OmegaFallon

Welcome

You've been busy! Thank you! Brett (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't know this specific wiki existed until just today, and it's a nice thing to be able to contribute to. :) OmegaFallon (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Irregular verbs

Hi, OmegaFallon Why have you been replacing the verb2 template with the verb template?--Brett (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

There's an issue with the verb2 template where even if parameters 3 and 4 (past tense and past participle) are identical, it still categorizes it as an irregular verb. That's incorrect, of course, so until that issue with verb2 is fixed, I'm switching affected entries over. OmegaFallon (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I've put an edit request in the talk page of the template with the fix to it, if you're interested. Simply testing to see if the two parameters are equal, and if so, don't categorize under irregular verbs. OmegaFallon (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you are confusing consistency with regularity. A verb like seek is irregular even though its past-tense and past-participle forms are the same. Matthews defines a regular form as that "which conforms to a rule whose application is predicted by some general property of a unit. E.g. the unit table is a noun; from this it is predicted, by a default rule, that its plural is in -s; therefore tables, which is formed according to that rule, is regular or is a regular plural. Men, by contrast, is an exception to the rule and is irregular" (The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics). The regular way to inflect these verb forms is to ad -ed. Anything else is irregular.--Brett (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I see. My mistake, then. Sorry about that. OmegaFallon (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

NP. So you'll be reverting the changes then?--Brett (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do my best to get all of them. OmegaFallon (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!--Brett (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

User:OmegaFallon/common.js

I found a typo at here. The code should be importScript (the last t is missing). This should make things work. MathXplore (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, thank you, I hadn't caught that. OmegaFallon (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Etymology

Many years ago, we decided not to include etymologies in the spirit of keeping things simple and because they're not typically something that an English-language learner is interested in. There's not much value in duplicating what's already available on the English Wiktionary unless we can do it in some kind of meaningful way. Of course, we could change that, but my view is that there are better places to be putting our energies. Brett (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I would actually like to disagree with that. At the very least, affix etymologies can be immensely valuable for English learners to learn what words mean. Understanding what prefixes and suffixes mean is integral to learning how to understand new words. I agree that more complex stuff (like say, which language the word comes from) usually is just fluff for those purposes, but affixes are definitely very important. I think they ought to stay. OmegaFallon (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

For those purposes I guess it might be better to call that section something other than "Etymology"? I wouldn't be opposed to that. I just think highlighting the affixes of a word would be helpful. OmegaFallon (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure, something like "Word parts" could be useful, but not the history of the word.--Brett (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

That sounds a lot better. I suppose it'd be a bit of a chore to bulk edit all of those sections I added, but if need be I'll do it. OmegaFallon (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Defining style

Thank you again for the extensive work you've done so far and your significant continued contributions! I wanted to point out a quirk of the defining style here, where the word is, to the extent possible, USED rather the just mentioned. When it comes to verbs, the means putting it together with its typical arguments. Consider, for example inform, which has a subject, an object and a of complement, and compare this to your recent unclothe, which uses the infinitive of the verb without any related arguments and then says it "means" x. Wherever possible, our defining styles avoids using "means" in this way. Brett (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I see, thank you for correcting me on that. OmegaFallon (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

A subtle element of this is that some adjectives are predominantly used predicatively while others are predominantly attributive. When defining such an adjective, try to use it in its typical function. On top of this, some words have very strong collocations, and where possible, we try to include these. For example, see the changes I made to oncoming, which is almost always attributive of vehicles.--Brett (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Adjectival passives with un-

Since you seem to be adding a lot of un- words, I thought I would mention that, while it's tempting to assume there must be an underlying un- verb for words like unclothed, often that is not the case. Where it is the case, it's often a back-formation. While unclothe does occur, it's quite rare, and many other such verb (e.g., unrepair) simply do not occur at all. Brett (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

For unclothe specifically, I created that entry because it was a redlink on a wordlist. OmegaFallon (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Expressions

Anything that is compositional is an expression. So, for examples, domino effect is not a noun and reap what one sows is not a verb. They are expressions. Brett (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Is that a Simple English Wiktionary-specific rule? I was using the EN wiki as a reference, and on there those entries are a noun and verb respectively. OmegaFallon (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, our guidelines and practices are distinct from those of EN. Here a noun is a noun, and a verb is a verb. There are cases where there is good reason to suppose that a single word might contain a space, but most such cases have been addressed already.--Brett (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for letting me know, I'll keep that in mind when making new entries. OmegaFallon (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Terms suffixed with -ly

Is it worth having two of these: adjective forming -ly and adverb forming -ly? Brett (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

There is an EN wiki equivalent: Category:English terms suffixed with -ly (adverbial)/(adjectival). I can set up equivalents for those and add entries to them fairy easily with catalot. OmegaFallon (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Film vs Movie

At simple English Wikipedia, "movie" is used instead of "film" (w:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Movies), as well as their categories. As a simple English project, I think we should follow this so I made Category:Movie. Please use this category if possible. MathXplore (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, that's a good idea. OmegaFallon (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

ety-suffix

This works well for words like messy. Can you make it work with messiness? --Brett (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

{{affix|messy|-ness}} should to it. OmegaFallon (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I suppose that works, but wouldn't it be better to decompose the words entirely rather than bit by bit? It also works better for the categories if we could apply your ety-suffix on beyond the -y terminal. --Brett (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, but I've done my best to make {{affix}} as versatile as I can. See if your idea works. OmegaFallon (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I really appreciate your work on this. What I was meaning was that messiness isn't just messy + -ness but rather mess + -y + n-ess. So, it would be good to automatically include it in "terms suffixed with -y", as you've done with misty using the {{ety-suffix}} template.

If I use {{affix}}, I get the correct breakdown, but it's not automatically categorized, and the suffixes don't have the leading -. But I also get a second line which is "wary + yess", which is clearly an error. --Brett (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! As for the specifics of it, I modeled it after EN Wiktionary's affix template. Suffixes like "-y" that are in the middle of the word aren't counted over there. OmegaFallon (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)