Mahagaja

About some standard ModGr sources we use, if you would be interested to take a look. {{R:DSMG}} goes as far as Anc. If stated λόγ. < αρχ. or λόγ<ελνστ.. or λόγ.<μσν it is an internal learned borr. If stated [αρχ.] without the λόγιος (lógios, “learned”), then it is inherited. {{R:Babiniotis 2002}} [1] has older etymologies and much of it is totally updated at {{R:Babiniotis 2010}} [2], which does not make the distinction of inh v. internal.lbor (but he discusses it at his intro). But doesn't have any proper nouns (the 2002 has some). And for pre-1940 greek (all phases) there is wikt:el:Template:Π:Δημητράκος 1964 @arch.org with no etymol, no propers and a complex way of definitions by sense & period. But it is interesting, i think. The abbr[[[κ.]] = και implygin: ancient and... μτγν. = Later μεταγενέστερος (metagenésteros, “μεταγενεστέρα”) with an unspecified time span (depending on author). And for med, [3] where I check the true spellings with Ctrl+F because all older lexicographers change the accents according to their 'rules'. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 02:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

You reverted this. Rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, is there a way to determine if a given verb uses the third singular? This is definitely possible for Latin and most other langs I've worked on, for example. Benwing2 (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

On ἔφαγον (éphagon) the issue is that it's an aorist, not a present, not that the form is third person. But do any other headword lines for any other languages include a little explanation of what form is used as the lemma? Our entries for Germanic and modern Romance verbs don't say "infinitive" after them; our entries for Irish verbs don't say "imperative"; our entries for Old Irish verbs don't say "third person singular present". It seems unnecessary. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja Yes there are some. I am not sure which ones currently but there were complaints beforehand (e.g. by User:AG202, User:Sarri.greek) that language learners won't obviously know that a given verb isn't lemmatized at the infinitive but at some other random language-dependent form. It may seem unnecessary to you who knows Ancient Greek and Old Irish well, but consider the casual learner who comes across an Old Irish verb and has no idea what the given form means. It gets especially confusing e.g. when Bulgarian lemmatizes on the 1st singular present but the closely related Macedonian lemmatizes on the 3rd singular present. That is why I believe it's quite important to notate that the given lemma form is not the infinitive (which would be the natural assumption). Benwing2 (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Still, I feel like it's overkill to mark every single regular verb that way. WT:AGRC and WT:Lemmas should both already explain what the lemma form of Ancient Greek verbs is. And no one should try to learn a foreign language using Wiktionary as their only resource. If someone is learning Old Irish, surely they have a textbook or a teacher that will tell them a lot more about how verbs work than we possibly can. However, if we are going to have this little description on Ancient Greek verbs, then at least there should be a parameter on {{grc-verb}} that will allow an editor to override the default setting. And maybe it's just me being nitpicky, but "first-singular" instead of "first-person singular" bothers me. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes (@Benwing2, I would like notes and exceptions to be made for what our Mahagaja says above. Not everywhere. My good administrator Saltmarsh, for basic verbs, gives a precise translation after the form.description. e.g. here+usage examples. Readers, students crave to copypaste it. Ancient Greek may have quotations + exact translations for some inflectional forms, but also grammatical identity of the lemma itself (sometimes it is not only 'nominative' but also 'acc, voc' of itself. I like very much the la.wikt boxes like at wikt:la:amat! ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 09:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

the accents for the infinitive and participle for both aorist forms of βαστάζω are wrong. it should be ά not ᾶ. but I don't know how to edit the template to correct those entries.

βαστᾶσαι, βαστᾶσᾰν, βαστᾶξαι, βαστᾶξᾰν, are all wrong. and should be βαστάσαι, βαστάσᾰν, βαστάξαι, and βαστάξᾰν. the accent on the future neuter participle may also be wrong

could you explain how to do this? or point me to someone who could? — This unsigned comment was added by L0ngh3nry89 (talk • contribs) at 19:26, 18 March 2024‎ (UTC).

@L0ngh3nry89: You have to explicitly mark the vowel before the σ or ξ as short (using a breve diacritic). I have done so here, in fact marking all the alphas as short. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much! Now i know for the future! have a great day! L0ngh3nry89 (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please don't delete content. If you prefer a different form of IPA, you may of course change the orthography, if that's not at the expense of inaccuracy. kwami (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami: So what do you say /pᶴ/ and /kᶴ/ actually are? When I changed them to /p͡ʃ/ and /k͡ʃ/, you reverted, saying they're aspirated, but your notation doesn't denote aspiration any better than mine does, and Wikipedia's article on Osage uses /pʃ/ and /kʃ/ without the tie bar, which I find confusing as it suggests they're clusters rather than single phonemes. How about /pʰ͡ʃ/ /kʰ͡ʃ/? I really don't want to use ⟨ᶴ⟩, because usage of superscript letters in the IPA (other than the ones on the official chart, ⟨ˠ ʰ ʲ ˡ ⁿ ʷ ˤ⟩) is quite ambiguous. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

AFAICT they're just allophones of aspiration. How about /p͡ʃʰ/ and /k͡ʃʰ/, with the aspiration final? kwami (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami: Those look good! —Mahāgaja · talk 07:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

If they're allophones, why are they between slashes? Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

They're between brackets in the entries. kwami (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I appreciated your contributions on Main/Moenis, and I would be interested if you would consider others, eg Ems/Amisia. Krahe thinks he can dismiss all this stuff by saying "Old European Hydronymy" which gets him out of giving a real explanation. I thought of deriving it from the same root as Amme, thus meaning "sustaining river", what do you think? Amme is a Lallwort, thus much the same in all IE languages. I have more thoughts on rivers if you're interested. 24.108.18.81 23:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think in many cases Krahe is probably right that the ultimate etymologies are unknowable. It's not good to dive too far into speculative etymologies that have no basis in evidence. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've been working on checking translations by language code (see WT:Todo/Impossible translations), and I was surprised to find three entries with translations for Cumbric, language code xcb. As far as I can tell from the WP article, there don't seem to be any direct attestations- just mentions and place names. I've already removed the translation at summa cum laude, which seemed a bit far-fetched. The translation at Strathclyde looks like it was just copied from the Welsh translation. That leaves the translation at corpse.

I figured you would know more about the language than I do, so I thought I would ask you to take a look at those three translations as a sort of sanity check. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I bet I know twice as much about Cumbric as you, in the sense that 0 × 2 = 0. At any rate, I'll remove the translation from corpse, because it's almost certainly made up. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this! I thought, that bareia/grave accent should not be used in lemmatisations, but only corrected in the bodytext. Usually, I see a very bad title with bareiasat my browser. Has it been handled in some way? I now see correctly the bareia at μολὼν λαβέ. If things have changed, I presume instructions at Wiktionary:About_Ancient_Greek#Diacritics_and_accentuation need an update? How is it done? Which module does it?? -I tried so hard at el.wikt to intervene at wikt:el:Module:title, in vain... BUT: interwiki links are lost (because the other wiktionaries cannot handle bareias, and they lemmatise the usual tonos, and then, correct the bareias inside their pages) Could someone tell us?? Could this be applied at all wiktionaries? Thank you! ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 08:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking. WT:AGRC says, "The grave accent, however, should only appear in phrases, clauses, or sentences (for instance, the phrase μολὼν λαβέ)", so that applies to φθινοπωρινὴ ἰσημερία (phthinopōrinḕ isēmería) as well. It doesn't need updating. And what module does what? If el-wikt doesn't display grave accents correctly, I don't know how to fix that. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm aware you dislike these templates, but I'd like to talk about switching Lower Sorbian over. At this point most Slavic languages use + templates, and most new Upper Sorbian words do as well. Furthermore, it's hard to say there's an active editing community for dsb at the moment - you have created many of the lemmas but it seems it has been a while since you have done much with the language. Vininn126 (talk) 09:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the absence of an active editing community, why don't we just leave things as they are? I don't remove the + templates from entries that were created with them, so please extend the same courtesy by not inserting them into entries that were created without them. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I hear you; I feel like there's more arguments to switching at this point. You could argue that there's at least more people working in one way or another with dsb (i.e. reconstructions) that have an interest in it that generally prefer + templates. Vininn126 (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

But why? I can sort of understand their use in Indic languages like Hindi, where it's relevant to distinguish between words inherited from Sanskrit and words that are learned borrowings, but attested Slavic languages don't have learned borrowing from Proto-Slavic, so for any Slavic language, "from Proto-Slavic" invariably means "inherited from", making the + templates utterly redundant. The only exception would be s a loanword from a different Slavic language, but in that case it will be indicated. Even if I'm not doing a lot with Lower Sorbian at the moment, I did put in a lot of work on it when I created the entries, and it upsets me to see my hard work ruined. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is turning into an argument about their usage overall as well as ownership. Vininn126 (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja Your hard work is not being "ruined" by the addition of the words "Borrowed from" or "Inherited from" - this is truly hyperbolic. Theknightwho (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's not just the redundant addition of those words, it's also the link to the glossary that uselessly and rather insultingly informs us that borrowed in this context means "borrowed" and inherited means "inherited". —Mahāgaja · talk 11:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I said, that's not what the initial discussion was about - the discussion you wish to have, Mahagaja, has been had a thousand times and currently the rule is "discuss within a community". I don't see an active community but I do see a peripheral one more engaged in Slavic languages overall that prefer them. Please stick to the subject at hand instead of performing hysterics over stylistic preferences. Vininn126 (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

And I already said that since there is no active community, just leave things alone, but you want to claim ownership over all the Slavic entries and do whatever you want with them regardless of anyone else. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, that is a misrepresentation of what is happening - if I did I would have undone the edit and ignored you. I started a discussion and brought forth the arguments for keeping it. You changed the subject to "ruining your work" as if it's yours over a stylistic choice. Vininn126 (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your only argument for keeping the + templates in dsb is that it's used on other Slavic languages' entries, but that's no argument since (1) there's no cogent reason to use them in other languages either and (2) nowhere is it stated or expected that all languages within a family use the same entry format anyway. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja Thank you for replying to the discussion. You are right with point 2, however I have seen recent trends to use this logic in lieu of an active community - as they are still indirectly interested in that language. I believe there was interest in switching all Romance languages to + templates, if not already implemented, based on the same idea. Vininn126 (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Romance languages are in the same situation as the Indic languages - they're descended from an attested ancestor that is also the source of a large number of learned borrowings. It's understandable that people want to specify whether a word is inherited or borrowed in that case (though even so, it's perfectly adequate to write "Inherited from {{inh|fr|la|...}}" rather than "{{inh+|fr|la|...}}"), but in Slavic, the only languages in that situation are Macedonian and Bulgarian vis-à-vis Old Church Slavonic. I really, really don't understand the obsession with the + templates and why some people are so dead-set on using them when they add no value whatsoever. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

That again, is beyond the current consensus - that is about whether they should be applied, when currently it's based on preference. Please stick to the argument and stop reintroducing things that have already been discussed. Vininn126 (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're the one who brought up the Romance languages. You can't compare apples and oranges and then say I'm straying from the discussion topic when I point out that you're comparing apples and oranges. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fine - however that still doesn't explain the fact that it's currently up to consensus. I don't see why a group of people working with a family who have a preference shouldn't get a say. Vininn126 (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You keep mentioning "consensus", but where is this consensus? How can there be consensus with no community? TKW already reverted me on kóńc on the grounds that "consensus doesn't work that way", but I'm still not seeing any consensus to implement the + templates on Lower Sorbian entries. Was there ever even a discussion about implementing them on other Slavic language entries? —Mahāgaja · talk 13:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have explained to you many times - if you look at the current Slavic entries they use + templates. Did you miss that? Vininn126 (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

But was it ever discussed? Or do they use + templates because you added the + templates to them yourself? —Mahāgaja · talk 13:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Other editors do this as is their preference? Vininn126 (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja Editors don't have to ask you permission to add the plus templates, and the default position is not that you get to revert people over a minor cosmetic until they persuade you otherwise. That isn't how things work with anything else, because consensus doesn't work that way. Please get some sense of perspective, instead of trying to abuse the concept of consensus, because we both know that isn't really what you care about here: what you care about is trying to make it difficult for people to use a template you don't like. Theknightwho (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The default position is that editors do not change normal etymology templates to the + templates in the absence of clear consensus, because it is well known that they are highly controversial. Whatever kind of template was first used in an entry should remain unless there is consensus to change it. That's why I don't remove the + templates from entries that used them first, not even in Celtic languages although most Celtic entries do not use them. Likewise, I expect other editors not to remove the normal templates from entries that used them first, not even in Slavic languages although most Slavic entries do use them. Please stop with the personal attacks. Also please stop pretending that you don't care whether people use them, when everything you've said on my talk page, not just now but also last December, makes it clear you think fans of the + templates should be allowed to implement them wherever they want without worrying about consensus, while opponents of them should not be allowed to do anything to prevent their spread. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja They're not "highly controversial" except to a small handful of editors who've got really worked up about them. Most of us don't care that much, but I do care about your reaction to it in this thread. You're eventually just going to find that people won't give you the courtesy at all at this rate. Theknightwho (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, they really are. There wouldn't have been so many votes and Beer Parlor discussions about them if they weren't controversial. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja No - they were controversial a couple of years ago, but most people now really don't seem to care, apart from about five diehards like you. you think fans of the + templates should be allowed to implement them wherever they want without worrying about consensus, while opponents of them should not be allowed to do anything to prevent their spread No - as I have repeatedly said - I think you're abusing process to try to make your position the default, which is unacceptable. The default is that you don't revert editors over minor cosmetic changes. Also, you have forgotten that the issue last December was you replacing {{bor}} and {{inh}} with {{der}}, which was removing information from the entry, including categorisation; even Thadh told you to stop doing that, and Thadh doesn't like the plus templates either. Theknightwho (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think you're confusing "don't really care" with "left editing whatsoever". Metaknowledge stopped editing less than a year after the introduction of the templates. Donnanz is still opposed, I'm sure. Fenakhay has not been active for quite a while. Danny wasn't even editing much back then. Do you think Fay Freak is fine with these templates now? You should also ask Jberkel and -sche, those are the only ones that remain and are still somewhat active. Thadh (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Thadh Doesn't that reinforce my point that most editors in the community don't really care? I don't see any new editors having strong opinions about them. Theknightwho (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho: That is an incredibly biased group and even there you didn't do any poll. You're essentially saying: "Nobody cares about the stink in this building. All those who did left and none of those who moved in is actively complaining!" Well, of course not, because those who don't want to smell the stink don't move in, and those who prefer not to have it assume that the rest is fine with it. Thadh (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was trying to avoid the conversation devolving into this. Why is it impossible to have a conversation about a specific language/group of languages without it turning into a screaming match? Vininn126 (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Thadh How is it biased to point out that very few of the current editors care about this issue? It's just a fact. The opinions of people who haven't edited in a long time simply aren't relevant. Theknightwho (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho: This is almost a textbook example of selection bias: You're saying that within a population already impacted and filtered by this feature, there are more proponents than opponents, and thus the introduction (and retention) of the feature is/was justified.

Every controversial feature will over time stop being controversial because everyone who dislikes it leaves. Unless your goal is that Mahagaja, Victar, me, and everyone else who dislikes these templates stops editing, the argument that "nobody cares about them anyway" is not valid. Thadh (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

What's biased is your implication that the fact that most current editors don't care one way or the other means that the pro-+ side has won and the anti-+ side has to either roll over and accept it or leave Wiktionary. If most editors don't care one way or the other, then they shouldn't care if I revert the conversion of normal templates to + templates in the absence of consensus. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's it, I'm leaving this conversation. I can't even point to other editors who have a preference within a family without it changing into an over-the-top argument about the templates in general. What a waste of time. Vininn126 (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126: Everyone here is civil. This is a pretty important argument to have, as TKW is implying that Mahagaja (and by extension anyone) has no right to choose whether {{inh}} or {{inh+}} stays on a page, even though as you probably remember, when the vote on these templates failed and the templates were created anyway, it was assured that this would be up to the editors in question which series of templates to use, not someone "doing a minor cosmetic". Thadh (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Thadh It's also a completely different discussion than what needed to be had. The current consensus is if a community agrees, it should be switched. Mahagaja entertained it somewhat - we seem to disagree on what constitutes a community, and then it turned into a discussion about the templates in general. I wanted to discuss Lower Sorbian specifically, which is why I am leaving. I also said nothing about civility. Vininn126 (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Thadh There is no controvery over whether we should keep {{inh}} (not {{inh+}}) on pages - Mahagaja is the only editor I have seen replacing it with {{der}}. I would appreciate if you both stopped trying to lump it in with the plus templates. Also, the vote you referred to was a "no consensus" by a narrow margin - it did not fail. Theknightwho (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry "failed to pass" is what I should have said. And nobody was talking about the {{der}} templates, that was a different discussion altogether. Thadh (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja So you're arguing that the impact of the plus templates is potentially so overwhelming that multiple editors have left over it? That might be the case for the perpetual drama surrounding them, but new users have expressed no opinions on them whatsoever. If they were inherently controversial, we'd see ongoing objections from new users as well (or those who would feel they can't edit because of them), but we don't. We just see a handful of old-guard getting extremely defensive about them, because this has become some kind of bizarro Wiktionary culture war issue.

Why would I feel anyone needs to leave Wiktionary over this? I find it baffling how you continually impute malice on the parts of other users over such a trivial thing. I just don't get it. Theknightwho (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I never said that the people who left did so because of this issue, but your incessant bullying of editors who do things differently from how you want them to certainly makes people feel unwelcome here. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja Stop mischaracterising what happened: I stepped in because you said your hard work had been "ruined", and I felt you were abusing procedure as a form of obstructionism after Vininn126 tried to start a conversation with you about this. You might not like that I said it, but it's not bullying, and I don't think I'm far off the mark, either.

What I'm annoyed about isn't anything to do with the plus templates themselves, and it's certainly got nothing to do with how I personally prefer entries to be laid out. Theknightwho (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja I really, really don't understand the obsession with the + templates and why some people are so dead-set on using them when they add no value whatsoever. - the only person here who has displayed any strong feelings about the templates themselves is you. Please stop trying to characterise Vininn126 as irrational after they reached out to you as a courtesy. Theknightwho (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Vininn clearly has strong feelings about the templates or he wouldn't have come to my talk page to try to talk me into letting him use them. If he actually didn't care one way or the other he would have just let my initial revert slide. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please do not decide what my feelings are for me. Vininn126 (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja Not everyone is as experienced a lexicographer as you are, and not everything is aimed at you; nor should everything be designed around what you do and don't find insulting. Come on. If I see a blue link for something I know the meaning of, I simply ignore it.

Also, the only person claiming ownership here is you: Even if I'm not doing a lot with Lower Sorbian at the moment, I did put in a lot of work on it when I created the entries, and it upsets me to see my hard work ruined.

I really, truly could not care less about whether people want to use the plus templates - but the utterly absurd levels of opposition I see from a small number of hardcore editors is really, really silly. For whatever reason, it seems to make some people totally lose all sense of perspective. Theknightwho (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Will you please respond to my post on the etymology scriptorium? 90.241.192.210 20:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please respond. 90.241.192.210 20:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

i still dont understand 90.241.192.210 12:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Old High German had several different inflection types, each with a different vowel before the ‑t. In Middle High German, these vowels (which were all unstressed) all became /ə/, so the different endings all collapsed into a single ending spelled ‑et. In Modern High German, the e disappeared (except after d, t, and certain consonant clusters such as gn), leaving just the ending ‑t. For example, German druck‑t (“(s/he) presses”) is from Middle High German druck‑et, from Old High German drucch‑it, from Proto-West Germanic *þrukk‑iþi, from Proto-Germanic *þrukk‑īþi. And German beiß‑t (“(s/he) bites”) is from Middle High German bīsz‑et, from Old High German bīz‑it, from Proto-West Germanic *bīt‑idi, from Proto-Germanic *bīt‑idi. And so on for the other inflection types, and for the other endings that have become ‑t in modern German (the second person plural and the weak past participle). They come from a wide variety of different endings in Old High German, but they've all been reduced to just ‑t today. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Where did the Old High German inflection types come from? 90.241.192.210 20:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

From the Proto-Germanic inflection types, which in turn come from various Proto-Indo-European verb-forming suffixes. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

give me a example 90.241.192.210 22:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Take a look at Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/-janą and Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/-ōną. Those pages discuss where the class 1 and class 2 weak verbs come from. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove my transcription? HistorienCanadien (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because the pronunciation you added is not phonemically distinct from the ones already there. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I said in my edit summary, I don't think the finite verb taighd exists, despite its entry in Ó Dónaill. We shouldn't link to it. There is a large category of verbal nouns in Irish that are used to form continuous tenses, but without accompanying finite verbs. Other examples are cócaireacht, magadh, and súil le. We should think of a way of marking and categorising them as verbal nouns without saying it's the "verbal noun of X." —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Caoimhin ceallach: we could do it the way it's done at caint. Incidentally, there are finite forms listed at DIL, so it has existed at some point, though it's possible the finite forms are now obsolete. Dinneen 1927 also provides a listing for a finite verb, though the 1904 editions only gives the verbal noun. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be good to do it that way, but with a template. I think taigdid is a different verb. DIL indicates it's a derivative of gataid (“to take away, steal”). I didn't check Dinneen 1927. I'm not sure what to make of the fact that both he and Ó Dónaill have an entry for a finite verb, but no usage examples. I started writing an entry for taighd earlier but quit when I couldn't find any inflected forms in use. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dinneen's full list of glosses is "I search, probe, excogitate, investigate; dig, root or poke at; proceed to start (fish, game, etc.), worry, rout; provide". No overlap with DIL's glosses, but they could still etymologically be the same verb. The only finite form listed in the Historical Irish Corpus is thaighdeas, in the exact same quote from 1604 as listed in DIL. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. On the one hand the semantics of taigdid is not promising at all, on the other hand I can't explain how the d in taigid/toichid would have gotten delenited. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Caoimhin ceallach: Maybe a conflation of two originally distinct words? —Mahāgaja · talk 06:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ Mahagaja: The only reason that I added the Greek cognate CLOTHO (to spin) was because the Gaelic equivalent of Irish CLO meant home spun cloth as distinct from EADACH. Hybridity does need to be considered in many of the early etymologies; for example in Anglo-Saxon CLATH - the long 'A' being from Proto-Germanic 'AI'. However, the route that the etymology shows as to be related to a P.I.E. root (to adhere) defies standard etymological logic. I had not included that one in the four main etymologies that discredit Wiktionary etymology, because I do not regard this as serious. Please see this under, 'Etymologies that discredit Wiktionary ...' in Surjection's talk pages.

Regarding the etymology of POUR, I have to state that the Online Etymological dictionary in its etymological routes is not as reliable as those in the multi-page hard back Oxford dictionaries, for two reasons at least, that many qualified etymologies worked on them and they demonstrate earliest searches of the lexemes, although the above does so for quite a few. In this case your etymology does equate with Skeat's, who refers to Late Latin as its source rather than Old French; but, either way there needs to be some evidence that the 'u' sound in the Old French form was either the same as in Latin or that it evolved before becoming 'ou' as in Middle English POUREN. Another aspect that cannot be ruled out is the presence of 'p' in Proto-Celtic from substrates, when there is really no conclusive evidence of the extent of its alphabet. It is obviously a word that was used more frequently amongst the servants and working class, some of whom were of Celtic origin and retained their own terms for longer. Even the Welsh BWRW (to throw) as in 'bwrw glaw' (to pour with rain), could be a substrate that has Old Spanish (or Iberian) cognates. The 'b' could also have hardened and become voiceless over millennia. Given these possibilities, i would suggest that POUR is a hybrid both semantically and morphologically. Kind Regards. Andrew H. Gray 07:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Andrew H. Gray 07:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi the entry https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Χανααναῖος is misspelt. it should be Χαναναῖος, or it [Χανααναῖος] should be listed as an alternative spelling. in the LXX, and NT it is spelt with only one α, and logeion has no entry for Χανααναῖος, only /Χαναναῖος/. but i don't know how to change the title of the entry, only the spelling of the lemmata inside the page. (L0ngh3nry89 (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC))Reply

@L0ngh3nry89:   Done —Mahāgaja · talk 12:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

thank you. can you explain how i can do this myself in the future? (L0ngh3nry89 (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC))Reply

You might not have enough edits yet, but at some point when the software decides you've been around long enough to be trusted, you'll have a button that says Move which you can use to move a page to a new page name, provided it's not already taken. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

oh ok. I have been very cautious and only done 102 edits over the whole wiktionary. mostly proto turkic and ancient greek. so i guess i have to wait my turn. i suppose this is why i don't have the option to create an entry yet? i have been putting requests in instead on the AG request page. L0ngh3nry89 (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@L0ngh3nry89: Yes, that'll be it. Just keep editing and your rights will expand. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

τίνω has forms with ει and ῑ/ῐ

According to Montanari: τίνω [cf. Skt. cayate] impf. έτινον || fut. τ(ε)ίσω, mid. τ(ε)ίσομαι || aor. έτ(ε)ισα, mid έτ(ε)ισάμην || pf. τέτ(ε)ικα, mid έκ-τέτ(ε)ισμαι || ppf. mid. έξ-ετετείσμην Demosth. 47.65 || aor. pass. έξ-ετ(ε)ίσθην Demosth. 28.2

According to the irregular verbs of Attic prose (Addison Hogue): Tίνω, pay, pay back, τῑ́σω, ἔτῑσα, -τέτῑκα, -τέτῑσμαι, -ετῑ́σθην. [In inscriptions of the classic period τείσω, ἔτεισα, and ἐτείσθην are the forms.]

according to Logeion the forms are mixed: https://logeion.uchicago.edu/morpho/τίνω

I don't know how to edit the page correctly to account for this variation. any ideas? Smyth says ῐ is Attic, yet Hogue above suggests otherwise. L0ngh3nry89 (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I added the ει option for the future and aorist since per Logeion it seems that those are the only stems sometimes spelled with ει. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

thank you this comports well with the data I have reviewed. I cant find any perfect forms at all. Im sure some perfects exist for this verb I just don't know where to look. I think Hogue would have mentioned the perfect if it had an ει form. L0ngh3nry89 (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you go to https://logeion.uchicago.edu/%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%BD%CF%89 and search the LSJ, Bailly, and Cunliffe tabs for the string τετ you'll find several perfect forms, including ones spelled with τετει- —Mahāgaja · talk 17:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes the dictionary lists perfect forms, but in the database of all the occurrences, I cant find a single perfect form. It seems to really only occur in the aorist, future, and present tenses. [4] L0ngh3nry89 (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The dictionaries that list the perfect forms include citations indicating where they occur. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi you are correct, the cunfliffe results are seemingly for τιω, but i did find a perfect in the fragment of Lycophron, but it occurs without ε. this is confirmed by https://archive.org/details/lexikonzulycophr0000cian/page/306/mode/2up [Lexikon zu Lycophron]. the other perfect forms suggested by the LSJ are for compound forms which do have it https://www.trismegistos.org/words/detail.php?lemma=%E1%BC%80%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%BD%CF%89&morph_type=verb L0ngh3nry89 (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi I created entries for διλογία and δίλογος. Can you have a brief look to see if the entries meet the proper standard(s)?. This is the first time I am creating an entry myself. I'm not sure if I have done everything correctly

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%AF%CE%B1 https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B4%CE%AF%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%BF%CF%82#Ancient_Greek

hopefully it is ok? L0ngh3nry89 (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here are my notes:

• At διλογία:
  • The etymology says {{der|pnt|grc|δῐ́λογος}}. This implies a Pontic Greek word (pnt) derived from an Ancient Greek word. However, διλογία is an Ancient Greek word derived from δῐ́λογος by suffixing -ίᾱ (-íā), so it should say {{af|grc|δῐ́λογος|-ίᾱ}} ("af" = "affix").
  • The headword line says {{grc-noun|head=δῐλογῐ́ᾱ|δῐλογῐ́ᾱς|f|first}}. This isn't wrong, but it's unnecessary to write |head= explicitly, so you could also simply put {{grc-noun|δῐλογῐ́ᾱ|δῐλογῐ́ᾱς|f|first}}.
  • There is no entry for this word in Trapp et al., so I wouldn't include {{R:LBG}} under the References.
• At δίλογος:
  • The etymology says {{af|grc|δῐ́ς|λόγος}}. This implies a compound word ({{af}} categorizes words as compounds if none of the elements is an affix), but it would probably be more helpful to consider it prefixed with δι-, thus: {{af|grc|δι-|λόγος}}.
  • Again, there is no entry for this word in Trapp et al., so I wouldn't include {{R:LBG}} under the References.

Otherwise, they look fine, @L0ngh3nry89. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

thank you, I'm still getting my head around templates. I have made the corrections you suggested. thank you!!! L0ngh3nry89 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%CE%B8%CE%B1%CF%85%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%81%CE%B3%CF%8C%CF%82&action=edit

the entry θαυματουργός, currently only has the definitions of conjurer, juggler puppet-showman, puppet maker. Yet it obviously gave rise to the English Thaumaturge, via latin via Greek which means miracle worker. Montanari has a very short entry for it, and says: θαυματουργός -όν [θαΰμα, έργον] ΑTH. 4-129d (of female acrobats) Eus1 HE. 3.24.3 (of God), al. etc., see θαυματοποιός.

clearly there is (i think) good reason to take the following definitions from θαυματοποιός: wonderworker, one who presents marvels AND miracle worker (Christianity)

entry from Montanari supplied below. (the Liddell and Scott entry for θαυματουργός, is very small as well.)

θαυματοποιός -ον [θαῦμα, ποιέω] that works marvels,

that presents marvelous things Luc. Somn. 14 (dreams) etc. |

acrobatic Matr. 534.121 ||

subst. ὁ θαυματοποιός magician, juggler, mountebank Plat. Soph. 235b De-MOSTH. 2.19 Plut. CL 12.4 etc. (alsofern.) |

puppeteer Plat. Rp. 514b etc. |

Christ, miracleworker Hippol. Haer. 1.13.2 etc.

I don't want to put the wrong definitions for this word, but it seems the existing definitions are also found under θαυματοποιός L0ngh3nry89 (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Does the 'miracle worker' sense appear before Byzantine Greek? —Mahāgaja · talk 17:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

yes but I can only source this sense from Lampe's patristic lexicon. is that ok? or is that too late? L0ngh3nry89 (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

At the moment, Byzantine (Medieval) Greek is still considered part of Ancient Greek, though people are working on splitting it off as a separate language. It's fine to add a Byzantine sense, but label it {{lb|grc|Byzantine}}. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

sure will do. But this is patristic Greek im refering to, and most of the entries for this lemma come from writers around the 2nd-5th century AD (Chrysostom, Greg of Nyssa, Eusebius etc). does that still count as ancient Greek? I think it does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patristics L0ngh3nry89 (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

That definitely still counts as Ancient Greek, but that era is early enough to be labeled {{lb|grc|Koine}} rather than Byzantine/Medieval. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ill use that lable instead. thank you. L0ngh3nry89 (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't get it. That's all IPA. Nicodene (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Nicodene: well, something is putting the pages into Category:IPA pronunciations with invalid IPA characters. Usually opening the section for editing will reveal which character(s) are causing the problem, but on these pages with {{frp-IPA}}, when I open the section for editing, the template just shows up as a module error saying "Lua error in Module:template_parser at line 1001: bad argument #1 (string expected, got nil)", so I can't see what the problem is. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

At arâro, the problem seems to be that you're using U+0331 combining macron below as a retraction mark; it should be U+0320 combining minus sign below. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

At âjo and âbro the problem is the character "ů", which is not an IPA character. What is it supposed to represent? I also notice the character "ə̊", which for some reason is not throwing an error but is also not an IPA character. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

My bad. I'll clean it up now. Nicodene (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could you maybe add a line or two to Wiktionary:About_Old_Irish about the formatting of the language in quotations? I've been adding spaces, middle dots, and sometimes hyphens, but otherwise changing little compared to the Thes. Pal. version. Is that about right? I also keep forgetting what you do with Latin words within the quotations and having to look for an example. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Caoimhin ceallach: OK, I've added some guidelines. Let me know (at Wiktionary talk:About Old Irish, not here) what you think. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

In 2023, you moved sprëchen to sprechen, even though they are two distinct spellings. Can you please explain this to me? Thank you. MrMeAndMrMe (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@MrMeAndMrMe: see WT:AGMH. Middle High German entries don't use diacritics in article titles, though they are shown in headword lines. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Is there any particular reason for this? MrMeAndMrMe (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know a whole lot about Middle High German in particular, but in general, Wiktionary omits diacritics from article titles if they are used only in pedagogic/linguistic materials but not (or not usually) in the original source documents written in the language. For example, we do not use long marks (macrons) on Latin words or stress marks (acute accents) on Russian words, but we do show them on headword lines. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The pronunciations are reconstructed. We don't really know what the vowels were, and some of the consonants are uncertain as well. kwami (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami: I know, but we don't use asterisks in reconstructed pronunciations (check out CAT:Proto-Germanic terms with IPA pronunciation, for example). You can also add something like |q=reconstructed to {{IPA}} if you like. But if you put an asterisk into {{IPA}}, it'll end up in CAT:IPA pronunciations with invalid IPA characters, and if each listed pronunciation doesn't begin and end with either slashes or square brackets, it'll end up in CAT:IPA pronunciations with invalid representation marks. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay. i suppose we could argue that the offglides of diphthongs are unwritten in some cases. Otherwise the inventories would start to get unwieldy. kwami (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

All done. kwami (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Isn't the vowel in this word rounded? PUC – 18:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@PUC: Are you talking about the German word? It may have some slight lip rounding due to the adjacent /v/, but not enough for it to merge with the vowel of würde, at least not in the standard language. Some regional accents have /ʏ/ in some words where the standard language has /ɪ/ (here in Berlin you may hear ümmer for immer and nüscht for nichts), so maybe some people do pronounce it [vʏɐ̯t] or the like, but I don't know for sure. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

AFAICT, this is a floating tone. kwami (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami: Is there any way to show that using IPA symbols? If not, maybe it's better to leave out the ===Pronunciation=== section altogether and just explain what it indicates in text. Compare Irish ◌́, which explains that the acute accent indicates a long vowel, but has no pronunciation section marking /ː/ as the pronunciation of the acute accent. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, an IPA spacing tone diacritic is used for a tone that's not docked to a particular vowel. kwami (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

That looks okay, though it's inconsistent with other articles. I'm not sure what the difference is between a grave accent, as you have it, and a modifier grave accent as I had it. They look identical, and currently we define the modifier as the floating tone. Is there a difference in line-breaking behaviour? Maybe the two articles should be merged? Or all the other floating tones moved from the modifier diacritics to the isolated diacritics? kwami (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami: I forgot there was a separate modifier letter character. I've added both the grave and the acute modifier letters to the list of valid IPA characters so they won't throw errors inside {{IPA}} anymore. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, that's what was causing the issue!

Still, I defined all the floating tones at the modifier tone letters, per my best judgement at the time, but I no longer remember why I placed them there and not at the basic spacing characters. I don't know at this point whether there's any practical difference, or if they're simply redundant. kwami (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami: I imagine it's the same as the difference between the regular curly quote and the modifier letter apostrophe, one is intended as a punctuation mark, the other as a letter. I think the modifier letters do make more sense for this use. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good. Will leave it as-is then. kwami (talk) 08:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

FYI, the grave is fixed, but the acute ˊ is still generating an IPA error. kwami (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami: You mean at ߴ? Not for me, it isn't. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Maybe a cache lag, then. I didn't know that could happen with categories. kwami (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hei. I tried to make it more pleasant to the eye as much as I could without messing anything up. I searched for a template similar to {{g}} but for nominative, dative, etc, which would make it even more compact, but couldnt find none. Feel free to revert my edit if you dont think it was helpful. By the way, how do you know which ones are palatized and which aren't? Based on the descendants? Sérgio Santos (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just from the way adjectives of this declension class work. The b of noíb is nonpalatalized in the same places where the n of bán is nonpalatalized and palatalized in the same places where it's palatalized. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

So it's by analogy with other words, that was my other hypothesis. I felt the need to make the entry more compact because when I got to that page it took me a few seconds to realize where the pronunciation was, all the way to the right!, and through the page history I saw that you yourself had strugled a bit to find the best way to make it more presentable, which I think I managed to improve a little bit (?). Sérgio Santos (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply