User talk:Connel MacKenzie/archive-2004

My archive rules: 1) I archive my talk page, no one else. 2) Links to here remain on User talk: page.


 * If you are here at the top of the page, you are lost. Go here instead.

Hrunk
Entry_layout_explained

Taking into account your creativity, I'd be glad to remind you that there is a strict rule how to write an article. First of all, keep in mind the following scheme of organizing an article hrunk:

Etymology
From the Latin hrunkus, to hrunk with vigor.

Noun
hrunk (hrunkae)
 * 1) A person who furps.
 * John thought of Mary as a hrunk ever since he saw her flurping.

Verb
hrunk
 * 1) To flrink with cumplus.
 * 2) To furp.

Adjective
hrunk
 * 1) Glinky.

Synonyms

 * (flrink with cumplus): flrink, pigglehick
 * (furp): furp, whoodleplunk

Derived terms

 * furpulous

Related terms

 * furpulocation

(Apparently you have a persistent fan at 130.245.208.132)
(Apparently you have a persistent fan at 130.245.208.132) --Connel MacKenzie 03:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

...A very persistent SUNY student at ca208-132.resnet.stonybrook.edu (interesting talk history!)

 * [ User_talk:Dennis_Valeev&action=history]

Definitions

 * Dennis, As we previously discussed, you have access to "reputable sources" that I do not. I've now learned that "Recent Changes" from the left navigation bar identify "Requests:" near the top. If I enter stub (a la Hrunk) entries from my general knowledge of words such as "hike" or "barbeque" will those just get quickly corrected by you (or someone with similar flair) to reflect a more refined definition? Is there a more efficent way to go about helping with those types of entries? How am I supposed to know if a < > is more appropriate than an attempt at a definition? --Connel MacKenzie 09:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I got the point concerning the way of giving more refined definition of new words in Wiktionary. To do that, you can either be a very smart guy out there or wade through several sources such as WordNet, Bartleby and so forth, so that after acquiring necessary knowledge upon a subject/word/definition, write your own article (that is written by you, in your words) that will include all the definitions you've read in those sources on a word you decided to describe. I am not sure about legality of this technique and whether or not it infringes copyrights but in case it's done properly no one will ever tell apart your newly written article and their own resource. This is absolutely comparable with all the knowledge we have gathered by this very moment and while writing something new (be it a new article or new book), you will surely use your previous experience acquired when in school/university/(other facility) (hence infringement in a sense). Decide for yourself whether you will act this way or not. --Dennis Valeev 11:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FUCK
Richardb, sorry if I whacked your fine preliminary entry for fuck. I noticed the vandalism, and at first tried merging the differences manually, but the foreign characters were too much for me. I cut-n-pasted into Excel, copied column 2 into notepad, then pasted that back in here. I think the current version is still missing the pronunciation... --Connel MacKenzie 07:45, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Connel,
 * the way to revert an article after vandalism is not to try and reconstruct. Just go to the history page, bring up the version before the vandalism, edit that (but do nothing) then submit that version. It becomes the current version again, overwriting the vandalism! simple eh!--Richardb 10:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Much easier indeed! --Connel MacKenzie 17:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

prescriptivism
What is prescriptivism? --Connel MacKenzie 00:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Good question! I'm not sure if I'm up to a dictionary-quality definition but here goes:
 * It's the practice of prescribing usage of a given language, of setting down rules of correctness. It usually comes down to a certain type of pedant decrying the way that most people speak naturally, and trying to correct them, based on various principles which may or may not stand up to scrutiny. It is in opposition to descriptivism which is the practice of describing a language as it really is, without trying to judge it in any way. &mdash; Hippietrail 00:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Cool. Thank you.  --Connel MacKenzie 00:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * By the way, your definition looks like a fine start to me. "Be Bold!"?  :-) --Connel MacKenzie 05:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, you can think of prescriptivism as the natural byproduct of an attempt to codify a language. No two people use English in the same way, so any reference seeking to explain the English language must simultaneously attempt to define how the English language is generally used, and what is considered "proper" English.  The idea being that non-standard English could be marked off in an essay by a professor as incorrect, even though it is in common usage.  Thus most dictionaries are both descriptivist (describing the language) and prescriptivist (pointing to its "proper" use).  American Heritage, for example, has a usage panel that, er, describes the level of acceptability of certain phrasings, which is a purely prescriptivist mechanism.