User talk:Sarilho1

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Ultimateria (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 14:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 17:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Então a expressão "pra frentex" também é/era usada em Portugal? Realmente curioso. Achei que fosse exclusivo daqui. - Munmula (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Munmula É possível que seja um brasileirismo, mas é uma expressão com algum uso em Portugal. - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Boa tarde Sarilho. Me deparei com uma situação na entrada foro. A única pronúncia que eu conheço pessoalmente é com /o/. O Dicionário Michaelis apresenta as duas, Silveira Bueno só /o/. Pelo que diz o Priberam, há duas etimologias, uma com /ɔ/ e outra com /o/. A Infopédia diz a mesma coisa mas apresenta inconsistência na transcrição. O Aulete não indica a pronúncia mas separa as etimologias.

Considerando os significados, estou achando que a pronúncia com /ɔ/ é uma variação mais adaptada do empréstimo fórum e com /o/ é o legítimo descendente por via popular, afetado por metafonia. O que você acha disso? Separando ou não as etimologias, o ideal é incluirmos as duas pronúncias. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV Sempre pronunciei com /ɔ/ e pensei que o /o/ que lá estava tinha sido colocado por engano. Não o sendo, concordo em incluir as duas. Peço desculpa por ter alterado sem verificar primeiro. - Sarilho1 (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've seen your speedy deletion requests but I'm hesitant to perform them because GB has 19200 hits. Common misspellings should not be deleted but instead be created as soft-redirects using {{misspelling of}}; for more see Wiktionary:Misspellings. Fytcha (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Fytcha I really thank you for diligently checking that. I was about to make a big mistake. Probably it makes more sense to change it to obsolete spelling, even. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sarilho, se fizéssemos um voto para impedir que o módulo gere pronúncias sem indicação de dialeto (ou seja, os editores teriam que obrigatoriamente usar {{pt-IPA|br=casa|pt=casa}}, e {{pt-IPA|casa}} apresentaria uma mensagem de erro ou um pedido de correção), você seria a favor? Ou acha ainda há esperança? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Olá @Ungoliant. Já tinha pensado à uns tempos que o ideal seria termos efetivamente dois (ou mais) módulos, um para cada dialeto, até porque o mais normal é que um falante de português brasileiro saiba como funciona o seu dialeto mas não os demais e vice-versa. No entanto, o template é já usado em bastantes páginas e penso que em muitos casos até está a funcionar bem. Existem vários casos problemáticos, mas não serão esses a minoria? De qualquer das formas, se quiser avançar com a votação, não me irei opor. - Sarilho1 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Entendo. Eu me preocupo com a proliferação de erros cometidos mesmo por usuários experientes e bem-intencionados. Apesar das diferenças não-superficiais serem uma minoria, o módulo torna muito conveniente ignorar a possibilidade de que haja.

Mas eu delego meu nível de preocupação a você, em observação à excepcional qualidade do trabalho que vem fazendo há tempo com as pronúncias europeias. Se acha que os benefícios se sobrepõem aos riscos, concordarei. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Acho que a argumentação faz sentido. Na verdade, é possível que eu próprio tenha contribuído para a propagação de alguns desses erros ao usar o módulo na forma atual, portanto seria uma excelente salvaguarda. Penso que não há qualquer incoveniente em levar esta discussão a votação. Só para esclarecer, os atuais "subdialetos", chamemos-lhes assim, do Rio de Janeiro (rio=), São Paulo (sp=) e "resto de Portugal" (cpt=) seriam na mesma derivados dos parâmetros br= ou pt= ou deveríamos requerer que sejam também explicitados? Pela forma como está construído o módulo e dada a proximidade desses dialetos ao "padrão", acho que talvez não seja necessário, mas podemos fazê-lo de qualquer das formas.

Era também interessante, mesmo que o módulo não gere (ainda?) as respetivas pronúncias, ter parâmetros para ao=, mz=, etc, para abrir a porta à representação dos restantes dialetos do português. Mas isto é um aparte. - Sarilho1 (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Olá, Sarilho. Podes por favor explicar-me o porquê desta edição (e as associadas, como esta)? Como não deixaste sumários de edição, não percebi o que fiz mal. Abraço! --Waldyrious (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Olá @Waldyrious. Desculpa não ter deixado sumário, é um mau hábito meu. As palavras que adicionaste não rimam em ɨ. Para duas palavras rimarem, os sons das mesmas têm de corresponder desde a sílabra tónica ao fim. Por exemplo, "laje" e "age" rimam porque ambas repetem o som em IPA^(key): /'a.ʒɨ/ replace ' with ˈ, invalid IPA characters (') (em português europeu), mas não rimam com sempre que iria rimar em ẽpɾɨ. "Sabe" é uma palavra grave, por isso a rima é em abɨ (pronúncia IPA^(key): /'sa.bɨ/ replace ' with ˈ, invalid IPA characters (')), não apenas em ɨ. Na verdade, tenho dúvidas sequer se as restantes rimam em ɨ, porque não têm propriamente tonicidade, mas penso que pelo menos essas são aceitáveis. As restantes estavam mal e tive que remover e reverter. - Sarilho1 (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ah, obrigado pela explicação, entendi agora a lógica. Estava a olhar apenas para a sonoridade da última sílaba, realmente. --Waldyrious (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hiya. Can you tell me what I got wrong on this page? Is it that the difference in syllable count is only phonetic, and not phonemic? Did I make a typo that I didn't notice? embryomystic (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Embryomystic You are always adding syllabification to Portuguese entries rather than hyphenation. - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

The hyphenation template puts words in categories by number of syllables. I guess the answer to my second question is yes, then? You're saying that a word should be in a category based only on its number of phonemic syllables, and not its phonetic ones? I yield to your authority given that it's your native language (especially given that it's your native variety that's in question), I just want to be clear on this, so I don't repeat mistakes. embryomystic (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm saying that the hyphenation template should indicate want it is intended to indicate: hyphenation, that is, the place where we are allowed to put an hyphen. For instance, even though we the syllables in carro as ca.rro, we hyphenate as car-ro. Even though we pronounce io as a diphthong, we regard dimensional as a five-syllables word and hyphenate it as di-men-si-o-nal.

I'm not fully sure the approach that should be taken regarding the Rhymes template. Careful pronunciation that respects the meter rules, useful for poetry, will count dimensional as a five-syllable word, be it BP or EP. I don't see much usefulness in listing the number of syllables in other pronunciations, in particular because those pronunciations may vary widely (a rap song could pronounce dmen.siu.nal, for instance, but would we list dimensional a also a three-syllable word?). Another example is how conjectura is pronounced sometimes in BP as con.je.qui.tu.ra, but we still hyphenate as con-jec-tu-ra and count it as a four-syllables word. I do accept that we do add different syllable counts to Rhymes other than the standard meter, though, but I think we ought to decide a standard for their acceptance first and I would prefer if the alternative counts were properly documented as such. - Sarilho1 (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

That makes sense. Thank you for clarifying. I'm not sure how to handle the Rhymes template either, given all that. I'll follow your lead in future, regardless. embryomystic (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

So I've been using this conversation as a guideline, for the most part, when adding rhymes, which I guess I'd forgotten we hadn't agreed on. But bots have added syllable counts that don't match this approach, specifically on -ẽsjɐ words. I've been adding syllable counts to -ẽsiɐ words, following this conversation, and now I'm wondering anew how we should go about this. I just added separate counts to ausência, but maybe that was a mistake, since the count added by the bot doesn't match the hyphenation. What do you think? Should we bring this to a more general forum? embryomystic (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I guess it's better to bring it to a general forum and see if a general consensus can be reached. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see that you added the template "rfd" to desculpar-se, but there doesn't seem to be an RFD discussion anywhere (at least not that I've been able to find). Why are you RFD'ing it? Where is the discussion of pros and cons of deleting it? --Psiphiorg (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Indeed it isn't. Currently there's a discussion on curvar-se, but likely a general discussion about keeping the reflexive forms should be held before actually deleting any of these entries. - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I notice you removed a whole lot of Japanese given names and surnames as Portuguese lemmas (also some Russian ones, like Bogdanoff, Tarnovsky, Yastrebov). What was the reason for that? Benwing2 (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

The surnames were just copies from a English entry. I don't it think it makes much sense simply to transliterate surnames Portuguese surnames. But do you think the deletions should be reverted? - Sarilho1 (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

No, just curious what your logic was. You could argue that these are words in Portuguese (sort-of), so should be present; but likewise if every language had entries for transliterations of every other language's surnames, it would be a mess. Benwing2 (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Could you fix the European Portuguese pronunciation of this word when you have time. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why do you insist on adding European Portuguese pronunciations manually when they are identical to what {{pt-IPA}} produces (except that {{pt-IPA}} uses the correct IPA stress mark, unlike your manually added ones, which use the apostrophe instead of the stress mark)? There is no benefit to adding

* {{a|Portugal}} {{IPA|pt|[a'lɐ̃j̃]}}

by hand when {{pt-IPA}} already tells us that the EP pronunciation is [aˈlɐ̃j̃]. The only thing you're achieving is the introduction of an incorrect character. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja Why do you insist in stating that Central and Southern Portuguese pronunciations are IPA^(key): [aˈlẽj̃] without any source backing it up? - Sarilho1 (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

If Module:pt-pronunc is generating incorrect outputs for Central and Southern Portugal's pronunciation of em, doesn't it make more sense to fix the module than to manually change every word containing the problematic sequence? —Mahāgaja · talk 12:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can you point me to the discussion that established the module as the sole provider of Portuguese pronunciations? - Sarilho1 (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

What's the point of having a template that automatically generates pronunciations if people don't use it? Why not just discuss with Benwing2 how to correctly output the Central and South Portugal forms rather than tweaking each word manually? That way the template can continue to be used on new terms that get added in the future. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja I have already complained about Sarilho1's inexplicable behavior here and made the exact point you're making now: We should fix the module to correctly reflect Central and Southern Portuguese pronunciations (or just omit them entirely if they're wrong and can't be fixed). See Talk:contêm. I have asked User:Sarilho1 to tell me what needs to be fixed and how to fix it, but they haven't and instead just keep insisting the module is wrong and shouldn't be used. IMO this is totally pointless, and it just leads to extra work as I (or someone) will have to review and undo their manual additions. This is especially bizarre because AFAIK it was Sarilho1 who added the Central and Southern Portuguese pronunciations in the first place. User:Sarilho1, I am going to disable the Central and Southern Portuguese pronunciations until you let me know how they need to be fixed, and I will be undoing all of your manual additions. Benwing2 (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 Sure, but if your actions still leave senseless pronunciations, I'll revert them. - Sarilho1 (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Uhhh, how about instead of getting into an edit war you actually tell me what the issue is? Why are you refusing to do that? Benwing2 (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why are you adding |pos= parameters to uses of {{af}}? Ultimateria (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Ultimateria I was categorizing the suffixes that can be appended to different parts of speech. The same suffix can have slightly different meanings when it is appended to a noun or to an adjective, for instance, so I though it would be useful to add that information. Furthermore, it helps to isolate some outliers (e.g.: -ável where sometimes the suffix is appended to a noun). - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I was confused because I didn't think it would categorize that way without a number in the parameter (|pos1= etc), but apparently it does. Never mind! Ultimateria (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, does the verb form socorro (“I help”) also /-ko-/, or does it have /-kɔ-/? —Mahāgaja · talk 14:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Mahagaja, socorro is with /o/, but socorres/socorre/socorrem are with /ɔ/. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

A pronúncia brasileira gerada automaticamente está errada. Pronunciamos /iˈvo.ni/ e não /iˈvõ.ni/. Não entendo muito dessa predefinição. Há algum código para corrigir isso ou teremos que usar a edição manual? - Munmula (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Munmula Já corrigi. Alternativamente, podes usar "br=Ivộne" que retorna a mesma pronúncia. - Sarilho1 (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Você sabe se esta palavra se pronuncia com e aberta ou fechada em Portugal?, parece que os brasileiros a pronunciam com e fechada, mas esse pode não ser o caso no seu país. (Desculpa por meu mal português, não sou falante nativo) Rodrigo5260 (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Rodrigo5260, Não é uma palavra muito comum, mas é com e fechado. - Sarilho1 (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sarilho1 Muito obrigado 😃👍. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

De onde tiraram isso? Tenho certeza que ninguém no Brasil pronuncia creme /ˈkɾẽ.mi/, nem cana /ˈkɐ̃.nɐ/, nem nenhuma dessas palavras com vogais nasais. A pronúncia dessas primeiras partes é a mesma que em Portugal: /ˈkɾe/, /ˈkɐ/, etc. Aparentemente houve um erro na criação dessa predefinição de pronúncia automática. Munmula (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Munmula O melhor é então falar com o Benwing2, pois é ele que controla o módulo pt-pronunc. Já não é a primeira vez que ele reverte tentativas de remover a nasalização das pronúncias brasileiras - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sarilho1It would be good to keep the text long to have a better explanation of how the use of the expression came about Stríðsdrengur (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Stríðsdrengur Etymology sections should be as short as possible. The history of the term belongs to Wikipedia. I've tried to expand a bit more the section, but I personally don't think that should include much more. If you feel like more is needed, please try to keep it as synthetic as possible. - Sarilho1 (talk) Sarilho1 (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ok thx Stríðsdrengur (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm just wondering in regards to the pronunciation funk, whether the European Portuguese pronunciation of ˈfɐ̃.kɨ is accurate? I tried to follow {{pt-IPA}} using the ^ notation. From my brief knowledge in Portuguese, I believe that epenthetic vowels aren't used in Portugal. I might be wrong, but just wanted to make sure. Thank you! — ^{oi yeah nah mate} amazingJUSSO ... [ɡəˈdæɪ̯]! 00:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Both /ˈfɐ̃.kɨ/ and /ˈfɐ̃k/ would be accurate pronunciations in EP. Previously the module returned /ˈfɐ̃.k(ɨ)/ which would have covered both cases (something that wouldn't happen with the ^ notation), but I temporarily disabled the option because it was causing some errors elsewhere. Hopefully me or Benwing will correct it soon. - Sarilho1 (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why are the conjugation tables wrong? Stríðsdrengur (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

The verb arder is not regular according to the sources. The first-person singular present indicative appears as arço, not ardo. - Sarilho1 (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

ok then, I'll try to improve these tables to fit better with irregular verbs Stríðsdrengur (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's normal that irregular verbs are not well represented by regular conjugation tables. But if you can improve them, that would certainly be useful, thank you. - Sarilho1 (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yr welcome Stríðsdrengur (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Look in the dictionary https://www.dicio.com.br/indignatorio/ Stríðsdrengur (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's a senseless hyphenation. I can't find any justification to justify it. - Sarilho1 (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Tudo bem então. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Stríðsdrengur, caindo de paraquedas aqui, o Dicio.com.br não costuma ser lá muito fiável. Michaelis e Aulete sim o são, quando o assunto é Brasil, e Priberam e o dicionário da Porto Editora para Portugal. Adicionalmente há o Estraviz. Cumprimentos, RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! I'm just passing by real quick to say that I've just changed a bunch of pages from 'misspelling of X' to 'alternative form of X' and swapped pages in a few cases (making page 2 a misspelling of page 1 instead of the other way around). You were the one who changed the definitions to 'misspelling' so I thought it'd be a good idea to come tell you about it, that way we don't get into any edit wars or anything haha.

I noticed most of them had to do with forms that were perfectly okay in Brazilian Portuguese, but might be a little eyebrow-raising in European Portuguese such as em todo caso and 1ª pessoa (I actually found an interesting link for the second one). Removing articles is actually pretty common in formal Brazilian Portuguese (apparently it's a way to emulate older texts?). Other ones like objeto voador não identificado had to do with the hyphenation rules from the AO90. I agree "não-identificado" with the hyphen makes way more sense and that removing the hyphen was pretty silly, but it is what it is; the only correct form currently is the one w/o the hyphen. MedK1 (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

You changed inveja from {{pt-IPA|invéja}} to {{pt-IPA|br=invéja|pt=invéja|gpt=invéja,[ej:êj]}}. The latter is really yucky. I'm adding pronunciations for things like invejo and I'm not gonna duplicate this sort of stuff. Instead we should fix the module to do the right thing. I know you are resistant to doing so and prefer entering long manual pronunciations like in this case, but IMO this is rather pointless. Can you help me fix the module appropriately? Please tell me what should be the gpt, northern PT, central PT, and southern PT pronunciations for é and ê prior to palatal sounds like j, lh, nh, x, etc. Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The Republic of China, which is represented by the word Taiwan, is a country. Taiwan itself is not a country. I made changes but you undid them. 203.147.229.136 14:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Olá, tudo bem?

Eu fiz uma alteração no verbete câmera. Como esta é minha primeira edição que eu faço no Wiktionary e como você fez uma alteração significativa nessa página colocando referências para a distinção Brazil/Portugal, eu gostaria de pedir que você por favor revissasse minha alteração para garantir que esteja de acordo com os padrões de qualidade do Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=c%C3%A2mera&oldid=prev&diff=78476272

Desde já, muito obrigado :)

-- JoséMortara (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reason why you made this edit? While I am not a native speaker, AFAIK escritório is never used to mean a desk today; at least not in Brazil. I understand this may be an older, archaic use, so I have amended the page to make this the second definition (rather than the first, as you did), and to note that it is archaic. But I wanted to check with you. Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The spelling escriptório was only used until the Orthographic Agreement of 1910. It's only a matter of spelling, it has nothing to do with the senses. - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your edit did not just change the year of the spelling change; it also added a sense, namely, "writing desk". Please look at the diff again more closely. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see. I reverted your edit. - Sarilho1 (talk)

Again... can you explain why? Can you provide any evidence that this is the primary meaning of escritório, or even that it is a meaning anyone (still) uses? Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you provide any evidence it is archaic? - Sarilho1 (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you check the Priberam entry, the closest thing to the definition you want to include as the very first definition is listed there as the third and last definition, which is: "A piece of furniture that was a type of writing desk"; emphasis on "was" (era), and hence the "archaic". No one uses it this way, and in fact I have gone so far as to delete the entry altogether. Remember, until September, the definition here did not mention "writing desk"; you added it, and I am asking you for evidence that the word is still used this way, or that it is the primary usage of the term. Every monolingual and bilingual Portuguese dictionary I have consulted disagrees with you; most do not even list it with a definition of "writing desk" at all. Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you want to remove the entry, follow the due process of bringing it to a vote. I'm not going to entertain your fit anymore. - Sarilho1 (talk) Sarilho1 (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Did you "bring it to a vote" when you decided to include the entry in the first place? Such a bizarre thing to argue over, I've literally asked a dozen Portuguese speaking people (both European and Brazilian) in the last day, and all of them agreed with me that they had never seen this word used in the sense of writing desk, and that whoever (you) was confused on this point was probably someone whose first language is Spanish (where escritorio does have that meaning). As for the sentence you added—there's nothing in context that lets us know the translation to English should be "sitting at the desk" and not "sitting at the office", so sorry, but you still haven't provided any evidence that the word is used in this way. And if you search for other instances of the word used in that book you will see, that in every instance where the context makes it clear what the meaning is, it means "office" (e.g. escritório da CIA, ... da empresa, etc.).Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Sarilho, por acaso conseguia checar a pronúncia em português de Portugal das entradas que acabei de criar, baseadas nesta lista do FLiP? Criei-as de pentavô a icosavô (não fui além porque, além de talvez parecer exagero, o sítio mesmo não as atesta uma a uma). Confesso que tenho até certa dificuldade em prever as pronúncia em português do Brasil, embora ocasionalmente já usasse as palavras em texto, mas imagino que você certamente será melhor analisando a pronúncia daí. Obrigado! RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Eu diria que o os ás são mais naturalmente pronunciados abertos por convergência do final do numeral e do inicial de avô. Icosavô diria que tem um acento tónico secundário no primeiro ó. - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

https://www.aulete.com.br/sorte#:~:text=1%20Arriscar%2C%20tentar%20algo%20na,por%20sorte%2C%20bem%2Dsucedido. :( Stríðsdrengur (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Olá, estava bisbilhotando as suas edições e corrigindo a pronúncia brasileira de algumas palavras sufixadas com -inho. Aqui, a minha edição acabou sendo etiquetada como "Manual revert", embora não tenha sido o meu objetivo revertê-lo. Tenho quase absoluta certeza de que cá não pronunciamos mô-DI-nha, mas sim mó-DI-nha. Se acha que o meu "Manual revert" involuntário foi precipitado, por favor avise-me que eu mesmo restauro a sua edição. Cumprimentos, RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why did you reverted my change? No one pronounces Beja as 'beija' Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's not true at all. Same with Tejo and velho. - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

What? I only sporadically ever heard some people say [vɐʎu], which leads me to believe it's a hypercorrection and not a natural pronunciation. As for Beja and Tejo i've never heard it pronounced with [ɐ] for [ɛ]; i've heard people from Lisbon rhyming 'Tejo' with 'vejo' (like in that song from Heróis do Mar), and even then Tejo is still pronounced [tɛʒu].

Also, regarding your reverts of 'fresadora' why diy you change it? I only ever heard it pronounced 'frèsadora' (mostly by people who work with the machine). I even googled the pronunciation of fresadora before editing just to make sure, but found nothing useful. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hypercorrections are still natural pronunciations if people are not aware of it... - Sarilho1 (talk) Sarilho1 (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That makes absolutely no sense. The very definition of hypercorrection implies that people ARE aware of it;

From the very second paragraph on wikipedia: "It [hypercorrection] does not occur when a speaker follows "a natural speech instinct"". Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think we are misunderstanding me. People are not aware of their speech being a hypercorrection, otherwise they wouldn't speak like that. If they were aware it is nonstandard, they wouldn't hypercorrect. - Sarilho1 (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can't undestand what you wrote. Can you give an example of what you mean?

Just tell me this: have you ever heard anyone pronouncing 'Tejo' as [tɐʒu]? Because that sounds really weird an unnatural to me. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that's why I included. To me, it seems quite widespread, but might be only my personal impression. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You sure it's widespread? Because I never heard it that way, not even from people from Lisbon. Can you provide any external link? Otherwise i think the change should be reverted (which i think i already did).

What about regarding the pronunciation of 'fresadora'? Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've initially didn't noticed the secondary accent. I meant to remove only the accent from the "o". I readded the open "e" to fresadora and added it to fresador, though Infopédia does imply is is as non-standard as the other examples. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I saw the infopedia entry bu I don't think they're very reliable; for instance "descorante" is transcribed as if pronounced "descurante", and they don't even use the typical IPA symbols for portuguese. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

May I ask how your changes improved my changes to this page? I don't get it. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the pronunciation of the first syllable as "em" instead of "en", I think that's a wrong pronunciation influenced by words like "Benfica", where the first syllable comes indeed from the word "bem" (Benfica was in fact spelled Bemfica before the spelling reforms).Just to make sure, i checked some online dictionaries: Priberam gives no indication about the pronunciation, and Infópedia gives both: /bẽʒɐˈmĩ, bɐ̃j̃ʒɐˈmĩ/; just out of curiosity i checked the word "azerbaijano", which is given the wrong but often heard pronunciation /ɐzərbɐjˈʒɐnu/, but the voice recording pronounces it correctly, with [ai] instead of [ei]. Anyway, my point is that the pronunciation given should be /bẽʒɐˈmĩ/ and if you insist of having the other one it should have some qualifier like less commom or non standard or something like that. I must point out that the entry "benjamim"(noun) has both pronunciations, while the one for "Benjamim"(proper name) only has one. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

A few things:

• in terremoto, you labeled "terramoto" as dated in portugal; didnt you mean that "terremoto" is the one who's dated in portugal, since "terramoto" is widely used here?
• in ministro you removed dialectal information that might be helpfull to foreign users; also i wrote "mnistro" instead of "menistro" since when you pronounce it syllable by syllable the "i" reappears: mi-nis-tro.
• in homenzarrão i tried to do what you did, but honestly i cant be bothered to read all the documentation about the module. I also dont understand why in some words the module (or template) provides the subdialects, and in others it doesnt. As it is now (for this word) it only gives the central (~Lisbon) pronunciation.

Anyway welcome back and expect to be bothered by me many more times! Sérgio Santos (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Precisamos de você Stríðsdrengur (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply