User talk:Mr gronk

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
 * How to edit a page
 * How to start a page
 * Our format guidelines
 * Criteria for inclusion
 * Wiktionary Sandbox (a safe place for testing syntax)
 * What Wiktionary is not
 * FAQ

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: ~, 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! --Connel MacKenzie 10:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since no one seems to have done so yet, I thought I'd take a second to say thanks for your clarifications, additions, and general improvements to our definitions. This is, in my opinion, one of the most difficult jobs we have here, and you do it quite well.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"That cannot be..."
Why do you always change these entries? An uninterpretable language is a language that cannot be interpreted. Many dictionaries write this way. Equinox ◑ 20:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Equinox, it's to do with ability to substitute. For example, the sentence, "this language is uninterpretable" could be rewritten as, "this language is unable to be interpreted." But try saying, "this language is that cannot be interpreted," and you'll see what I mean. But I have no desire to make trouble, so I can stop if you like. Mr gronk 21:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That goes for plenty of other constructs, though. You can't have a "having green as its color door", or an "of or relating to fascism party". Equinox ◑ 21:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not. But generally when I've seen dictionaries, they give their definitions - of adjectives, at least - such that, if you replace "This thing is " with "this thing is ", you at least get a grammatically correct sentence, even if it's an unusual or strained construction. For example, if I look up the OED for "interpretable", I get "Susceptible of interpretation, explicable", or "Capable of being interpreted or construed in a specified manner." No "that is" to be seen. (Uninterpretable doesn't get its own definition; the reader is referred back to "interpretable".) With your examples, you would write, "this door is having green as its colour", or "this party is of or relating to fascism". These sentences are strange, because they end up using the continuous present instead of the habitual present (cf. "This door has green as its colour", or "This party relates to fascism"). But they're not syntactically wrong, as "This language is that cannot be interpreted" is. I hope that clarifies things a bit. Mr gronk 21:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Chambers Dictionary (2005), which is pretty well respected, has e.g. "imperturbable, that cannot be disturbed or agitated", "impregnable, that cannot be captured, broken into or taken by force", "opaque, that cannot be seen through". Equinox ◑ 21:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair call. I think it would be safe to say that I don't agree with Chambers' stylistic choice here, but we can all do without edit wars. So I'll leave these kinds of pages alone unless a power that be makes a ruling. Mr gronk 15:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)