User talk:GianWiki

Hi. About this: the Italic script for Umbrian should be entered in Unicode characters, not as images. --Vahag (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Vahagn. Yes, I probably should have used Unicode characters. I just thought rendering the stylistic variants of Old Italic script (Umbrian, in this case) could be a good thing to do. Thanks for the advice.

GianWiki (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

The image can be shown in the page for 𐌖𐌄𐌓𐌚𐌀𐌋𐌄𐌌 (uerfalem), when it is created. --Vahag (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

See my changes: 五蘊 and 五蕴. Thanks. Good job by the way. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 21:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Make sure you add four dashes ---- to separate out the language sections. See here: Added dashes Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

1. Chinese languages are tonal. These IPA-notated pronunciations are therefore basically inaccurate.
2. 蘊 in Beijing Mandarin is /yn51/, not /jʊn51/.
3. 春 in Guangzhou Cantonese is /tsʰɵn55/3/.

Wyang (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for adding those scripts. Do you look up the exact spellings in dictionaries or do you "detransliterate" yourself from a given romanization? --Vahag (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I "detransliterate" after looking up the script's characteristics (e.g. vowel omission) and checking if the given spelling is plausible according to the script transliteration. — This unsigned comment was added by GianWiki (talk • contribs).

Please don't do that. We need the exact spellings as attested in extant manuscripts, which are capable of passing WT:CFI, not hypothetical detransliterations. Also, I have to revert most of your recent edits to Armenian and Persian entries, because they are wrong, e.g. تنگ (tang) is not derived from Middle Persian *vitang. --Vahag (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

My apologies. Reading that تنگ (tang) is related to վտանգ (vtang), I think I inadvertently assumed the two to be cognates (a silly mistake, I have to say). With this assumption, I went further and assumed the Etymology entry for վտանգ (vtang) could be applied for تنگ (tang) as well (I mainly thought so because, sometimes, etymological information is included in an entry yet missing in a 'cognate' entry, as far as I've seen. I just thought this was one of those cases). Again, I apologize: I will try to not to rush things the next time.

GianWiki (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry, I made many similar mistakes when I started editing Wiktionary. --Vahag (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

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!

Please pay special attention to our Criteria For Inclusion. We go by usage, not whether it can be found in a dictionary. Some of your recent Latin entries for modern technology seem unlikely to exist in actual use, though Latin is still used by the Vatican, so I could be wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I myself do not know how widespread their usage may be, but I believe that the very existence of these terms, and to the fact that someone took the time to plan and construct them in order to somewhat revitalize the language by expanding its lexicon (see the Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis found at the Holy See website or the 2007 Auxiliary Spanish-Latin Dictionary for a Modern Usage of Latin) is reason enough for their inclusion.on Wiktionary. I might be wrong, but I believe this should be taken into consideration.

GianWiki (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I forgot to mention that some of your entries have been challenged at WT:RFV. There's some debate as to whether modern Latin is covered by the partial exemption in the CFI for languages with little documentation. Classical Latin is, but modern usage is a separate issue. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

The pages you created (戰國, 战国) were full of errors. Please stop adding languages you are not familiar with. Wyang (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could you please add {{la-proper noun-form}} to these entries under the ===Proper noun=== header? It provides a bold headword and categorizes. Thank you. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Please read Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-04/Unified Chinese and related discussions, which affect the new policy for entries in Chinese topolects. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for trying to help - but the pronunciation sections which you added belong in an Ancient Greek entry. — Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 17:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

(might as well post it here) I don't see how this is not sum-of-parts. --Fsojic (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Could you be more specific as to what you mean by that? GianWiki (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's just that I don't see how there is a need for this entry when we already have aeque and atque. There isn't some special meaning to this locution that couldn't be deduced from the two words that compound it. At least that's what I think. --Fsojic (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I took the liberty of creating the page after seeing it was one of the Requested entries for Latin. GianWiki (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Grazie per le tue contribuzioni! Nonostante sia irreligioso, in realtà preferisco la fonologia ecclesiastica perch’è più italiana. ☺ --Romanophile (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Most Romance nouns and adjectives derive from the Latin accusative form, so saying it derived from indigentem is technically correct. Showing that form also makes it much more obvious how the modern form came to be (the nominative has no final -t in it after all). So maybe something like {{m|la|indigens|indigentem}}? That way it shows the actual form it derived from, but still links to the right lemma. —CodeCat 14:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm not quite sure to what extent lemma forms are to be preferred in such cases, but your proposal seems reasonable - GianWiki (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't know either. I've seen entries linked in the way it was originally, in the way I suggested above, and also just with the lemma alone. It also seems to differ for different words; first and second declension words are always linked directly from what I've seen, but third declension ones sometimes not. For verbs most entries link to the first principal part, some to the infinitive, and some link to the first part but show the infinitive (like I did above). So I don't really know what the preferred practice is. —CodeCat 15:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

For verbs, I remember reading somewhere that the present first-person singular form is preferred; I don't recall ever finding such clues about nouns, though. - GianWiki (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Extra heading levels are only used when there are multiple etymology sections. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I see. Thank you very much for the information. GianWiki (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Right now, both pronunciations are listed as Classical ({{la-pronunc}} produces a Classical pronunciation, and the other pronunciation is tagged {{a|Classical}}). Was one of them supposed to be Ecclesiastical? - -sche (discuss) 03:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you are right: I forgot to rename the template. Thanks for letting me know. GianWiki (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

... but please be careful! :-) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're right. I will be more careful. GianWiki (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi GianWiki. I see you add a lot of Latin Ecclesiastical pronunciatory transcriptions. Do you think it's possible to automate the generation of Ecclesiastical pronunciatory transcriptions similarly to the way Classical pronunciatory transcriptions are currently generated for Latin terms by {{la-IPA}}? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've been thinking about this myself, and my guess is that a template - similar to the already existing {{la-pronunc}} or {{la-IPA}} for Classical pronunciation - might be the solution. I've also thought about doing it myself, but I'm afraid I don't know the first thing about writing a template from scratch; otherwise, I probably would have already done it. If you happen to have any advice in regard to this, please feel free to share it. GianWiki (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking more or less the same thing. (BTW, there is no difference between {{la-pronunc}} and {{la-IPA}}; the actual template is {{la-IPA}}, whilst {{la-pronunc}} just redirects to {{la-IPA}}.) Ideally, what we would do is edit {{la-IPA}} and Module:la-pronunc in such a way that {{la-IPA}} would end up generating both the current Classical transcriptions and the desired Ecclesiastical transcriptions (perhaps with presentation like {{grc-IPA}}, but without the collapsibility feature); that should be possible as long as the input text used to generate Classical transcriptions (e.g., prōnuntiātiō) is sufficient for generating Ecclesiastical transcriptions, too. AFAICT, the editors that have developed this template and module are CodeCat, Keφr, and kc_kennylau. I don't have the Lua-coding ability to make the necessary changes myself, but as long as we get the help of one or more of those editors (That would be greatly appreciated, CodeCat, Keφr, and/or kc_kennylau.) and you can provide the principles of Ecclesiastical pronunciation, I'd be more than willing to do what I can to develop Latin Ecclesiastical pronunciatory autotranscription. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I can help. Basically what's the rule for stressed syllables in Ecclesiastical Latin? Is it the same as Classical Latin? --kc_kennylau (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

There are only a few differences from the existing Classical Latin pronunciation template(s):

• <c g sc> give /t͡ʃ d͡ʒ ʃ/ when preceding <e i ae oe>, and /k g sk/ replace g with ɡ, invalid IPA characters (g) elsewhere (/ʃ/ phonetically geminated when intervocalic: fascis → /ˈfa.ʃis/, [ˈfaʃ.ʃis]).
• <ti> gives /t͡si/ when preceding a vowel, and /ti/ elsewhere.
• <ph> gives /f/; <kh th> give /k t/ regardless of position.
• <gn> gives /ɲ/ (phonetically geminated when intervocalic: magnus → /ˈma.ɲus/, [ˈmaɲ.ɲus]); <qu> gives /kw/.
• <ae oe> give /ɛ/ (maybe /e/ can be arranged to phonetically give an [e] in order to avoid ambiguity).
• Stress accent is exactly the same as in Classical Latin. No phonemically long vowels (but vowels in open, stressed syllables are phonetically long (/ˈgla.di.us/ replace g with ɡ, invalid IPA characters (g) → [ˈglaː.di.us] replace g with ɡ, invalid IPA characters (g)). GianWiki (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please refer to caelum, the first test of the new feature. --kc_kennylau (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help. According to the description, caelum should give /ˈt͡ʃɛ.lum/, [ˈt͡ʃɛː.lum].

Done. --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Vowels in open, stressed syllables are only lengthened in phonetic pronunciation ([ˈt͡ʃɛː.lum]), not in the phonemic one (/ˈt͡ʃɛ.lum/). GianWiki (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Also, I forgot to add that <y> should give /i/. GianWiki (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@kc_kennylau, GianWiki Thanks for working on this, guys. Is there anything you need me to do to help with this?
@GianWiki: Re "<c g sc> give /t͡ʃ d͡ʒ ʃ/ when preceding <e i ae oe>", I assume that this "softening" also occurs when those consonants precede ⟨y⟩, yes?
 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

You are right, thanks. I forgot to mention it earlier. GianWiki (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@GianWiki Would you please provide me words to test? I'll send you the test results and you can help me to point out where's wrong. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Here's a few: lingua, Aegyptus, prōpositiō, fascis, pugnus, sciō, moenia, chalybs, Athēnae. They should cover all the aforementioned points. --- GianWiki (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Template:la-IPA/documentation#Ecclesiastical. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your work.

• Long vowels are not phonemes in Ecclesiastical Latin, so no lengthening is needed in the phonemic trascription (e.g. /ˈmɛ.ni.a/). If - simlarly to the Classical pronunciation - a phonetic pronunciation is also going to be shown (e.g. [ˈmɛː.ni.a]), that's where it belongs.
• Labialized velars are to be rendered in Ecclesiastical as simple velar-labiovelar sequences (/kʷ gʷ/ → /kw gw/ replace g with ɡ, invalid IPA characters (g/→/g)). For example: lingua → Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "Classical" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. /ˈlin.ɡʷa/, [ˈlɪŋ.ɡʷa]; Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "Ecclesiastical" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. /ˈlin.ɡwa/, [ˈliŋ.ɡwa].

Also, for some reason, Ecclesiastical rendering of Athēnae got the stress accent wrong.

I again thank you very much for your effort, and apologize for my pedantry. --- GianWiki (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Accordingly modified. What about the "o" vowel? What is its value in short vowel and in long vowel? --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're doing a really great work. There's only one last thing about vowel rendition: phonemic /a e i o u ɛ/ should give phonetic [a e i o u ɛ], maintaning the same values when lengthened [aː eː iː oː uː ɛː]. About the /o/: I usually render it as [ɔ], unless the vowel of the preceding syllable is closed (i.e. /e i u/), in which case I render it as [o]. I have no idea how difficult it could be to do something like that, but /o/, [o] can do just as good. -- GianWiki (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Done. scio returns /ˈʃi.o/, [ˈʃiː.o]. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Perfect. On the other hand, I tested the template on the word gnōscō, and I can't help noticing that ⟨sc⟩ is rendered as /ʃ/ (/ˈɲo.ʃo/, [ˈɲɔʃ.ʃɔ] invalid IPA characters (//[]), while it should be /ˈɲos.ko/, [ˈɲɔs.kɔ] invalid IPA characters (//[])), which should only happen when it is followed by ⟨e i y ae oe⟩. -- GianWiki (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Careless mistake. Fixed. Would you like to provide more words for testing? --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Carthāgō, Rōma, kalendae, prōloquium, succēdāneus, disciplīna, chīrurgia, duō, zōna. About <z>, I believe it could be rendered as /z/, [d͡z], and I think /o/, [o] (long: /oː/, [oː]) is a better default rendition of <o> than /o/, [ɔ]. Also, I've noticed the presence of nasalized vowels (e.g. cōnsul → /ˈkon.sul/, [ˈkõː.suɫ]; verbum → /ˈver.bum/, [ˈver.bũ]): those only belong in Classical pronunciation (the words can simply give vowel-nasal sequences /ˈkon.sul/, [ˈkon.sul] and /ˈver.bum/, [ˈver.bum]; the "velarized l" [ɫ] can also give way to a simple [l]). Thanks for your noticeable patience, by the way. -- GianWiki (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Template:la-IPA/documentation#Ecclesiastical. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Increasingly satisfactory. Also, I think I've figured out a way around the /o/ issue: phonemically, there should only be /o/ (I'm only specifying because I think I might've worded my previous suggestions badly, since /o/ and /ɔ/ now seem phonemically distinctive), while the phonetic rendering can be based on the orthography: ⟨o⟩ can give [ɔ] (thence [ɔː] when accented in open syllable), while ⟨ō⟩ can give [o] ([oː] when accented etc.). For example: prōloquium → /proˈlo.kwi.um/, [proˈlɔː.kwi.um]; Rōma → /ˈro.ma/, [ˈroː.ma]. Everything else is great. -- GianWiki (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Changed accordingly. Please give your opinion on Template_talk:la-IPA#Ecclesiastical_fixes. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

May I ask what source you used for this? All sources I can find include a final laryngeal. —CodeCat 00:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

It was merely a careless mistake on my part; I'm going to have to be a bit more careful. Also, thanks for the editing. -- GianWiki (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Come si dice gelo nell’italiano antico? --Romanophile (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Cercando - su tuo suggerimento - ho trovato la forma gielo (e mi sono permesso di aggiungerla a Wiktionary). --- GianWiki (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

lindo si usa nell’italiano antico? --Romanophile (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ho trovato un'attestazione del suo uso, quindi immagino si possa dire di sì. --- GianWiki (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Che significava? Era eguale alla parola italiana? --Romanophile (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fondamentalmente, sì: l'ho letto - in riferimento ad indumenti - nella tipica accezione di “pulito, ordinato”. --- GianWiki (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Could you add a cutoff date for Italian/Old Italian please? Cheers. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi! The hyphens in -issimus and -ísimo aren't pronounced. They are silent. So there is no need to put them into the IPA template. Additionally, edits like this one (diff) add the page to these two hidden categories: Category:IPA pronunciations with invalid representation marks and Category:IPA pronunciations with invalid IPA characters. --MaEr (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey Gian. Thanks for your work on the obsolete Italian. Please try to be careful to keep interwiki links at the bottom of the page (as I did in this edit). For more information on how to format things, please see WT:EL or feel free to ask me. Grazie! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for noticing: you are right. I'll be more careful. — GianWiki (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

No worries. Thanks! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

This entry as it currently stands could unfortunately mislead by implication, since this is a classic early Mediterranean word (also occurring in early Semitic etc.) which was almost certainly borrowed into Indo-European branches from non-Indo-European languages (not the reverse). Neither the word nor the physical object is at all likely to have existed on the Pontic-Caspian steppe ca. 3000 B.C. The laryngeal may be purely theoretical (and historically spurious), since the word may not yet have existed in various Indo-European branches at a time when laryngeals still existed... AnonMoos (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Currently being discussed on Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium if you have any thoughts... AnonMoos (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I had to clean up all the non-lemmata you created. If you're going to create entries for the declined forms of decibilior and decibilissimus, please don't make the same mistake again. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads-up, I didn't notice I forgot to add the headers. - GianWiki (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

No worries; mistakes happen. Note, too, that the first parameter of {{la-adj-form}} is obligatory; if it isn't specified, the page gets added to Category:Latin adjective forms needing attention (which is how I noticed your mistakes), even if the form has no macra. As a more minor point, in future, please list declined forms by case, then number, then gender (rather than number, gender, case, as you have been doing) for consistency with bot-generated entries for Latin non-lemmata. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi GianWiki, and thanks for all the great contributions you've made. Just had a quick comment to make on some edits, however. Being a native speaker, you of course know the Italian language itself much better than myself and other users, but regarding the etymology of some words, I have to note that it is erroneous to call many of the ones you have "inherited". I understand that it is tempting to view modern Italian as being almost entirely inherited from Latin, but as with all the other Romance languages, a considerable part of it was actually borrowed in a learned fashion by scholars and such in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. The core part of the language and basic vocabulary (a few thousand words) is largely inherited but many of the ones you've added were almost surely not, from a linguistic point of view. It may be surprising to find that there are probably more borrowed terms than inherited in all the Romance languages. Now that Wiktionary is making distinctions between the two, it's important to note this. For example, most of the mythological figures deriving from Classic Greco-Roman antiquity can't have been inherited, because that implies they were part of the day to day speech of the common people, and surely they were not for most of the Middle Ages (that was the realm of scholars, elites, and learned people, and they usually took it directly from Classical Latin or Greek texts). In linguistics, inherited means they were passed down primarily orally, originally from the largely undocumented Vulgar Latin, and not through literary texts (and thus would have changed much more over time). Also, just because a word seems fairly common now in modern Italian doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't borrowed at some point in the past. Certain common words, like those ending in '-zione', were taken from Latin or were later constructions. However these borrowings happened pretty deep in the past, so by now they've become normal, commonplace, and well-ingrained in the language, so they don't always seem noticeable. Others were purposely adapted to existing Italian phonological characteristics to make them "fit into" the language better, like Latin 'ct' > Italian 'tt' or Latin 'ae' > Italian 'e'.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find an Italian etymological dictionary that distinguishes between inherited and later borrowed or learned terms like I have for French and Spanish, but we can infer with fairly good probability based on what we know of linguistic rules, phonetic shifts, and changes in meaning. A lot of the borrowed terms were also borrowed in other Romance languages, or have doublets that were inherited. With Italian, it can be trickier since it is naturally closer to Latin than the other languages. But I avoid using the 'inh' tag on certain words that are overly intact and similar to the original Latin, especially if it is a rare or literary word or one that normally should have looked different and undergone more changes into Italian, based on what we know of sound shifts. If uncertain whether it is inherited or borrowed, I usually just slap the more general (and ambiguous) 'der' tag on there for now until someone else decides how to deal with it. I just wanted to bring this up since when periodically looking at the lists of inherited terms in Italian, I find I have to remove certain ones that are clearly not. But other than that, keep up the good work! Word dewd544 (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The IPA has 3 syllables but the hyphenation has 2. Not sure which is correct. Ultimateria (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Would you happen to know the etymology of this word? Thank you. --Barytonesis (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I believe it's derived from the verb caricare, in the sense of “to exaggerate (the traits of a person)”. - GianWiki (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! --Barytonesis (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ciao, GianWiki. Soltanto una cosa: ho appena spostato le rime in -itsjo verso Rhymes:Italian/ittsjo, con la doppia; ti chiedo di fare più attenzione alla scrittura fonetica corretta. Scusa i modi forse un po' bruschi e grazie! ;) [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] _{(parla con me)} 21:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

In realtà sono abbastanza sicuro che non si pronunci in quel modo (se non in alcune categorie di dialetti, per via del raddoppiamento fonotattico). Sei certo di ciò che hai fatto? - GianWiki (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Assolutamente; quando seguono una vocale o una semivocale (e, in parole italiane, sempre seguiti da un'altra vocale o semivocale), i fonemi /ʃ/, /ɲ/, /ʎ/, /ts/ e /dz/ sono sempre raddoppiati: mezzo /ˈmɛddzo/ gemina come nazareno /naddzaˈrɛno/, mazzo /ˈmattso/ come Lazio /ˈlattsjo/. Per curiosità, di dove sei? [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] _{(parla con me)} 17:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sono di Roma. - GianWiki (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ah, ma allora anche tu la raddoppierari parlando! ;D Credevo fossi di qualche zona del nord, come il Veneto, oppure campano, ma non del centro. Strano che non te ne sia accorto... E in ogni caso, puoi pure verificare quello che ti ho detto senza troppe difficoltà; dai un'occhiata qui. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] _{(parla con me)} 13:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please don't use {{sa-a}} anymore, {{Q}} is much better. Instead of {{sa-a|RV}} you can use {{Q||sa|RV}}, which results in:

It also has linking to the verse on Wikisource for some works, e.g. {{Q|sa||RV|1|1|1}}:

Thanks for the entries! —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 19:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the suggestion! – GianWiki (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps I was a bit unclear. I meant that the entry should be like this:

# [[definition]]
#* {{Q|sa||RV|1|1|1|quote=ॐ अग्निमीळे पुरोहितं यज्ञस्य देवमृत्विजम् ।<br>होतारं रत्नधातमम् ॥|trans=I Laud Agni, the chosen Priest, God, minister of sacrifice,<br>The hotar, lavishest of wealth.}}

resulting in

1. definition
   • c. 1700 BCE – 1200 BCE, Ṛgveda 1.1.1:

     ॐ अग्निमीळे पुरोहितं यज्ञस्य देवमृत्विजम् ।
     होतारं रत्नधातमम् ॥

     oṃ agnimīḷe purohitaṃ yajñasya devamṛtvijam.
     hotāraṃ ratnadhātamam.

     I Laud Agni, the chosen Priest, God, minister of sacrifice,
     The hotar, lavishest of wealth.

—Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 00:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

---

Hello again. Any reason for using {{sa-IPA|novedic=1}}? I think most of the words you're adding are attested in the Rigveda (and other Vedic texts). One of the senses for अर्ध (ardha) was Vedic-only btw. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 20:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thank you for your attention

About the "novedic", I noticed that whenever I didn't turn it off, the template would just "owerflow", with the "collapse" functionality pretty much useless. I've tried through a few days, but it always goes like that.

Also, thank you for your correction. – GianWiki (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's because it doesn't require a bullet point in the expanding mode. I made the same mistake a few times too. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 23:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

"m-f" is not a valid gender. Please use g=m|g2=f instead. —Rua (mew) 21:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Could I ask you to stop using {{etyl}}? It's being phased out in favour of {{der}} (or {{inh}}/{{bor}} when appropriate), and adding it in new places is interfering with the cleanup job. Thank you! --Barytonesis (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I was not aware of that: I'm sorry. -- GianWiki (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

No worries! --Barytonesis (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I added templates to the numbers after zêro, notably doî. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your help! -- GianWiki (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gian. I just wanted to say thanks for all the Ligurian content you’re adding. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 10:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I wonder, what made you change a link from *oegia to oêgia? (An official orthography, perhaps?) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm using the official orthography promoted by the Académia Ligùstica do Brénno (whose specifics, albeit explained in Genoese, can be found here) -- GianWiki (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you; therefore, that orthography may have to be mentioned at the policy Wiktionary:About Ligurian. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also, could you check the spelling of the term öo? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

AFAIK, öo is spelled correctly. -- GianWiki (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I see you're working strenuously on our Ligurian coverage, so I want to let you know that we have a Ligurian Swadesh list at Appendix:Swadesh lists for Italian languages; there's still a fair amount of red links in there. No obligation of course, but it would be nice if you could take care of them! --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I added the Ligurian term nôxe to the list of descendants in the entry nux. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the addition! -- GianWiki (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Off topic, but which spelling ought to be proper, tomata or tomâta? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I believe the proper one is tomâta, since the vowel is long -- GianWiki (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

If the entry ezercìçio is spelled properly, then what is its plural form? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I believe it should be spelled esercìçio, with esercìççi as the plural. -- GianWiki (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for replying. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

This now has two Italian sections.

Could you look at mutare please - can the two verb sections be combined? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I hadn't noticed the bottom section. Thanks for pointing it out for me. As for mutare, I've tried combining the sections and adding a "Usage notes" section to explain the use of the auxiliary. -- GianWiki (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I updated a lot of the entries on Ligurian month names at the Portuguese Wiktionary. Their coverage of Ligurian looks like it needs a face-lift. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here's what I mean. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

How would the Ligurian word for "universe" be spelled? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I mean, is "universo" spelled properly, or does it need a facelift? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

If the accent were to be made explicit, it should be spelled univèrso. -- GianWiki (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

So should I fix the listed link to the translation? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don’t think there’s any need to do that until the Ligurian editing community decides on lemmatisation criteria. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Have you considered creating "Rhymes:Italian/..." entries for use by all the -are, -ere and -ire verbs? I realise that there would be very many instances, especially of -are. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm concerned by what these IP (79.40.182.118 (talk), 79.40.183.124 (talk)), who I think are the same person as Angelucci (talk • contribs), are doing. Several entries sound SOP to my French ears, and it was already a recurrent problem with that user a few years ago. Could I ask you to have a look at threir contributions, and tell me what you think? Also @SemperBlotto, Metaknowledge. Per utramque cavernam 16:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Well done on adding so many Ligurian terms. Is the consensus to use the contesto didatico rules of the Académia Ligùstica do Brénno? Perhaps with see also links from the unaccented headwords? How about longer pieces of text, such as image captions? Before I start contributing Ligurian terms myself, I would like to write this all down in Wiktionary:About Ligurian to avoid having a confusing mix of orthographies.

Also, I've just added a template for lij-4 users which you may be interested in.

Scignoria! -- Jean ^(t·c) 16:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV may be interested in this discussion. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, JeanM, Lo Ximiendo: You seem to be the ones most interested in the subject of Ligurian. I would like to propose the Grafîa ofiçiâ (in the ‘didactic context’, where all the accents are specified) be adopted as the standard for Ligurian orthography. What do you think? – GianWiki (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

The orthography looks interesting. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Thanks for bringing up the subject. The question of Ligurian orthography is, sadly, a touchy one. The one standard you link to is promoted by an admittedly fairly exhaustive website, but it is far from having been adopted by the community of native speakers. The website is essentially a one-man show by a retired physicist. He's a very nice and knowledgeable gentleman, but this orthography was thought up fairly recently without consulting language experts or writers. It is not in wide use other than by a small circle of people who happen to be fairly visible online, and has very limited use in print outside of some self-published materials.
The other possible route is to use traditional orthography. The big advantage is that it would give people access to the same language used for the very long Ligurian literary tradition – and I assume many users of a dictionary would be mainly interested in this. It's also the same orthography used by the largest print newspaper of Liguria (Il Secolo XIX, which publishes weekly in Ligurian), as well as the only – as far as I know – print newspaper that's entirely in Ligurian (O Stafî). I am happy to provide further references if you're interested – I do my best to stay up-to-date on these topics. Worst case scenario, I suppose both orthographies could be used. Jean ^(t·c) 17:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

My two cents is that we should have entries in any orthography that is or has been in use. The question is whether we should pick one to be the orthography of Ligurian lemmas, with the others relegated to being listed as alternative spellings. I don’t really know enough about the orthographic situation of Ligurian to make this decision; nearly all Ligurian entries I added came straight from A Compagna magazine, which has articles in standard Italian, ALB’s orthography and what seemed to be ALB’s orthography without certain diacritics. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@JeanM On the Ligurian Wikipedia, it says that the orthography employed by the newspaper Il Secolo XIX (the grafia unitäia) is not the same as the so-called "traditional orthography". That said, I personally wouldn't be against employing the grafia unitäia as the standard for Ligurian entries (even though I'm not sure whether or not long vowels should be marked at all times, or just – as said in the Ligurian Wikipedia – when it helps avoid ambiguity). As for the other orthographies, they could very well be listed as alternative spellings. — GianWiki (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, JeanM, Lo Ximiendo: Hi! I was wondering if anyone had given any thought to the idea of employing the grafia unitäia for Ligurian lemmas. Has there been any development on the subject? — GianWiki (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean as the sole lemma orthography, or for the creation of entries in general (whether lemmas or alt-spellings)? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: I mean for the lemma orthography. Since the grafia unitäia is also used on the Ligurian newspaper Il Secolo XIX, it has a sufficient degree of recognizability (and, dare I say, authority). Also, it would be pretty good for avoiding ambiguity in spelling, unlike - for example - the traditional orthography (I'm mainly thinking about the lack of distinction between /y/ and /yː/, both indicated as ⟨û⟩). — GianWiki (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Of course, other orthographies – like the grafîa ofiçiâ, or the "u-orthography" – could be listed as alternative spellings. – GianWiki (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@GianWiki Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. That sounds reasonable to me, especially seeing how that's the orthography used by the press and the academic community. I'd be happy to set up Wiktionary:About Ligurian and provide IPA transcriptions and perhaps even some recordings. Jean ^(t·c) 18:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@JeanM Sorry I took so long to answer. I somehow lost track of your message. Yours would be a very welcome contribution. Once the ground rules are laid down, we could start adding new lemmas and/or properly categorize the existing ones. Perhaps there should be a couple of ad-hoc templates for the forms using alternative spellings (the grafîa ofiçiâ, or the "u-orthography", I'm not sure which ones will end up being included). — GianWiki (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I fixed up an edit you made: diff. You shouldn't include multiple terms in the same parameter like that. If there are multiple terms, there should be an equal number of parameters or templates. —Rua (mew) 18:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for the information, I will make sure to do that from now on. – GianWiki (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think you are the right user whose help may be sought in this matter. I often find it hard to understand whether Italian words such as rurale, iniziale, tumore, Galazia, Italia, Gallia can be considered to have been inherited from Vulgar Latin, or to be learned borrowings from Classical/Late/etc. Latin. Can the phonology of such words give any hint to this, or is it tough to discern the etymon accurately? Thanks for the heed! —Lbdñk (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Lbdñk Hi! I have a very hard time trying to figure it out myself: I usually consider terms who haven't undergone any unusual sound change to be learned borrowings ("usual" sound changes being /w/ → /v/, /tj/ → /t͡sj/, /kj, ɡj/ → /t͡ʃ, d͡ʒ/, /ae̯, oe̯/ → /ɛ/ and the like). I'm afraid I can't be of much help in this regard. – GianWiki (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@GianWiki: That help was considerable! Well, do you know of any Romance etymological dictionary that, by distinguishing between learned borrowings and inherited words, shows accurate etymons of the words of Romance languages? —Lbdñk (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

(The TLFi does that, but that's for French.) See also User talk:Word dewd544 § compreender. Canonicalization (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey I was just looking at your edits to the Sardinian verb conjugation templates, and was wondering if there's a strong reason to require a stem-stressed and a conjugation-stressed parameter, especially since that already interferes with several established entries. Is it possible to make the second parameter optional and automatically replaced by the first parameter? Would it be necessary to require a second stem-changing-exclusive template? Thank you in advance for your work here. Qwed117 (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Qwed117: The orthographic rules of the Limba Sarda Comuna (which is the main object of my contributions on Sardinian) say that, anytime a word is stressed on the antepenultimate syllable or vowel, the accent is to be indicated, and that's something that tends to happen with the rhizotonic forms of verbs. – GianWiki (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@GianWiki Thanks for the clarification. Based on my (admittedly not advanced) understanding of Sardinian grammar, however, all regularly conjugating verbs in the first (-are) and third (-ire) conjugation do not have any antepenultimate stressed syllables, and it's only second conjugation (-ere) verbs that maintain rhizotonic stress in antepenult. This, I believe, is confirmed in the source provided. In the case of irregular verbs (like tennere), I'd imagine that using the previous overrides would be sufficient. Given that should we revert the -are, -ire conjugation templates to require only the arrhizotonic stem? Thank you for your comment Qwed117 (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Qwed117 Yes, I suppose you're right. The overrides will do. I have eliminated the need for the second stem from the templates. Thank you for your help. -- GianWiki (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

What diacritics would the Ligurian word piemonteise have, if any? --Apisite (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Apisite Hi. In the orthography I employ (the Grafîa ofiçiâ in the didactic context), the word would be written as piemontéize. Also, I believe there's an ongoing discussion about which orthography to adopt for Ligurian lemmas. – GianWiki (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Do you think you are able to categorize plants more fine-grained than Category:Plants? I saw that you have recently created a lot of plant names and since you as an old user are probably firm in the other things I wanted to inform you because you could make even more use of plant name additions. If you enter a taxon into Wikipedia or Wikispecies it will give you a stemma where the plant is situated, or else you will always find the relation if you search the taxon on the web as there are many expert-made databases for organisms; we mostly sort by order and family, sometimes tribe or genus if there are many species with vernacular names for it. Of course the categories cannot be arbitrarily named but need to exist already; you can look into English entries to see how they are named, else search the category name space (starting a search beginning with “Category:”), or the names are of course found in the module data. Here you see that Physalis alkekengi (alchechengi, see the “References” links on the Wiktionary page for the taxon to see Wikispecies and other databases) is in Category:Nightshades, which is the family Solanaceae, a famous family everyone should know; some categories have easy English names some the Latin names used by botanists. Then you also should not add the label “botany” because the category becomes full of things not only used by botanists but most Italians. See also User talk:Vtgnoq7238rmqco § Why those labels. He also learned to categorize plant names more exactly and thus had even more fun adding plants and animals. Fay Freak (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak Thank you very much for your suggestion, and sorry for not having been more specific in categorizing my entries. – GianWiki (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've gone through the Category:it:Plants and fixed up the categories (I enjoy doing this sort of thing). Some of the smaller categories are a bit thin, but Italian is a major world language that has terms for everything, so they'll fill up in time. Some of the regional languages don't have attestation at the same scale, so for those it's better to use a broader category rather than the very specific ones used in English (they're needed because the categories for English get too full). That's not to say that someone speaking a regional language doesn't know or talk about everything a monolingual Italian speaker would, but my impression is that they're likely to use their own local language for more local and personal things and switch to Italian for more technical and international types of things.

The main thing I've noticed that was inflating the count in Category:it:Plants was the unnecessary use of {{lb|it|plants}}. It's convenient to use, but it's easy to forget that it adds a category as well as displaying on the definition line. There's really not much point in having a definition that starts with "{{lb|it|plants}} A plant...", and there are other ways of giving the same information that don't add the category even when the information is useful.

A tool that I find very useful is HotCat, which you can enable in the Gadgets tab in your Preferences. The auto-fill-in feature let's you see if a category already exists, and it saves typing/potential for misspelling (Category:Malpighiales order plants may be obvious to Italians, but I sometimes forget which letter gets the "h").

Having said all of that, it's better to use a broad category than no category at all: at least there's a way to find all the entries that need their categories changed. Thanks for all you do! Chuck Entz (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Please avoid using headers like ===Pronunciation 1=== and ===Pronunciation 2=== (e.g. in ingobbi). Instead, use ===Etymology 1=== and ===Etymology 2=== and put a separate level-4 ====Pronunciation==== header under each. Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thank you very much for the tip, I'd been kinda wondering about how to proceed in such cases. — GianWiki (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Just a note to be careful with adding rhymes. If a given word has two pronunciations corresponding to different meanings, each meaning and pronunciation (including the {{rhymes}} call) should go under a separate ===Etymology N=== section. I've also found several places where the rhyme you added was wrong, e.g. the latest one I found is apozema, where you gave the rhyme -ɛma (and similarly in the plural apozemi) even though the word has the stress apòzema hence the correct rhyme is -ɔddzema). Benwing2 (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: I'm sorry. Sometimes I seem to forget to make the right edits (as in the case of dei). I'll be more careful. — GianWiki (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you add rhymes, can you check the pronunciation in Canepari's Dizionario di Pronuncia Italiana? The pronunciations you're adding, and those found in most dictionaries, are "traditional", prescriptive pronunciations that often no longer reflect modern usage. Wiktionary is a descriptive rather than prescriptive dictionary, so we should reflect modern usage, which Canepari's dictionary does. Benwing2 (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello can you fix my template rgn-IPA?--BandiniRaffaele2 (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

To be honest, I don't know the first thing about Romagnol. GianWiki (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The phonology is the same as Italian, I only ask you to fix the Template if you want because it doesn't work at the moment. Otherwise where or to who can I ask ?--BandiniRaffaele2 (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not really knowledgeable about templates. I see @Erutuon created the {{it-IPA}} template. Perhaps you could try asking them? GianWiki (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Recently, Lombard Wiktionary has been created. You may add Ligurian entries over there. --Apisite (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@JeanM What do you think? --Apisite (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused, is this really correct pronunciation? I don't speak Italian, but combination of sounds /ɲɲ/ or the like seems utterly bizarre and hard to pronounce, and I would think, for example, "agnolo" would be pronounced as something like /aɲolo/ not /aɲɲolo/. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know, in Italian, /ɲ/ is always geminated when in intervocalic position. – GianWiki (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Acolyte of Ice GianWiki is correct, /ɲ/ is one of the sounds that's always pronounced geminated between vowels in Italian. Other examples are /ʃ t͡s d͡z ʎ/. If you think /ɲɲ/ is hard to pronounce then you're probably misinterpreting what this means. It means the sound /ɲ/ is held longer than normal before being released; it doesn't mean that you articulate the sound twice (i.e. with two onsets and two releases). Consider for example English coat check, which has a lengthened /t͡ʃ/ sound in the middle, vs. coach check, which has a doubly-articulated /t͡ʃ/ in the middle. Benwing2 (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi GianWiki. I notice you're adding a whole lot of rhymes to Italian pages, without adding the actual pronunciation. If possible, please use {{it-pr}} to add the actual pronunciation; it also includes the rhyme and hyphenation, and it's hardly more work to add it vs. adding just the rhyme. Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I changed the syntax of {{it-verb}} a bit so that it matches the new {{it-conj}} syntax, which allows all forms of a verb to be generated. The old syntax sits at {{it-verb-old}} and I renamed all existing uses of {{it-verb}} except those taking no parameters. I'm going to gradually put things back to {{it-verb}} with the new syntax. Note that the syntax doesn't change for verbs in -are (except for andare, dare, fare and derivatives) and generally not verbs in -ire either. I'm going to be documenting the new syntax shortly. Please use the new {{it-verb}} for -are verbs with the same syntax as before. Thank you! Benwing2 (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Salve! Mi son divertito a creare, oltre a {{RQ:it:Commedia}}, {{RQ:it:Decameron}}, {{RQ:it:Canzoniere}}, {{RQ:it:Orlando furioso}}, {{RQ:it:I promessi sposi}} e {{RQ:it:I Malavoglia}}. Non esitare a migliorarne il funzionamento, o a pingarmi con le tue proposte. Ho trascurato il problema delle edizioni, buttando tutto nell'edizione che tiene Wikisource: dimmi se ritieni necessario che ci sia un qualche parametro (per esempio, |ed=) per specificare un'edizione diversa per un qualche specifica parola. Ho anche trascurato gli anni, scrivendo solo il secolo, perché mi ci stavo un po' perdendo. Anche la dicitura dei template, l'ho scelta arbitrariamente. Saluti! Catonif (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

It is preferable to use raw links for English words in definitions, rather than linking every English word using {{l|en|...}} as you've been doing e.g. at stillare. Also, please try to use short glosses rather than long definitions whenever possible, and write the definitions gloss-style, i.e. beginning with a lowercase letter and not ending in a period. Do not use full-sentence style for foreign terms. Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 06:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I notice you've been using the |tag= param and/or <tag:...> inline modifier in {{syn}}, {{ant}} and/or {{desc}}. These are changing to be |lb= and <lb:...> now that dialect tags have been unified with labels; the values of these parameters are handled just like labels in the {{lb}} template. Benwing2 (talk) _inline_modifier_and_tag=_param" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">20:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for the heads-up —— GianWiki (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply