Meta:Questions about words
This page is for questions about definitions that are unclear (need to be rewritten) or needed, DefinedMeaning that are maybe duplicated, questions about translations, ...
When the discussion gets too long or is solved, it is better to move it to the talk page of the concerned DM or Expression, and just (maybe) put a link from here.
- 1 Definition erroneous
- 2 Definition translation erroneous
- 3 Definition unclear
- 4 Duplicate Meaning?
- 4.1 Expression:anormal
- 4.2 Expression:machen
- 4.3 DefinedMeaning:life (8409) and DefinedMeaning:life (8408)
- 4.4 DefinedMeaning:concreto (904633) and DefinedMeaning:concreto (904636)
- 4.5 DefinedMeaning:pipeline (2811) and DefinedMeaning:condotto (695329)
- 4.6 DefinedMeaning:flow (961244) and DefinedMeaning:flow (7030)
- 4.7 DefinedMeaning:flusso (507794) and DefinedMeaning:flow (1486)
- 4.8 DefinedMeaning:bear (7554) and DefinedMeaning:carry (335263)
- 4.9 DefinedMeaning:k (7432) and DefinedMeaning:tramite (468781)
- 4.10 DefinedMeaning:brave (6434), DefinedMeaning:bravo (886745) and DefinedMeaning:courageuos (1016033)
- 4.11 DefinedMeaning:world-wide (1147131) and DefinedMeaning:world_(8505)
- 4.12 DefinedMeaning:dear (734332) and DefinedMeaning:expensive (6036)
- 4.13 DefinedMeaning:spring (6362) and DefinedMeaning:spring (hydrology, land) (3596)
- 4.14 DefinedMeaning:accede (746465) and one of Expression:agree ?
- 4.15 DefinedMeaning:gullible (154829) and DefinedMeaning:credulous (1020004)
- 4.16 Expression:en directo
- 4.17 Expression:unique
- 4.18 Expression:Abruzzese
- 4.19 DefinedMeaning:heaven (6426) and DefinedMeaning:himmel (7039)
- 4.20 DefinedMeaning:netvlies_(723067) and DefinedMeaning:retina_(7968)
- 4.21 DefinedMeaning:in_quanto_(514093) and DefinedMeaning:because_(5570)
- 4.22 DefinedMeaning:orphan_(723388) and DefinedMeaning:orphan_(509527)
- 4.23 DefinedMeaning:displace_(1064475) and DefinedMeaning:spostare_(704540)
- 4.24 DefinedMeaning:resa_(336651) and DefinedMeaning:ἵστημι_(1454344)
- 4.25 DefinedMeaning:Mongolian%20(6234) and DefinedMeaning:Mongolian%20(547361)
- 4.26 DefinedMeaning:depart_(1563196) and DefinedMeaning:depart_(1046974)
- 4.27 How to merge definedMeanings?
- 5 Defined meaning too broad?
- 6 DefinedMeaning too narrow?
- 7 Words to add
The present definition: "A mixture of pigment and a vehicle, such as oil or water, that together form a liquid or paste that can be applied to a surface to provide an adherent coating that imparts colour to and often protects the surface." includes coloured varnishes, which, as far as I know, are not included in "paints", and definitely not included in the French "peintures". The word "opaque" should be added. --Fiable.biz 03:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
DefinedMeaning:voegwoord (409621): "conjunction" (Decision urgent to make)
- The present English definition: "A word that connects two equally weighted parts of a phrase or sentence." doesn't fit the English word "conjunction.". Subordinating conjunctions don't connect two equally weighted parts.
- Unlike the English, Castilian, Italian and Portuguese definitions, the French one ("Mot qui connecte deux parties d'une locution ou d'une phrase.") doesn't include the notion of "equally weighted".
I suggest: "Word or phrase grammatically connecting together words or phrases belonging to a same part of speech.". Please make your proposition urgently, because "conjunction" is a part of the speech, needed for all words in all languages (in "annotations"). In most dictionaries, it's one of the first annotations given for all entries. We really need to agree on what we're speaking about here. --Fiable.biz 12:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- According to the English article on grammatical conjunctions, the definition is different dependent on the language. Yes, for English the definition may be altered, This whole thing seems tricky to me. GerardM 15:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's written that "This definition may overlap with that of other parts of speech, so what constitutes a 'conjunction' should be defined for each language." but overlapping is a just a problem for classifying words, not a problem for defining the notion. We have to accept that the notion of "conjunction" overlaps with other parts of the speech. In any case, subordinating conjunctions are not excluded. As far as they are concerned, I don't see that the definition depends on the language. It's just said that, in some languages, the equivalent of subordinating conjunctions are often not themselves conjunctions (and the article explains why). The only hesitation I see in that article is: "The definition can also be extended to idiomatic phrases that behave as a unit with the same function as a single-word conjunction (as well as, provided that, etc.).". So we should include the 2 (narrow and extended) meanings in OmegaWiki, and decide which one to use as word class. I suggest the extended one, more coherent with the idea of lexical item. (And there will not remain many subordinating conjunctions in French if we exclude phrases.)
- The present classification is not fine enough. We should be able to classify a word as "coordinating conjunction", or "subordinating conjunction", or "demonstrative pronoun", or "possessive adjective" etc.. And this will solve the problem above mentioned. I learnt at school that relative pronouns are a kind of pronouns, and they are indeed. I was never taught they are also a kind of conjunction, though they are: they link 2 clauses. If we have large classes such as "pronoun" and "conjunction", this is a problem. If we had narrow classes such as "coordinating conjunction", "relative pronoun", "personal pronoun", we would not meet the difficulty. We could also add (but not use in word classification) definedMeanings such as "In traditional grammar of Latin, romance languages and English: word or phrase grammatically connecting together words or phrases belonging to a same part of speech, without being a relative pronoun." --Fiable.biz 14:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, it is not urgent.
- Fiable, I agree with the definition you suggest in your first comment, and I am a bit lost in what you write in the second comment.
- It is true that I had changed the definition in French by removing the "equally weighted part". More than three years ago, so I don't remember well, but I posted a comment at DefinedMeaning talk:voegwoord (409621). At that time, the expressions "conjonction" and "conjonction de coordination" where mixed in this DM. I separated them and created Expression:conjonction de coordination.
- For the classification as "coordinating conjunction", or "subordinating conjunction", I agree that we need this finer subdivision, though at the moment I am hesitating between:
- hierarchical annotations, i.e. we first annotate the expression as "conjunction", which then makes it possible to annotate it as "coordinating conjunction" or "subordinating conjunction".
- Or make it possible to directly annotate a word as "coordinating conjunction", but then the part of speech list will maybe get too long, and with very detailed part of speeches that many people will not know.
- Hierarchical annotations are already available (they just have to be defined in the interface), but this goes beyond the single question of defining "conjunction". --Kipcool 10:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hello. Thank you. A dictionary with no word class, or, even worse, wrong word classes, would be a very poor dictionary. This is why I think it is urgent. Since the situation was incoherent, I went on in your direction and modified the definition. What I meant in the second paragraph is that a relative pronoun being both a conjunction and a pronoun, if we have to choose, as now, between "pronoun" and "conjunction", we have 2 options, which may lead to inconsistency. The graph of word classes is not a tree ("relative pronoun" has 2 parents, not one). This is why Wikipedia says that this notion may overlap with others. But once you'll have implemented the finer classification interface, we will just choose "relative pronoun", whatever the rougher classification would be. As far as "conjunction" definedMeaning is concerned, I switch to DefinedMeaning_talk:voegwoord_(409621) --Fiable.biz 02:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The definition given for same, "Having a specified quality that another has" seems incorrect. Can somebody give an example of this usage? --InfoCan 18:23, 2 September 2012 (CEST)
The definition given:
- A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common law, habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, unless or until authority is ceded to a federation or union of other states.
seems incorrect. This is the definition of "nation" and is not used for "state" as far as I know. Can anyone find a citation using "state" with this meaning? --InfoCan 00:23, 3 September 2012 (CEST)
Definition translation erroneous
The different definitions are not translations of one of them and have slightly different meanings. --Fiable.biz 11:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Apart from that, at least the English definition is not really good. I'd suggest something like: "Relatively large in size or number or extent; larger than others of its kind" (Wordnet). Or maybe this definition should or need to be split up so that we'd have:
- "Relatively large in size; larger than others of its kind"
- "Relatively large in number; larger than others of its kind"
- "Relatively large in extent; larger than others of its kind"
- --dh 16:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I think there is a mistake here. The English "one" means "someone", and has been translated into French as "quelque chose" and into Spanish as "algo", both meaning "something". --Fiable.biz 04:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Don't know about the translations, but the definition appears to be from Wordnet and the original does not include "(one)": "express willingness to have in one's home or environs" (Wordnet). So according to Wordnet, which gives the same English synonyms/translations, the something does not neccessarily have to be a somebody. --dh 16:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
DefinedMeaning:maache (339197) (to make)
On one side, the English definition, on the other site, the Spanish and Italian definitions don't say the same thing. --Fiable.biz 15:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The English definition, initially intended for the verb "to adulate" states "To flatter in an obsequious manner.", so a hyponym of "to flatter". One can flatter other ways than in an obsequious manner. For instance a teacher can flatter a lazy pupil (just because he did a small bit of work that day, for instance) without being obsequious. The dictionary of the French academy agrees: aduler="Flatter avec servilité.", also a hyponym of "flatter". But the French translation of the definition says "Faire des éloges de manière excessive." (to praise excessively); Spanish ("Elogiar de manera excesiva.") and Italian definitions follows the French one, and verbs "to flatter", "flatter" etc. has been added. Shouldn't we split this into 2 definedMeanings:
- "To flatter in an obsequious manner." = to adulate (English), aduler (French)
- "To praise excessively." = to flatter (English), flatter (French)
the 1st one being hyponym of the 2nd one? There is also a DefinedMeaning:flatter (1505624): "To praise somewhat dishonestly.". Is there, in any language, a word difference between "To praise somewhat dishonestly." and "To praise excessively."? If not, the notion of dishonesty may be better. I thing there is, in "to flatter", the notion of praising excessively on purpose, isn't it? --Fiable.biz (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2014 (CEST)
OK. But this doesn't answer my questions. For English Wiktionary, flatter = "to compliment someone, often insincerely and sometimes to win favour". For the French Wiktionary, copying the French academy, flatter="Louer excessivement dans le dessein de plaire, de séduire, d’exploiter." So both speak of the purpose. In the English definition, the main characteristic is the non sincerity, while in the French one, it is the excessiveness. I propose
- at least to withdraw "flatter" from DefinedMeaning:adulate (757082),
- and possibly to modify DefinedMeaning:flatter (1505624)'s definition as "To praise insincerely more than one would praise honestly if at all.".
Now, I translated musical composition simply to music (musikk) in the Norwegian definition. Why not use the word music? BY the way, I had some questions here Expression_talk:neck --Troskyldigheten 13:16, 16 January 2009 (EST)
Def too short and unclear. --Kipcool 12:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
See discussion page --Kipcool 08:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've changed the definition. Hope it's better now. --dh 21:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
This definition "With everything included" is not different enough from the definition of DefinedMeaning:all (1173416): "The totality of.". We should make the difference between completeness, entirety and total. "Complete" is, to my mind, "With everything that should be included included." (so there is a comparison with an abstract model), while "whole"/"entire" is "In totality" or "with nothing subtracted" (there is no notion of "should": the being as it is in all its parts, even if it's not complete) and "total" is the result of a sum or sum-like process (e.g. juxtaposition, multiplication) of different parts. See "total amount", "whole amount", "complete amount". "total amount" refers to the result of a calculation, which is finished (right or wrong), "complete amount" means that nothing has been forgotten of what should be included (according to the rule), while "whole amount"="entire amount" means that nothing has been subtracted from the amount as it was (complete or not, right or wrong).--Fiable.biz 12:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The definition leads to a confusion between legal status and legal entity. A company IS a legal entity, which means it HAS a legal status. From that confusion arose translation mistakes. The French translation of "legal entity" is not "personalité juridique" but "personne morale". I suspect there is the same mistake in Spanish ("personalidad jurídica"). The DM should be split and the definition clarified. --Fiable.biz 09:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
4 DMs, but they seem to be all the same to me and therefore should be merged. --Kipcool 13:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- To me as well. Should definitely be merged. I would do it, but am not sure how to do it best. --dh 11:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
5 DMs, some of them being defined only as a list of synonyms. So: def to be rewritten and partial merging needed I would say. --Kipcool 11:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure, but at least the first four do indeed describe different concepts, though "machen" doesn't seem to be the proper term for the fourth. The fifth meaning needs to be translated first, I do not understand what it means. --dh 11:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
mean the same concept and only give alternative definitons if I'm not mistaken. --dh 10:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
appear to be the same and probably should be merged. --dh 07:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
appear to be the same and probably should be merged. --dh 12:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
are almost the same with the latter being broader. Not sure if they are both needed. --dh 23:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, they should be merged. --Fiable.biz 02:27, 2 November 2012 (CET)
appear to be the same and probably should be merged. --dh 23:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
appear to be the same and probably should be merged. Or if they are not the same, they should be defined better as I can't see the difference. --dh 15:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
To be merged, and a real definition should be found as well, but I cannot think of any at the moment. --Kipcool 21:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
DefinedMeaning:brave (6434), DefinedMeaning:bravo (886745) and DefinedMeaning:courageuos (1016033)
Appear to be the same and probably should be merged. --dh 16:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
appear to be the same and probably should be merged. --dh 13:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
appear to be the same and either should be merged or worded more precisely. --dh 13:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
appear to be the same and probably should be merged. --dh 16:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. I would be in favor of keeping the definition of the second one.
DefinedMeaning:accede (746465) and one of Expression:agree ?
Not sure if the English word "accede" matches any of the definitions in "Expression:agree". In any case, its definition should be rewritten because now it is only a synonym. --Kipcool 12:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks the same to me. --Kipcool 19:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
2 indistinguishable meanings (at least in Spanish) , should we delete one of them? --Ascánder 02:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- According to the discussion at DefinedMeaning talk:live (1172116), one is supposed to be the adjective (a live recording) and the other would be the adverb (it was broadcasted live). I agree that this is not clear from the definitions. Maybe the definition for the adverb should say something like "in a live manner".
- Also a further problem is that the adjectives and adverbs seem to be the same at least in German, English, Spanish and French. --Kipcool 09:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ok. I see a difference now. Thanks. The adverb meaning should probably be improved. --Ascánder 10:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
2 very similar meanings, although the german sets of synonyms are not identical. --Ascánder 10:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
2 DM. It would be strange that there are a Neapolitan dialect and an Italian dialect with the same name. However, both come from an automatic import of the ISO DIS-639-6 Codes data. So I'd like a double check. --Kipcool 09:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
2 definitions of "sky". Are they the same, or two different concepts? --Kip 23:30, 8 July 2011 (CEST)
- It seems to me the same. DefinedMeaning:himmel (7039) seems better because what we see is in fact the atmosphere, since there is nothing to see from the void space and perceiving the black means perceiving nothing. But isn't the definition too narrow: didn't the astronauts see "the sky" from the moon? And isn't it "the sky" that we see on photos taken from different planets? So what about "The part of a planet's atmosphere and/or space outside it that is visible from that planet's surface. During the day it is perceived as blue if there is an atmosphere, and at night as black."? --Fiable.biz 18:11, 10 July 2011 (CEST)
Exactly the same definition. --Fiable.biz 09:07, 14 August 2012 (CEST)
- Agree. I'll combine them. --InfoCan 17:22, 2 September 2012 (CEST)
seem the same. Moreover both definitions are mediocre. If there are not the same, an example is needed for each definedMeaning. --Fiable.biz 04:00, 21 August 2012 (CEST)
- It seems like the first is the equivalent of eng:as/since; fr:puisque/vue que/comme, while the second is for eng:because/for; fr:parce que/car. Let's figure out definitions to distinguish between the two. --InfoCan 17:54, 2 September 2012 (CEST)
are nearly the same. --Fiable.biz 05:16, 2 September 2012 (CEST)
- Agree, they should be joined. But then, I think they should be re-split, because the meaning that orphan can mean a person who has lost just one parent is probably not universal. So there should be one DM for the meaning of having lost both parents, and another DM for having lost just one parent. In general, we should try to avoid definitions with an "or" in them. --InfoCan 17:17, 2 September 2012 (CEST)
Patio wrote in my talk page "3 definitions of the same (?) concept e.g. Mongolian if I understand well you're talking about the language, not the people? (that's #4)". I don't remember I spoke about that. As I see it now, I can't understand the difference about the above mentioned 2 notions of "Mongolian" language, and I think 2 are the same, while the notion of Mongolian person is clearly different. But there is a difference between "The best-known language in the family of Mongolic languages, primarily spoken in Mongolia.", which could include many variations of the Mongolian languages, specially in Western Mongolia and in Inner Mongolia (China), and "The official language of Mongolia." (DefinedMeaning:Halh%20Mongolian%20(547617)) i.e. Khalkh Mongolian, one of the variants. If this is the idea, both should be redacted more explicitly. And I don't think Khalkh Mongolian is spoken by a significant group of Russian inhabitants, as stated by the later. The language a bit spoken there is, as far as I know, Buriat Mongolian. "Mongolian" is known as a "meta-language" --Fiable.biz (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2014 (CEST)
- The easiest is to delete one or two of the three. You're the expert in Mongolian. Tell us admins which an admin has to delete. Klaas|Z4␟V: 09:53, 12 July 2014 (CEST)
- In the land of the blind, goes the saying, the one-eyed man is king. I speak Khalkh Mongolian fluently and I noticed I can speak with Inner Mongolians of Erlian and Höhhot, in Inner Mongolia, though their Mongolian is a bit different, but I never went to Siberia, and I have only a very basic knowledge about Mongolian variations. Before deciding, let's ask Kip, who used to have ideas about Mongolian. --Fiable.biz (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2014 (CEST)
- He is the one to grant you eventually admin rights so you can do it yourself. Isn't it possible to handle Mongolian dialwcts and scripts the same way as e.g. Chinese and Serbian like Mongolian (Chinese), Mongolian (Cyrillic) and who knows what other variations exist? Just an idea, I have zero intrinsic knowledge of non-Latin scripts except some (old) Greek thanks to two years what in Dutch is called Gymnasium (± liceo classico in Italy) Klaas|Z4␟V: 17:39, 14 July 2014 (CEST)
- Hi! Sorry for the late reply, I had a few weeks without Internet connection.
- From what I can see in the history, DefinedMeaning:Mongolian%20(6234) was created a long time ago, and DefinedMeaning:Mongolian%20(547361) was created later, during the automatic import of WLDC language information.
- The first definition (6234) seems ok for defining the macro-language.
- The second definition (547361) seems to be defining rather the official language of Mongolia, which is also Expression:Halh Mongolian. But DefinedMeaning:Mongolian%20(547361) also is parent to the different types of Mongolian in the annotations.
- So I propose the following:
- merge the definitions and translations of DefinedMeaning:Mongolian%20(547361) into Expression:Halh Mongolian.
- merge the annotations of DefinedMeaning:Mongolian%20(547361) into Expression:Halh Mongolian.
- maybe rewrite the definitions a bit to make it clear that one is a macrolanguage, and remove the information that the other is spoken in Russia (according to Fiable, and also what I can read on Wikipedia)
- and admin rights is not needed for this, but I can take care of it if you agree. --Kip (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2014 (CEST)
- Sorry. I didn't notice you answer and, in order to study deeper this question, I married a Mongolian, ;-) so got a bit busy. I agree with Kip's proposition, except for the annotations of DefinedMeaning:Mongolian%20(547361): the "parent" and "child" annotations regard the meta-language, I think, at least not Khalkh Mongolian, since the tree gives:
- DefinedMeaning:Mongolian-Tungus_(547358) → DefinedMeaning:Mongolian_(547361) → DefinedMeaning:Mongolian_Eastern_(547397) → DefinedMeaning:Oirat_Khalka_(547403) → DefinedMeaning:Khalka_Buriat_Cluster_(547409) → DefinedMeaning:Mongolian_Proper_(547611) → DefinedMeaning:Halh_Mongolian_(547617)
- I'm not a linguist, and this seems a bit complicated to me, but I have no objection to this tree. Moreover, the wikidata code is not very appropriate, being the one of disambiguation pages. --Fiable.biz (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2014 (CEST)
"To go away from a place; to leave." and "To move away from a place into another direction." seem to me the same thing: when you go away, it is obviously into another direction, isn't it? --Fiable.biz (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2015 (CEST)
How to merge definedMeanings?
How to merge 2 definedMeanings? Does one need special right to do this? I hope we are not supposed to copy the annotations of each expression one by one. --Fiable.biz 02:30, 2 November 2012 (CET)
- Ok, so, the reply to this is very late...
- Unfortunately, you are supposed to copy the annotations one by one... then delete everything in the other one. a tool that does this would be cool, but has not been implemented. --Kip (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2014 (CEST)
Defined meaning too broad?
I've just split DefinedMeaning:devolver (522528) into the two DM above, but I don't know enough of the languages other than French and Mongolian to see if the translations there are accurate, if they should be on one side, on the other or on both. Please check Castilian, English, Italian and Portuguese. I guess there are still mistakes. And I would say that "put back" and "bring back" could be added.
According to the official Diccionario de la Lengua Española of the Real academia española, none of the meanings of devolver (the word from which the DM has been named) corresponds to the definition of that definedMeaning. If fact, we should have at least 3 DM: give back (to the former holder), put back (at the former place) and restore (into the former state). The expression "restore" is not yet in OmegaWiki. It seems that devolver means to give back or to restore, not to put back. --Fiable.biz 13:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, the first meaning of devolver at DRAE: Volver algo a su estado anterior includes the meaning of replace/put back. --Ascánder 08:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The English definition is "Devouring or craving food in great quantities.". The word "craving" has not been translated into French and Spanish. According to Oxford dictionary, "to crave" means: "Feel a powerful desire for (something)". I think wanting is a different idea, and, at least in French, "vorace" and "glouton" implies that the animal or person actually eats in great quantity, and with avidity. According to the French academy, glouton: "Qui mange avec avidité et excès, voracement.", and vorace: "Qui dévore, qui mange avec avidité.". But in English, according to Oxford dictionary, voracious: "Wanting or devouring great quantities of food", ravenous: "Extremely hungry", edacious: "Relating to or given to eating." and rapacious: "Aggressively greedy or grasping". According to Spanish royal academy, voraz has 2 meanings: 1) "Dicho de un animal: Muy comedor.", 2. "Dicho de una persona: Que come desmesuradamente y con mucha ansia.". So I would split this DM into 2:
- "voracious", whose definition I would delete "or craving" from, and delete the expressions "ravenous", "edacious" and "rapacious",
- and "ravenous", which in French is "affamé": "very hungry".
But then, is there a difference between "Devouring food in great quantities.", and DefinedMeaning:gluttonous_(1566004): "Given to excess in consumption of especially food or drink."? According to Oxford dictionary, gluttonous: "Excessively greedy". --Fiable.biz (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2014 (CET)
"The state of emotions of a person to whom something irreversible happened that leads to a feeling of sadness or regret; most often occurring e.g. after a beloved one died, or a long relationship split up." Mourning a dead is a very special feeling, because of the staggering aspect of death. In Mongolian, for example, their is a special word for mourning a dead, with is not usually used in any other circumstance. In French, quite recently, the word "deuil" is being more widely used (split relationship, handicap etc.), but this is regarded as a figurative meaning. So I suggest the wide meaning given in the definition be split into 2. Fiable.biz (talk)
DefinedMeaning too narrow?
If all the expressions support it, I suggest to broaden the definition to include at least biological defects.
Castilian defecto : supports the biological meaning
Dutch fout : ?
Dutch defect : supports the biological meaning
Dutch gebrek : supports the biological meaning
Dutch mankement : ?
English fault : ?
English defect : supports the biological meaning
English flaw : seems to support the biological meaning
French défaut : supports the biological meaning
Italian difetto : supports the biological meaning
Portuguese defeito : ? seems ok
--Fiable.biz 14:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to agree for having a broad meaning (the tlfi has such a broad definition) but I it should be a separate DM.
- I think in particular the English "fault" does not include the biological defect. In French, is "défaut de fabrication" a synonym? Or is it more specific?
- Also I don't like the use of "imperfection" in the definition, because it is used like a synonym, i.e. does not really defines the concept.
- Do you already have a suggestion of a definition for the broader definition? --Kipcool 10:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK. For the broad meaning, what about "Unfortunate original gap in comparison with the ideal or expected state." / "Ecart originel malheureux par rapport à l'état idéal ou attendu." ? "imperfection" is an explanation for anybody knowing the etymology of "im-perfection": "not finished", "not completed". But many don't know the original meaning of "perfect", so that words like "imperfect" (the tense) seems proper names, and "imperfection" doesn't explain anything to them (When I was a junior high school pupil, I had no idea why the "imparfait" is called such. Did that tense have any defect?)
- "défaut de fabrication" contrasts with "défaut de conception". The former means the engineers' (correct) plan was badly or wrongly executed, the latter that the plan itself was bad or wrong. --Fiable.biz 14:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Words to add
to get to
Would someone be so kind as to enter the meaning(s) of "get to" as in “All my friends get to do it.”, or in "Sometimes You Get to Do Something Really Important…"? Just because I don't understand well this expression, which seems to have many meanings, and I couldn't find this meaning(s) in Wiktionary, Merriam-Webster or Cambridge advanced learner's dictionary either. Thank you in advance. --Fiable.biz 04:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think this expression always goes together with the verb "do": "to get to do ..."
- In "http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/get" I found "to have the opportunity or be able to do something", which is also what I understand from your examples above.
- However, in French, I would translate the two examples a bit differently.
- “All my friends get to do it.” => Tous mes amis ont le droit de le faire (et le font, sous-entendu). Maybe here, it's more the "be able" part of the meaning.
- "Sometimes You Get to Do Something Really Important…" => Parfois il vous arrive de faire quelque chose de très important. Maybe here, it's more the "have the opportunity" part of the meaning.
- --Kip 10:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much indeed! Can any native speaker confirm that the phrase is always "to get to DO"? Is it used only in America, or in Great Britain too? --188.8.131.52 15:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
One of the many meanings of "get" is (I am copying below from the Oxford English Dictionary):
- 30.a. With an infinitive (now always preceded by to): To induce, prevail upon (a person), succeed in causing (a thing), to do something; in weaker sense, to cause or set (a person) to do something for one.
- 1807 Salmagundi 11 Nov. 351 At such times there was no getting Will to join in our walks.
- 1887 A. Birrell Obiter Dicta 2nd Ser. 75 He promptly got a book~seller to pirate Curll's edition.
--InfoCan 15:07, 14 August 2012 (CEST)