Froaringus

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

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

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

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

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Ultimateria (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding Galician descendants! Just a note, please remember that only a direct descendant should be given, not one descended from a derived form, so at misceo, we should list mexer but not remexer (which is from remisceo). Thanks! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 14:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

We treat Galician-Portuguese as a synonym of Old Portuguese. You can find a language name’s synonyms at the data module page, like Module:languages/datax (which recognises "Galician-Portuguese", "Galician Portuguese", "Medieval Galician" as synonyms of "Old Portuguese"). If a source says a word is from Galician-Portuguese, there’s no problem in using {{inh|gl|roa-opt}}. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also on this topic, a quote from 1280 would belong in the corresponding Old Portuguese entry, wouldn't it? I ask because I'm actually not sure; I think we're a little inconsistent on this issue here. Ultimateria (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Yes Galicia-Portuguese proper extends at least to 1300, but Galician-Portuguese was never an unified language, as it developed locally from Vulgar Latin in Galicia and N Portugal and from the beginning (Old) Galician and (Old) Portuguese are distinct varieties (and this distinction became so much more evident when Portuguese adopted the Occitan Spellings nh and lh). So, for example, a form as enxoyto in a Galician document of 1280, which can be categorized under the neutral Galician-Portuguese but maybe is not a direct ancestor of Portuguese enxuto, is essentially the same (and not an ancestor) of Modern Galician enxoito.--Froaringus (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ola, Froaringus. Dei contigo de casualidade a través da entrada sobre Esmorís. Eu edito principalmente na Wikipedia en galego, e estou a desenvolver o listado de topónimos maiores de Galicia, e na medida do posible incluíndo a etimoloxía. Podes botar un ollo neste listado. Se te animas a contribuír, sería fabuloso.

Un saúdo!! --Estevoaei (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have a question: what errors, if any, have you done with the entry aluscar? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Lo Ximiendo: Oops! Several, my friend. Sorry, edit frenzy, I guess! --Froaringus (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. First, let me thank you for adding all those Galician words to Appendix:Romance doublets!

I've noticed there's an annoying blank line at the bottom of many Galician entries, for example at trotar. I think that's due to a reference template, but I couldn't find it when I tried to fix it a few weeks ago. Could you have a look at it? --Per utramque cavernam 12:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Per_utramque_cavernam: It's weird. I'll look into it, thanks. --Froaringus (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Per_utramque_cavernam: Ok, I think I managed to solve it: I din't realise that I was putting an extra new line in some templates! --Froaringus (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I added the Galician verb migrar, alongside its Catalan counterpart. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

P.S. When templates {{gl-verb}} and {{gl-conj-ar}} are used, picar yields *picei rather than piquei. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have a feeling, that the Galician verb distraer needs a different template than {{gl-conj (traer)}}. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lo Ximiendo Yep! Absolutely! :-) I'll watch into it... --Froaringus (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

What do you recommend for an image of a mandorla in Galicia? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Mhhh... Perhaps?

 

--Froaringus (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Or a painted one.

 

--Lo Ximiendo (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I wish there's a close-up image of the mandorla in the third photograph.

 

--Lo Ximiendo (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Lo Ximiendo Great find! I know both places (from the outside), and really love the church of Eiré! I'll tell you if I happen to find a better pic. --Froaringus (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Aren’t these places named after a saint (probably w:es:Veremundo de Irache)? I think it would be a good idea to mention that sort of connection in the etymology, since it isn’t necessarily obvious how a placename is derived from a personal name. – Krun (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Krun: No, they are not: in Galicia and Northern Portugal there are several thousand places whose names derive from the genitive of Germanic and Latin names, dated to the 5th-9th century. These Bermún, Bermui were probably in the past a *Villa Veremudi "Villa of (the rich guy called) Vermud". Cf. Piel & Kremer's Hispano-gotiches Namenbuch. Then again, you're right that maybe I should stress that the origin of this names is in an old possessor. --Froaringus (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

That is interesting indeed, especially considering how many places seem to have this name. Anyway, regardless of how the personal names are connected with the placenames, there is also a question of the identity of the original name(s), i.e. whether it is *weramōdaz or *weramundaz, identical to Old Norse Vermundr, or a conflation of both. For the saint’s name at least there seems to be some confusion (forms with and without -n- exist), and *Weramundaz would explain the -n- in Bermún, Vermũe. – Krun (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Krun: Well, actually you're quite right, there could be a conflation here. I mean, both names Veremudus (GMH) and Veremundus (GMH), were in use in NW Iberia during the High Middle Ages, and both tend to be mistaken. In fact, there is a inscription from Northern Portugal dated in 535 during the reign of one "Veremundus rex", which then is a Suevic king from the (locally) dark period in between 470 and 550 CE (when we know the names of just two or three kings); but some scholar consider that in fact is referred to one of several Bermudo who reigned centuries later (the inscription is partially damaged) (a PDF here). In Galicia from Veremundi we would expect *Gueremunde or *Beremunde, vel sim, but also *Bermún would be OK. Sadly, two of these Bermún places are attested as Veremudi in 11th century charters. --Froaringus (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Can you review this IP's contributions? It looks like they're taking info from just one dictionary in the Dicionario de dicionarios. Ultimateria (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ultimateria: Honestly, I'm not too fond about these entries (in general). I mean, I think IP is editing in good faith, but current lexicographers know that some of those 19th / early 20th century dictionaries are not too reliable (contrasting with the 18th century works by Sarmiento and Sobreira). Some of those phantom words were later used by another dictionaries, or in literary works, and became somehow "alive", but most are absent from popular speech, from historical corpora, from the toponymy, they are just carried on... Each one of those is a pain in the ***. Is there any template to indicate that a given entry is dubious because of it being mostly only a one time old dictionary attestation (maybe later cited by others)? --Froaringus (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

These words need to follow our criteria for inclusion; they should probably be sent to WT:RFVN. I don't know what sources exist for Galician really, but I will point out that it is treated as a limited documentation language on Wiktionary, so each page (well, each sense of a word) only needs one citation to be included. If these pages can't be attested, they will fail RFV and be deleted. Do you think a word like sôma is used in reliable sources? Ultimateria (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

No way. But, on the other hand, I don't feel like saying "well, the dictionary by Leandro Carré is unreliable"; I mean, this dictionary is used, with caution, by Coromines in his Diccionario Etimológico (and in several instances he clearly states his reserves). "With caution" is the relevant part here. But sôma sounds at most as an allegro form of sombra.--Froaringus (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Damn! Actually the word is used by a number of 19th and 20th century authors: TILG s.v. soma.--Froaringus (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary's attitude towards dictionaries is they're helpful resources for research, but we can't use them to attest terms. (Although I do see it happen sometimes...) We can certainly use his dictionary as a reference, but not to show that sôma is used in Galician. On the other hand, the link you just sent is perfect to attest the use of soma (without the circumflex) because it shows it in texts. The spelling with circumflex would not pass RFV, but without it, it would pass. I suggest moving the content of sôma to soma. P.S. I'm always overjoyed to see such in-depth resources for minority languages :). Ultimateria (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ultimateria: Yep. We have as many problems as the next (European) minority language, and then some more, but certainly Academia is in this case delivering and giving back :-) (Which, of course, is only correct, since Galician universities and cultural institutions are largely, and poorly, financed with taxes). On this IP editor, they apparently just use the Dictionary of Dictionaries, but these resource actually contains not just dictionaries, but also different studies, treaties or compilations then reordered as dictionaries for the on-line resource... But they were not written of though by they authors as dictionaries, so I think that they are good enough as a source. Sadly, the IP editor tends to pick spellings and regional forms from the dictionaries themselves... Well. I'll see if I can clean up without unsettling them.--Froaringus (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Congratulations! You beat me by just a few seconds, but I think you've done more of the work anyway ;) Not that I was trying, of course :P Here's to 10,000 more! Ultimateria (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oh, well! Dind't even knew (but great nonetheless!) Thanks... Well, Galician was already in pretty good shape when I began editing, so without your work and that of many others I probably would not be an active editor :-) But, hey, great! --Froaringus (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

Hi. I noticed that you changed the gender to masculine? Was this a mistake? All of the dictionaries you cited seem to indicate that the word is feminine. – Krun (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Krun: Oops! Sorry! A copy-paste error! Of course, this word(s) if feminine.--Froaringus (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

crea estas páxinasː caracha e caráfio 2001:8A0:F258:D301:490D:C499:1381:EA58 13:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ok, tomo nota! :-) --Froaringus (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

casi cinco anos pasaron e esas páxinas aínda non existen. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Froaringus,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Podes dar referencia para IPA^(key): [ˈpɔɾtʊ]? Teño isto para o galego e a propia pronuncia local Porto#Portuguese (e “Porto”, in Dicionário Priberam da Língua Portuguesa (in Portuguese), Lisbon: Priberam, 2008–2024) en sentido contrario (independentemente de que no dialecto local arredor da cidade historicamente seica din /pwartu/ con ditongo, que estaría en retroceso pola escolarización no português padrão de Coimbra-Lisboa). Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 00:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Non! Fallo meu! O común é [ˈpoɾtʊ]. Corrixo o erro. - Froaringus (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Metín o singular, porque así aparece no DRAG, con nota. User_Talk:Sobreira as 193.144.97.124 18:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sin problema! :-) Froaringus (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Boas, acabo de atopar para GL breva, pero non NOMIG bévera? Coméntocho por se non a coñecías.
• Vexo o de tebras de arriba e reprodúzoche as entradas que no DXL-2003 marcan como ús.m.pl. en OBS[servacións]: alicates, efectivos, efluvios, entretiños, escrúpulos, extremidades, fías, fregas, honores, hostes, inquietudes, latitudes, lides, macarróns, maniotas, mocos, monicións, parabéns, penalidades, sofraxes, tebras, tesoiras, vituallas. Evidentemente fáltanlles moitas: víveres, pantalóns, gafas, fretas, entreteas, vísceras, vésperas, fideos, humores, saudades

Bo traballo, Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 20:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Graciñas, meu! :-) Froaringus (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Froaringus Ó final vai ser en Ribadeo, que dis que non dis nada? Por outra parte, andas a meterlle as citas por iso dos Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Number_of_citations? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 20:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ola, meu! Non digo cousa porque xa che me coñezo: quedo en ir e logo non vou (non falo de encontros Wiki, pero podería...) :-)) No outro, tamén pesa o que dis... pero máis ben é cousa de compartir fragmentos, literarios ou non, que me chamaron a atención, rechamantes ou que me resultaron de interese. É tamén un xeito de porfiar co descoñecemento da nosa lingua. Froaringus (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Por certo, agora que me decato: estase xestando un encontro o sábado 11 de marzo, por se te queres apuntar. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 21:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Aumento. ※Sobreira ◣◥ 〒 @「parlez」 18:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Excelente!!! Froaringus (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

• GL: back-formation
• PT: deverbal
• ES: deverbal

Entendo que é un derivado regresivo, pero entón tamén PT e ES? (O cal me deixa preguntándome respecto a estes coincidentes camiños paralelos GL-PT/ES).

• Á parte, hai Wikimedia.es en Salamanca 10-12 nov.

※Sobreira ◣◥ 〒 @「parlez」 13:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Pois olla! Empecei indicando que estas formacións era, "back-formations", que entendo que o son, pero agora mesmo, neste caso e moitos outros, prefiro indicar que son deverbais (e semella que outros editores tamén). E graciñas polo aviso! Froaringus (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Entendo que cando non hai nada estipulado, pois é posible e métese: como dialectal, como variante, como en proceso de admisión, como que a norma é incompleta, como non contemplado, como neoloxismo.... Pero cando está na norma, non hai variante posible.
Mundial, acabo de enterarme. E está sen remisión dende erro. FiDEP ※Sobreira ◣◥ 〒 @「parlez」 16:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Penso que o noso non é un dicionario normativo, senón máis ben de formas atestadas, pero... Un saudiño, meu! Froaringus (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

You have confused some functions in the table, in the first conjugation two identical conjugations appear but with different warnings even without need Stríðsdrengur (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ok. I see what I did wrong. Hopefully now is fixed. I also made some other inelegant changes. Let me know. Froaringus (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Np mate Stríðsdrengur (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've been passing some Galician terms with Medieval quotations over to the OGP L2 header. This one is one of them. Although the achandar page said "achãar", both quotations said "achaar" instead, so I made the page at "achaar". Did I do the right thing? Do the sources just omit the tildes or could it be the word really did lack a tilde? Should these kinds of tildeless words be normalized somehow? We don't have teer nor tẽer after all, so I wasn't sure what to do... MedK1 (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

In Galicia we had historically a loss of [nasality], so the absence of the mark of nasality could be scriptural or transmission error, but could be simply that the notary or writer decide to write the word without it. In this case (and IMO), given the modern results in Galician achandar AND achaiar, both possibilities appear to be open:

achãar > achandar

achãar > achaar > achaiar

So what you did is perfectly fine for me; although in this particular case achãar is also attested: https://ilg.usc.gal/xelmirez/xelmirez.php?pescuda=+ach%C3%A3&corpus=historico. Maybe we should use achãar as canonical form and achaar as alternative / dialectal / later form?

In general I consider that the canonical, older, form of teer, tẽẽr, etc, is tẽer, as this is the form cited in dictionaries or glossaries. Froaringus (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

In 2020, I started creating conjugation tables from scratch and, of course, mistakes were made, as, at that time, I had little resources and barely could do anything about them. As years passed and I could read many materials, I noticed there were some things to be changed, like eliminating duplicates such as "tenho" and "teño"; "tevesse" and "tevese", etc.. I tried fixing it, but I couldn't do so even though I was the one who added them. It's really weird, I know. Another problem I couldn't fix was the conjugation of the verb "(h)aver" where monophthongization shouldn't be present, for ex., "over-" should be replaced by forms such as "ouer-" and "ouver". It's because I got the letters ⟨v⟩ and ⟨u⟩ mixed up, as both could be used interchangeably in the Middle Ages. As far as I know, such linguistic phenomenon is recent and more common among Brazilians, hence "louco" > "loco". See: https://www.mdpi.com/2226-471X/6/2/87 The form "oer-" is an exception.

Does "soos" really mean "sodes"? It might've evolved from "solos", as the letter ⟨l⟩ would be highly dropped alongside the letters ⟨d⟩ and ⟨v⟩. "Sol"/"soo" (singular) < solo. When it comes to the verb "sodes", this is the scheme: "sodes" > "soes" > "sois".

Also, I saw you guys have added templates for regular verbs of the "ar" and "er" classes. Would it be possible for us have one for verbs of the "ir" class? I have recently added the verb "partir", which is now the only verb inherent to such class and regular.

By the way, Old Galician-Portuguese is or was harder than its modern descendants. Thalyson2019 (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, @Thalyson2019. Great work! Off course there is a lot to be cleaned and there is still a lot of decisions to be made, especially referring canonical forms... Still, duplets as teño/tenho can't be neglected since they represent common form used respectively in Galicia and Portugal.

Soos is attested for example in a Galician document from 1446: "vos Loys Gonçales das Tendas, Vasco Gomes, Afonso Yañes da Lagea, Martín do Cabo, Gomes Peres, Aluaro Afonso da Fonteyña, regidores da dita çibdad, que soos presentes et a vos Afonso Enrriques, procurador general do dito conçello"

Its evolutive history is sodes > *soes > soos (with vowel assimilation), and evolved into Galician sos, now dated:

"Dios vos garde, miña vella;

gardevos Santa Mariña , qu'abofé

sos falangueira,

falangueira e ben cumprida." (Rosalía de Castro)
Froaringus (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

When creating the tables, I forgot to add the pronoun "ti" which means "tu". "Ti" is used mostly by Galicians, but they also use "tu". In your opinion, are "vós outros" and "nós outros" as well as their derivatives fine? "Vós outro" (masculine/neuter formal singular), vós outra (formal feminine singular), vós oitro/oitros/oitra/oitras (dialectal, maybe common in Trás-os-Montes (I saw about it somewhere)) etc.. "Vossa mercee" commenced to be used as a real pronoun around XIV, I couldn't find its plural form "vossas mercees" being used as such. So would adding notes about "vossa mercee" being used as a pronoun just after around XIV be good, just like you added for verbs like "amaste" (Portugal (but also used by Galicians)) and "amasche" (Galicia)? I also found "elo" (neuter? masculine?), but it's regarded as too archaic and almost unused. What do you think? Thalyson2019 (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ti for tu is too modern, I wouldn't add it to the header. For the same reason I would left (in the header) just vós outros, nós outros, leaving the other forms out.

I can't find the plural vossas mercees in Galician sources, neither.

Elo is pretty frequent in Galician sources, but never as the subject of a verb. Froaringus (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I’m sure this pronunciation is wrong, even if this is the "Galician variation" of the language, no project/study claims that Old Galician-Portuguese had consonants like ð or that s sound like in modern Galician. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh, wow! sorry, you're right. Copy and paste! Froaringus (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I believe this is a combination of "rexouba + -ar", perhaps this could replace the "unknown etymology" Stríðsdrengur (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Still I'm uncertain if rexouba is a deverbal from rexoubar! :-) Froaringus (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Upon editing the template of the verb "riír", I noticed it was different from the other verbs. It is an intransitive verb, meaning that "riídos"~"ridos", "riída"~"rida", "riídas"~"ridas" cannot exist. Hence I deleted such forms. The masculine plural past participle (as in "havidos"), singular feminine past participle (as in "havida") and plural feminine past participle (as in "havidas") work mostly for transitive verbs. It is just a mere point. I saw that Stríðsdrengur and you created many specific templates which work for many specific sets of verbs. Of course there are exceptions for everything, like the verb "ir" which can be found in the forms of "idos", "ida" and "idas" as respectively in "Et despois que ende fomos ydos et a leuamo", "E pois ll' houv' aquesto dito, a Virgen lógo foi ida" and "que vos veio recado meu, que estas naos de França eram ydas ao caso". Not sure whether sharing with you this information is helpful for you and would help you creating templates. Thalyson2019 (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, @Thalyson2019. Yes, it's very helpful! Speaking just for me, I sometimes enter a semi-automatic mode that is not always helpful, so those are very good points. Froaringus (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! I saw you've done plenty of work for OGP recently — tysm for that. I've been a little busy with other projects so I haven't been able to do much for OGP, but I still wanted to assist somehow. I'm not sure if I've mentioned this before (I feel like I have, but just in case I haven't), I've got a list of Galician pages with really old quotes. I don't know how you've been locating the ones you've done so far, but in case you're just doing them as you come across them, I hope this can help? MedK1 (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, @MedK1. Yup. I was just picking them along the way, with not established plan, so that list comes really handy! Froaringus (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have been working on the forms of this verb, however, it is too difficult to know whether: they are too archaic or too modern; what syllables of theirs are tonic or not; or what vowels are open or close. About its forms in the present subjunctive, couldn't the first syllables be tonic? For example, seía > seia; seíades > seiades. Otherwise, they would have the same sounds as their respective forms in the indicative imperfect. In the past I was skeptical about adding the forms starting with "seia", as I couldn't distinguish "i", "y", "g" and "j" from each other very well and still can't. Also, throughout the works I read, none of them seemed to include the "seia" (/j~i/) forms, but "seja" (/d͡ʒ/). The verb "sejo" (/d͡ʒ/) isn't, for example, listed as "seo" (with a close E) or "seio" (/j~i/), unless I didn't look for them properly. Such forms were supposed to exist. When it comes to evolution, the form "seo" (as a verb) would be more innovative and detected on Corpus and documents, and "seio" (/j~i/) would be noted by linguists, as singular first person verbs usually are noted, mainly the conjugation of "seer". The possessive pronoun "seo" might appear to cause confusion due to its spelling, but it originally and mostly had an open E. Metaplasmador seems to support "seio" /j~i/, but it's a software which doesn't take into account analogical forms and includes too archaic improper or losing, competing forms. Hence it also considers both "seço" (/ts/) and "sedio" (/dj/). The "sea" forms, according to the Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, are either analogical to other modal verbs such as "deba" — hence there are modal verbs such as "seña" (might be), analogical to "teña" (might have) — or a direct evolution of the Latin verb, "sedeō". The Universidade de São Paulo, through Metaplasmador, didn't list the "sea" forms, thus indicating that the "sea" forms are analogical. Within both theories, it indicates, too, that such forms aren't considered as Castilian influences, even though they're convenient to the Castilian verbal system, which has the "sea" forms. Thalyson2019 (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I tend to agree that these forms are analogical rather than Castilian influence. And, well, I actually use the form seña in everyday speech!:-) Froaringus (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Did the "seía" forms exist? For example, I couldn't find "seio" (/j~i/) from "sedeō", which has almost the same structure as its subjunctive structure, sedeam, sedeās, sedeat, sedeāmus, sedeātis and sedeant whose stress are on the first syllables. "Sedeō" indeed was set to evolve to "seço" (/ts/), "sedio" (/dj/) and "seio" (/i~j/), but it seems not to have taken place. Old Spanish "seer" didn't also seem to have "seia/seya" for the subjunctive present, as it is, just like in Old Portuguese, reserved for the indicative imperfect. I could find such structures just for Mirandese and Asturian, but both languages don't seem to have, exactly, come from West proto-Ibero-Romance (Galician, Portuguese etc.) or Central proto-Ibero-Romance (Old Castilian etc.). Old Castilian is the most "mirror language" to Old Galician-Portuguese I have ever seen. Thalyson2019 (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

In Portuguese, there aren't, for example, "amavamos", "amavades", "amaría", "amarías", "amariamos", "amariades", "amassemos" or "amassedes" the same way "amávamos", "amávades", "amaria", "amarias", "amaríamos", "amaríades", "amássemos" or "amássedes" aren't supposed to represent Galicia. If a speaker of Galician were to read my project, they may mispronounce it. The same would go for a Portuguese reading the Galician-like writing system. I don't know if there's a solution for it, but putting notes saying those are just mere systems. The "n" and "m" thing is resolved. However all of them have the same sound, unlike "amaste" (used by the Portuguese and Galicians), "amasche" (used by Galicians) and "amasti" used by the Portuguese). I have also forgot of the website responsible for the localization of such forms. Talking about accentuation system, do you know where I can get the book 'A Língua das Cantigas', by Pär Larson? I have access to a few books, but not this one. Thalyson2019 (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is the page of the publisher of the Galician translation: https://editorialgalaxia.gal/produto/lingua-das-cantigas-gramatica-galego-portugues/ You can buy it also in Bertrand livreiros. Froaringus (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Template:roa-opt-conj-ar

For the conditional and past subjunctive, there's also a difference between GL and PT.

Galicia ~ Portugal

{{{1}}}aría ~ {{{1}}}aria

{{{1}}}arías ~ {{{1}}}arias

{{{1}}}aría ~ {{{1}}}aria

{{{1}}}ariamos ~ {{{1}}}aríamos

{{{1}}}ariades ~ {{{1}}}aríades

{{{1}}}arían ~ {{{1}}}ariam

}}assemos}} ~ }}ássemos}}

}}assedes}} ~ }}ássedes}}

I can see that part of the Galicia was implanted for Portugal. Thalyson2019 (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Actually, that's following Pär Larson's book!

Sorry if I'm not very active at the moment, but I've decided that Christmas is an excellent moment to first meet Covid fist hand... Froaringus (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

That brings me bad memories from when my brother passed through the New Year with COVID-19. I hope you'll recover. Thalyson2019 (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh, wow. Sorry for your brother! I'm doing Ok, thanks. By now it's more a nuisance than any other thing; lets hope it stays like this and goes away soon. Happy new year! Froaringus (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I hope you are well. Would you please help me implementing the accentuation system for Partir, Poder and Riír? Also Tẽer They end in "ir" and "er". Thalyson2019 (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for helping out with Partir, Poder and Riír. Thalyson2019 (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lately, I've been working on compound tenses (not periphrastic) within the Galician-Portuguese language. And I added the "present perfect". In "Evolução do Pretérito Anterior da Língua Portuguesa" by Jan Hricsina, she states the following:
"Segundo as linguistas portuguesas Adriana Cardoso e Susana Pereira, não há dúvida de que o paradigma "houve feito" tenha exprimido o processo singular (não iterativo) e [...] tido o valor temporal de anterioridade. É provável que as duas construções formadas pelo verbo auxiliar haver e particípio passado, respetivamente "hei feito" e "houve feito", tenham denotado situações perfetivas e anteriores com o valor de «current relevance», ou seja, ações expressas pelo tempo em questão estavam relacionadas seja com o momento de enunciação (hei feito), seja com o ponto de referência que fica anterior ao momento de enunciação (houve feito) (Cardoso-Pereira 2003: 173-174)."
I found her point kind of simple or way-too-direct. But do you think she, Hricsina, is right? She was the only one to openly talk about such compound tense (present perfect). In "Songs of Holy Mary of Alfonso X, The Wise: A Translation of the Cantigas de Santa Maria" by Kathleen Kulp-Hill, structures like "hei feito" are translated to "I have done", "I did" or even, with more context, "I do". You can see "hás" + past participle structures here. Do you have any insight about this? I cannot ignore structures like these. Thalyson2019 (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Very interesting! I'll take a look! Froaringus (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you have Discord? It'd be cool if you joined: https://discord.gg/krQaCR4f. There are some subjects within Galician we don't know about. Thalyson2019 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Update: yet, Jan Hriscsina, in another work of hers, "Evolução dos verbos auxiliares na língua portuguesa", said:
"É muito provável que, no Português Antigo, o pretérito perfeito composto tenha tido o mesmo valor que tem o mesmo tempo no Espanhol Contemporâneo, ou seja, tenha exprimido as ações anteriores ao momento presente. Estas ações, porém, tinham sempre uma certa relação ao presente (Cardoso e Pereira 2003: 170; Brocardo 2014: 146)." Thalyson2019 (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

What would be the most "correct" way to add pronunciations to words in Galician? // or []? I'm confused because sometimes I see you varying the use of these two :) Stríðsdrengur (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I prefer using [], even if the phonetic rendering is not that deep or exact (I understand that //, if used strictly, should only use true phonemes, and that would hide the real pronunciation of many words - especially the fact that /b/, /d/, /g/ in weak positions are pronounced as approximants and not as stops). I know sometimes I also use // in the infinitive of verbs (for example), but I can't help being a chaotic animal. Froaringus (talk) 13:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah yes I understand, thanks for the brief explanation. I would like to help you with Galician by adding pronunciations to the entries, I have an intermediate knowledge of the phonetics of the language and also because both Galician and Portuguese require "qualified labor", especially Galician since we only have you as a native speaker contributing. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 14:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

That would be great, thanks! :) Froaringus (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ola Froaringus! Perdón por molestarte de novo, @Rodrigo5260 e mais eu estamos pensando en crear un módulo de pronuncia para o galego e máis adiante necesitaremos a túa axuda para clasificar algúns fonemas como alófonos, etc. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok, sen problemas! Froaringus (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I hope you are well.

I have been constructing the paradigm of the verb "seer" as well as of others. I'll take the former as an example. Its first person singular preterite indicative, "fui, fun, foi, sevi, sive, seve", has developed many possibilities. Regarding the position of their stressed syllables or vaguely letters, I know that "fui, fun, foi, sive, seve" are clear, but "sevi". Some source-less pages list it as "seví".

Now for their respective first person plural imperfect indicative, we have "amavamos", with the stressed syllable on "-va-". In Modern Portuguese, at least generically, we have "amávamos" with the stressed syllable on "-má-". We call it "sístole". Do you know when Portuguese innovated it? The author of "Cantigas de Santa Maria for Singers" went even further when correcting his notes, and said: "The stress position on the tiny handful of 1st and 2nd person plural pluperfect verb forms has been fixed. Previously these were marked incorrectly as proparoxytone (stressed on the antepenultimate syllable), i.e. *víramos, *fôramos, *fôrades, *ouvéramos (that's a complete list). They now appear correctly as viramos, foramos, forades, ouveramos with regular penultimate stress. Note, however, that the past subjunctives are proparoxytone, so you'll still find ouvéssemos, perdêssedes and so on. In CSM 345:14 I have corrected *ouvera to ouvéra. (This one slipped through the net previously due to the synalepha marking.)". In his view, in addition to the syllable "-ve-" in "overamos" being pronounced with a close <e>, -ra- is the tonic one. Is there any source about it?

Besides, I compared the verb "seer" of the Old Spanish language with that of Old Galician-Portuguese, I noticed that the Old Spanish third person singular present indicative forms "es, siede, *siee, sie, see, seye" differ greatly from its singular imperative forms, "see, se, séy". I applied the same formula for Old Galician-Portuguese, by removing the <d>s and replacing the <ie>s with <é>s and ignoring or adjusting some features. Then I got "séé" (double open <e>) and "sé" (single open <e>) for the indicative mood and "sêe", "sei" and "sê" (all with close <e>(s)) for the imperative one. A linguist of Spanish whose name I forgot said "sedī" has nothing to with the imperative mood of the Old Spanish language. In Old Galician-Portuguese it would have become "séi" (with an open <e>) according to the online tool Metaplasmador. Coincidentally, some linguists of Portuguese and Galician state "séi" as a verb, not "sei". I somehow disagreed with them, and chose "sei". Some linguists recognize just "sei". I know that Old Spanish and Old Galician-Portuguese are different languages, but both, in my opinion, were somewhat close to each other to the point of just being dialects around the 8th century. I strongly accepted "sêe", "sei" and "sê" as imperative forms, as the latter exists.

Do you have any opinion on such topic?

Sorry for my English as I had to type it fast. Thalyson2019 (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm good! I've been working hard here for the last four [edit:six and a half] years or so, but now I'm working on some personal projects that are taking most of my free time. Honestly, you have gone way deeper on this subject than me, so I don't have a strong opinion. I agree that both OGP and OS (and Old Leonese in between) were much closer in the first millennium, so speakers would find that they spoke different accents, rather than languages.

One question I have is if we are doing the correct thing using accents here, since I understand that they weren't used back there. Pärs Larson uses them, but his is a descriptive grammar, so it makes sense; and our dictionary is based on attestation. Saúde! Froaringus (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Right. Thank you so much for introducing us Pär Larson. His work is really logical, since it can guide readers. The accents should only be in the conjugation tables, like, if you click "vêe" which is in a conjugation table, you'll access the accentless page "vee". The verb "riír" was complicated, if I were to put all of its attested forms, there would be a lot of problems plus visual pollution as I discussed with MedK. All I did was follow up the Latin conjugation tables. Besides, previously, I tried to change or add other accents, i.e, seía > seia, seiamos > seíamos, vee > vêe, sée > séé, so the whole Portuguese community and also the Galician one could understand what's written, but I somehow noticed that Pär Larson created a logical system. So if I altered such system, I could end up changing the sounds by accidentally affecting the tonic syllables. Also, within the Modern Galician language, do you pronounce "amávamos" or "amavámos"? Do you pronounce "virámos" or "víramos"? "Ouverádes" or "ouvérades"? Do people in Galicia use "sode", "so" and "sonde" as imperative verbs? I saw that you use "sodes", "sos" and "sondes" in the indicative mood, with just an extra -s. Maybe a Modern Galician reference would be better. Thalyson2019 (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why are there, in Modern Galician, many paradigms for its second person plural preterite indicative, i.e., "amaste", "amasche" and "amache"? Are there "figesche", "figeche" and "figeste"? Thalyson2019 (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Actually, older speakers (or myself if say, publicly speaking) would use amabámos or virámos, since it is standard; but younger speakers would usually say amábamos or víramos mostly due to Spanish influence.

I haven't heard sode, so or sonde in the imperative... (but sede, sé and sende) To be honest, you would usually employ the estar rather than ser verb for those instances ('tade calados, ho! - Silence!). In the indicative sodes is the standard; sos is dated now, although it was really alive and kicking in the 19th century and before; sondes is dialectal.

As for amaches/amache/amaste, the first form in the most extended and standard (standard Galician is actually a koiné based on the several Galician dialects). The other two forms are dialectal. For facer (Pt. fazer) is fixeches/fixeches/fixeste. Froaringus (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. Do you also have amasche, amasches and amastes or any other possible form? Is the first <e> in sede open or close? It's interesting to know "sé" has an open <e> in your dialect... Is the first <e> in "ouverádes" open or close? Your dialect plus Pär Larson's work reflect many Old Galician-Portuguese features. I guess it's time to me gather some information on Modern Galician. Most linguistic changes within this language happened before the 16th century, so I can easily trace some features of it based on your answers. I speak Brazilian Portuguese, so it's obvious my studies will be "biased" towards the Southern and Central Portugal as almost every article I read is either written by a Brazilian or a Portuguese, otherwise, it's a by a non-native speaker of Galician. Exploring Galicia and Northern Portugal is crucial. And just out of curiosity: isn't it possible to confuse the second person singular preterite indicative amastes (você amou) for the second person plural preterite indicative amastes (vocês amaram)? Sorry for bothering you. Thalyson2019 (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

A priori, both forms can be confused in areas where both forms are in use in speech; in practice, seldom so: for example, I say "ti amaches/comiches/partiches" (as the standard), but "vós amáchedes/comíchedes/partíchedes" (vs. standard vós amastes/comistes/partistes!), which is a "hyper-characterized" formation already attested since the early 19th century.

There's a recent book studying the historical relations of Northern Portuguese and Galician, during the last five centuries, with standard Portuguese: Xosé Manuel Sánchez Rei (2022): O Portugués esquecido. ISBN 9788484875628. Froaringus (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for your help and patience. I have two more questions, the first <e> in erádes or ouverádes is open? And "sé"? This will be important for the conjugation tables. If "sé" is open, I'll have to make some editions. Some linguists say that "sê" (with close <e>) exists in Portuguese. Thalyson2019 (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. For me, they are closed, but I'm pretty sure that they could be pronounced open elsewhere in Galicia, especially in the east. In any case, don't quote me on this! Froaringus (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'm a fellow Lusophone editor and I'm interested in your dictionary recommendations for contemporary Galician, as well as any you have for Old Galician. Ortsacordep (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, @Ortsacordep! The main normative dictionary is that of the Real Academia Galega (https://academia.gal/dicionario). Other notable dictionaries on-line are Ir Indo's one (https://digalego.xunta.gal/gl) and Estraviz's (https://estraviz.org/, which for their current authors is a rather a dictionary of the "Portuguese of Galicia", as if we weren't naming our language galego since the 13th century at least).

Other dictionaries are recompiled in the Dicionario de Dicionarios project (http://ilg.usc.gal/ddd/).

For knowing which vocabulary is currently used in speech, rather than in the written literary language: http://ilg.usc.es/Tesouro/ (which also covers European and Brasilian Portuguese).

For the Galician language spoken in Asturias (so, at the north-east limit of Galician-Portuguese, in continuity with Western Asturian): https://secretaria.uvigo.gal/uv/web/publicaciones/public/show/366

For Medieval Galician:

• Dicionario de Dicionarios do Galego Medieval (rather, a dictionary of glossaries): https://ilg.usc.gal/ddgm/index.php
• Glosario das Cantigas Galego-Portuesas: https://www.universocantigas.gal/glosario
• Dicionario de afixos e voces afixadas do galego medieval (can be freely downloaded here: https://illa.udc.gal/rgf/monografias/ )

Froaringus (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, in paper, the multi-volume Gran Dicionario Xerais da lingua galega, which is currently THE Galician dictionary. Froaringus (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. Ortsacordep (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

is the o in this word open or closed in Galician? (I put it as open because of its Portuguese cognate, but it may be wrong). Rodrigo5260 (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, @Rodrigo5260. Yes, it's open. Just in case, I searched for its historic pronunciation, and found it in a 1707 poem where "Europa" rhymes with "(eles) tocan", where the stressed o is open. Thanks! Froaringus (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much / Muchas gracias / Moitas grazas / Muito obrigado. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The module gl-pr generates the /ɟ/ symbol for the ll sound, is it true that Galician speakers are delateralizing the ll under Castilian influence, or that's a thing only neo-speakers do, while those who come from Galician speaking families still pronounce it as /ʎ/? Rodrigo5260 (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Right now this is very very generalized, specially in the west (where I live), but I think that's not the case everywhere, especially in the more conservative NE... I'm not very happy with that: the normative still says that the standard pronunciation is, or should be, /ʎ/. Froaringus (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The only thing I could read was: "Ensurdecimento em galego de /j/ procedente de "iode quarto" (hoxe). Mantém-se em português hoje." and that it happened or was happening around the 15th Source: https://ubibliorum.ubi.pt/bitstream/10400.6/6939/1/10.%20Fon%C3%A9tica%20esp-gal-port.pdf But I barely know what "iode quarto" means to be honest and the source itself doesn't specify where the person obtained the information from. Do you have any "accurate" source for it or know when it happened? Thalyson2019 (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. From the 15th centuries on some scribes already struggled to tell apart x/j/ge/gi, and so we can occasionally find spellings as debaijo (debaixo), puxe aqui meu nome (puge aqui meu nome), etc. This "wrong" spellings became much more frequent during the the 16th and 17th centuries.

The earliest author to point that in Galician je/ge/xe had the same pronunciation was father Sarmiento (mid 18th century, he was the first scholar to actually study the language and its past). Another 18th century author, José Cornide, wrote that j was pronounced in Galician as ch in French and Portuguese.

So the process started during the 15th century and was consummated well before the 18th century.

Ref: Ramón Mariño Paz (2017) Fonética e fonoloxía históricas da lingua galega (ISBN 978-84-9121-187-7), p. 484-488. Froaringus (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Froaringus in curuxa there is the fragment of a poem where Europa rhymes with popa, which I kinda found weird as its Portuguese cognate has closed /o/, or did it become open in Galician by analogy with others words ending in -opa? Rodrigo5260 (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, the o in popa is closed. Maybe the person who wrote the poem knew the word popa through Spanish... We usually adapt the Spanish e/o with open ɛ/ɔ. Froaringus (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I saw it: "vento en popa ... Europa". The author, Añón, lived abroad for a long time (also is Lisbon!), but "vento en popa" is a calque of Spanish "viento en popa", so I think that Añón pronounced the word with open o because of the influence of Spanish. Froaringus (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Does Galician have minimal pairs between nouns and verbal inflections?, or is that just a Portuguese innovation. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Such as? Froaringus (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Such as the noun having a closed /e/ /o/ and the verbal inflection an open /ɛ/ /ɔ/. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, "Eu cometo un erro" [ˈerʊ] versus "Eu erro" [ˈɛrʊ]? I guess is similar (although in Galician the different realizations of /a/ have no phonemic value). Froaringus (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

does something similar happen with decoro, pecho and ollo? Rodrigo5260 (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

With decoro, yes (Eu deco[ɔ]ro con deco[o]ro). The stressed o of ollo is open in the east and close in the west; but the o of ollar can also be affected by metaphony.

If something, there's no regular patron in Galician, as long as I know. Froaringus (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

So, it can vary depending on the region or even the speaker, isn't it? Rodrigo5260 (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Depending on the region, for sure. If a speaker is, lets we say, sub-competent (mainly because Spanish interference: probably 50% of current speakers are somehow there, me too) that not means that their mistakes are variants of the language. Froaringus (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I hope you are well. I'm literally about to finish part of the Medieval Galician language. Do you have any open source for those plural forms found in Galicia and their history? For example: podedes > podees > podês; sodes > soos > sôs. I, for some reason, have lost their sources and only have those for the Portuguese: podedes > podees > podeis; sodes > soes > sois. Thalyson2019 (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm OK, thanks! Yep: Ramón Mariño Paz (2017) "Fonética e fonoloxía históricas da lingua galega", pages 274-280 and 464-465, for example (evolution of hiatus in Medieval and Middle Galician, respectively; but I have no pdf!). Froaringus (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

So, while Galician usually tenden to get rid of hiatus through assimilation, Portuguese used the contrary approach, through dissimilation. For example: while today's standard plural form of animal is animais (which is the form used in eastern Galician and coincides with the Portuguese plural) the most common form in Middle Galician was animás < OGP animaes. Froaringus (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just a note that we try to avoid using archaic words in definitions. I came across a definition of Galician tornar that you added in 2018 using the verb "to repugn" along with a corresponding usex {{uxi|gl|Ese caldo '''torna'''! Está podre!|That broths '''repugns'''! It's spoiled!}}. This is an archaic verb hardly known any more and should be avoided in favor of e.g. "to be repugnant" or "to be disgusting". I'm not sure if you got this from a dictionary but in general if you're not familiar with English words, it's best to look them up to make sure they're not dated, archaic or obsolete. (Cf. Kim Jong Un using the word dotard.) Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

My fault! I didn't know that the verb was archaic. Also, there's the false friend factor (Galician repugnar 'to be disgusting; to cause disgust'). Thanks! Froaringus (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ola Froaringus! Como estás? Gustaríame invitarte ao meu servidor de Discord, eu e outros editores de lingua ibérica debatemos sobre lingüística e temas relacionados. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Obrigado, meu! Touche con bastante choio, ultimamente, mais verei de entrar! Froaringus (talk) 07:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply