Talk:mes

=2004=

Japanese
The Japanese word borrowed from Dutch is an interesting case study. It does not belong under under "derived terms" (or derived words), which supposedly deals with words formed by adding derivational morphemes. Sometimes I have used a "Foreign cognates" field, but this is even more specific because the foreign word is borrowed from this language. I think we need some suggestions for a new heading for when this happens.

Not that a Japanese Romaji entry should be on this page anyway and give Dutch in its Etymology section, but we still need a general solution for when the spelling does not turn out to be identical. &mdash; Hippietrail 13:42, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Some of the Latin pages have lists of English words derived from the Latin word - see the nonsensical case below for an example. Note that the means of deriviation (cognate, etymology, calque, etc) is not indicated, so this might be an appropriate format to use.  Or maybe the heading to use is "Calques" or "Borrowings".


 * Argh! So now we are using "Derived" for etymological relationships?? I tried to settle this some months ago and thought I'd lost the argument. Check here: [Wiktionary_talk:Template#Derived_vs_Related.3F] - now I have to restart the "What does "Derived" mean, what word should we use?" thread. (Which is a good thing I guess). &mdash; Hippietrail 23:27, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

=2014=

RFV discussion: August–October 2014
Archaic/regional variant of. says it doesn’t exist.

do you have any comment? — Ungoliant (falai) 20:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Basically what I wrote on your talk page: that mes is mentioned in dictionaries (LEV, and a dictionary of dialectal terms mentioned in the LLVV) as a dialectal variant. I don't think you can find any attestations of this form in available materials; it may be cited somewhere in some work on dialectal variants, but chances are that it is not readily accessible online. All standard Latvian texts will of course have the standarad form mēs. (An orthographic variant mes could possibly be found in pre-19th-century texts, before length was consistently marked in Latvian spelling, but this is not the same thing: the word did have the long ē vowel, they simply didn't mark it then. This is not the same as a dialectal variant that actually has a real short e.). So, to me, the question here is: what attestation criteria are used for rare dialectal forms that can be quoted only from dictionaries or other sources where the forms are mentioned but not used? Is one such quote enough (in this case, the one quote from the LEV that I cite in the article on the standard form )? --Pereru (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC) I add here that, depending on the criteria used here, a number of other Latvian dialectal variants that I've added to Wiktionary (see Category:Latvian dialectal terms) may have to be removed. --Pereru (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if this word is mentioned in dictionaries as archaic form, we can to keep it. However this word doesn't exist in modern days. --Čumbavamba (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Does the above discussion (and Čumbavamba's agreement) mean we can remove the rfv template from ? --Pereru (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. The nomination was on Čumbavamba’s behalf anyway. Closed. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

=2021=

Apostrophe abuse in English plurality
You see this for terms like this as well as CDs/DVDs or 80s/90s, people very frequently put an apostrophe before the S even though that should only be done to indicate contraction or possession. Should it be noted? See it all the time not just in closed captions but also in on-screen text illustrations. WakandaQT (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)