text:
haemorrhoids

Noun

 * 1) A pathological condition caused by painful masses of dilated veins in swollen anal tissue.
 * 2) * "I hope the worst is behind me". - France's midfielder Florent Malouds reveals he had an operation for haemorrhoids shortly after arriving in Germany for the World Cup" Argus 17 June 2006 p.14

Translations

 * Adyghe:
 * Afrikaans:
 * Arabic: باسور
 * Armenian:
 * Bulgarian: хемороѝди
 * Catalan:
 * Chinese:
 * Hokkien:
 * Mandarin:
 * Crimean Tatar: mayasıl, basur
 * Danish: hæmorider, hæmorroider
 * Dutch:
 * Finnish:
 * French:
 * Galician: almorás
 * German:
 * Gujarati:
 * Hindi: ,
 * Hungarian:
 * Icelandic: gylliniæð
 * Irish: haemaróidí, fíocas
 * Italian:
 * Japanese: ,
 * Korean:
 * Macedonian: хемороиди
 * Middle English: emeroides
 * Neapolitan: merròjde, stummacale, merruóieto
 * Persian:
 * Polish:
 * Portuguese:, almorroidas, almorreimas
 * Russian:
 * Sanskrit:, ,
 * Scottish Gaelic: neasgaidean fala
 * Serbo-Croatian:
 * Cyrillic: шу́љеви, ба̀сур, хеморои́ди
 * Latin:, ,
 * Spanish: ,
 * Swedish: hemorrojd
 * Tagalog: bulaid, balaid, kilmos
 * Thai:
 * Turkish: ,
 * Ukrainian: геморо́й
 * Urdu: بواسیر
 * Vietnamese:
 * Welsh: peils, clwy'r marchogion

title: haemorrhoids


text:
spotless

Etymology
From, equivalent to.

Adjective

 * 1) Exceptionally clean.
 * 2) Impeccable and free from blemish.
 * 3)  Lacking spots; unspotted.

Translations

 * Bulgarian: безупречно чист
 * Greek:
 * Ancient: ἄσπιλος
 * Maori: parakore
 * Russian:
 * Sanskrit:
 * Spanish:

 * Bulgarian:
 * Russian:
 * Sanskrit:
 * Swedish:

 * Bulgarian: без петна
 * Spanish: sin manchas

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

title: spotless


text:
waking

Adjective

 * 1) Occurring during wakefulness.
 * , “Alice” (possible pseudonym), quoted in Fred Penzel, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorders: A Complete Guide to Getting Well and Staying Well, Oxford University Press (2000), ISBN 978-0-19-514092-7, page page 263:
 * Counting occupied my every waking thought.
 * 1) * 2003, Moshe Gelbein (translator), Chaim Friedlander (author), quoted in Moshe Gelbein (translator), Meir Munk (author), Searching for Comfort: Coping with Grief, Mesorah Publications, ISBN 978-1-57819-718-7, page 80:
 * It is this gift of life that we are grateful to receive each waking moment, and so we give thanks, “for our lives, which are committed to Your power.”
 * It is this gift of life that we are grateful to receive each waking moment, and so we give thanks, “for our lives, which are committed to Your power.”

Usage notes

 * This adjective most often occurs in phrases such as “every waking moment”, “every waking hour”, “every waking breath”, and so on, the sense being roughly “at all times”. Such phrases are often used together with possessives, such as in “her every waking moment” or “my every waking thought”.

Noun

 * 1) The act of becoming awake from sleep, or a period of time spent awake.

title: waking


text:
bathing

Etymology 1
From ; equivalent to.

Noun

 * 1) The act of taking a bath.
 * 2) The act of swimming.

Translations

 * Basque: bainu
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Deori: Zikuba
 * Finnish: ,
 * French:
 * Georgian: ბანაობა
 * German:
 * Greek:
 * Ancient: λοῦσις
 * Gujarati: અંઘોળ, સ્નાન
 * Hungarian:, ,
 * Japanese: ,
 * Latin: lavātiō
 * Middle English: bathynge, bath
 * Russian:

Verb

 * Bathing in the sea is considered healthy.
 * Bathing in the sea is considered healthy.

Etymology 2
From.

title: bathing


text:
homework

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) Exercises assigned by a teacher to a student which review concepts studied in class.
 * 2)  Something which one is encouraged to learn or study on one's own.
 * 3)  Any work that is done at home; housework.
 * 4)  Sexual intercourse.
 * 5)  Tasks assigned by a dominant for a submissive to perform when they are physically away from their dominant or otherwise free.
 * 1)  Something which one is encouraged to learn or study on one's own.
 * 2)  Any work that is done at home; housework.
 * 3)  Sexual intercourse.
 * 4)  Tasks assigned by a dominant for a submissive to perform when they are physically away from their dominant or otherwise free.
 * 1)  Any work that is done at home; housework.
 * 2)  Sexual intercourse.
 * 3)  Tasks assigned by a dominant for a submissive to perform when they are physically away from their dominant or otherwise free.
 * 1)  Sexual intercourse.
 * 2)  Tasks assigned by a dominant for a submissive to perform when they are physically away from their dominant or otherwise free.
 * 1)  Tasks assigned by a dominant for a submissive to perform when they are physically away from their dominant or otherwise free.
 * 1)  Tasks assigned by a dominant for a submissive to perform when they are physically away from their dominant or otherwise free.
 * 1)  Tasks assigned by a dominant for a submissive to perform when they are physically away from their dominant or otherwise free.

Usage notes

 * The term homework generally implies that the work is mandatory and worth marks; exercises that are optional are usually referred to as practice problems, review problems, extra practice, exercises, etc.
 * Work of a larger scale than homework (which involves a series of relatively simple exercises) is usually referred to as an assignment or project.

Translations

 * Afrikaans:
 * Albanian: detyrë shtëpie
 * Arabic:, وَاجِب مَنْزِلِيّ
 * Gulf Arabic: وَاجِب
 * Armenian: տնային աշխատանք,
 * Azerbaijani: ev tapşırığı
 * Bashkir: өйгә эш
 * Basque: eskolako lan
 * Belarusian: ха́тняе зада́нне, ха́тняя пра́ца
 * Bulgarian: дома́шна ра́бота
 * Burmese:
 * Catalan:
 * Chinese:
 * Cantonese: 功課
 * Mandarin:, ,
 * Cornish: ober tre
 * Czech:, domácí úkoly
 * Danish: lektier, hjemmearbejde
 * Dutch: ,
 * Esperanto: hejmtasko
 * Faroese: skúlating
 * Finnish: ,
 * French:
 * Georgian: საშინაო დავალება
 * German:
 * Greek: εργασία για το σπίτι
 * Haitian Creole: devwa
 * Hebrew: עבודת בית, שיעורי בית
 * Hindi: गृहकार्य
 * Hungarian:
 * Icelandic: heimavinna
 * Indonesian: pekerjaan rumah
 * Irish: obair bhaile
 * Italian: ,
 * Japanese:
 * Kazakh: үй тапсырмасы
 * Korean:
 * Kyrgyz: үй тапшырмасы
 * Lao: ວຽກບ້ານ
 * Latin: pensum
 * Lithuanian: namų darbai
 * Macedonian: домашна работа, домашна задача
 * Malay: kerja rumah
 * Maltese: ħomwerk, xogħol għad-dar
 * Maori: mahi kāinga
 * Mongolian:
 * Cyrillic: гэрийн даалгавар
 * Navajo: ółtaʼí hooghandi yinidoolnishígíí
 * Norwegian:
 * Bokmål: lekse, hjemmelekse
 * Persian:, کار دَر خانِه, تکلیف مَدرِسه, کارخانگی
 * Polish: ,
 * Portuguese:, dever de casa, tarefa de casa,
 * Romanian:
 * Russian:, ,
 * Scottish Gaelic: obair-dachaigh
 * Serbo-Croatian:
 * Cyrillic: домаћи рад, домаћа задаћа
 * Roman: domaći rad, domaća zadaća, domaći uradak
 * Slovak: domáca úloha
 * Slovene: domača naloga
 * Spanish: deberes ,
 * Swedish:, ,
 * Tagalog: takdang-aralin
 * Tajik: вазифаи хонагӣ, кори хонагӣ
 * Thai:
 * Turkish:, ev ödevi
 * Ukrainian: дома́шнє завда́ння, дома́шня робо́та
 * Urdu: سَبَق
 * Uyghur: تاپشۇرۇق
 * Uzbek: uy ishi, uy vazifasi
 * Vietnamese:, bài tập về nhà
 * Welsh: gwaith cartref
 * Yiddish: היימאַרבעט

 * Afrikaans:
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:, 準備工作
 * Dutch:
 * Esperanto: hejmtasko
 * Finnish: kotiläksyt, valmistautuminen
 * German:
 * Latin: pensum
 * Maori: mahi kāinga
 * Romanian:
 * Russian: подготови́тельная рабо́та,
 * Spanish:
 * Swedish:

title: homework


text:
previous

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  Prior; occurring before something else, either in time or order.
 * 2)  Premature; acting or occurring too soon.
 * 1)  Premature; acting or occurring too soon.
 * 1)  Premature; acting or occurring too soon.

Synonyms

 * See also Thesaurus:former
 * See also Thesaurus:former
 * See also Thesaurus:former
 * See also Thesaurus:former

Derived terms

Translations

 * Arabic: سَابِق
 * Egyptian Arabic: قبل
 * Armenian:
 * Asturian: previu,
 * Azerbaijani:, keçən ,
 * Belarusian: міну́лы, папярэ́дні
 * Bengali:
 * Bulgarian:
 * Burmese:
 * Catalan: previ,
 * Chinese:
 * Cantonese: ,
 * Mandarin: 以前的,
 * Czech:
 * Danish: foregående,
 * Dutch:
 * Esperanto: antaŭa
 * Finnish:, ,
 * French:
 * Galician: previo,
 * German:
 * Gothic: 𐍆𐌰𐌹𐍂𐌽𐍃
 * Greek:
 * Hebrew: קוֹדֵם
 * Hindi:
 * Hungarian: ,
 * Ido:
 * Italian:
 * Japanese: ,
 * Khmer: ,
 * Korean:
 * Kurdish:
 * Central Kurdish: پێشو, ڕابردو
 * Lao: ກ່ອນ, ບຸບເພ,
 * Latin: ,
 * Lithuanian: ankstesnis
 * Maori: tōmua
 * Norwegian:
 * Bokmål: forrige, foregående
 * Nynorsk: førre, føregåande
 * Occitan:
 * Old English: forestapol
 * Persian:
 * Polish: ,
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian: ,
 * Spanish: ,
 * Swedish: ,
 * Thai: ก่อนหน้านี้,, ที่แล้ว, , ,
 * Tibetan: སྔོན་མ
 * Turkish:
 * Ukrainian: попере́дній,
 * Urdu: پچھلا
 * Vietnamese:
 * Welsh:

 * Bulgarian:
 * Catalan: prematur
 * Dutch:
 * Persian: نابه هنگام
 * Polish:
 * Swedish:

Noun

 * 1)  An existing criminal record (short for "previous convictions")
 * 2)  A track record of similar behaviour, especially bad behaviour.
 * 3)  A record of previous hostility or conflict (between people).
 * 1)  A track record of similar behaviour, especially bad behaviour.
 * 2)  A record of previous hostility or conflict (between people).
 * 1)  A record of previous hostility or conflict (between people).
 * 1)  A record of previous hostility or conflict (between people).
 * 1)  A record of previous hostility or conflict (between people).

title: previous


text:
imperious

Etymology
From, from.

Adjective

 * 1) Domineering, arrogant, or overbearing.
 * 2) Urgent.
 * 3)  Imperial or regal.
 * 1) Urgent.
 * 2)  Imperial or regal.
 * 1) Urgent.
 * 2)  Imperial or regal.
 * 1)  Imperial or regal.
 * 1)  Imperial or regal.

Translations

 * Arabic: آمِر
 * Armenian:
 * Old Armenian: հպարտ, սէգ
 * Bulgarian: ,
 * Catalan:
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Dutch:
 * Finnish:, ,
 * French:
 * German:
 * Irish: anúdarásach, máistriúil, tiarnúil
 * Latin: imperiōsus
 * Manx: ard-chreeagh
 * Maori: whakatopatopa, whakatarapī
 * Occitan:
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian:, ,
 * Spanish:

 * Bulgarian: ,
 * German: ,
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian:, ,

title: imperious


text: Thesaurus:mad person

title: Thesaurus:mad person


text:
Wintel

Proper noun

 * 1)  The popular computing environment of the  operating system running on an Intel CPU.

title: Wintel


text:
lintel

Etymology
From, from , from Vulgar Latin , for , diminutive noun from. Equivalent to.

Noun

 * 1)  A horizontal structural beam spanning an opening, such as between the uprights of a door or a window, and which supports the wall above.

Translations

 * Breton: gourin
 * Bulgarian: трегер
 * Catalan:
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin: 過梁,, , ,
 * Czech:
 * Dutch:
 * Esperanto: lintelo
 * Estonian: sillus
 * Finnish:
 * French:
 * Galician: ,
 * German:, Oberschwelle
 * Greek:, ,
 * Ancient: ὑπερθύριον, φλιᾶς
 * Hungarian:
 * Icelandic: dyratré, ofdyri
 * Irish: fardoras
 * Italian:
 * Japanese:
 * Kazakh: маңдайша
 * Maori: taupoki, kōrupe, kārupe
 * Norwegian: dekkstein, dekning, overdekning, overligger over, vindusbjelke
 * Polish:
 * Portuguese: lintel
 * Romanian: ,
 * Russian:
 * Serbo-Croatian: ,
 * Spanish: ,
 * Swedish: dörrbalk, fönsterbalk, överstycke,
 * Turkish:
 * Welsh: capan, lintel, gwarddrws

Etymology
From, from , from.

Noun

 * 1)  (beam)

title: lintel


text:
wimp

Etymology 1
Possibly a. The term was understood in the United States by the 1930s, as it was incorporated into the names of two famous media characters known for living up to that name: The devious but cowardly Popeye supporting-character called "J. Wellington Wimpy", and the soft-spoken character "Wallace Wimple" from the radio show Fibber McGee and Molly.

Noun

 * 1)  Someone who lacks confidence or courage, is weak, ineffectual, irresolute and wishy-washy.

Translations

 * Breton:
 * Bulgarian:
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Czech: slaboch, padavka,
 * Danish: pjok, skvat
 * Dutch: ,
 * Finnish:, , nysväke,
 * French:
 * Galician: monicreque, monifate
 * German: ,
 * Greek:, φοβιτσιάρα
 * Haitian Creole: movyèt
 * Indonesian:
 * Italian:, , , , , pappamolle, , , , , , , mammoletta, , , , , ,
 * Maori: harotu
 * Norwegian:
 * Bokmål: pyse
 * Nynorsk: pyse
 * Polish:, , , ,
 * Portuguese: ,
 * Russian: ,
 * Spanish:, , baldragas,
 * Swedish: ,
 * Tagalog: mahiyain

Verb

 * 1)  To behave submissively.
 * 2)  To make (something) weak or wimpy.
 * 1)  To make (something) weak or wimpy.

Adjective

 * 1)  Weak, wimpy.

Etymology 2
See.

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  weakly interacting massive particle, WIMP

title: wimp


text:
acrostico

Noun

 * 1) an acrostic or word game

title: acrostico


text:
acrostic

Etymology
Borrowed from, (modern 🇨🇬), and its  , from , from  +  (ultimately from ).

Noun

 * 1) A poem or other text in which certain letters, often the first in each line, spell out a name or message.
 * 2) A poem in Hebrew in which successive lines or verses start with consecutive letters of the alphabet.
 * 3) A kind of word puzzle, whose solution forms an anagram of a quotation, with its initial letters often forming the name of the person quoted.
 * 1) A poem in Hebrew in which successive lines or verses start with consecutive letters of the alphabet.
 * 2) A kind of word puzzle, whose solution forms an anagram of a quotation, with its initial letters often forming the name of the person quoted.
 * 1) A poem in Hebrew in which successive lines or verses start with consecutive letters of the alphabet.
 * 2) A kind of word puzzle, whose solution forms an anagram of a quotation, with its initial letters often forming the name of the person quoted.
 * 1) A poem in Hebrew in which successive lines or verses start with consecutive letters of the alphabet.
 * 2) A kind of word puzzle, whose solution forms an anagram of a quotation, with its initial letters often forming the name of the person quoted.
 * 1) A poem in Hebrew in which successive lines or verses start with consecutive letters of the alphabet.
 * 2) A kind of word puzzle, whose solution forms an anagram of a quotation, with its initial letters often forming the name of the person quoted.
 * 1) A poem in Hebrew in which successive lines or verses start with consecutive letters of the alphabet.
 * 2) A kind of word puzzle, whose solution forms an anagram of a quotation, with its initial letters often forming the name of the person quoted.
 * 1) A poem in Hebrew in which successive lines or verses start with consecutive letters of the alphabet.
 * 2) A kind of word puzzle, whose solution forms an anagram of a quotation, with its initial letters often forming the name of the person quoted.
 * 1) A kind of word puzzle, whose solution forms an anagram of a quotation, with its initial letters often forming the name of the person quoted.
 * 1) A kind of word puzzle, whose solution forms an anagram of a quotation, with its initial letters often forming the name of the person quoted.
 * 1) A kind of word puzzle, whose solution forms an anagram of a quotation, with its initial letters often forming the name of the person quoted.

Translations

 * Catalan:
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Esperanto: akrostiĥo, akrostiko
 * Finnish:
 * French:
 * German:
 * Greek:
 * Hungarian:
 * Icelandic: gripla
 * Interlingua: acrosticon
 * Irish: acrastach, acrastaic
 * Italian:
 * Polish:
 * Portuguese:
 * Romanian:
 * Russian:
 * Serbo-Croatian:
 * Cyrillic: а̏кростих
 * Roman:
 * Spanish:
 * Swedish:
 * Tagalog: akrostik
 * Ukrainian: акрові́рш

 * Hebrew: אקרוסטיכון,

Adjective

 * 1) Of or pertaining to acrostics.

title: acrostic


text:
Wiktionary:Thesaurus/Improvements 1

Project Purpose
Build on and improve, refine, the ideas in the budding concept of WikiSaurus.

Project Status
Foundering

Project Players
All true Wiktionarians invited to participate
 * Initiator (but no special rights) --Richardb 13:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Titular Project Lead (self appointed) -- Amina (sack36) 14:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * User:DCDuring Added by sack36 out of frustration. Amina (sack36) 04:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Project Page vs Project Talk page
This project page tries to represent/summarise the developing consensus view of the current state of the project. Please use the Talk page for discussions which have not yet reached some form of consensus.

Page Layout
What should the page look like?

Philosophy of Thesaurus
Roget's Thesaurus was absolutely stupendous for what it was--a paper classification system for words that mimicked the classification system for plants and animals. With the coming of the computer industry, though, it has become obsolete. In reading all about "head words" and "near synonyms" and other ways to manage an electronic thesaurus, one can see that the a good solution has yet to be found. Most of the people tackling this are too close to the problem. They no doubt have English degrees, Literature awards and other such ephemera but are limited in their knowledge of computers.

Lord knows that's the kind of people who can really do a good job making a dictionary which goes into great depth and encompass so much, but a Literature major can't understand where the average Joe Schmutz is coming from. Unless we plan on this being so esoteric as to be useless to any but the top 5% of the literati, we must come up with a simpler plan.

Electronic Thesaurus
We can visualize the function of a thesaurus by thinking of it as a web that links every definition to every other definition through shades of meaning. Using Head-words removes some of the linkages in this fine web. When you do that, it leaves holes that meaning can fall through. I challenge anyone to find one word in the English language that means exactly the same as another. If the nuance is not in their lexicon, it doesn't mean it isn't there. Ours is a huge and complex language. We shouldn't attempt to simplify it by removing bits of it.

On the other hand, why make work for ourselves by adding extra wordage to each page or extra pages which will be difficult to get to. Such is the case with the main page method of wikisaurus. In order to cover all the areas you leave out, twice as many words must be defined. In order to have a main and sub-categories, you end up with an inability to actually get the users to the category. Just as wiktionary doesn't require wikisaurus assistance until the user needs synonyms, so wikisaurus shouldn't require wiktionary unless an in-depth definition (or any of the other things they provide) is needed.

The other part of this equation is the number of synonyms (or by my way of seeing it near-synonyms all), antonyms and other bits and bobs we want to pack into one area. In reading over all these discussions I've heard everything from duplicate the paper template exactly (Roget's) to "Frag it! Let's dump it all into the wiktionary and have done with it!" There were a lot of steps in between (thank God!) Somewhere along the way, though, I saw that something fairly basic was being assumed that shouldn't have been.

The erroneous assumption
It's the same assumption that is made by inexperienced pilots; non-mathematicians or physicists. Most of us perceive things in a two dimensional way when we can experience three (pilots) and envision more (physicists and mathematicians.) The arguments were always about what should go on the page and why, but never about how multidimensional we should go. It was touched on when Roget's was brought up ("it's like the skin of an onion".) We're working with a computer here. There is no end to the complexity we can shove on the computer to make it easy for everyone else. ...well, ok, there is an end. We can bring a computer to it's knees if we give it too much to do. I actually experienced that at one of the companies I worked for.(back in the dark ages) The system we had took 8 hours to be booted up.

Flight of Fancy
We are nowhere near there. I want to give back to the computer some of the complexity we've taken on ourselves. I want the computer to start using those multi-dimensions to make connections we don't have to make with our brains. Let's start by giving it back all the look-ups. We don't care if it has to go through fifteen hundred linkages to get a word defined. Let it. Just so we don't have to. Let's give it three categories: Synonym, Antonym, and Colloquial/Archaic/Slang. At first everything is a Synonym or Antonym. Over the course of time, more "click-thrus" will be done on some synonyms than on others. We keep track of click-tru and when a word drops below a certain threshold, we have the bot transfer the word from synonym into Colloquial/Archaic, or from Colloquial/Archaic into synonyms. Antonyms will be a dead zone.

We could take it several dimensions further by having a bot go through and sort words by click-thru amount; or assign color values to each span of click-thrus and have the bot change the color based on those values; or do both so that we get a rainbow. This way people who don't want to deal with the complexity don't have to while those who want every nuance mapped will get their wish.

The Page
Every word should have it's own wikisaurus page. If it's in the wiktionary, it should be in the wikisaurus. Our choice is between putting every synonym down twice or having every word have a page. For any given page we do, we won't be having three or four words. In some instances we can have as many as fifty. That many linkages per page can actually slow the computer down more effectively than having fifty more pages.

Every wikisaurus page should have all the words, regardless of part of speech on that single page. Otherwise, how does a person find a wikisaurus page with the right part of speech on it? Would they have to go through as many as four different screens to find the right part of speech before looking up their word? Nobody wants to have to do that! By putting it on the same page and having a clear TOC to find the right spot, it relieves a users time and frustration level.

Summary
There you have it in one hundred pages or less! We should not have the same structure as wiktionary on our wikisaurus pages and here you can see why this alternate structure is a sane and simple solution.

Notification System
How do we keep from stepping on each other's toes?

Above in these topics you will see a place you can put your name if you want to be associated with working on Wikisaurus. Our choices for notification are:

 * We could email each of the people on the list to let them know if we're going to do major revision on a specific page
 * Pro we'll be able to see what was getting done without too much hassle.
 * Con we'll have a rather distasteful job each and every time we work on a page for more than an hour.
 * we could do something like a checkout of pages where we put our names next to the page we want to work on.
 * Pro once it's set up logging pages in and out will be a snap!
 * Con huge job to set up.

That's my take on the notification system. Anyone have something more inventive? Amina (sack36) 06:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

title: Wiktionary:Thesaurus/Improvements 1


text:
adatto

Etymology 1
, from +.

Adjective

 * 1) suitable or adapted for

title: adatto


text:
suitable

Adjective

 * 1) Having sufficient or the required properties for a certain purpose or task; appropriate to a certain occasion.

Translations

 * Arabic: مُنَاسِب,, لَائِق
 * Azerbaijani:
 * Bulgarian:
 * Catalan:
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin: ,
 * Czech: ,
 * Danish: passende, egnet
 * Dutch: ,
 * Esperanto: konvena, taŭga
 * Finnish: ,
 * French:, , ,
 * Galician:
 * German:, ,
 * Gothic: 𐍆𐌰𐌲𐍂𐍃
 * Greek:
 * Ancient: πρόσφορος, ἐπιεικής, ἄρτιος
 * Hebrew:, מתאים, הולם
 * Hungarian: ,
 * Irish: oiriúnach, fóirsteanach
 * Italian:, , , , , ,
 * Japanese:, ,
 * Latin:, idōneus
 * Latvian: piemērots, atbilstošs, piederīgs
 * Macedonian: погоден
 * Malay:
 * Malayalam: അനുയോജ്യമായ,
 * Manx: cooie
 * Maori: arotau, haratau,, tōtika
 * Middle English: digne
 * Norwegian:, egnet
 * Portuguese: ,
 * Romanian:, , ,
 * Russian:, , , ,
 * Scottish Gaelic: freagarrach, iomchaidh
 * Slovene:
 * Spanish: ,
 * Swedish:
 * Tagalog: hiyang, kahiyang
 * Telugu: ,
 * Tocharian B: ayāto
 * Turkish: ,
 * Ukrainian: підходящий, відповідний, придатний
 * Vietnamese:
 * Welsh:
 * Yiddish: פּאַסיק

title: suitable


text:
addio

Etymology
From, from. Compare 🇨🇬; 🇨🇬; 🇨🇬; 🇨🇬; 🇨🇬; 🇨🇬; 🇨🇬; 🇨🇬; 🇨🇬; 🇨🇬; 🇨🇬; 🇨🇬.

Interjection

 * 1) goodbye, farewell

Noun

 * 1) goodbye, farewell

title: addio


text:
addizione

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) addition

title: addizione


text:
addossare

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to lean
 * 2) to lay or saddle
 * 3)  to charge (an expense), to attribute (a fault)

title: addossare


text:
adorare

Etymology
. Cf. the older.

Verb

 * 1) to love with one's entire heart and soul; regard with deep respect and affection
 * 2) to adore, to worship

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) worship

title: adorare


text:
Talk:㐨

Actual radical is missing... so it seems.

title: Talk:㐨


text:
Talk:mora

Earliest Usenet uses via Google Groups (for the linguistics term) — Hippietrail 14:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * mora: soc.culture.japan - Jun 6 1989, 4:48 pm by David Gast
 * I always [sic] that a 3 mora name with the last mora "o" is a male name.
 * moras: sci.lang.japan - Jul 16 1990, 8:44 pm by David A. Johns
 * Jorden's transcription, with its double vowels, represents moras just as accurately as kana does -- in fact better, since it represents tya as one mora rather than two.
 * moraic: sci.lang.japan - Jun 24 1991, 3:27 pm by Gerald B. Mathias
 * No such word-distinguishing drop in pitch occurs at the end of a long vowel or after a "syllabic" (= moraic) n, although one is free to stress those locations, as in "doO-to ittandayo, doU-de nakute..."
 * morae (list context): sci.lang.japan - Jul 7 1992, 12:35 pm by Claude Huss
 * morae: sci.lang.japan - Jul 7 1992, 10:35 am by Stavros Macrakis
 * Actually, Japanese has about 50 morae (kana), but more like 20-25 phonemes (depending on definitions).
 * moraically: humanities.classics - Aug 31 2001, 6:16 pm by Rich Alderson
 * To bring this to a Classical context, the Latin accent is assigned moraically (drop the last syllable and accent the second mora from what's left), but as a stress accent affects the entire syllable.
 * moraiclly: rec.climbing - Oct 22 2001, 10:33 pm by Shilajit T Gangulee
 * The whole 5-7-5 shit is grade-school crap. Haiku metric stress is counted moraiclly, not by syllables.
 * moraicly: rec.climbing - Oct 23 2001, 10:03 am by Mike Yukish
 * His was a spelling mistake. It should be "moraicly"

RFV
Rfv-sense: as a Spanish noun meaning “mole” (in the sense of “dark spot on the skin”). The second-oldest tagged RFV, but seemingly never listed. —Ruakh TALK 20:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sense added by Nadando (very experienced Spanish editor) tagged by Hippietrail (not so experienced). I'll bet it's valid. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added two citations. In retrospect, both could possibly mean 'mulberry'. It says in the form of a so I suppose cells in the form of a mole is more likely, but in the form of a mulberry is not impossible either. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, sorry, both are mulberries. One is describing Mott cells, which in English are also called "morular cells" because they look like mulberries, and the other is translating an English text with the word "mulberry". BTW, is it supposed to be common knowledge what mulberries look like? Because I had no idea until I checked Wikipedia just now. —Ruakh TALK 03:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wish I knew where I got "mole" from... I can't find anything that related to skin that isn't "looks like a mulberry" or equivalent. Nadando 23:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything, either. and  and  get plenty of relevant hits, but  and  and  don't seem to get any. (But admittedly, my Spanish is not great, and it takes me some effort to scan the page looking for hits in a desired sense. It's quite possible that I missed some.) —Ruakh TALK 01:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not in Spanish Wiktionary. DAVilla 09:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed, but "forma de mora" quotations kept. - -sche (discuss) 08:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:mora


text:
Talk:edutainment

Earliest Usenet uses via Google Groups: — Hippietrail 14:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * edutainment (quoted): comp.ivideodisc - Dec 18 1989, 1:44 pm by Robert Jaquiss
 * Multimedia is fast finding its way into the business world as well as the fields of education and entertainment (some say "edutainment").
 * Edutainment (proper noun): alt.rap-gdead - Oct 4 1990, 1:03 am by Chad Mboya-Joe Darby
 * But after those two I tend to stay away from the last two albums (Ghetto Music, Edutainment).
 * Edutainment (no sentence context): rec.games.programmer - Jan 30 1991, 7:17 pm by Bits_of_Ma
 * edutainment (not quoted, in sentence context): alt.cyberpunk - May 5 1991, 7:32 am by J Eric Townsend
 * As for the rank on Gibson, read some of the people that influenced him (and maybe get a little edutainment re: 20th C. fiction) and read him again.
 * edutaining (quoted, verb): misc.jobs.resumes - Dec 24 1991, 9:56 am by Cannon Joel
 * Also, I have always enjoyed educational entertainment -- making learning fun -- and I believe multimedia is the most promising method of successfully "edutaining" students of the future.
 * edutaining (not quoted, adjective): alt.bacchus - Mar 25 1992, 9:48 pm by David Lawrence Miller
 * I crave meeting new people and having edutaining conversations, but sometimes it is difficult to start out.
 * Edutainer (proper noun): alt.rap - Feb 17 1993, 1:56 pm by K-Mello SGP '93
 * If I'm correct, she is the first artist to sign to KRS-1's Edutainer Records label.
 * Edutainments: comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard - Aug 15 1993, 8:43 am by Brian Sayatovic
 * The SB's SCSI interface was designed to work specifically with one drive; the Panasonic one in the Edutainments.
 * Edutain: sci.virtual-worlds - Jun 22 1993, 12:00 am by Mark A. DeLoura
 * Let us Edutain You, Tod Foley
 * edutainers (signature line): comp.sys.apple2 - Mar 24 1995, 11:38 am by Juho Antonio Wahlroos
 * "ASC,IST,ISL,ISK,...great edutainers"
 * EduTain (trademark?): comp.os.ms-windows.apps - Aug 22 1994, 4:04 pm by Mutale Kalenga
 * Their South African representatives, EduTain Technologies, (from whom the software was purchased) were contacted on 01/06/94 by fax.
 * edutainments: rec.games.video.advocacy - Oct 12 1995, 5:41 am by nobody
 * Only if you count all the pornographic titles and edutainments as well as games.
 * edutained: rec.music.hip-hop - Mar 24 1998, 7:29 pm by Sean Flynn
 * If I want to be edutained, I listen to BDP/KRS/Main Source
 * edutains (quoted): rec.music.reggae - May 5 2003, 9:58 am by Jeanette
 * "From Lehbanchuleh to all who listen to music that "edutains," inspires and speaks to the heart. Jah bless."

title: Talk:edutainment


text:
Wiktionary talk:Transliteration

Currently just has chunks of relevant discussion from Beer Parlour, RFD etc.

Also see Wiktionary talk:Policy - Transliteration/Collection of past discussions Richardb 15:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

transliteration
The act or product of transliterating, or of expressing words of a language by means of the characters of another alphabet.

Why was a substantial part of this policy deleted?
==Quotations== Quotations should be in a form readable, understandable by the modern English reader, whilst preserving the quotation of the word in its orignal script.

This can be acheived in one of two ways:-
 * Quote the whole thing in original language and script, with the word in question in bold, followed by a translation, with the word transliterated and in bold
 * If the quotation is in something semi-intelligible to the modern English reader (perhaps Middle English, simple French etc), then the quote can be in it's original language, with accents, with the word in question in bold, and a transliteration provided in brackets immediately after the word.

==Translations== Translations into languages using other scripts should also provide a transliteration eg: Fuck, in Bulgarian, is: еба (eba).
 * Might also be nice to provide a pronunciation too, for use as a "phrase book". See Where is the toilet? and see which phrases are usable as a guide to saying the phrase ?

How old should quotations be?
Hello, wiktionarians. I read Quotations just now, and have a question for you about it. It implies that one of Wiktionary's goals is to document the span of time over which words have been used. Is there a cut-off date for this? Should quotations from Old and Middle English be included? (This question might have wider implications. Which language does this dictionary describe?  English in its full history, or only Modern English?  Or Middle and Modern English, since Old English has its own Wiktionary?)  --znusgy 11:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is the English Wiktionary. It is intended to be readable for current English users. You can put Middle or Old English words in here, just as you can put French, Khmer or Chinese words, under the correct language heading. But, the definitions, quotations etc must be readable by current English readers. If you want to write defintions, explanations, names of parts of speech, quotations in another language (including Old or Middle English), then go to the Wiktionary of that language, if it exists. So, please translate the quotations into English that is readily intelligible to current readers, as much as is necessary, but preserving the purpose of the quotation to illustrate the usage of the word. ((Just my view))--Richardb 14:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

portokali
Do we need a link that phonetically spells a Greek word with English letters? I fixed πορτοκάλι (not completely) to which this page links, but I don't know that this page will serve any purpose. ???--Alia H 03:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Although I argued to some extent in favour of the idea some time ago, I've done nothing more about it. There are arguments for this in terms of making other scripts more accessible to more readers.  Since I have no plans in the forseeable future to develop this idea, I'm not going to complain much if the community wants to dump this. Eclecticology 08:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Transliterations might be worth pursuing, but this is a bit of a minefield, in my view. Just sticking with (modern) Greek, would we allow for, say, υ (upsilon) to be transcribed as u, y and i?  What about accented characters?  "Πορτοκάλι" could become "portokali" or "portokáli", but some words could have numerous transliterations (take "ευχαριστώ" - υ could be u or f, χ could be kh or ch, ώ could be o, ó or even w...).  What about Chinese and Japanese, with their various transliteration schemes?  I think it all risks getting a bit exponential, with each word requiring several redirects, unless, of course, we come up with standard transliteration schemes and require users to stick to them.

 * Anyone who wants to find a translation for a word they find on the web can cut and paste it into the search box. Anyone who wants to add a foreign word can use the "Characters:" box at the bottom of the edit page (although this provides only for European languages at the moment).

 * These facilities don't cover all the bases by any means, but I think the amount of work involved would prevent automatic handling of transliteration from getting off the ground.

 * — Paul G 10:00, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Help me out, please. Was a consensus ever reached?  I see after randomly hitting paidika, and doing some research that this had already been debated back in August.  I only just recently stumbled upon Wiktionary, so I missed it, and I cannot find it in the current Beer Parlour discussions.  Meanwhile, what do we do with paidika, which doesn't even have the Greek word anywhere on the page?  (Sorry I know this discussion probably doesn't belong here any more, but this is where it is, so this is where I'm asking.)--Alia H 05:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I strongly disagree with PaulG. This is the English Language Wiktionary. The entries should be readable to English readers. So Transliterations provide a useful tool. A Greek phrase book for English users phrasebooks would not have the Greek Phrase in Greek alphabet, 'cos it would be useless to the English reader. Same goes here. don't get rid of the transliterations, they are vitally useful.--Richardb 14:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be contrary, but I'm not quite understanding the point of transliterations. (This is the first time I've run into them, except for "borrowed" words; which of course are transliterated and then considered English.) Are they for people who speak but don't read a foreign language? I guess I don't see how they are "vitally useful." If you are a native Greek speaker, learning English, you would look up a word in Greek to find its translation. And if you are a native English speaker learning Greek, you would look up the word in English to find its translation. Either way, you should be familiar with both alphabets.

I guess the only practical way to go about this would be to assign letter for letter transcriptions so that υ would always be u even when it sounds like f. Because you would need f to stand for φ.--Alia H 03:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 *
 * Transliterations are an important feature for any non-phonetic language. This allows people who are not fluent in the language to look up terms.  I intend to make these changes to the policy page -- comment if you think I shouldn't: Policy - Transliteration/Proposal20050614
 *

anurag
Claimed to be a Sanskrit, but Sanskrit does not use the Latin alphabet. This looks like a transliteration. It needs to be replaced with a page in Sanskrit script. — Paul G 10:11, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hang on! This is the English Wiktionary ? We allow foreign words, as long as they have explanations in English. This fits that description. It may then have a translation which uses the Sanskrit script, and a link to the Sanskrit Wiktionary (??) written in Sanskrit. Or have I missed something ?? It just needs Wikifying, with a ==Sanskrit== language heading.--Richardb 14:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, this is the English wiktionary. Yes, Sanskrit words are to be explained in English.  But the Sanskrit word is spelled अनुराग (transliteration: anurāga) not "anurag". —Muke Tever 19:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Transliteration heading/tag?
Is there a transliteration tag in foreign language entries? If so, then the entire concept mimics that of English plurals and other senses: yes, the other entries should exist (usually as redirects.) Therefore, the headword that is redirected to in this case would be the un-transliterated version of the word. In the headword entry, multiple tranliterations could then be used. As many transliteration redirect entries as desired could also be added. --Connel MacKenzie 18:14, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Romanizations is the tag/heading I was thinking of. Aren't these the same things?  --Connel MacKenzie 03:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Connel, mostly. In places wher ethe word is really only a foreign script word.--Richardb 12:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * But what about a word like Rouble. (Or is ruble) It's undoubtedly a Russian word, so should the main entry be in Cyrillic ? But for years, maybe hundreds of years, we have used it as though it were an English word, or ast least written it in Latin/Roman/Western characters.--Richardb 12:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I think category:English borrowed words is a better place to address rouble, as it seems to be part of the English language now. Very tough to draw the line, I agree.  In such a commonly used word (ha!) as rouble I'd like to see both the Romanizied and Cyrillic words each with their own entry, linked by ===See also=== .  --Connel MacKenzie 14:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Example of the problem of those who refuse to acknowledge the need for transliteration for the non-cognoscenti amongst us
See Играть- This is the English Wiktionary, yet this page is largely unintelligible and useless to an English reader or speaker not versed in reading Cyrillic.

There is no pronunciation or even transliteration for an English speaker or reader to use.

It is largely only useful to a Russian reader.

It surely has no place in an English Wiktionary.--Richardb 11:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Although I have some issues about details in the article, I think that the general presentation is very good. Pronunciation and/or transliteration is provided for Играть itself; that should be sufficient.  Of course, if you want to add the others in the conjugation table by all means go ahead.  My preference would be to turn all these forms into links so that the transliterations could be shown on each of the pages.

 * I don't think that intelligibility to the English reader is the point here. A person without at least a rudimentary understanding of the Cyrillic alphabet is unlikely to need the conjugation table.

Removal claim
I don't see the point of Richardb's claim on my user talk page. I did revise the page in March, and I'm surprised that you did not notice it until now. I was led to the page by the discussion over portokali on the RfD page. What may have been lost didn't seem necessary. Eclecticology 21:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposed revision

 * Provide comments, etc. Tell me not to put it up, or I'll do so in a few days (of course, we can still talk about it at that point).  Also, feel free to make changes.  It's only a proposal, after all:
 * Policy - Transliteration/Proposal20050614
 *

 *
 * After a day of hammering out the Japanese romanization rules, I got impatient and implemented my proposed changes. I've kept the original proposal, which would probably be worth deleting in a week or two, in case anyone objects and reverts the changes.
 *

pinyin (Shijian)
From the proposed changes page: (Jun-Dai 01:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I have no serious complaints since most of this is similar to what I had in mind. There are some minor wording changes that I would now make, but that's often the case with my own work after I have let it lay for a while. The "language consideration" format for the article title should probably be the same for Greek as what you now have for Chinese and Japanese. This will allow us to develop some consistency. Eclecticology 08:09, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Could you also look at Shijian as a possible way of dealing with the pinyin issue. Eclecticology 17:33, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

 Unfortunately I never studied Chinese for more than two weeks, so I'm really not qualified to determine whether the system implemented on Shijian is good or practical. Given that it's a flat romanization (without tonal diacritics), the question remains as to whether the pages with the diacritics should redirect or not. I'd say no, but I don't really know what's best there, and there certainly a large number of "translations" to pinyin romanizations with diacritics (such as giblets) that would have to be fixed.
 * Surely someone else will need to do the work on the Chinese articles, and once we fing that person he/she may have his or her own ideas. Flat romanization seems to be the best.  Diacritics with four tones on each syllable and two ways of representing the tones would mean an additional 4*4*2=32 pages for each disyllabic.  A three syllable word could have 128 pages!  Eclecticology 07:46, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

 * Since Mandarin is the dominant literary language, and every Mandarin dictionary I know uses Pinyin with tone marks, I would follow their lead. The only other Chinese language/dialect which has a good number of dictionaries that I've seen is Cantonese but I've not been able to discern if there is a norm amongst those.
 * Another issue of variance in Chinese transliteration, even for just the case of Pinyin with tone marks, is syllable division. There is (almost famously) no standard of whether to include spaces in polysyllabic terms. Some sources use spaces between each and every syllable, some seem to write without spaces all syllables which would form a dictionary headword, some seem to be arbitrary between these two extremes. One more point of variance is capitalisation of Pinyin. The general rule seems to be to retain the capitalisation of the source language - but I don't know how precisely this is followed. Many English words appear capitalised and noncapitalised - eponymous word especially; and if there are Chinese words borrowed from German I doubt that all nouns would be capitalised... — Hippietrail 08:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Pinyin needs to be looked at as a romanization rather than a transliteration. Although it largely reflects Mandarin speech patterns it is still not the language itself.  The same pinyin romanization would be used in works set in any language using a roman alphabet.  The value of pinyin is not that it is more correct than the other romanizations but that it presents a common reference point that allows us to escape from the previous patchwork.  Pinyin should not be viewed as a pronunciation guide; that belongs in the body of the article for the characters where a whole range of dialectical differences can be presented.

 * The value of stripped down titles is to enable people to find things. A dictionary is useless if nobody can find the words they seek.  Chinese tones or Russian stress marks need to be explained -- just not in the article titles.  A distinction needs to be made between what is really a part of the word, and what is added to make it more understandable.

 * When you look through a Chinese dictionary you soon see that a majority of Chinese concepts are built on two characters being linked together. The Chinese dictionary that I mostly use (admittedly an old one that still uses Wade-Giles) gives no romanization for the disyllables at all.  A native Chinese speaker knows which syllables go together before he learns to read and write; he would also know these even if he remained illiterate for his entire life.  It is not obvious to an outsider.  In running text an outsider would tend to put the wrong syllables together and end up with resultsa akin to the difference in English between "ice cream" and "I scream".  I think we would do better by continuing to represent these terms without spaces, or alternatively with hyphens.

 * Capitalization is a non-issue. Capitalized Chinese characters don't exist.  Thus when we speak of capitalized pinyin we are grafting the standards of some European language to a place where it does not belong. Eclecticology 18:18, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Languages with no standard transliteration schemes
Under the heading "On Wiki-romanization" I see this: "Because most languages have multiple standards for romanization..." but I cannot find anything for cases such as Thai and Khmer and, I think, Burmese Lao, and Tibetan. Languages which I believe have no accepted standard transliteration and which each book dealing with them generally devises its own system. Does anybody have any ideas what to do in these cases? — Hippietrail 08:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 *
 * I don't know enough about the individual languages to speak to them, but as for a general approach, we should devise our own standard based as much as possible on (1) what people would expect and (2) what seems most effective. Our main goal is to be consistent.  If we cannot meet all of the varied expectations on what rules our transliterations will utilize, then we must aim for simplicity, effectiveness, and consistency, so that at least the user can come to develop an understanding of how to look these items up in the Wiktionary.
 * I changed "standards" to "systems".
 *

 * I'm inclined to agree with Hippietrail that many of these languages do not have accepted standards for transliterations. We probably will need to devise our own system that will work for us; the guiding principles that Jun-Dai outllines are spot on.  If it works for us others would be free to use it in their own situations, and our way would become the standard, but not because we imposed it.  WP is already big enough to start influencing the way that others do things.  None of this means working in a vacuum.  The Library of Congress already has a series of charts that it uses for transliterating the titles of books in the course of cataloging them.  This is available on-line, and would be a reasonable starting point. Eclecticology 18:34, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

 * The Library of Congress is a very good suggestion. I would also recommend quoting, at least in a comment, which book you took it from when using a print dictionary or pedagogic material. — Hippietrail 19:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some stuff moved from elsewhere
--Richardb 14:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting for Policy - Transliteration
I would propose that the Policy - Transliteration policy draft needs to be voted on to make it policy and not a policy draft. It seems that there is much confusion about how transliteration and Romanization should work and having this policy to point at would be very helpful.

Here's what I'm proposing, the voting should be open for two weeks, all registered users can vote, simple majority will carry. The question is simply should this be policy yes/no. The voting would happen on the talk page.

If someone will second my proposal for a vote then I think we could get the polls open. If you think the policy needs more discussion then vote against it. If you think it's good (or at least workable) then vote for it. Kevin Rector 05:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

 * It's a good idea for us to define this policy, but I don't think we're ready enough for it. It would help us try to be consistent, but anything we came up with would not be satisfactory for long, particularly as we would not be likely to get more than a half-dozen opinions on it, which would only be a little better than zero.  Even more important, the policy is little more than a stub, so there's not much to vote on.  Better that we focus our efforts on collaborating on the policy--possibly by voting on individual details of it--and save large-scale voting on it for later. Jun-Dai 07:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Kevin, you have my strong support if you want to take a stab at further developing "policy" through the suggested stages of Policy Think-Tank, Draft Policy, Semi-Official Policy, Official Policy. Anything to get the discussion of what clearly needs to be a policy out of the ever growing, far too big Beer PArlour. Far too many people are far too happy chit-chatting for ever in the Beer Parlour, and never actually want to commit to doing the basic ground work in some Committee Room. Discussion should then take place in the "Policy Committee Room" (or relevant Talk page) of a particular policy idea.

 * Whilst I have a pretty strong view that some ideas on transliteration policy are definitely up there in cloud-cuckoo land, designed to suit the academic pointy heads in this world, I actually feel less strongly about any particular policy than I do about, for god sake people, get off the fence and start defining some issues as policy matters, not matters for never-ending idle chit chat in the Beer Parlour.

 * As with any Wiki Project, no-one can impose rules anyway. And taking an issue out of the Beer Parlour into a "Policy Think Tank" talk page hardly constitutes imposiing rules on people. If I wasn't such a part-time player these days, I'd be stripping so much never-ending chit-chat out of Beer Parlour and putting them into "Policy Think Tank" talk pages.--Richardb 02:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary:Romanization
Transliteration, applied strictly, means changing individual letters, and can only be applied to alphabetic writing systems. The result can also be in any alphabetic writing system, e.g. Latin, Cyrillic, Korean, etc.

Romanization:
 * 1) Can be applied to text in any writing system: alphabetic, syllabic, logographic, etc.
 * 2) Results in a Latin-alphabet rendering of the source text: it is useful to English-language readers.

I suggest we move this page to Romanization to more accurately reflect its intent. —Mzajac 22:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Purpose
The purpose of romanization in Wiktionary is not clearly defined here, and as a result this policy is being applied inconsistently. This is compounded by the definitions in the policy, which are inaccurate. I'd like to fix the definitions, define the goal of transliteration with them in mind, and adjust the details of the policy to fit the goal.

Definitions:

 * Transcription is the written representation of spoken language. Wiktionary uses the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) to represent pronunciation.  More specifically, we use phonemic (phonological) transcription to represent the general pronunciation of a word, and phonetic IPA transcription to represent the precise pronunciation in a particular dialect.  Details at Pronunciation.
 * Transliteration is the conversion of letters or words into another alphabet. Some transliteration systems may convey the pronunciation of words to some degree, to readers of a particular language (not necessarily English).  Other transliteration systems are intended strictly to represent the original orthography.  The term generally does not apply to non-alphabetic writing systems which use ideograms or logograms.
 * Romanization is the conversion of text from another writing system into the Latin alphabet. Like transliteration, a particular system may or may not convey pronunciation to some degree.

Illustrative examples:
 * w:ISO 9:1995 is a standardized United Nations transliteration system for Cyrillic text, based on scientific transliteration. It applies a strict one-to-one correspondence between letters (graphemes) in Cyrillic and Latin.  It is the same for all languages, allows faithful reverse transliteration, but disregards pronunciation.
 * Scientific transliteration is the most common transliteration system used in linguistics today to romanize Cyrillic text. It was originally intended for use in German libraries, and is based on Croatian Latin orthography (closely related to Serbian, which is written in both Latin and Cyrillic alphabets).  Cyrillic orthographies are strongly tied to phonemic principals, and so scientific transliteration rules are modified for each language, and the result corresponds to a phonemic transcription.  Its pronunciation is intuitive for many central and eastern Europeans, but not so much for English speakers.
 * Appendix:Russian transliteration is scientific transliteration for Russian.
 * About Russian is based on the same system, but with extensive modifications intended to convey pronunciation, but which lose the original orthography. These modifications seem to be based on Wiktionary editors' whims rather than on any published reference.

As mentioned above, IPA is already used to represent pronunciation, optionally including syllabification and stress. (Hyphenation in writing is separate from syllabification in speech.) See Pronunciation.

Romanization should be used in Wiktionary to convey the original orthography to English-language readers, who may be unfamiliar with the original writing system. We list English headwords in standard English spelling, not in IPA for the same reasons.

These principals should be approved by consensus as soon as possible. —Mzajac 23:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

 * For centuries, transliteration has been necessary to represent languages that use a different script, mainly because in the places where a language is not spoken or written, there are no facilities for writing it. Transliteration schemes were devised so that a language such as Greek or Russian could be written in Roman letters, and then a knowledgeable reader could reliably convert it back into the original script. Just in the last decade or so, this need has fallen away. On Wiktionary, a transliteration should help a learner with pronunciation, and the transliteration no longer needs to be etymological or be able to be converted back into the original script, because the original script is actually provided. Etymologically, a Korean ㄹ is "R", and in some environments it is normally pronounced "R", but in others it is pronounced "L"; in a few words, it is pronounced "N". We can actually transliterate ㄹ as "R", "L", or "N", as the case may be, and not worry about how the "L" or "N" might be reconverted to Korean, because the original Korean word is provided in the original script. The purpose of the transliteration is no longer restrained by the need to revert it, it only needs to help someone who does not know the script to pronounced a word in an approximate fashion. —Stephen 01:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I disagree. This has not changed in centuries.

 * The opposite is the case. "Facilities for writing it" used to be a pen which everyone had, now it consists of a foreign-language keyboard layout, which most people can't use.  But foreign text in a book are not romanized so I could "convert it back into the original script".

 * Romanization is used to permit comprehension, and this need hasn't fallen away. (Q: Hey English-language reader, how do you spell beetle in Ukrainian? A: I can't read it, but it looks like a zig-zag thing, a letter y, and a letter k.  Wrong, you spell it zhe, u, ka.)  "Zhuk" or "žuk" has some meaning to an anglophone, but жук has none.  He can even read the word if it is spoken with sounds, or clicks, or tones that don't exist in his language, or that he can't even distinguish.  A written word is a thing, and it exists thanks to its orthography.  When you don't understand the orthography, you need a version of it in a familiar writing system—in our case, an orthographic romanization.  If the romanized version helps perceive the pronunciation, that is a bonus, but not a necessity.

 * A spoken word is not the written word. It exists thanks to its sound, and can be represented in writing by one or more pronunciation guides. These belongs only in the pronunciation section of a Wiktionary page.

 * A headword is the written word. A pronunciation is a phonetic transcription.  Two different things, which belong in two places. —Mzajac 01:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Hm, maybe it's much simpler to address Stephen's argument according to its context rather than the esoteric details:

 * If you are asserting that Wiktionary needs pronunciation guides and no transliterations, then you should propose the removal of the transliteration guidelines.  "Transliteration [which] should help a learner with pronunciation" belongs in the pronunciation section of a page.

 * Until such a proposal is accepted, Transliteration remains a separate thing from Pronunciation. It has a different function, and belongs in a different place. So let's discuss what exactly it is. —Mzajac 00:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

 * They don’t have to have "facilities" for writing it, they can copy the original word or phrase right from the page. It is located prominently next to the transcription. As for transcriptions being used for comprehension, you are not taking the English Wiktionary audience into consideration. Native Russians who want to look up a Russian word look to the Russian Wiktionary. English Wiktionary is for English users, and English-speaking linguists and those who have a working knowledge of Russian use the Cyrillic, not the transcription. Except for checking to see where the accent falls, nobody uses the transcription except casual users who are not linguists, do not know Russian, and who do not wish to waste a half hour learning Cyrillic.
 * I do not assert that Wiktionary needs pronunciations and no transliterations. IPA pronunciations are useful to linguists and a handful of others. Most people who look up a Russian word here, and who do not already know Cyrillic, are not really interested in a perfectly pronounced word, but just what we have been putting. It is better to use the word transcription than transliteration, because transliteration suggests a one-to-one exchange. Transliterations were needed in the past because the word in the original script was not available, or not printable. That is no longer true, and anyone can copy the original Cyrillic word even if they have no Russian keyboard. The etymological transliteration no longer serves a useful purpose, except perhaps in e-mail clients that are not correctly configured for Cyrillic. When people type Russian in Roman letters in e-mails, they spell it all sorts of ways. —Stephen 15:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

 * You seem to know a lot about why people use English Wiktionary and why they don't. I think you're stating a bunch of unfounded assumptions.  If I am "not taking the English Wiktionary audience into consideration," please show me where you found such detailed information about every one of their needs.

 * "...they can copy the original word or phrase right from the page"—d'ya think some people use Wiktionary for more than copying words? Transliteration has been used alongside Cyrillic by linguists much smarter than us for over a century, and is still being used in both print and electronic documents.

 * Without transliteration, I need to learn two different Cyrillic alphabets to understand the etymological relationship of Polish jego, Russian его, and Ukrainian його. Perhaps it would be easier to just include transliterations: Polish jego, Russian его (jegó), and Ukrainian його (johó).  The addition of a phonetic transcription in the "pronunciation" section would add value, noting that the Russian word is pronounced as jevó . —Mzajac 00:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

 * For one, English Wiktionary is intend for use by native English speakers. Native Russians are welcome, but they have to understand that the Russian pages are tailored to the needs of English-speakers who speak little or no Russian. For two, perhaps it would be better if you found a bunch of native English speakers who also speak Russian, but who nevertheless need roman transcriptions. I do not believe there is a significant number of them...I don’t believe there are any of them.
 * Certainly people use it for more than copying words. But anyone who needs etymologically true Russian needs the Cyrillic. Transliteration has been used for centuries, but the reasons are the lack of facility to port or print the original Cyrillic. Unicode has removed this ancient need.
 * Anyone who needs to understand the etymological relationship of Polish jego and Russian его only needs the original script. I cannot imagine the Slavic etymologist who is not comfortable in Cyrillic. Nobody needs the transcriptions except for casual users who do not speak Russian and who do not know Cyrillic and who do not wish to spend half an hour learning. —Stephen 01:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Are you saying we should not romanize words from other writing systems in Wiktionary? —Mzajac 08:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

 * No, I am not saying that. I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. I was about to make a suggestion that had occurred to me this weekend but now I see that the discussion has turned ugly. I am bowing out of it. —Stephen 20:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Restarting the discussion
I realize that I've been getting to wound up about this. I apologize to all for my tone. I'd still like to try to clarify my concerns about transliteration, if anyone would still be willing to listen to me.

I still think this policy needs some clarification, so that transliteration can be used consistently in the various languages. I realized this week that Appendix:Ukrainian transliteration and Appendix:Russian transliteration are inconsistent in their intent and implementation, and I couldn't find any clear guidance here to resolve the conflict. Or maybe the answer is creating a framework to make it easy to add supplementary transliterations in different systems, to accommodate different needs. —Mzajac 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Key terms
The "Key terms" section has some inaccuracies and omissions. I hope the following is an improvement. Any specific objections? —Michael Z. 20:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Writing system (or script): native representation of a language in writing or print. Types of writing systems include alphabets, abugidas, abjads, syllabaries, and pictographic, logographic, and ideographic writing systems.
 * Romanization: rendering of written text from a foreign writing system into the Latin (Roman) alphabet, possibly supplemented by diacritical marks or additional characters.
 * Romanization system: standardized romanization systems exist for most languages, used in linguistics, library science, geography, publishing, government and legal documentation, and other fields. For a list, see romanization.
 * Wiki-romanization: a romanization system chosen for Wiktionary. It is usually a common standard of romanization, or based on one and modified for Wiktionary's specific needs.
 * Transliteration (literally 'lettering across'): rendering of written text from one alphabet or syllabary into another, letter by letter. In Wiktionary we are mainly concerned with transliteration from a foreign system into the Latin alphabet (a subset of romanization).
 * Transcription (literally 'writing across') has several meanings, including transliteration and phonetic transcription, the written representation of spoken language. For the latter, see Pronunciation.

 * It's been two weeks, so I will update the project page. —Michael Z. 03:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

title: Wiktionary talk:Transliteration


text:
Talk:bathing

 * 1) It is confusing to lump together the gerund and present partcipile together under the umbrella term "verb form". The gerund may be formed from a verb but acts as a noun. The present participle can be used as a verb in the continuous tenses, or as an adjective.
 * 2) The example under "adjective" is actually not an adjective! It is a noun used attributively. Remember that a gerund is a noun, and it's a gerund being used in the comound noun "bathing machine", meaning "machine for bathing". If it were an adjecitve, it would mean "a machine taking a bath". — Hippietrail 14:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi, um, right now the heading is "Modifier" - was that "adjective" when you wrote that in February?

 * I think somebody tried to help by changing Adjective -> Modifier. That doesn't help at all. — Hippietrail 00:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding #1, I agree. It is also my preference to put the gerund form under "Noun" and the present participle under "Verb."

 * Well a gerund is a verb become a noun, a participle is a verb become an adjective. In languages with gender or number agreement between nouns and adjectives, participles also have to agree. Spanish participles have 4 forms. Verbs never have to agree. But it gets confusing because the participle are also used with an auxiliary verb to create compound tenses. In this case some languages still try to find something to agree with but I think it's a bit literary. Italian does this but Spanish doesn't. — Hippietrail 00:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding #2 again, (since you are complaing about the example sentence, not the Adjective's definition) would this work better:
 * In America, people wear bathing suits, in the UK, they wear bathing costumes.

? Or does bathing not have a true adjective sense at all? (For some reason, I thought bathing suit was a noun, even though it's two words.) --Connel MacKenzie 11:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I really don't think it has an adjective sense at all apart from the participle in the transparent sense: "The man on the sand is fat but the bathing man is skinny".
 * bathing suit and friends are all just nouns. What some people here label "noun phrases" but I think that's disingenious and unhelpful. English compound nouns can be written as one word or two words either with or without hyphenation depending on what's regarded as good spelling. Intonation is the same no matter how they are spelled and it's the intonation which gives away a compound. — Hippietrail 00:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Hrumph. As an American, the Italian I know is limited to Mamma Mia! whereas my knowledge of Spanish is much better...I know gracias and Si! and kay-pass-uh. That is to say, a better-than-average stereotypical American ignorance of most other languages.

That is to say, you've lost me. SemperBlotto also expressed some frustration, as to not knowing what the desired target should be. Could you please clean this article up as per your initial two suggestions? It might be easier to then follow what you've explained above. I hope. --Connel MacKenzie 04:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

RFD discussion: August 2022–January 2023
Doesn't look like a true adjective Almostonurmind (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Delete. Not gradable and not usable with become, but perhaps RFV is technically the more correct venue for this kind of inquiry. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

 * The different adjective senses have different translations to Czech: koupající se and koupací. But is this argument strong enough? For a translator using the dictionary, this could be quite nice. I don't see the adjective in dictionaries. From monolingual perspective, this is probably not worth it, but it is perhaps worth it from multi-lingual perspective. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's tricky when languages' parts of speech don't line up: I know there are also cases where languages have adjectives for things English only has attributive nouns for, like cork. IMO, it's probably best to treat each language in a way that's accurate to it, though. We don't relabel Chinese or Indonesian "classifiers" as nouns just because in English they'd be nouns (and English doesn't have "classifiers" as a part of speech), because in Chinese and Indonesian they are classifiers. So, for an English word, I think the parts of speech have to be based on what parts of speech the English word is attested in, not what parts of speech other languages have. Sometimes, like with cork, it's possible to mention the other languages' adjectives in the attributive noun's translation table (with appropriate qualifiers). - -sche (discuss) 11:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the parts of speech do line up since the adjective senses of bathing are attested in adjectival uses, so it is probably not quite like Chinese. As a grammatical category (part of speech in a sentence), not lexical, these uses are adjectival. The problem is that a participle sense is, by definition, intending to cover multiple parts of speech: that is what makes it a participle. So one can claim that a participle for bathing automatically covers noun uses and adjective uses, even plural noun uses. That is the problem: should the attested adjectival senses be subsumed by the participle or not, and what is better for the user. When an English speaker sees an adjective sense in an -ing participle, they are not harmed in anyway since they can think, oh well, an adjective, that's just the participle anyway; but a translator is helped. Two asides: 1) a participle is a Participle, not a Verb, as for part of speech since by definition it covers multiple parts of speech, which is why it is called "participle"; 2) since noun uses are called "gerund" rather than "present participle" by multiple sources, the single unified sense line should better read "gerund or present participle" or the like; e.g. M-W says that participles in English act as verbs and adjectives but does not say that they act as nouns and says that gerunds act as nouns. Some pages: Appendix:English -ing forms, Appendix:English gerund-participles. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

 * As Fytcha says, this is properly an RFV question (seeking cites that are adjectival: they do not seem to exist, so an RFV would lead to deletion, but it is an RFV question because they could exist), but as it stands the first sense's only usex "a bathing child" is the verb, and the second sense's usex "Victorians changed in a bathing machine" is the noun (or gerund, for which another usex is currently under the verb header). Adding English present participles/gerunds as a separate part of speech header or at least revising the language of English present participles' definitions to clarify that they can be used in adjective-ish and noun-ish ways, is an interesting idea that might merit discussion in the Beer Parlour. - -sche (discuss) 19:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We should just acknowledge that English gerunds exist. It's weird that we don't. Theknightwho (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

 * RFD-out-of-scope: now in RFV. One could argue that the RFV-treatment is not based on policy, and it isn't, but as long as editors do not protest against subjecting -ing adjectives to RFV requirements not based on policy and not traced to authoritative sources, things are acceptable. Although it looks like a minor finding against the project for having an operational process that does not trace to evidence of consensus or at least authoritative sources supporting the ideas of the process. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

RFV discussion: September 2022–February 2023
RFV of the adjective: was listed at RFD, but is properly an RFV question of whether citations demonstrating adjectivity exist. (The current usexes are the verb and noun, respectively.) - -sche (discuss) 19:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Of the 2 usage examples given the first is just the participle, and the second is the attributive noun. Leasnam (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Added bathing machine. DonnanZ (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I dont believe this is an adjective either. Last thing I want to is rekindle the debates down below with  etc, so I've held off from this, but I think it's been here long enough that it needs attention.  — Soap — 14:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

RFV Failed Ioaxxere (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:bathing


text:
catastrophe

Etymology
From, from , from +.

Noun

 * 1) Any large and disastrous event of great significance.
 * 2)  A disaster beyond expectations.
 * 3)  The dramatic event that initiates the resolution of the plot; the dénouement.
 * 4)  A type of bifurcation, where a system shifts between two stable states.
 * 1)  A disaster beyond expectations.
 * 2)  The dramatic event that initiates the resolution of the plot; the dénouement.
 * 3)  A type of bifurcation, where a system shifts between two stable states.
 * 1)  A type of bifurcation, where a system shifts between two stable states.
 * 1)  A type of bifurcation, where a system shifts between two stable states.

Translations

 * Albanian: ,
 * Arabic: كَارِثَة, فَاجِعَة, مُصِيبَة, آفَة
 * Armenian:
 * Azerbaijani:, ,
 * Belarusian: катастро́фа
 * Bengali: ,
 * Bulgarian: ,
 * Burmese:
 * Catalan:
 * Chinese:
 * Cantonese: 災難, 災殃, 災害, 災禍
 * Mandarin:, , ,
 * Czech:
 * Danish:
 * Dutch:, ,
 * Esperanto: katastrofo
 * Estonian: ,
 * Finnish:
 * French:
 * Galician: catástrofe
 * Georgian: კატასტროფა
 * German:, ,
 * Greek: ,
 * Ancient: καταστροφή
 * Haitian Creole: katastwòf
 * Hebrew: ,
 * Hindi:, , आफ़त,
 * Hungarian: ,
 * Icelandic: katastrófa
 * Ido:
 * Indonesian: ,
 * Irish:, eirleach, matalang, , turraing
 * Italian:
 * Japanese: 大災害,, ,
 * Kazakh:, қирау, алапат
 * Khmer: មហន្តរាយ,, ,
 * Korean:, ,
 * Kurdish:
 * Northern Kurdish:, ,
 * Kyrgyz: катастрофа, ,
 * Lao: ພິບັດ, ໄພພິບັດ
 * Latin: calamitās
 * Latvian: katastrofa, nelaime
 * Lithuanian: katastrofa, nelaimė
 * Macedonian: катастро́фа
 * Malay:
 * Mongolian:
 * Cyrillic:, , , ,
 * Norwegian:
 * Bokmål: katastrofe
 * Nynorsk: katastrofe
 * Ottoman Turkish: غول
 * Pashto:, , مصيبت
 * Persian:, , ,
 * Polish:
 * Portuguese:
 * Romanian: ,
 * Russian: ,
 * Serbo-Croatian:
 * Cyrillic: катастро́фа
 * Roman:
 * Sinhalese:
 * Slovak: katastrofa
 * Slovene: katastrofa
 * Spanish:
 * Swedish:
 * Tajik:, , , фоҷеа, фоҷиа, , офат
 * Tatar:
 * Thai: ,
 * Turkish:, ,
 * Turkmen: heläkçilik, ,
 * Ukrainian:
 * Urdu:, , تَباہی
 * Uyghur: پالاكەت, ھالاكەت, ئاپەت, بەختسىزلىك
 * Uzbek: katastrofa,, , , , , ,
 * Vietnamese:, tai họa lớn,
 * Volapük:
 * Walloon:

 * Arabic: نَكْبَة, فَاجِعَة
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Czech:
 * Danish:
 * Finnish:
 * Georgian: კატასტროფა
 * German:
 * Greek:
 * Indonesian:
 * Italian:
 * Norwegian:
 * Bokmål: katastrofe
 * Nynorsk: katastrofe
 * Persian: ,
 * Portuguese:
 * Romanian:
 * Russian:
 * Swedish:
 * Turkish:
 * Vietnamese:
 * Volapük:

 * Catalan:
 * Czech:
 * Finnish:
 * German:
 * Greek:
 * Indonesian:
 * Irish: catastróf
 * Italian:
 * Romanian:
 * Spanish:

 * Czech:
 * Finnish:
 * Italian:

 * Hebrew: (1)
 * Hindi: ,
 * Serbo-Croatian:
 * Cyrillic: ,
 * Roman: ,
 * Swedish:
 * Urdu:, ,

Etymology
, itself a borrowing from.

Synonyms

 * (informal)

title: catastrophe


text:
Wiktionary talk:Transliteration and romanization/Archive 1

From User Talk:Danny
Re your Hebrew and Yiddish contributions, how would you feel about adding transliterations to ngo with them? Eclecticology 22:50 Dec 29, 2002 (UTC)

Sure. I just dont know the system that is preferred. Danny

So this is another one of those questions where I put my foot in my mouth! :-] My quick answer would be whatever system is used by the Library of Congress for transliterating book titles. Eclecticology

I went with easy pronunciation. I have a copy of several transliteration schemes at work, but unfortunately, I don't like any of them, particularly for Hebrew. How is the system I used? Danny

It's a step in the right direction. Of course I say this as a complete non-reader of Hebrew. It seems too that we may need to distinguish between transliterations and pronunciation guides, and my impression is that you tried to do the latter. Transliterations (or romanizations in a language like Chinese) give a guide to representing the other language in another script, which for practical purposes here means the latin script. A pronunciation guide will give an idea about how to pronounce a language, and will often even be needed between two languages using the same script. Transliterations tend to be more formal ways to represent things, and may have a role in how Wiktionary can deal with words in other scripts. I welcome Wiktionary articles with titles in other scripts for the interesting problems that they give us to solve. Eclecticology

There are, of course, very specific problems with transliterating Hebrew. First of all, there are sounds that should be distinguished, even though modern Hebrew speakers do not distinguish them either (one of these sounds was apparently lost as early as in biblical times, hence the shibboleth/sibboleth story in Judges.) Second, there are no vowels in written Hebrew. Points called nikkud, which are used to represent vowels, are early medieval. Third, certain Hebrew letters fricate, depending on their position in a syllable, so that the same letter can have two sounds. Fourth, the two shewa sounds, weak and strong, the first of which is essentially silent, the second of which is not but often ends up silent. put it all together and you get quite a mess. Not to mention that modern Hebrew has no formalized spelling rules, though it is preferred to note long vowels. Take dog, for instance: I gave a pronunciation (KEH-lev), whereas the letters, K-L-B, can also be read kah-LEIV (the biblical name Caleb--note the b in the English version vs. the v in the pronunciation, k'LEIV (meaning "like a heart), kah-LEIV (like the heart), or theoretically k'LOOV (cage). I've seen a lot of methods of transliteration--I even helped develop a couple--but I've never found one I liked. Danny

from Jehovah
Transliteration of Hebrew יהוה Causative fom (Hiphil) of the verb "havah" (הוה) "to be / to become". "He causes to be" or "He comes to be". The word deliberately uses the vowel sounds from "adonai" (אדני) "lord".

from Beer parlour archive/July-September 04
Searching for words in non-Latin-alphabet languages == ==

Searching for words in non-Latin-alphabet languages
The Main Page states that the purpose of the English wiktionary is to define words from all languages in English (maybe I'm simplifying a bit). I see a problem for people trying to search for a word in, say, Russian, Greek, Chinese, or Hindi. The words have been entered in the alphabet, syllabary, etc., of the target language, and they are not searchable with Latin letters. I know some Greek and Hebrew, but I don't really know how to set my keyboard to enter these characters, and I'm completely lost in Russian, Chinese, and other languages. I suspect the average user would have much more difficulty than I.

Do we have a method to allow people to search for foreign words using the Latin alphabet? If so, what is it? If not, are we severely limiting the Wiktionary? Is there any simple method to link the Latin version of a word to the native version, to make the Wiktionary more searchable and useful? -- RSvK 00:05, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your observations raise some very interesting questions and problems. To some extent they overlap with the questions at Wiktionary talk:Categories where a partial solution may be found, but some more profound questions also arise. How do we ensure exact 1 to 1 correspondence between the original script and Latin script. In Greek both κσ and ξ may be represented by ks. How can we ensure that the process can be perfectly reversed? How do we cope with tonality in Chinese? There have already been objections to having tone marks appear in article titles. A quick look at "ma" in my Chinese dictionary shows that it can be represented by 16 different characters across the four available tones. To answer your questions: No we don't have a functioning system to do what you describe, but it would be nice to have it. Yes, we are severely limiting Wiktionary, and ... No, there is no simple solution. Eclecticology 03:22, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Some entries today raise the question again. A one-to-one correspondence and perfect reversal are not necessary, just a way to get from a Latin representation of a foreign word to the definition.  For example, if someone sees the word "kalos" somewhere in Latin letters and wants to know what it means, it doesn't do much good to have the definition available only from the Greek letters. RSvK 04:02, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that perfect reversal is not needed. What is needed is a standard that everybody agrees upon. Chinese has Pinyin and Japanese has Romaji and they are standardized so that the way a word is spelled in latin letters is most often the only common way to spell the word in latin letters, or at least people know when an outdated system is used. For other languages this is not the case. Granted that people have some need to find the Libyan leader's name using latin characters. This does not mean that we should create an article for every way it can be spelled in latin characters. Likewise, if we choose just one way, people using the other ways won't find it. While Greek may not be as bad as Arabic or Hebrew, along with Russian and the other Cyrillic-using languages, Greek just doen't have an agreed standard of romanisation. You can only take a guess at a spelling. With Chinese and Japanese you can know the spelling. — Hippietrail 04:55, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's kind of what I was afraid of. There really is no one-to-one correspondence between Latin letters and other systems, particularly if we want to make the system usable--such as Latin 'e' equating both to Greek 'eta' and 'epsilon'.

Would it work for now to just enter the Latin version with a redirect to the other language version of a given word? -- RSvK 05:31, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * You can always use ē for eta, and ō for omega. The enormous scope of the problem can be gleaned at http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/roman.html  Your suggestion probably will work as long as there isn't a word already with that spelling in another language. Eclecticology 08:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem of enormous scope. The problem is whether the foreign non-Latin language dictionaries are going to be of any use to people who don't know that non-Latin method of writing. The web site above seems to indicate that the problem is solvable--the romanization table for Greek is quite straightforward. If I see a word in a newspaper, in Latin letters, from Russian, Greek, Hindustani, Chinese, etc., there ought to be a way to look it up. Yes, there are some multiple spellings. If they are common in Latin letter sources, we should probably add them.

I propose that we add some kind of stub entries for these words. If nothing else, just indicate the language and include a link to the entry in the language's own script. Otherwise the Wiktionary's usefulness becomes greatly diminished.

Yes, this means a lot of entries, but I don't see any way around it.

 * It also means a lot of mess when there are several ways to romanise a word with some people adding one or another on some entries, and some adding some other on other entries. Find us some romanisation standards for the languages you care about and we can then do it properly. — Hippietrail 02:04, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Eclecticology lists a romanization standard for Greek above here, which looks reasonably straightforward. I suggest we need it not only for Modern Greek but for Classical and Koine Greek, because of the large number of words in English derived from Greek. RSvK 20:39, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I would prefer some person or persons with knowledge of various ages of Greek to look

at several systems before just assuming the first one is going to be best. We should strive for the best at Wiktionary. I am positive that there are more than a couple of "standards" in use for various jobs and by various groups. I'll try to dig some up so they can be compared. — Hippietrail 00:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It might be useful also in the foreign script to include a Latin-letter transliteration.

 * We already do this. It goes after the headword, in parentheses. For languages like Chinese which have more than one recognized system, we also add the transliteration in each system with a label, when we know. — Hippietrail 02:04, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For words with the same spelling in other languages, just have the usual separate language sections. RSvK 14:38, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * One (ambitious) way around it would be to build in intelligence to the search interface that matches inquiries that are not found in the dictionary to possible alternative romanisations. This would work something like the Google search engine which sometimes gives you a prompt at the top of the results page asking 'Did you mean ~ ?' We would have to think carefully about possible perceptions of favouring particular romanisations. Oska 01:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * The discouraging part of it is the "Hard work" :-)

We're in amazingly good shape for Chinese. See Wiktionary:Chinese Pinyin index and the more general Wiktionary:Chinese index. Pinyin romanization (not the same as transliteration, which only applies to alphabetic or syllabic scripts) works from a limited number of acceptable morphemes. Should we be simply transferring, for example, everything for the Pinyin "can" (pronounced /tsan/ not /kan/) to the page for can. Those Pinyin index pages could be much improved, but they provide a tremendous resource to work from.

Each alphabetic script brings its own problems. Some have several ways of being transliterated. For the Russian letter Я we can use "ia", "ja", "ya" or "ia͡". The Chicago Manual of Style recommends using the system used by the U. S. Board on Geographical Names. It is the one that uses "ya", whereas the Library of Congress is the one that prefers the ligatured version. The average contributor will be glad to not have to figure out how to type that! It comes down to agreeing what we are going to use a certain way of transliterating and sticking to it.

If we congine ourselves to three languages (Russian, Chinese, and modern Greek) until the thing is debugged, the others should come a lot easier. Eclecticology 04:51, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the whole premise of this discussion. The best solution is to make it easier for people to enter text in foreign languages. For example if you go to the Esperanto Wikipedia you'll notice that above the search box is the label "Serĉu ĉ ĝ ĥ ĵ ŝ ŭ" (search), giving the user easy entry to all the Esperanto accents by copy and paste. If you edit a page on the Italian Wikipedia you are greeted with the text "Clicca uno di questi caratteri speciali per inserirlo nel testo: È à é è ì ó ò ù – «» “” ‘’  – " (click one of these special characters to insert it into the text), with the relevant characters being clickable for automatic insertion. Either of these options could be doable, all we need is to make a page to help enable international character input. We don't need to dumb down Wiktionary for the technically impaired when we have the option to technically empower people instead. —Muke Tever 21:30, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) "they are not searchable with Latin letters" — they're not written with Latin letters either.  Why should they be searchable with Latin letters?
 * 2) "link the Latin version of a word with the native version" — it's not our place to invent new spellings, Latin or otherwise.
 * 3) "if someone sees the word kalos somewhere in Latin letters" — that's what =Alternative Spellings= is for, but again, it's not our job to make such things.  (I don't deny that it happens a lot.  Sometimes there are legitimate examples, such as Kat' exochen.

 * Nobody's suggesting that we invent new spellings. If we treat the latin transliteration as an alternative spelling it would link or redirect to the orthography of that language.  We are not talking about Esperanto or Italian where there are only a handful of specially accented characters.  The proposed approach gives the user another series of options.  So does your proposal.  Once you have developed your proposal to the point where the "technically impaired" among us can easily look up a Bulgarian word your efforts will be very much appreciated.  In the meantime, we hope to accomodate those knowledge of the language is limited to a rudimentary decoding of their alphabet. Eclecticology 22:30, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * True, in Esperanto or Italian there are only a handful of specially-accented characters, but while in those languages they may appear in many words of a search, in Wiktionary the problem is offset by the fact that a person is generally only going to be searching for one word at a time.  My "proposal" only requires a page somewhere like Cyrillic with a table like

 * I already use similar beasts myself, at User:Muke/grc (greek capitals including archaic characters) and User:Muke (a less-developed version, Gothic).
 * I don't like the pages at Romanized titles because it is actually harder for the user: someone running across a (say) Greek word in situ may want to know what it means and it is easier for them to enter it directly than to have to figure out what each individual character means first.
 * The biggest reason I don't like this Romanized-title talk is because I see pages like erān coming into existence which 1) contain diacritics not in the original orthography, 2) represent effort not put into the page with the proper spelling, ἐρᾶν (which at the moment doesn't even exist, so people who actually know the word can't find it), 3) don't have any proof — erān knows of none either — that Latin spelling of this word is even used (which is indeed tantamount to inventing new spellings).  Indeed, erān doesn't even mention that the word isn't in its original script (though that is a fixable problem).
 * What I really don't want to see is a policy that endorses misspellings like this in a dictionary. If a transliteration setup like what is being proposed is brought into effect, it should 1) clearly notate that the transliteration is not a real word and 2) be in ASCII, as the primary call for it is people who can't type extended characters, which applies equally well to ā as it does for λ; this does indeed offer grounds for ambiguity on the Latin side, but as the existence of the Latin page itself should be comparable to disambiguation ("Eran is also a Greek word; see ἐρᾶν") this shouldn't be a problem. (As already noted, proper transliterations with fun diacritics appear on the native script page itself anyway.) —Muke Tever 23:13, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * OK. I can go along with the essentials of your alternative as satisfying the purpose of this exercise.  It is directed at people who don't know the language at all, or in the case of Cyrillic, Devenagiri or Arabic scripted languages may not even know what language they are looking at.  I can accept that the transliterated link be written with a simplified, and unnaccented script.  On the page itself, and under the appropriately placed language the indication would be "Transliteration of ..." and list the various possibilities with only the briefest indication of what each means.

 * For Cyrillic, the transliteration needs to be uniform without regard to which language is being used. It will not do to have "Щ" sometimes appear as "šč" or "št", but it should always be "shch". Eclecticology 23:56, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, you said Bulgarian, so I went for Bulgarian :) where "Щ" is indeed always "št" and not "šč" (ignorable pedantic side note: the form of the letter is originally a ш-т ligature, the descender being originally central and Cyrillic ligatures being written top-to-bottom instead of side-to-side as in Latin, so št is actually a more-original value than the Russian).
 * Actually, for an audience who doesn't know the language, it might be better not to confuse them with (possibly contradictory) transliterations at all—when entering Cyrillic text to find a page, it doesn't matter what the value of "Щ" is; the page oughtta should tell them exactly what "Щ" is supposed to stand for.
 * Transliterations could be useful to people who have the phonetic form of a word but don't know what the spelling should look like. But in this case the user has the same problem as if he didn't know how to spell "bureaucrat": we don't, as we may when browsing a print dictionary, have the capacity to search "nearby" words to find which is our word properly spelt.  (And languages like Russian, while perhaps better than English, are still not phonetically spelled.)
 * The "Transliteration of..." section btw is a Very Good Idea. —Muke Tever 02:36, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Blushingly about Bulgarian I should have stuck with Russian. I do tend to think in terms of the written language.  Spoken language opens up a lot of new problems like mishearings or dialectical differences. That might need to wait until we have voice recognition software installed. ;-)  Searching nearby words gets a lot more tricky when the language itself is a variable.

 * For this purpose a very rough one-fits-all transliteration is what we need. The instruction page would make it clear that the series of letters that they are typing may not accurately reflect the pronunciation of the language.  The key question that we are trying to answer is "How do I look up a word written in a language and script that I do not know or even recognize?"  Eclecticology 00:49, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wiktionary talk:Policy - Transliteration/Collection of past discussions
Not really sure where this should be, but it isn't here. Bad capitalization, bad entry title. If it's already archived elsewhere, I think it can be deleted, otherwise this is a Beer Parlor style discussion, not talk about a Wiktionary page (which has never existed). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an archive of the talkpage for [[Wiktionary:Policy - Transliteration]] which latter is now a redirect to [[Wiktionary:Transliteration and romanization]], so this page, if it's seen as needing moving, can be moved to [[Wiktionary talk:Transliteration and romanization/Archive 1]], with a link to it from [[Wiktionary talk:Transliteration and romanization]]. — msh210 ℠ 19:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, I'll consider this closed unless someone wants to dispute it. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


text:
mieten

Etymology
From,.

Verb

 * 1)  to hire, to rent

title: mieten


text:
affare

Etymology
From, probably based on the model of.

Noun

 * 1) affair, matter
 * 2) deal, bargain
 * 3) thing
 * 4) business

title: affare


text:
affetto

Etymology
Shortened from the musical direction con affetto.

Adverb

 * 1)  gracefully
 * 2)  tenderly, softly

Etymology 1
From.

Adjective

 * 1) affected

Etymology 2
From.

Noun

 * 1) affection
 * 2) the object of one's affection

title: affetto


text:
affittare

Etymology
From, itself from.

Verb

 * 1)  to rent, to let, to hire out

title: affittare


text:
affitto

Etymology 1
, deverbal from.

Noun

 * 1) renting, hiring
 * 2) rent

title: affitto


text: Thesaurus:illegitimate

title: Thesaurus:illegitimate