User talk:Dart evader

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * Wiktionary Tutorial
 * Community Portal
 * Entry layout explained
 * Criteria for inclusion
 * How to edit a page
 * How to start a page
 * Wiktionary Sandbox (a safe place for testing syntax)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! JillianE 17:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

фудбал
Hi! If фудбал is not a Russian word, then the translation entered earlier on the page for football should also be fixed. I note that the relevant article on the Russian Wikipedia is titled Футбол. --EncycloPetey 10:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Dart evader 10:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

разблюто
А что неправильно? Не нравится - поправь. --Jaroslavleff 14:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Всё нравится! Жжош! :-) Dart evader 14:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

мошкара
Hi! Please don't subst: templates (e.g., we don't do that in the wikt. Makes it really difficult to update things. Robert Ullmann 12:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I never did, really. :-) Dart evader 12:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

sidhe
I've created these two articles: Sídhe ‎and sídhe‎‎‎. Would you have a look at them? The definitions need to be checked and corrected. Also, as far as I understand, the '-shee' in banshee is just another spelling of 'sidhe', am I right? Dart evader 09:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. We've got a problem. Why is that link red? Let's try this one: sidhe. :-)


 * Looks OK to me, I always just think of them as fairies. You're right about banshee (it means ‘woman of the fairies’ in Irish).  I can add all this to the entries, but I wonder if it belongs under Sidhe and sidhe (ie without the accent) in English.  The accented forms I would think of as Irish.  Checking Google Books, it seems to be used more often without the accents in English.  Widsith 10:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: WT:RFV I apologise for any misunderstanding.
Hello!

Just to be clear about my "tongue in cheek" comment-- I meant that it wasn't clear to me from your comment whether you were supporting or opposing the definition as given (probably just me being dense.) Anyway, I looked and didn't see your quoted text "an inhospitable man who attempts to get intimate with his male guest by force or coercion" in the KJV of Genesis available on Wikisource (which is what is linked to on the article at Genesis.)  My presumption was that you were in opposition (which your further comment makes clear. :-), and hence your comment of providing the "exact definition" by way of extension was actually a tongue in cheek refutal.

In any case, I agree that this is almost certainly people attempting to redefine the term, but because a) sometimes they succeed, and b) I'm not omniscient, and have discovered my ignorance of specific meanings of words from time to time, I thought it best to have a look. Still haven't found any actual use in the suggested manner, though. :-)

See you round! --Jeffqyzt 18:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

ромбик
Я решил тоже поучаствовать. :-) Глянь, всё ли в порядке, нигде не напутал? --the wrong man 04:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Зажигаешь! :-) Dart evader 05:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Спасибо за приветствие. У меня вопрос, где проходит грань между производными (derived) и связанными (related) терминами? См., например, здесь. --the wrong man 13:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Я, честно говоря, и сам толком не знаю. Я это понимаю примерно так: "ромбик" образовано от "ромб", поэтому в статье ромб слова "ромбик", "ромбический" и т.п. должны проходить как "derived terms". А вот если в статье ромбик вставить ссылку на "ромбоэдр", то оно будет не "derived", a "related". Типа однокоренное. А вот если захочешь дать ссылку на "квадрат", то это уже будет "see also". Хотя, по моим наблюдениям, тут каждый расставляет эти derived и related по своему разумению, кто во что горазд. Dart evader 14:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. Я тем временем ещё одного чудика увековечил. :-) --the wrong man 14:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Опять ерундой мучаешься, педики какие-то с барнаулами. Попробуй, например, перевести на английский слово споспешествование - вот это действительно гимнастика для ума. Я помню, на заре своей викционерской деятельности создал чудную статейку: alnicanter. Так её удалили. Дескать, это не слово, а ошибка сканирования. Такие дела. Dart evader 14:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Я не силён в языкознании. Ночью мучительно вспоминал чем родительный падеж от винительного отличается. Так что пока на "кошечках" потренируюсь. :-) --the wrong man 14:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * А кто силен, я, что ли? Я, вообще-то, не против статей про "педика" и "Барнаул". Просто у меня сложилось впечатление, что ты хотел проставить в них обеих перекрестные ссылки. Под видом "related terms". Или даже "synonyms". :-) Dart evader 14:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Угу, но я поборол это искушение. :-) --the wrong man 15:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ещё вопрос. Я не разобрался, как здесь принято оформлять идиомы. См. изба. --the wrong man 20:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Опять же, каждый упражняется, как душа пожелает. Предпочтительно вообще делать по идиомам отдельные статьи, и давать на них ссылки. См. Category:Russian idioms. А если давать перевод идиомы или фразы прямо в статье о слове, то я делаю примерно так, как здесь: выбоина. Dart evader 21:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

кусок дерьма
Сорри, Дарт. Вы, конечно, правы - не надо увековечивать тут подобных личностей :-) Nevermind 20:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

it's all Greek to me
The quotation from Gargantua and Pantagruel actually dates to 1564, as it was indicated before your edits. It's even possible that the phrase was translated (and borrowed into English) from that same book. Perhaps by Shakespeare himself, too. Unfortunately, I can't find the original French text of Rabelais' book, to have this guess confirmed. Anyway, I think that the date of quotation should be not 1694, but 1564. Dart evader 13:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not change that date when I edited; look back at the version on 5 Dec. The date given for the translation before my edit was 1694, which agrees with the dates of 1663-1718 given on Wikipedia for the birth and death of the translator Pierre Antoine Motteux.  Your date of 1564 is impossible, since the translator hadn't yet been born.  If there was an English translation made in the 16th century, then I am unaware of it and so is Wikisource.  While they have a different translation (first four books only), theirs also dates from the 17th century. --EncycloPetey 00:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Or did you mean the date of the French original? That was an error on my part and has been corrected. --EncycloPetey 00:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

a of n
Hi there. It looks like the text of needs changing. I was just trying to save typing, and trying to say that if you have evidence of a different usage then you should just add it, rather than talk about it. By the way, although the OED doesn't have an entry for it, it has this under "apropos" -

Phr. à propos de bottes [Fr., lit. = ‘with regard to boots’], without serious motive, without rhyme or reason.

1757 CHESTERFIELD Let. 23 Sept. (1774) II. 378 A propos de bottes, for I am told he always wears his; was his Royal Highness very gracious to you, or not? 1845 Q. Rev. LXXVI. 533 The first introduces that princevery much àpropos de bottesfor the purpose of denying that he had any party. 1925 A. HUXLEY Those Barren Leaves I. i. 9 She would remember an ancient floaterjust like that, à propos de bottes. 1934 ‘G. ORWELL’ Burm. Days (1935) xviii. 225 This was àpropos de bottes, but the subject needed no introduction.

Cheers SemperBlotto 16:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC) (p.s. I can't think of an Italian translation)

no way
I just wanna know why you reverted me. In my opinion "see also" section shouldn't be there if there is nothing to see. Tell me the point of having a see also section if there is only a redlink. I mean it, all I was trying to do was to remove something clearly unnecessary. 194.144.87.74 15:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "In my opinion "see also" section shouldn't be there if there is nothing to see" — this is where you are wrong. Red links are red only until someone makes them blue. There are a great many red links in Wiktionary, and no one goes around removing them. Dart evader 15:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry if I caused any trouble. 194.144.87.74 15:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

undefined
Привет. Разумное замечание. Сделал вариант попроще для keyboard shortcut. Кстати, googlefight говорит, что шоткат более употребим, чем шорткат.

Не в курсе, где здесь список помет наподобии русского ? Я хотел бы указать рядом со словом шоткат чтоб-нибудь вроде: ''жарг. спец. техн.''. AKA MBG 17:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Есть вот такое: Appendix:Glossary. Хотя полного списка всех здешних стилистических/контекстуальных помет я не видел. Сокращения здесь вообще не приветствуются. По-моему, для шортката достаточно будет чего-то вроде (slang). Но это уже для собственно статьи шорткат. Кстати, есть еще термин горячая клавиша. Dart evader 17:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

addy
Are you kidding? What is this #&$&$^@#?


 * :-) reproach?

Very good! Now, is the plural attested? Hmm, seems it can be ;-) Cheers! Robert Ullmann 13:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't do it on purpose. Just a slip of the mouse. Oh, I can only pray for Connel not to spot it. Dart evader 14:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)