism. 65.93.137.190 22:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Some Canadians typically pronounce about as 'a-boat', though. Someone should add that.70.56.73.235 01:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Where in Canada? I've never heard it. The current pronunciations are accurate, however. JodianWarrior (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard "a-boot" or "a-boat". I've added the correct pronunciation. (At least in my area.) --Bran

another about
he came about and did something

'about' a subject
As in the sense of 'we talked about cats'. I noticed that this sense seems to be missing. At least, I don't think any of the existing senses covers it. Am I missing something here or is it really not there? —CodeCat 11:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is sense 7. The sequence of the senses is more or less from older, more spatial sense to figurative to grammatical. Unfortunately, such a sequence, useful for maintaining some coherence to the PoS section, places what might be the most common sense at the bottom. That definition also included the word, now mostly UK, I think, which is misleading for many users as its literal meaning is relatively more common. Finally, the wording of some of the definitions seems dated to me, showing a Webster 1913 heritage. DCDuring TALK 12:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you for clearing that up. The usage example helps a lot. But there is one other sense I can't find either. The sense of 'I am crazy about (something)'. Is that idiomatic or is it a real sense? The trouble is that the translations differ depending on whether it's just 'about' or '(adjective) about'. 'Talk about cats' in Dutch is 'praten over katten', but to be crazy about cats is 'gek op katten' (where gek does literally mean crazy). —CodeCat 12:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just reading CGEL, which is quite complete about such matters. Many English adjectives are optionally followed by prepositions, quite a few by "about". Following is their list of adjectives which they say is mandatorily followed by "about" (or "at"): "annoyed", "concerned", "aggrieved", "angry", "annoyed", "concerned", "cross", "delighted", "glad", "happy", "knowledgeable", "mad" ("crazy"), "pleased", "reasonable". For many of these "over" is a common alternate in English, but not, I think, for "cross", "knowledgeable", "glad", "mad", "crazy", "happy", "reasonable". DCDuring TALK 13:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does that mean we should have an entry crazy about? —CodeCat 13:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Canadian pronunciations
If the Canadian pronunciations are wrong, shouldn't the SAMPA and not just the IPA be removed? See. - -sche (discuss) 05:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I haven't spent the time on Sampa yet, I just know that what they had for the Canadian IPA was incorrect. I thought about deleting the entire lines, but decided against it. Speednat (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

 * SAMPA transcriptions should match IPA transcriptions, and in this case the Ontario one did and the Canadia one corresponded to /əˈbʌut/, so I've removed them. this page appears to attract a lot of fake or incorrect Canadian pronunciations, hopefully a Canadian can add a valid one. - -sche (discuss) 07:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

 * again thanks, I will just delete the faulty sampa, if I change the IPA in the future, or maybe I will spend the time to learn Sampa. Speednat (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

 * What was wrong with the IPA? Canadian raising says it's [ʌu] or [ɛʉ], but the entry had [ʌʊ] and [ɛʊ]; is that the issue or is it something else? —Internoob 20:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I believe the problem is that based on wiktionary, we don't utilize the finer points of IPA. Between the /'s on pronunciation we give a broad transcription, and we don't go into that deep of detail. The reason I had a "problem" with it, is if I go to theabove named Wiktionary guide page for IPA, or others on Wiktionary, or even Wikipedia, they don't show the symbols you were using. Is there a way, you can show the Canadian way of speaking, utilizing the standards of Wiktionary? I have seen mention that the word about /ə.baʊt/ can be shown as /ə.boʊt/.

As a Canadian, I was asked to take a look at the Canadian pronunciations featured in this entry, so here's my two cents. Neither one of the audio clips raises any obvious red flags to my ear. I think the difference between them might be explained by regional variation. The uploader of File:En-ca-about.ogg, User:Tawker, states on his userpage that he's from Vancouver. That explains why, of the two clips, that one sounded more "correct" to my ear — I'm from the Vancouver area myself. The uploader of File:En-ca-about-real.ogg, User:Bran, states he's from Windsor, Ontario on his Twitter account. Vancouver is roughly 3000 miles from Windsor, so comparing a Vancouver speaker to one from Windsor is rather like comparing a Seattle speaker to one from Detroit. In any case, it would probably be helpful to point out the regionality of the Canadian clips in the entry. Sorry I'm not able to offer any help regarding IPA transcriptions. Astral (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As an Albertan, I can confirm that the pronunciation given as British Colombian is the way I, as an Albertan, pronounce it. I'm not sure if this means that "Alberta" should be added beside "British Colombia" or if that is supposed to only refer to the location of the actual speaker, but someone else can make that addition if they wish. Also, I'm not an expert on IPA vowels (I'm in the process of learning them right now), but /əˈbʌʊt/ looks about right (pun not intended) for my dialect. JodianWarrior (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Question
What is the part of speech of 'About' in a game or menu button for example, where it is used alone? 66.112.115.185 08:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

 * It is a preposition. —Stephen (Talk) 09:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

He has his wits about him.
Are He and him coreferents here? Can him in this example be replaced by himself? The wording of this definition should be simplified (I cannot understand it). --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: May 2020
A) Preposition sense #4:
 * On the point or verge of. (See also usage note below.)
 * 1769, King James Bible, Oxford Standard text, Acts of the Apostles, xviii, 14
 * And when Paul was now about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you:
 * 1866, A treatise on the law of suits by attachment in the United States, by Charles Daniel Drake, page 80
 * [It] was held, that the latter requirement was fulfilled by an affidavit declaring that "the defendant was about leaving the State permanently."
 * (Note: This use passes into the adverbial sense.)
 * [It] was held, that the latter requirement was fulfilled by an affidavit declaring that "the defendant was about leaving the State permanently."
 * (Note: This use passes into the adverbial sense.)

B) Adverb sense #12:

 * 1)  Going to; on the verge of; intending to.

Request verification of whether/how (B) is different from (A). I wonder whether (B) might be referring to the "on the verge of" sense when "about" is not followed by "to verb", such as in the "was about leaving" example in (A), even though "going/intending to" is not actually substitutable as a definition. Is there any basis to think that one is a preposition and the other an adverb? OTOH, I could be barking up the wrong tree. Mihia (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think all of these senses should be at about to; the "about leaving the state immediately" construction is obsolete, extremely rare, or has been misinterpreted. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the linked usage note mentions this point. I think we do need to cover the "about leaving"-type usage somewhere, even if this is obsolete or dialect, and of course it cannot go under about to. So I guess either we cover both "about leaving" and "about to leave" at about, or else we cover only "about leaving" there and cross-reference the other to about to. The present approach at about seems to be that it is essentially the same word in both, just that one pattern has gone obsolete, so they should be treated together. Mihia (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * just about still takes the bare form, though it usually isnt followed by a present tense verb. "i just about died!"  is common, and constructions like "I was just about running by the time i saw the door slam shut" are grammatical but not as common. — Soap — 23:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this kind of "just about" is, in origin, a different sense of "about", essentially that of "nearly" or "almost". We can also sometimes use it in much the same way without "just", e.g. "I was so scared, I about fainted". Mihia (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 * I do agree that we need to cover "about leaving" on "about", if enough citations exist (if there is only one, that one might be a one-off error for "about to"). I suppose the "about to" quotations could all be moved to "about to" and then "about" can have a sense for the "about leaving"-type usage that ends with something like "now only used in about to". (In general I have come to feel that we need to link to "multi-word entries" from their obvious consituent parts more often and prominently.) - -sche (discuss) 20:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There seem to be more than enough relevant examples of "about leaving" at . Mihia (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "About [verb]ing" (= "about to [verb]") is another one where the OED has a whole bunch of examples (eight, precisely) so it's certainly not a one-off. Two illustrative cases: "England seems about deserting him" (Carlyle, History of Friedrich II. of Prussia, Book VI), "I was about stepping forth" (Stoker, Dracula). It's listed as obsolete—but given that Dracula is as late as 1897, it's not surprising if it survives in various dialects. —Nizolan (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually Mihia reading through the entries in the OED more carefully I think, based on the regional scope and date, sense #12 (now #11) is not in fact referring to the "about [verb]ing" construction, though we ought to have it anyway, but this one: "In negative constructions: not intending or planning to do something". This is marked as being chiefly North American until the mid 20th century, and I guess at some stage on Wiktionary it was changed from an apparent double negative into a positive. But it refers to phrases like "I'm not about to let the quarantine stop me from going to the beach everyday" or "I'm not about to impose laws on people who disagree with them", which do seem to be a relic of "about to" in its old sense of "planning to do something at any point" rather than "being on the point of doing something"—and the OED accordingly marks it as a subsense of this obsolete usage. —Nizolan (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. It seems, then, if I am keeping track correctly, that we now have at least four related senses/usages: "about to V" meaning "on the point of"; "about V-ing" meaning "on the point of" (now rare/dialect); "about to V" meaning "planning at some time in the future" (obsolete); "not about to V" meaning "not planning at any time in the future" (colloquial, orig. North American). (I'm not sure whether the last two may also exist in the "V-ing" form.) By the way, do you have a view about the PoS of "about" in these patterns? Mihia (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That looks right. I think since it modifies the verb in these four cases adverb makes the most sense. In "to be [X] [verb]ing" I think adverbs are the only POS that can be substituted in. I suppose with "to be [X] to [verb]" it'd be more usual to find a verb participle there, but calling it an adverb is probably more comprehensible given that it's indeclinable (though adjective might also work e.g. "ready to"?). —Nizolan (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts it might be easier to analyse as an adjective in "about to"? (Compare "ready to", "willing to", "desirous to", etc., all of which we currently analyse as adjectives—I can't think of equivalent "[adverb] to" constructions.) —Nizolan (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, to me it seems plausible that it is an adjective in "about to V". Collins Dictionary calls it so, while others say preposition or adverb. However, in "about V-ing" it seems more like a preposition to me. I feel reluctant to split these over different PoSes. I'm not sure which is preferable -- splitting them or potentially fudging the PoS. Mihia (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I feel less confident, perhaps unconfident, about the adjective interpretation. We can say "I am ready. I am ready to X", "I am willing. I am willing to X", but we can hardly say "I am about. I am about to X". Mihia (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point. I'm not sure preposition is the best option though, since typically at least I'd take a preposition to relate to a following noun/noun phrase rather than a verb. Fwiw I think academic linguistics generally treats "be about to" as a fixed modal expression without troubling too much over what "about" is exactly in it; Wiktionary has done something similar for by splitting it from . It might be worth simply pointing to the (already existing)  entry in the same way. —Nizolan (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I've now moved all the "about to" content out of "about" and into "about to", leaving only a "see" link. That link is under "preposition", however, as I think it makes sense to group it with the obsolete "about V-ing", which I feel relatively happy is a preposition. I can live with the slight fudge that "about" in "about to V" may not be a preposition, but if anyone sees a better way to present this, please be my guest! As far as I'm concerned, Resolved. Mihia (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: May 2020
Adverb sense:

 * Preparing; planning.

Sourced to The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles. This is another case where the lack of examples, as well as the fact that the definition does not clearly seem to be the claimed PoS, makes it hard to be sure of the intention. The definition would fit the pattern "about to verb", e.g. "he's about to leave", but of course this is not obsolete. "about" in the sense of "about to verb" is in fact presently given as a preposition sense (other dictionaries differ as to which it is). One of the examples at that entry suggests that there should be a related adverbial sense, but it is not clear to me whether this is it. The related "about verb-ing" pattern is probably obsolete outside certain dialects. Could it be referring to this? I'm not clear why "about" would be an adverb there if we think it is a preposition in "about to verb". If there was a sense e.g. "about dinner" meaning "preparing dinner", it is not clear to me why this would not be a preposition. Anyway, I'm listing this in case someone else can make sense of it and/or has access to the referenced source. Mihia (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The OED entry makes clear that the obsolete sense is specifically about planning to do something at any point in the future, not merely being on the cusp of doing it. Outside of the specific phrase "go about to", whence "go about", this actually seems to have broadly disappeared by the 17th century, at least as far as I can tell on GBooks—the OED's latest example, from 1669, seems more like "on the cusp" to me: "It becomes every man about to transcribe [a work] neither to add any thing of his own [etc]". Earlier examples are unambiguous, but on the fringe of Middle English, e.g. "false traytoure [...] thou arte ever aboute to wynne worship from me" (1470). —Nizolan (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for looking up all the info for this and the other queried senses. I will try to incorporate it into the article in due course. Mihia (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that the definition dates as early as 1150 the Middle English Dictionary might be a good source of examples that helped break the tyranny of the Modern English structure we naturally seek to impose on alien-seeming usage. DCDuring (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Resolved. (This content now moved to about to.) Mihia (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: May 2020
Adverb sense:

 * On the move; active; astir.

The definition does not seem to be clearly that of an adverb, and this entry may just be a mixup with the similarly defined adjective sense, for which examples such as "out and about" and "up and about" are given. I am listing it here in case someone can see something else in it. Note that uses such as "moving about", "rushing about", "jumping about" etc. are covered under a separate definition. Mihia (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Followed up the OED citation. They combine this with "in evidence", which is the sense used in all but one of the examples. The one exception is from 1745: "A little better this morning... I was still out of case but keept about". Like "in evidence" this looks like an adjective to me, I don't know why they've filed it as an adverb. —Nizolan (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * On this basis I have deleted the adverb sense as a spurious duplicate of the similarly defined adj. sense. As far as I'm concerned, Resolved. Mihia (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: May 2020
Adverb sense:

 * In succession; one after another; in the course of events.

Since someone has gone to the trouble of giving us a first attested date, I suspect that this sense probably does exist in some form -- I just can't think of any examples where "about" means this. Could it be archaic? Or perhaps I am missing something more obvious. Noting that there is an expression turn and turn about which might be connected somehow. Mihia (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I wonder if some sense of "come about" could possibly exemplify this? Mihia (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Examples from the OED: "Let's be merry—drink about, good folks" (1799), "We have often sat together reading verse about with our children" (1817). Labelled as currently regional/rare. —Nizolan (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added the "reading verse" example, with a note that it is quoted in the OED. I can't find the source of the other one, so I haven't added that. This entry does not have its requisite three citations, but, now Nizolan has verified the sense in the OED, I'm personally happy for this RFV to be marked Resolved. Mihia (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

about
Adjective: "Near; in the vicinity or neighbourhood."

The usage examples are for adverbial use. I have not yet found a dictionary that has such a definition under the adjective PoS. DCDuring (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Relevant adjectival definitions of "about" found in other dictionaries:

 * AROUND sense 2: There is a scarcity of jobs about. (M-W)
 * Being in evidence or existence: Rumors are about concerning his resignation. (AH)
 * (predicative) in existence, current, or in circulation: there aren't many about nowadays (Collins)

 * Although these definitions are written from a slightly different angle, which we could perhaps usefully reflect in ours, all seem essentially of the same nature as our examples "Watch out, there's a thief about" and "I had my keys just a minute ago, so they must be about somewhere". Mihia (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I somehow failed to notice that we do in fact have "In existence; being in evidence; apparent" as a separate sense. I would not oppose merging the two. Mihia (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As I see it, there is no adjective for about, so I think all three "senses" can be deleted and the usage examples reallocated to the adverb and preposition. DonnanZ (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The entire concept of adverbs being complements of the "be" verb, as in "a thief is about", is highly problematic and unsatisfactory in my opinion, and risks undermining the whole basis on which we distinguish predicate adjectives, albeit it may sometimes be a necessary evil in the absence of any better explanation. In this case, why would "about" in "a thief is about" be an adverb, while "present" in "a thief is present" be an adjective? Preposition would be arguable if, IMO, we are sure that an object is implied, as in e.g. "a thief is about the place" or "my keys are about the house somewhere", though there may be other schools that would wish to widen the scope of "preposition". I would say, however, unless we want to go wholesale down the route of widening the scope, which would presumably involve substantial changes to many articles, that it would be easier practically to have a fixed rule "no object, no preposition" to fall back on in these cases. Mihia (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

 * RFD-kept: no consensus after a year. Can be renominated if required; very little participation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:about


text:
Appendix talk:Swadesh lists

Ordering.
I'd like to add Dutch translations, but I'm not sure where that column should go. Is it in alphabetical order (between English and French)? Should it be close to the closest related languages (English and German)? Or doesn't it matter and do I put it right at the end? D.D. 21:19 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
 * There's no established understanding on this matter, but add on a few more languages and we've got a problem. That's going to require some thought. ☮ Eclecticology 23:23 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

 * Could it be useful in this respect to create different pages with English as the base language and groups of related languages. Let's say a page with English - Afrikaans - Dutch - Frisian - German. Another with English - French - Italian - Romanian - Spanish. Etc...
 * On a more general level, I wonder if we should think about using subpages in certain cases (the Swadesh list and other lists, the interlanguage question, ...). I know that Wikipedia decided against it after a lot of discussion. But I'm getting more and more convinced that Wiktionary is something very different, with a content that needs much more structuring and hierarchy. And probably a number of changes in the software too. D.D. 09:27 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)
 * I very much agree, and we very much need a place other than the "Swadesh list" to go into greater detail. Eclecticology
 * I've created to do that. D.D. 19:56 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

Hashes.
What are this hashes for? Is it a sign of ancient numbering scheme (replaced by HTML table)? May I remove them? Youandme 02:32 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)
 * That's what it was. The numbering and order is as it usually found on such lists, notably the Rosetta Project which has at least partial lists for some 1,200 languages.  I can't be sure whether there is a significance to the order, or whether the entries should be hard numbered

Expanded lists?
Does anyone know if there is another system in use or a more expanded list than Swadesh for a standard list of frequently used/important words? With the Swadesh list as it is, given that words as fundamental as "and" come toward the bottom of the list, and "or" is excluded, while "louse" is included, I'm really at a loss, even if lice are a common part of peoples' lives in the world. Personally, I am interested in a list for helping people to simultaneously teach multiple languages at once where the most basic words essential for communication would be covered. Any ideas? - Brettz9 04:48 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * Possibly you want something like Basic English, see http://www.basiceng.com/words.html --Imran 20:20 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

 * Perfect, I think...thanks! - Brettz9 20:46 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Stab... with a dagger?
Which meaning of stab is intended? Since the word is listed among the group hit, cut, split, scratch, dig I think we are dealing here with basic technological lexicon: how man can transform the environment with his hands and elementary tools. May I assume that stab means something like pierce, bore, make a hole, stick, sting, prick?

I cannot believe anyone has ever considered severely wound or kill a man with a dagger a simple concept commonly used in everyday life. That's the meaning of Italian pugnalare, French poignarder, Spanish apuñalar, found in this appendix.

If I'm right, then the Italian word should be one of trafiggere, perforare, forare, bucare, fare un buco, pungere.

Is the emphasis on the result, the hole? Or on the process, thrusting a pointed tool into something? Should the tool and the hole pass through from side to side or are we contented with an indented mark?

A methodological question: is there a description of the meanings, or are we expected to guess the linguistic psycology of Swadesh? Did he write guidelines? For example, even if the exact meaning were trafiggere (‘transfix’ in literal sense), this word hardly belongs to the fundamental vocabulary. Since this is a requirement, we should make a compromise and choose among forare, bucare both ‘make a hole or opening through’, and pungere ‘sting with something as small as a needle’. In my opinion. But in Swadesh's?

The method for building the lists must be explicitly stated if we plan to make statistical investigations of any value. English bore and Italian forare are both inherited lexicon and both from the same IE root. If we choose to compare these two words we get a result, if we choose a synonym of either we get a different result. But the choice should not depend on the desired result. - Sprocedato 20:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Usually the unmarked meaning of "to stab" that most people think of is to stab someone with a knife or dagger. How do you say "she stabbed her husband with a dagger" or "he stabbed me"? Precision of sense is not so critical as simply making sure that all the languages being compared all have the same sense. The aim is to compare words in different languages that have the same meaning, as nearly as possible, which may mean shared roots if the words mean the same thing, are used in the same situations, and are about as common as one another. But if apuñalar is common and pugnalare is uncommon, then pugnalare should be replaced by another word that would normally be used to translate apuñalar. —Stephen 14:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hindi error.
Hindi transliteration is not correct. I thought of correcting but there'd still be confusion unless Devanagari or IPA or some such script is used, e.g. between short and long a, nasalized vowel & vowel followed by n/m, etc. -- 202.141.24.2 12:51 Jun 6, 2003 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and fix it. The software will recognize Devanagari; it will also allow macrons in translations to show long vowels.  This is not the place for IPA; such a pronunciation schem would belong on each individual word article. Eclecticology 06:40 Jun 7, 2003 (UTC)

 * You might also add it to Indo-Iranian_Swadesh_lists (instead of the main page which seems to be hosting European languages mostly. I've been editing the Chinese here, but at some point, I should probably move that too. - Brettz9 18:54 Jun 7, 2003 (UTC)

Non-Unicode browsers.
I suspect that Brettz9 doesn't currently using full unicode-aware browser. So much changes made that I can't point out where the wrong started. This table is the diff made on word 8,9,10 between last changes by 141.76.1.121 (01:11 May 11, 2003 UTC) and Brettz9 (03:58 Jun 8, 2003 UTC) http://wiktionary.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Swadesh_list&diff=13569&oldid=10526 Petruk 04:44 Jun 8, 2003 (UTC)

My apologies...I'm using the new Safari browser for the mac, and maybe it (or my configuration) is somehow messing things up. I'm still not sure how things are messing up though. I don't see the doubles in my version. If the accents are the issue, would it be too much to have people use the HTML codes instead if that is the problem? If you think that is too much trouble to change, maybe I can request of someone else then to please remove the Chinese column entirely (and push the Hindi over or ideally add the latter to the Indo-Iranian languages page)? I've already added the Chinese words to the Sino-Tibetan template. Thanks! - Brettz9 15:58 Jun 8, 2003 (UTC)

 * I could understand your suggestion to use HTML entity name, for example &aacute; to put á, instead of the single character itself, as you did on Indo-Iranian Swadesh lists, for compatibility issue. But I'm affraid there are some characters that don't have the corresponding HTML entity. And to use the numerical format &#333; etc. would make it a nightmare, at least for me, to search for the code on list of lots, probably thousands, of kanji characters. Petruk 17:31 Jun 8, 2003 (UTC)

Thou.
If you use translate thou to Sie (formal) in German, why do you translate ist to tu (informal) in French? Wouldn't vous be more appropriate? --81.217.38.108 20:07, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * "Thou" is relatively uncommon in English. Its presence here is primarily to emphasize that the singular is intended, rather than to deal with matters of formality.  In those circumstances the French "tu" is correct.  Perhaps the German should be changed to du, but I'll leave that to someone more familiar with German. Eclecticology 00:55, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * In French, vous is a formal reference and correct to use with both a singular as well as plural subject. For an informal or intimate reference, as with family and friends, tu and nous would be the pronouns used for a singular and plural subject respectively.

 * In German, Sie is the formal pronoun, whether it is a singular or plural reference; du and wir are the correct pronouns for the singular and plural references respectively. HodgePodge (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Rosetta project.
The Rosetta Project is also done with volunteers... they've got Swadesh lists for all these languages. I don't know about the license, but they say
 * "The resulting Rosetta archive will be publicly available in three different media: a free and continually growing online archive..."
 * - fagan

The link to the interactive table seems to be broken Wendy

It seems the Rosetta Project no longer has its Swadesh lists. Locoluis 01:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 * They do, but 1) It's no longer an interactive list 2) You have to agree to not use the knowledge for commercial gain before seeing the list. 201.132.169.145 17:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Polite adresses.
I took the liberty of deleting the so-called "polite adresses" [German Höflichkeitsformen (Sie), French vous, Dutch jij, u etc.], assuming that the purpose of a Swadeh is to list and compare very basic concepts, and not to provide full coverage of all the possible translations. If somebody wants to restore these forms, here they are: German polite you (sing.) = Sie German polite you (pl.) = Sie French polite you (sing.) = vous I don't know the Dutch version for sure, this is what i deleted from the "you (sing.) line: jij, je (s.); u, gij (obs. in Holland, commonly used in Flanders, Belgium).

 * It is not because this difference is not relevant or important in English or Esperanto, that it is not important in many other languages. I don't know whether it belongs in the Swadesh list, as I don't really grasp what the purpose is of such a list besides comparing languages. When comparing languages it is important to realize that some languages do see a difference between polite forms and forms to be used among friends and family. So I don't see why it had to be removed from the list.

Latin.
I added Latin, because I think it is interesting to compare it with the languages of Latin origin. Hope nobody minds...

Person.
I am not sure about the "person" row. In the English list, person is in between woman, man, and child, which makes it seem that person as in "human being" is meant, not a legal person or a person in a play or any other definition. In this case, the correct Latin translation would be homo, not persona (which means "mask" or "character in a play"; and the correct German equivalent would be Mensch, not Person; somebody should check the other languages. Any comments? --209.179.245.121 03:59, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * This is probably true. —Muke Tever 12:51, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree. The Rosetta Project shows Mensch.  It's an excellent project for this sort of thing, and should be referenced when this kind of problem arises: http://www.rosettaproject.org:8080/live/search/  Eclecticology 17:23, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Coming a little late to this conversation, I agree too. I'm sure what is intended is a translation for homo, ἄνθρωπος, Mensch, etc. I'm going to change it to "Man (human being)" as opposed to "Man (adult male)". --Angr 07:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Help with Basic English pages.
How about we get on with developing the Basic English pages now that the Swadesh ones are basically finished. We could use some help, not only with the other languages, but with coming up with higher-order categories for the words in order to be able to group words together within the list later on. Brettz9 16:33, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) See Basic English Word List

Wikipedia entry.
Hi. There's currently no Wikipedia entry for Swadesh list. Can someone please start one. The content of this article seems encyclopedic, and less suitable for a dictionary — maybe it should be moved? -- (anon) 08:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Esperanto "you" (vi, ci).
Esperanto "you" = vi (singular and plural); Also note: the "ci" form is formal as in "thou" but rarely used (e.g. poetry). "Ci" is not even mentioned here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Vi#Esperanto therefore I am correcting the Swadesh list table to "vi" and removing "ci".

Iberian languages?
since when was 'Iberian languages' a language family?

Reorder list?
I believe it would be useful to re-arrange the list so closely related languages are listed next to each other; ie German next to Dutch, Spanish next to Italian, Latin, and French; that way it would be easier to spot similarities and patterns.

I don't have the expertise in the code here to do this myself, but it would be worthwhile....

I would propose the order: English Dutch German Swedish Esperanto Latin Italian Spanish French

BTW: English seems to be missing from the list/tree of languages; I think it should go to the Germanic languages ;) but without link (English-English Swadesh list wouldn't make sense) [fvg 78.234.102.169 21:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)]

 * First of all : thank you very much to ALL the people who contributed to edit and organize the HUGE material around Swadesh lists ! ! ! I agree with the objection except about the order of languages, which should be better around latin and german . So something in this way : french , spanish , latin ,italian , english , german , dutch , swedish . In any case , for personal use , is very simple to copy the table and paste it in a spreadsheet . It would be nice if someone could point here the instructions about how to reimport the table here . Thank you again to everybody ! ! Alessandrofalconi (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Moving lists from Wikipedia.
Please see w:Talk:Swadesh_list. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-16t12:14z

Obsolete Family Terminology
Hamito-Semitic? Malayo-Polynesian? My Gosh. This is ridiculous, and totally obsolete! Use <> and <> instead. The names Hamito-Semitic and Malayo-Polynesian come from a time when other branches of those families were ignored or neglected (i.e., the several Formosan branches of Austronesian / Chadic and Omotic branches of Afro-Asiatic). Remember, this is not the 1911 Britannica. Be scientific, by modern standards and with modern terminology, please. 200.208.131.106 15:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've just edited the names here and on the relevant articles.Kelilan 04:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Some corrections to the Spanish
Yesterday, I spent about an hour going over this Swadesh list with a native Spanish speaker here in Mexico (near Mexico city). We went over the list and here is what we observed:

 * Some is either Algunos or unos in Spanish (I forgot to ask a native speaker what the difference between these is. I'll do so this afternoon)

 * OK, I asked a native speaker about this. Algunos is a unspecified small groups of items of a given type (say, Mangos); Unos (which literally translates to "ones", as in "the ones with green spots") is a specified small group of items (say, Mangos with green spots). 201.132.183.230 01:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Short actually means multiple things in English. I don´t know if Swadesh meant "Short as in not long" or "Short as in not tall".  The "not long" form of short in Spanish is corto and the "not tall" form of short is bajo.

 * Thin. Delgado is "not fat"; Flaco is thin to the point of being unhealthy.

 * Mother. Be careful with the word Madre in Mexican Spanish; this word is used as a cuss word in many contexts.

 * Fish. Pez is a fish in the ocean/sea/river; Pescado is a fish on your plate (think cow/beef or pig/pork in English)

 * Bird. Pájaro is a small bird; Ave better refers to all birds.

 * Snake. Vivora is far more common than Serpiente in Mexican Spanish.

 * Hair. Roughly: Cabello is human hair; Pelo is animal hair (I'll have to confirm this with a native Spanish speaker)

 * I talked to a native speaker about this difference today: Pelo used to mean "animal hair" but now also means human hair. Basically, Pelo is a more general purpose term which means any hair; Cabello emphasizes hair on one's head and is the word you usually use when talking about styling hair.   Don't confuse this word with Caballo which means "horse" (memory key: Bello means "beautiful" in Spanish) 201.132.183.230 01:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Breast. Seno (also means sine as in "sine wave") is the polite word for a human breast.  Pechuga is an animal breast.  Pecho means "Chest".

 * Scratch. Arañar is when someone else scratches you; Rascar is when you scratch yourself.

 * Warm. Cálido is warm weather; Tibio means warm is in "neither hot nor cold" (lukewarm)

 * Sharp. Agudo more means "thorn-shaped" (also means "accent mark" or "high-pitched").  Afilado is the "can cut you" form of "sharp".

I also took the liberty of clarifying that "bark" on this list is the stuff on a tree, not what a dog does, and that "louse" is the singular form of "lice".

 * While discussing this list, I also asked about the difference between Esposa/Mujer ("wife") and Esposo/Marido ("husband"). Basically, mujer is a somewhat cruder term for "wife" (somewhere around "old lady" in American informal English) and marido is the corresponding cruder term for "husband" (somewhere around "hubby" in American informal English).  Esposo and Esposa are the polite words that one normally uses. 201.132.183.230 01:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

200.77.85.217 15:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, "pull" is "jalar", not "tirar", confirmed both by a native speaker and by an images.google.com search. This looks to be a clerical error, and I've corrected it. 201.132.183.230 02:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, since I saw, "In the wild", a case of "tirar" being used for "pull", I asked a native speaker about this. Basically, "jalar" is "pull" in Mexico (and probably other areas of the Americas); "tirar" is pull in Spain. 201.132.68.253 18:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Another note: In Mexican Spanish, "echarse" is when an Animal lies down; "Acostarse" is when a person lies down. 201.132.68.124 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Yet another note: I just confirmed this with a native speaker: Mexican Spanish doesn't have a "to fear" (where the subject feels afraid because of the direct object). "to scare" is "temer", "dar miedo", and "asustar". 201.132.169.145 16:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Pull is definitively tirar. Jalar is colloquial and rather uncommon in many regions. Have a look at the RAE dictionary: http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=jalar if you dont believe it. Matthias Buchmeier 15:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Interactive Rosetta Link Broken
The link that reads "The Rosetta Project has an interactive version of the list." is broken. It leads to a page that says: "Search results - No results were found. Did you not find what you were looking for? Try the Advanced Search for more precise search options."

It would appear that The Rosetta Project has, for some bizarre unfathomable reason, eliminated the interactive Swadesh lists from its site. I've poked around their site for a bit with no luck. I could be wrong, but in any case, the above mentioned link is incorrect and should probably be removed.

State of Rosetta Project

 * That's why I don't trust the Rosetta Project anymore. Their website is often down, is difficult to navigate, and is a very little known site (low Alexa site ranking). I believe that the Swadesh lists would be far better off on Wiktionary than on a relatively unknown site where the lists can get taken off capriciously. The Rosetta Project is also putting a lot of effort into a disk which doesn't seem to have any practical use. I'd like to see a huge unified online database that allows wiki-style contributions, not a pretty disk with micro-etchings. — Stevey7788 01:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

IPA
Swadesh lists are supposed to be in IPA. Otherwise you really can't use them to compare languages. Hurry up and get the IPA info from Wikipedia before they delete it all. Æµ§œš¹ IPA: [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 09:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Portuguese and Esperanto
I would like to include the Portuguese Swadesh list. Portuguese is a world languages with over 200 million native speakers. Also i think it is instructive to compare the Portuguese to the Spanish list. No my question:

Do you agree if I replace the Esperanto list with the Portuguese list or should i create a new column?

 * No, don’t replace the Esperanto...and this list is already too full for any more columns. We already have a Portuguese list at Appendix:Swadesh lists for further Romance languages. —Stephen 16:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Since Swadesh lists are used for Glottochronology and comparitive linguistics, they shouldn't be used on conlangs. Therefore, I'm removing Esperanto.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 01:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi, I agree that it was wise to replace Esperanto with Portuguese in this chart. But I take issue with your saying that Swadesh lists "shouldn't" be used for conlangs. Although the idea of the list was certain developed with glottochronology in mind, it is informative and useful for conlangs as well, so long as they are heavily based on vocabulary from natural languages. Were it not for the lack of space, I would hope you would not object to including Esperanto. --N-k 16:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Example languages
I notice that this list is mainly biased towards the Indo-European languages, in particular, the Romance and Germanic branches. I propose that the example languages should have at least one from the major language groups, which would probably include English, French, Russian, Chinese, Malay, Hindi, Arabic & Turkish~. 210.7.2.242 23:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

 * A Swadesh list is not meant as a sampling of a language, but to compare one language with other related languages. As Swadesh list with Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, and Turkish would be a total waste of time. You can go to Appendix:Afro-Asiatic Swadesh lists for the Semitic languages, or click on any of the other offerings. Each list must have English, in order to be understandable, and then all the other languages in the list must be relatively closely related. The similarities between Russian and Spanish will be few because of the distance between them. The only reason we have both Romance and Germanic languages in this one list is because English is a Germanic language with strong Romance influence via Old French. —Stephen 00:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

 * My mistake, I guess you always learn something new everyday. 210.7.7.19 20:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

 * But is it possible to put French along with things like Spanish and Italian in a major Romance language list? I don't see a French list except the appendix here.--61.92.239.192 04:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

 * French is right here in this list (Appendix:Swadesh list), along with Spanish, Italian, and Latin. You could, and should, add French to Appendix:Swadesh lists for further Romance languages, in place of Interlingua. Constructed languages have no place in Swedesh lists, and Interlingua needs to be removed. French would be the logical replacement. —Stephen 14:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

 * One Roman language at most, and preferrably Latin. Skip all Germanic languages except German and instead add Sanskrit, Lithuanian and Greek. Dutch and Swedish (I'm a Swede, I would be offended here if I cared to, but I don't) provides too small a difference from German and English to add anything real insight to the article. The current list is not really interesting containing too many European languages that influences each other in a sprachbund making the swadesh list a little dubious. Rursus 09:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Snake in Spanish is not sierpe. It's vivora or serpiente
I have a native Spanish speaker right here next to me and I just asked her to make sure: "Snake" in Spanish is not sierpe. Sierpe is an old word that used to mean "Snake", but no longer. It's "Serpiente", but more commonly called "vivora". For the record, I'm in Puebla Mexico and the person I asked about this is a native Spanish speaker with a degree in Spanish grammer. That in mind, I'm reverting the change done in this edit. 209.172.32.214 23:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the point is to show linguistic/etymological cognates, not exact translations. -- Beobach972 23:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing data in order to fit a given theory is not good science. The word for Spanish IS "Vivora".  THE WORD IS NO LONGER "sierpe".   There's a reason the list has 200 words, not 10 or 20, so people can see that, while some words have changed, other words are still congnates.  Again, changing data to fit some linguistic theory is not going to suddenly make 100,000,000 Spanish speakers in Mexico suddenly use "sierpe" for "Snake" instead of "Vivora".  Don't debliberately put incorrect data here to fit your little pet theory.  Thank you.  189.131.24.59 19:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh... "Víbora". Locoluis 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Swadeshs theory is bunk.
His theory known as Glottochronology or Lexicostatistics and probably other names as well has been thoroughly proven to be false. It involves an assumption that basic vocabulary (=the words in the Swadesh list) is replaced in every language in the world at a fixed rate. This is not only obviously preposterous but the method has also been shown to give completely arbitrary results. This should be mentioned in the entry concerning the list. The lists while obviously amusing to the wider public have little actual usefulness, they are a curiousity at best. The claim that "Sometimes it is even possible to learn basic communication with no knowledge of the target language syntax." is misleading in the extreme, first of all "to learn basic communication" should be replaced with "to accomplish (very) basic communication". Learning basic communication would entail repeatability, a word list alone cannot make possible repeatable basic communication. Some things can be communicated sometimes with only bare words, however in the case of languages with rich case morfology bare words are less useful than in the case of english where "man eat pig" can be understood. This ultimately is an effect of the rigid word order in english, if the order were to be "eat man pig" or "man pig eat" (very common word order patterns in the worlds languages, together covering over half the languages of the world) understandability is not likely.

 * made changes--Axegern 20:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Glottochronology is NOT "OR" Lexocostatistics! Please note the special wiki entries. (Glotto"chronology!" refers to time computations only and is a subfield of the much broader term "lexicostatistics").195.4.79.194 06:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

semantic field theory
This seems to be a popular subject, but not very challenging. I propose creating a new and more useful appendix using semantic field theory, as many of the problems listed above are exactly what that theory is about. In a simplified version a semantic field set is a set of single word translations between two languages, or a language and a meta-language. The point is easiest to show by an example: The english word "light" can be translated to danish as "lys" (like what is emitted by a lamp or opposite of dark) or "let" (opposite of heavy but also meaning the opposite of difficult). The same word can be translated to finnish either as "valo" (like what is emitted by a lamp), "vaalea" (as in light brown) or "kevyt" (opposite of heavy).

The semantic fields then look like this
 * English: Light  Light   Light
 * Danish:  Lys    Lys     Let
 * Finnish: Valo   Vaalea  Kevyt

And for completeness following the danish branchoff
 * English: Light  Light   Light  Easy
 * Danish:  Lys    Lys     Let    Let
 * Finnish: Valo   Vaalea  Kevyt  Helppo

The point here is that the semantic fields show us very useful things: for one they show us which homonyms are not synonyms, which concepts are not related although they share a name. Secondly they show us which translation errors are possible in a direct way. Finally they let us glimpse the outline of a possible universal semantics, the basic meanings (here exemplified in the finnish translations, one meaning = one word.

Such a volunteer project would be much more useful than mere swadesh lists and should be based on the basic vocabulary lists instead of Swadesh lists. A meta-language for crosslinguistic comparison should be used as the base; for example english "man" can be rendered into "male human", "father" into "male parent", the point should be that the metalanguage should always conform to the least common denominator, i.e. to the meaning equivalent of the most specific word in the sets.

I myself don't know how to make that kind of list look ok or even how to make the whole thing work, perhaps someone else does? Of course this would be relevant to wiktionary only as far as dictionaries also translate between languages. Perhaps the scope is too wide and more fitting for say a standalone Wikimantics project. --Axegern 20:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Start WikiMantics project?
Hello Aksel, interesting section you wrote. I and some others are working on an article called 'Language Purification', see Semantic Language Purification. See: [www.spirilogic.com], and especially the section on 'Debabling over multiple languages', and the linked figure. Other interesting concepts: language and word evolution, and required constructs (such al word creation (to wocon), etc.).

We as well think continuing like this does not make sense. In the it will destroy the wiki concept, or put in idle status (article pollusion, incosistency of semantics and terms between languages, too large maintenance and storage costs, etc. Even more interesting is that we also came to the conclusion that semantics should be stored centrally. And we came... honestly, to the same proposed project name: WikiMantics.

I'm looking forward to you reading our article and providing it with comments (good / bad, etc.) and/or modidications or enhancements. Feel free! (We prefer somebody editing once too often, than no editing at all... Do you know were we can get support for this huge (and very interesting! It's all about semantics) project? Bye,Towonderer 10:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

May we wikilink?
Hello, may we wikilink the individual words in each Swadesh list? For example, the Vietnamese language needs a lot of work at en:Wiktionary and wikilinking the words in the Vietnamese Swadesh list would identify which important words are still redlinks. Thank you, 24.29.228.33 19:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, but you should link it with and so on so that the language is identified. —Stephen 04:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I already did it, and it allowed me to make almost 100 new Vietnamese entries, nearly all the terms now having rudimentary entries. I'm sorry I don't understand the template above or the exact reason it would be used? 24.29.228.33 06:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 * You use it like this: (that is, ),, . If there are also other languages that have that same spelling, then this template will link only to the Vietnamese. —Stephen 06:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, it should be used in the Swadesh lists only, or everywhere? I think you mean it will link to the internal link (usually "#" is used for this) for that language in an entry with multiple languages? 24.29.228.33 07:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of them, due to Vietnamese's distinctive diacritics, don't have definitions in other languages. 24.29.228.33 07:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 * It can be used in many places, such as "See alsos", "Related terms", and "Descendants". True, many Vietnamese words are unique to Vietnamese, but there are quite a few like that are not unique. —Stephen 07:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, this template seems pretty easy to remember. I could never remember whether "lang" or "l" is used in the first part, but I see it's "l." For some languages such as Hebrew or Arabic, the template renders it in a much more beautiful font than the default. 24.29.228.33 07:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the templates so that all the English words have links. — Stevey7788 01:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Footnote
There are asterisks in the table. Higher up in the page is a sentence that says:

The words in the preferred 100-word list are designated by an asterisk (*).

This is not sufficient. The convention is that the reader look at the bottom (of the table or page) to find a corresponding footnote. The information should also be given in a footnote under the table or at the bottom of the page, as:

* Words that are also in the preferred 100-word list.

Deletion of Appendix:Swadesh lists for lesser used European languages
The object of a Swadesh list is (or was) primarily to establish the closeness of the relationship of genetically related languages. The languages assorted here belong in different linguistic branches or even families:

 * Faroese, Icelandic, Kölsch, Lëtzebuergesch and Low Saxon are Germanic languages and as such, they are already included here.
 * Greek and Albanian (along with Armenian) consist the three independent branches of the Indo-European family. Albanian features under the section Assorted lists, but this makes no sense, since a single language can not be considered an assortment. The Greek list included contains a large number of errors, the sort one gets by entering words in a translating machine.
 * Finnish is a Finno-Ugric language and is included in both that family's list and the Baltic-Finnic languages.
 * Basque is a language isolate. A Swadesh list of the Basque language of its own already exists.

Since: I suggest the following:
 * 1) an assortment of unrelated between them and / or already included elsewhere languages serves no linguistic purpose
 * 2) the corresponded Wikipedia article links to this appendix with the caption "grouped by language family, on the Wiktionary Appendix pages", and
 * 3) the description lesser used in the name of the appendix is both inaccurate and controversial,

Jaxlarus 18:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Deleting Appendix:Swadesh lists for lesser used European languages.
 * 2) Creating a new list, Appendix:Independent Indo-European languages Swadesh lists, where Greek (Ancient / Modern), Albanian (Gheg / Tosk) and Armenian (Eastern / Western) will be included, under the sub-header Language-family Swadesh lists in need of expansion.
 * 3) Removing the Appendix:Albanian Swadesh list from the current Appendix and adding it as an entry to the Category:Swadesh lists.
 * Personally I also use these lists to learn the different translations of a word (no matter of the language roots), however this purpose could probably be more appropriately aimed by a board built from an extraction of some Frequency lists. JackPotte 19:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Next part here. JackPotte 18:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Swadesh lists on main page — a "WikiVocab" project
Hello, I'd like to request placing Appendix:Swadesh lists (it contains vocabulary word lists for many world languages) along with "Appendices • Abbreviations • Thesaurus • Rhymes • Frequency lists • Phrasebooks," or on some other part of the main page. I'd just like to find some way to increase traffic to the area so that more people can know about this great resource. It's a tremendously important part of Wiktionary that many users have found to be really helpful. I'd also be OK if the Wiktionary community opposes; however, it's one of the best resources on the web for learning vocabulary, comparing/preserving/promoting languages — simply indispensable. There's a lot of potential for these lists.

My dream is for there to be a big database on the Internet where anyone can access the basic vocabulary words (in standardized topical lists) of all the world's languages. Wikipedia has information on the grammar and demographics of languages, but does not often include vocabulary, which is the core and essence of language. The closest things we have to a massive comparative database on world languages are the Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database, Intercontinental Dictionary Series, and of course, Wiktionary's Swadesh lists. As a side note, even though this is basically the Rosetta Project's goal, the website is still quite unwieldy for ordinary users, has a very low Alexa site ranking, and does not allow wiki-style contributions. The Rosetta Project has also pulled off Swadesh lists that used to be on there, and do not have any searchable vocabulary databases as of now. To help in language preservation, comparative linguistic studies, language learning, and more.

Or perhaps we can even create a separate "WikiVocab" website, similar in style to WikiSpecies! If we do create a big, unified, and searchable database for all the world's languages — all in one place — I believe it will be one of the greatest human achievements in modern times.

Thanks for your considerations! — Stevey7788 01:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing with Microsoft Word
Just a note that ^p is equivalent to a line break in Microsoft Word's find/replace box. You'll be able to add columns/wikilinks, edit/merge lists, and replace entries a lot more easily if you use that. — Stevey7788 09:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Open Office Writer does the same in free. JackPotte 17:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Source???
Where on earth did Swadesh publish a 207-word list at all?? Not 1950 (165 words), not 1952 (215 words), not 1955 (switched from 215 to 100 words), not 1972 (final 100-words, listed in word fields). HJJHolm 06:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Again: Swadesh never published a 207-word list. The whole article is a lie. This "Ishtar" (?) list differs in many points from the correct Swadesh list and is thus not compatible with it and of little help. The inventors of it confuse everything, in particular with lists for learning foreign languages. For that purpose, please refer to the numerous existing Wikitravel. HJJHolm 10:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Original Swadesh list
It is a pity that people swamp wiktionary with outdated Swadesh lists, who obviously have not even read Swadesh, who explicitly (Swadesh 1955:124) wrote, "... defects in the old list were repeatedly made evident. The only solution appears to be a drastic weeding out of the list, in the realization that quality is at least as important as quantity.  The  new  list  of  100  items  includes 92  from the  old  list,  those  starred in Table  2,  plus  eight  new  ones:  say,  moon, round,  full,  knee,  claw,  horn,  breast. Even the new list has defects, but they are relatively mild and few in number." Therefore I copied the final original Swadesh list, published posthumous in 1971 and 1972, at the main article "Swadesh list" in wikipedia. Regarding an unlucky decision in the substitutions, I propose to remain with the old "fingernail" instead of "claw", in full agreement with well-known researchers as D. Ringe and S.A.Starostin. HJJHolm 10:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up: Additionally, the current list is cruelly inexact in the description and definition of too many items in question! The authors are obviously not able or willing to learn. HJJHolm (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What about Sumerian, Akkadian, Etruscan, Hurrian, Urartian, Hattic, etc.?
Böri (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

 * If you want to, you can make lists for those languages, too. —Stephen (Talk) 07:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Intro confused
The introduction again has been confused by insertions not matching the whole context, and thus had to be changed. Swadesh has nothing to do with lexicostatistics!! HJJHolm (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What about North Caucasian languages?
Circassian(Adyghe), Abhaz, Chechen, Ingush, Avar, Lak, Lezgic languages Böri (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Those languages are needed, but they have to be written in the correct script. Chechen, for example, uses Cyrillic, and I think all of the other ones you named do as well. —Stephen (Talk) 17:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * North Caucasian--Russian Swadesh lists at Russian Wiktionary:, (Of varying quality. Numbers are the same as here). Mar1Qh 14:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

 * Chechen words:

 * all: derrig
 * ashes: juq\
 * bark: kewstig
 * belly: čuo
 * big: doqqa
 * bird: olχazar
 * bite: joχka
 * black: ʕӓrža / arj
 * blood: ċij / ziy
 * bone: dӓʕaχk
 * breast: naqa
 * burn tr.: dago
 * claw (nail: mʕara
 * cloud: marχa / marh
 * cold: šijla
 * come: dan
 * die: dala
 * dog: žʕӓla / jal
 * drink: mijla
 * dry: deʠa
 * ear: lerg
 * earth: latta
 * earth: moχk
 * eat: jaʔa
 * egg: hoa
 * eye: bʕӓrg / barg
 * far: genara
 * fat n.: moħ
 * feather: pelag
 * fire: ċe / tsel
 * fish: ḉara / cher
 * fly v.: lela
 * foot: kog
 * full: d\fczna
 * give: dala
 * good: dika
 * green: bӓccara / betzir
 * hair: čo
 * hand: k\fcg
 * head: korta
 * heart: dog
 * hear: χaza / hazar
 * heavy: d-eza
 * horn: kur
 * horn: maʕa
 * I: so
 * kill: den
 * knee: gola
 * know: χaʔa / khaar
 * leaf: ʁa
 * lie: ʕilla
 * liver: doʕaχ
 * long: deχa
 * louse: meza
 * man: stag
 * many: duqa
 * meat: žižig / jijag
 * moon: butt
 * mountain: lam
 * mouth: baga
 * name: ċe / zce
 * near: gergara
 * neck: vorta
 * new: ċina
 * night: b\fcjsa
 * nose: mara
 * not: ca
 * one: cħaʔ
 * person: stag
 * rain: doʁa / dogh
 * red: ċen / zi
 * road: neʠ
 * root: oram
 * round: gorga
 * salt: t\fcχa
 * sand: ʁum
 * say: len
 * seed: hu
 * see: gan
 * short: d-ōca
 * sit: ʕen
 * sit: χaʔa
 * skin: ċoka
 * sleep: jan
 * small: žima
 * smoke: ḳur
 * snake: lӓħa / leh
 * stand: latta
 * star: seda
 * stone: qera
 * sun: malχ / malh
 * swim: dan
 * tail: ċoga / zhog
 * that: dʕora
 * thin: d-uṭʠa
 * this: hara
 * this: i(-za)
 * thou: ħo
 * tongue: mott
 * tooth: cerg / zherg
 * tree: ditt
 * two: šiʔ / şia
 * walk (go): daχa
 * warm: mela
 * water: χi / ghie
 * we: tχo
 * we: vaj
 * what: hun
 * white: ḳajn
 * who: mila
 * wind: moχ / mouh
 * woman: zuda
 * worm: nʕӓna
 * year: šo
 * yellow: mož
 * also you can look at http://starling.rinet.ru/maps/maps28.php?lan=en and http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/query.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=\data\cauc\nakhet Böri (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We only accept words that are spelled (correctly) in their proper script. Chechen is written in Cyrillic, so all the words must be written in Cyrillic. —Stephen (Talk) 17:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * They are using the Cyrillic script because the Russians rule Chechnya. The Chechens are NOT a Slavic people! (so this script is not their own script!) Böri (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We know this. It doesn’t matter, it is the script that Chechen is currently written in. Cyrillic is not only for Slavs, it is used by many languages not related to Russian, including many Caucasian languages, Turkic languages, Paleo-Siberian languages and others. —Stephen (Talk) 11:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For example, this Chechen Dictionary is not using the Cyrillic script: http://ingush.narod.ru/chech/awde/ Böri (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 * In 1992, the Secessionist government introduced a new Latin alphabet, but when the secessionists were defeated, the Latin alphabet was dropped and the Cyrillic alphabet was restored. Anybody with an agenda can make a dictionary of any language using any alphabet or spelling scheme they wish. English could be written in Cyrillic or Arabic. Japanese could be written in Tibetan. It doesn’t matter, those are not in standard use and we don’t accept them here. Here, we only accept Chechen that is in Cyrillic. If you have documents in Chechen that were written in Arabic or one of the Latin alphabets, you could make a Chechen appendix with a list of those words, but in the main namespace, use Cyrillic for Chechen. —Stephen (Talk) 11:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 * on Swadesh lists for Afro-Asiatic languages, Wiktionary also used "Romanized Arabic"... so Latin alphabet for Chechen language is OK! Böri (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

 * No, it’s not okay. Where is the link to the list you are talking about? If the Arabic is Romanized, it needs to be corrected or deleted. The only Arabic Swadesh list that I have seen on Wiktionary uses proper Arabic script. Perhaps you are thinking of the attendant transliteration? For words in languages that don’t use the Roman alphabet, we like to add transliterations. Transliterations are always encouraged, but the main (linked) word must be in the proper script for that language. —Stephen (Talk) 19:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

 * "Transliteration" = You can use the Chechen words with Latin alphabet as transliteration! There's no Chechen Swadesh list on Wiktionary! (I'm saying this.) / You are saying: "Where is the link to the list you are talking about?" I already said: "Swadesh lists for Afro-Asiatic languages" Böri (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

 * That list is here: Appendix:Swadesh lists for Afro-Asiatic languages. The Arabic is not romanized, the editor merely used that word to describe the transliterations. The Arabic in that list is all written in the correct Arabic alphabet. The transliteration is only for those who don’t know Arabic well enough and need some help with the alphabet. You can also (and indeed should) put transliterations along with the Chechen Cyrillic, but the correct Cyrillic spelling is a requirement here. Without the Cyrillic spelling, we will not accept it. If anyone makes an entry for one of these Chechen words in the Roman alphabet, it will be quickly deleted. Please stop arguing about this, it is the longstanding policy of Wiktionary and there is no way around it (other than making an appendix page as I suggested above...but if you do that, you still have to prove to our satisfaction that the particular Roman spelling was actually used at some time in the past in a durably-archived medium such as a book).
 * I am finished with this discussion. I have explained the policy to you as well as I can. Unless you can find the correct Cyrillic spellings of the Chechen words, you cannot make a Chechen Swadesh list on this site. If you do it, it will be deleted (not just by me, but by any Wiktionary admin who discovers its existence). If you still believe you have a valid argument, then make it at WT:BP. But I’m telling you honestly, you will not convince anyone there to change the rules on this for you. Good luck. —Stephen (Talk) 16:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Chechen words are written in Cyrillic in all the Chechen media, books written in Chechen. The examples of the romanised Chechen words may be useful on some chats or for transliteration purposes but not to learn the language as its used.
 * The above Chechen words are actually written:
 * all:
 * ashes:
 * bark:
 * etc. The letter palochka (Ӏ, ӏ) is often replaced with "1" but otherwise Chechen is written in Cyrillic. It's easy to check. Wiktionary is not a place for politics, it's for linguistic. The choice of the alphabet is with governments and authors. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hattic words

 * king = katte
 * queen = kattah
 * child = binu, pinu
 * children = lebinu
 * god = shapu, washapu (= gods), ashaf, shaf, fa-shaf
 * land = fur
 * wine = findu?
 * sun = eshtan / eştan
 * moon = kap
 * mountain = zish /ziş
 * year = lish
 * bread = fula
 * sea = han
 * leopard = prash, parash
 * to hear, listen = shama
 * woman = nimhu/nimhut
 * head = kash
 * wind = pezil
 * stone = pip
 * big = te
 * house = fel / fael
 * lord = tafarna
 * lion = takeha
 * soldier = aku
 * rain = tumil
 * I = fa
 * wine = karam (< from Semitic karm)
 * horse = tarish?
 * cheese = witanu
 * father = fafaya
 * copper = kinawar
 * sky = yah
 * iron = hapalki
 * bird = ashti
 * tongue = alef
 * to protect = kip
 * bright = paru
 * leaves = puluku
 * to blow on = puşan
 * priest = paraya (see father above)
 * lady = tawa-nanna
 * root = tup
 * gate = ştip
 * thousand = far
 * fear = tafa
 * sour = zipina / wet
 * to stand = anti
 * wind = pezil
 * to look = pnu
 * mortality = funa
 * to devour = puş
 * to lie, put = ti
 * long = fute
 * to fall = zik
 * when = anna
 * to open = han
 * to see = kun
 * to come, go = nu
 * wide = harki
 * heart = şaki
 * to eat = tu
 * wood = zehar/zihar
 * wife = zuwatu
 * ground = şahhu/tahhu
 * lord = şail/tail
 * barber = tahaya
 * to pour = tefu
 * to take = tuh
 * to build = teh
 * to step = tuk
 * horn = kaiş
 * to come (here) = aş
 * to be able = lu
 * light = leli
 * runner = luizzil
 * to strew = hel
 * to envy = le
 * to hide = her
 * arm, sleeve = hir
 * to seize = hu
 * spring, well = uri
 * this = ana
 * when = anna
 * woman = anna
 * upwards = akka
 * 5 = apa
 * earth = araz
 * human being = antuh
 * ritual functionaries = dudduşhijal
 * palace = halentiu
 * throne = halmaşşuit / kuşim
 * courage = haipinamul
 * among, between, through = ha-
 * on, to the = ka-
 * head = kaş
 * witchcraft, sorcery = katakumi
 * spy, messenger = kiluh
 * soul = kut/kud/psun
 * his = le-
 * his/her = te-
 * from = li-
 * good = malhip
 * apple = şawat
 * district = telipuri
 * rain = tumin
 * you = un- / wa
 * to you = ud-
 * we = uş-
 * bull, ox = milup
 * stones = munamuna
 * hammer = pakku
 * to you = par-
 * eagle = wapah
 * thousand = war
 * sheep = wazar
 * wine = win
 * bread = wulasne
 * grandson = zintu
 * wife = zuwatu

I used "ş" for "sh" sound... These words are Hattic words! (NOT Hittite!) Source: http://www.palaeolexicon.com/ (please click Languages, find Hattic and click Word Index Böri (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Chechen list - Cyrillic script

 * 1) 	air:	хӏаваъ
 * 2) 	and:	а
 * 3) 	angel:	малик
 * 4) 	animal:	дийнат, экха
 * 5) 	ant:	зингат
 * 6) 	apple:	ӏаж
 * 7) 	arm:	пхьарс
 * 8) 	arrow:	пха
 * 9) 	ash(es):	чим, юкъ
 * 10) 	autumn; fall:	гуьйре
 * 11) 	axe:	диг
 * 12) 	barley:	мукх
 * 13) 	bear:	ча
 * 14) 	beard:	маж
 * 15) 	bed:	маьнга
 * 16) 	bee:	накхармоза
 * 17) 	beer:	йий
 * 18) 	big:	доккха
 * 19) 	bird:	олхазар
 * 20) 	black:	ӏаьржа
 * 21) 	blood:	цӏий
 * 22) 	blue:	сийна
 * 23) 	boat:	кема
 * 24) 	body:	дегӏ
 * 25) 	bone:	даьӏахк
 * 26) 	book:	жайна, книга
 * 27) 	bread:	бепиг
 * 28) 	bridge:	тӏай
 * 29) 	brother:	ваша
 * 30) 	brown:	боьмаша
 * 31) 	bull:	сту
 * 32) 	butterfly:	полла
 * 33) 	camel:	эмкал
 * 34) 	candle:	чӏурам
 * 35) 	cat:	цициг
 * 36) 	cheek:	бесни
 * 37) 	cheese:	нехча
 * 38) 	cherry:	балл
 * 39) 	child:	бер
 * 40) 	chin:	чӏениг
 * 41) 	city; town:	гӏала
 * 42) 	cloud:	марха
 * 43) 	coal:	кӏора
 * 44) 	coffee:	къахьо
 * 45) 	copper:	цӏаста
 * 46) 	cotton:	бамба
 * 47) 	cow:	етт
 * 48) 	crow:	къиг
 * 49) 	daughter:	йоӏ
 * 50) 	day:	де
 * 51) 	death:	далар, ӏожалла, дер
 * 52) 	desert:	гӏум-аре
 * 53) 	dictionary:	словарь, дошам, лугӏат
 * 54) 	dog:	жӏаьла
 * 55) 	donkey; ass:	вир
 * 56) 	drop:	тӏадам
 * 57) 	duck:	бад
 * 58) 	eagle:	аьрзу
 * 59) 	ear:	лерг
 * 60) 	egg:	хӏоа
 * 61) 	elephant:	пийл
 * 62) 	enemy:	мостагӏ
 * 63) 	evening:	суьйре
 * 64) 	eye:	бӏаьрг
 * 65) 	face:	юьхь
 * 66) 	family:	доьзал
 * 67) 	father:	да
 * 68) 	fear:	кхерам, кхерар
 * 69) 	finger:	пӏелг
 * 70) 	fire:	цӏе
 * 71) 	fish:	чӏара
 * 72) 	flea:	сагал
 * 73) 	flour:	дама
 * 74) 	flower:	зезаг
 * 75) 	foot:	ког
 * 76) 	forest; wood:	хьун
 * 77) 	fox:	цхьогал
 * 78) 	friend:	доттагӏ
 * 79) 	frog:	пхьид
 * 80) 	garden:	беш
 * 81) 	goat:	газа
 * 82) 	god:	дела
 * 83) 	gold:	деши
 * 84) 	goose:	гӏаз
 * 85) 	green:	баьццара
 * 86) 	guest:	хьаша
 * 87) 	hair:	мас, чо
 * 88) 	hand:	куьг
 * 89) 	head:	корта
 * 90) 	heart:	дог
 * 91) 	hen:	котам
 * 92) 	honey:	моз
 * 93) 	horse:	говр, дин
 * 94) 	hour:	сахьт
 * 95) 	house:	цӏенош, хӏусам
 * 96) 	human being:	стаг, адам
 * 97) 	hunger:	мацалла
 * I:	со
 * 1) 	ice:	ша
 * 2) 	iron:	эчиг
 * 3) 	island:	гӏайре
 * 4) 	key:	догӏа
 * 5) 	kidney:	жим
 * 6) 	king:	паччахь
 * 7) 	kitchen:	кухни
 * 8) 	knee:	гола
 * 9) 	knife:	урс
 * 10) 	lake:	ӏам
 * 11) 	lamb:	ӏахар
 * 12) 	language:	мотт
 * 13) 	leg:	ког
 * 14) 	letter (alphabet):	элп
 * 15) 	letter (mail):	кехат
 * 16) 	life:	дахар, са
 * 17) 	lion:	лом
 * 18) 	lip:	балда
 * 19) 	louse:	меза
 * 20) 	man:	боьрша стаг
 * 21) 	meat:	жижиг
 * 22) 	middle:	юкъ
 * 23) 	milk:	шура
 * 24) 	minute:	минот
 * 25) 	mirror:	куьзга
 * 26) 	money:	ахча
 * 27) 	monkey; ape:	маймал
 * 28) 	month:	бутт
 * 29) 	mother:	нана
 * 30) 	mountain:	лам
 * 31) 	mouse:	дахка
 * 32) 	mouth:	бага
 * 33) 	music:	музыка
 * 34) 	name:	цӏе
 * 35) 	nature:	ӏалам
 * 36) 	needle:	маха
 * 37) 	neighbo(u)r:	лулахо
 * 38) 	new:	керла, цӏина
 * 39) 	night:	буьйса
 * 40) 	nose:	мара
 * 41) 	number:	номер
 * 42) 	oil:	даьтта
 * 43) 	old (not new):	тиша
 * 44) 	old (not young):	къена
 * 45) 	olive:	зайт, олива
 * 46) 	onion:	хох, цкъарг
 * or:	я
 * 1) 	owl:	бухӏа
 * ox:	сту
 * 1) 	page:	агӏо
 * 2) 	pain:	лазар
 * 3) 	paper:	кехат
 * 4) 	pea:	кхоьш
 * 5) 	peace:	машар
 * 6) 	peach:	гӏаммагӏа
 * 7) 	pear:	хормат, кхор
 * 8) 	people:	халкъ, къам
 * 9) 	pepper:	бурч
 * 10) 	petroleum; oil:	нефть, мехкадаьтта
 * 11) 	pig:	хьакха
 * 12) 	pigeon; dove:	кхокха
 * 13) 	planet:	дуьне, планета
 * 14) 	plum:	хьач
 * 15) 	poison:	дӏовш
 * 16) 	potato:	картол
 * 17) 	prayer:	ламаз, доӏа
 * 18) 	prophet:	пайхамар, элча
 * 19) 	question:	хаттар
 * 20) 	rain:	догӏа
 * 21) 	red:	цӏен
 * 22) 	religion:	дин
 * 23) 	river:	хи, доьду хи
 * 24) 	road:	некъ
 * 25) 	rock:	тарх
 * 26) 	roof:	тхов
 * 27) 	room:	чоь, цӏа
 * 28) 	rose:	роза
 * 29) 	salt:	туьха
 * 30) 	sand:	гӏум
 * 31) 	school:	школа
 * 32) 	sea:	хӏорд
 * 33) 	season:	зама, хан
 * 34) 	second:	секунд
 * 35) 	sheep:	уьстагӏ, жий
 * 36) 	ship:	кема, корабль
 * 37) 	silk:	дари, чилла, гоьзжа
 * 38) 	silver:	дети
 * 39) 	sister:	йиша
 * 40) 	sky:	стигал
 * 41) 	snake:	лаьхьа, текхарг
 * 42) 	snow:	ло
 * 43) 	soap:	саба
 * 44) 	son:	кӏант, воӏ
 * 45) 	spider:	гезг
 * 46) 	spoon:	ӏайг, чода
 * 47) 	spring(time):	бӏаьсте
 * 48) 	star:	седа
 * 49) 	steel:	болат
 * 50) 	stone:	тӏулг
 * 51) 	storm:	дарц, шайтӏанан мох
 * 52) 	street:	урам
 * 53) 	sugar:	шекар
 * 54) 	summer:	аьхке
 * 55) 	swan:	гӏургӏаз
 * 56) 	table:	стол
 * 57) 	tea:	чай
 * 58) 	tiger:	цӏоькъалом
 * 59) 	time:	хан
 * 60) 	tobacco:	тонка
 * 61) 	today:	тахана
 * 62) 	tomato:	помидор
 * 63) 	tomorrow:	кхана
 * 64) 	tongue:	мотт
 * 65) 	tooth:	церг
 * 66) 	tower:	бӏов, гӏала
 * 67) 	tree:	дитт
 * 68) 	truth:	бакъдерг
 * 69) 	tulip:	алцӏензӏам
 * 70) 	valley:	тогӏи, атагӏа
 * 71) 	village:	юрт
 * 72) 	vinegar:	къонза
 * 73) 	voice:	аз
 * 74) 	wall:	пен
 * 75) 	war:	тӏом
 * 76) 	water:	хи
 * we:	вай, тхо
 * 1) 	weather:	хенан хӏоттам
 * 2) 	week:	кӏира
 * 3) 	wheat:	кӏа
 * 4) 	white:	кӏайн
 * 5) 	wind:	мох
 * 6) 	window:	кор
 * 7) 	wine:	чагӏар
 * 8) 	wing:	тӏам
 * 9) 	winter:	ӏа
 * 10) 	wolf:	борз
 * 11) 	woman:	зуда
 * 12) 	wool:	шал, эханг
 * 13) 	word:	дош
 * 14) 	world:	дуьне, ӏалам
 * 15) 	worm:	нӏаьна
 * 16) 	year:	шо
 * 17) 	yellow:	можа
 * 18) 	yesterday:	селхана
 * 19) 	young:	къона, жима

 * This is the list of Anatoli. May I write the "Romanized" forms? Böri (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Here's your template: Appendix:Chechen Swadesh list. I have only added one word at the top to show how this is done.For example, the first word is "I" (me), in Chechen it's, so the template #1 is:
 * You can have a go. The Chechen words should match the English by numbers! - you can see them in the preview. You can also use Chechen_language for the transliteration, e.g. "гӀ" is "ġ". Good luck! Will have to think about a transliteration table as well. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Thank you, Anatoli. I will try to write it within few days... I'll work on it. Böri (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

 * You're welcome. Just to make sure you understand it. The first part of is "со" - Chechen word in Cyrillic, "so" is the transliteration. If you don't how to transcribe, leave "tr=" empty. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

How to consider clusivity?
"We" has two meanings, one is "we and not you" (exclusive), and the other is "we and you" (inclusive). Some languages do not distinguish between these two, but some do!

So which one is the intended meaning in the Swadesh list? BrightSunMan (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Perhaps someone can find a source document stating Swadesh' intentions regarding this and related semantic issues, but in the absence of that I'd be inclined to assume anglophone-centrism in this case. A possible solution might be to list both ex- and inclusive versions in the same row, distinguished by a parenthetical note. I did this in the Láadan table for the more finely-divided plurality rules that language has compared to English. Arlo Barnes (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Isn't Lojban a constructed language?
So should it be listed under "Constructed auxiliary languages" like Esperanto?Yanrs17 (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure it would. I can't see any doubt on that. Go on! BrightSunMan (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

title: Appendix talk:Swadesh lists