User talk:Angr

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

RE: Galician cu[edit]

Sorry. You are right. I am more careful with copy and paste. Regards and thanks. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It may be. But I am not sure, because I don't know phonetic. Regards --Vivaelcelta (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but sometimes the words choose, like oso and óso. But in this case it must be well. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


In this Spanish entry hijo de puta, appears plural and feminine form. But in this Galician fillo de puta, entry doesn't appear the feminine form. Can you fix? Regards and thanks. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I can't, sorry. The difference is that {{es-noun}} allows you to specify a feminine equivalent, but {{gl-noun}} doesn't. And I don't know how to fix that. But you can still add filla de puta manually to a ====Coordinate terms==== subsection on the fillo de puta page. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I just added the f= parameter. It should be working now. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


How is into English the Spanish word autopase? It is a pass that gives and receives the same player ignoring the opposing to him obstructs. Regards. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know anything at all about soccer. I did find Google hits for the word self-pass, but I don't know if that's the same thing as Spanish autopase. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Spanish accentuation[edit]

Why is reloj accented on the last syllable? And why can the final j be not pronounced? Is there a rule? --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Reloj is accented on the last syllable because the spelling rule in Spanish is that words ending in a consonant letter other than n and s are stressed on the last syllable (e.g. verdad, niñez). The j can be silent because in many varieties of Spanish, j is pronounced /h/ rather than /x/, and in a whole lot of languages (including English) /h/ never appears at the end of a word. And I guess even in the varieties of Spanish where j is pronounced /x/, there are so few words ending in /x/ (or indeed any non-coronal consonant) that it feels weird to Spanish speakers to say /reˈlox/, so they drop the /x/ and and say /reˈlo/. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Any other consonants causing drop at word-final? --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Not that I can think of off the top of my head. I'll let you know if anything occurs to me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Can you help me see why adminiculo lost its d? Other than that, please check the cases in Template:es-pronunc/documentation. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know that word; adminiculo is a Latin word. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd go easy on the diacritics in the narrow transcription. They make it harder to read and often suggest a greater level of precision than is either necessary or true. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I mean the adminiculo in the testcases. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know why. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Eye dialect[edit]

I've looked for some citations, and it seems you're right that the term eye dialect is used for nonstandard spellings of standard pronunciations. But in that case, it seems like we're misusing {{eye dialect of}} in some of our entries. For instance, ze, aboot, you welcome, and wonderfool. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are misusing that. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Template:es-conj-ar[edit]

And is there any way that you could unprotect it? Thanks in advance --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've bumped the protection down to semiprotection, so you should be able to edit it now. I didn't make any changes to the template itself. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. --kc_kennylau (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Please lower the protection level in all the other templates. --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


You noted that the verb had an incorrect perfect, which has since then been modified... is it now correct? ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 18:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. As long as it uses {{grc-conj-perfect-labial}} rather than {{grc-conj-perfect}} everything's okay. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


As far as I know, the regular reflex of PIE *-R̥HR- sequences (two resonants) in Celtic is *-RāR-, while the reflex of *-R̥HC- (obstruent) is *-RaC-. Compare for example *pl̥Hmeh₂ (hand) > Celtic *ɸlāmā, which has almost the same structure. w:Proto-Celtic seems to corroborate this. —CodeCat 23:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's what's supposed to happen. But Brythonic unambiguously shows an original short -a-, since -ā- would have become aw in Welsh, as in *ɸlāmā > llaw(f). Meanwhile Goidelic actually can't come from either *wlānā (which would have given O.Ir. ×flán) or *wlanā (O.Ir. ×flan) but only from *ulanā or *ulānā with a syllabic u-. And the Welsh word at least (I don't know about Cornish and Breton) is masculine, not feminine, so it actually seems to come from *wlano-. Maybe *wlanā was reinterpreted as a collective/neuter plural and a new singular *wlanom was back-formed from it. Matasovic reconstructs both a feminine *ulanā and a neuter *wlāno-, though the vocalism of the latter seems to be based on what we expect *-l̥h₁n- to become rather than on actual Celtic evidence. He also reconstructs the PIE word without an initial laryngeal, saying the initial h in Hittite is due to metathesis and that "there is no other evidence for the word-initial laryngeal in PIE" (I guess because Greek is λῆνος (lênos) and not ×ἀλῆνος). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


Do those cites look better?

Besides which, the Wiktionary:About_Irish section on Sources says "... so entries are considered sufficiently verified if a single mention (not necessarily use) is found, for example a listing in a published dictionary or word list."

Does Dinneen not count? (Or Ó Dónaill, for that matter.) Catsidhe (verba, facta) 11:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Dictionaries like Dinneen and Ó Dónaill are sufficient for verification purposes - an entry that can be found in a dictionary won't fail RFV. But {{LDL}} is there to encourage the addition of real cites too; the presence of {{LDL}} doesn't mean the entry's verifiability is in question, merely that it could be improved. Thanks for doing the work and finding actual cites; you can remove the {{LDL}} tag now if you want. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


Hello, yes i think so. « si » is not a suffixe, it's a grammatical nonsense. I have too baad english. I give the reasons to you in italian. La particella « si » non é un suffisso, è piuttosto un pronome enclitico, come le particelle pronominali atone mi, ti, ci, vi, lo, la, ne. Riferimenti : Si personale ; il verbo ; il pronome personale ; coniugazione pronominale o riflessiva. Italian pleasure is to acculate personnal pronoun. Just see dirmelo (tell me it) it's an enclise of pronoun mi and article lo and « melo » is not a suffixe. And you can find many exemples of this kind of word : dirglielo (dire+gli+lo), dircelo (dire+ci+lo), dirgliene (dire+gli+a+ne). It will be very difficult for good comprehension of italian if you don't integrate the special maner to use personnal pronoun. it's better way to say the enclise form on the article si. I hope i was clear in my explications. Best regards. - 13:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's a particle or a pronoun, not a suffix, the thing to do is to replace the line ===Suffix=== with ===Particle=== or ===Pronoun=== and {{head|it|suffix}} with {{head|it|particle}} or {{head|it|pronoun}}. But deleting the whole entry without putting the information somewhere else is simply destructive. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, I am taking part in your conversation, it is already very well explained in section Italian si (see part 3 « si passivante) ». You can actually remove the suffix -si which does not exist in Italian. It's only an enclitic form appears after the verb as explained in the article « si ».
When I get a chance, I'll start a deletion discussion for -si. It shouldn't be deleted without wider discussion. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Fingers and thumbs[edit]

As you were so helpful on Dauern....perhaps you can help with this. I understand that

Ich drücke dir die Daumen!

is an idiomatic expression equivalent to crossing one's fingers, but whose thumbs are being pressed? Is it mine or yours, or both together? SpinningSpark 17:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It's the speaker's own thumbs. Sometimes people even make the gesture seen in the photo at w:de:Daumen drücken while they say it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. SpinningSpark 23:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


Hey. Some time ago I added a usage note on im vs. "in dem", which you deleted because you were not d'accord with the way I defined "demonstrative" or something. (That was before I created this account.) I've given it another shot. I hope you'll agree this time. If not, please don't delete the note altogether but adapt it.Kolmiel (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Btw. Where I use the word "indicative" I'm translating the German hinweisend. If you know a better word...Kolmiel (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
And another (unrelated) thing: I saw that you changed my notes on deinen stating it's not a pronoun but a determiner. You're absolutely right, of course, by English nomenclature. In most of our German entries, however, the English word "pronoun" is used according to the German meaning of "Pronomen". Therefore I thought that's how we handle it... But okay, that's not the case then. When I see "pronoun" used the German way, I'll consider it an error.Kolmiel (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
As I remember, the problem with im wasn't how you defined "demonstrative" or "indicative", it was that you said uncontracted in dem could not be used with the unemphatic, simple definite-article meaning of dem, which isn't true. Any usage of im can be replaced by in dem (except maybe in some stock phrases), although not all usages of in dem can be replaced by im, since you are right that when dem is demonstrative or relative there can be no contraction. So for "He's sitting in the chair" you can say either Er sitzt im Stuhl or Er sitzt in dem Stuhl, but for "He's sitting in that chair" you can only say Er sitzt in dem Stuhl (da), and for "He's sitting in the (very) chair that his father bought" only Er sitzt in dem Stuhl, den sein Vater gekauft hat, and for "the chair he's sitting in" only der Stuhl, in dem er sitzt. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'm sorry, but you're really wrong about that. Im is indeed obligatory in many cases. In the examples that I give im cannot be replaced with in dem. You cannot say: *Er arbeitet in dem technischen Bereich. Or: *Wir sitzen in dem Garten. That's ungrammatical. And I don't mean by prescriptive rules, but by the native rules of German. Kolmiel (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
You could say: Er arbeitet in dem technischen Bereich der Firma. Or: Wir sitzen in dem Garten des Hauses. (Although I would say that at least the latter is doubtful.) In these cases there is a limited amount of, well, deixis is not the right word, but an indication of a particular "technischer Bereich" or a particular "Garten". I don't know the correct linguistic term for it, or if there is one... but if you don't have that, meaning if the definite article is used in a generalizing sense, you cannot use in dem.Kolmiel (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
By the way, look for "Wir sitzen in dem Garten" via google: one single (!) hit and it is indeed "Wir sitzen in dem Garten des Hauses". You needn't believe me but I didn't check that before I wrote what I wrote above :) And the same would be true for "im Hof", "im Park", and so on.Kolmiel (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I know I'm spamming... But here's a doctor thesis about the problem. [1] As I said, it also shows that contracted forms are obligatory in many cases, and are only occasionally interchangeable with non-contracted forms... I think I'm going to read through that on occasion in order to improve the phrasing of my usage note (since the word "deixis", which I use, is or course note quite correct.) Best regards.Kolmiel (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe it's old-fashioned or formal, but I don't think it's flat-out ungrammatical. I found the following examples on Wikisource (which is biased toward old-fashioned texts because they have to be public domain): "was er aber da in dem Sack mit sich führe, das sey noch köstlicher und noch viel mehr werth", "In dem Probentheater wird täglich, außer Sonntag, von neun Uhr vormittags bis sechs Uhr abends gespielt", "In bürgerlichen Rechtsstreitigkeiten sind in dem Verfahren vor den Gerichtsbehörden in dem Schutzgebiete alle Entscheidungen, einschließlich der auf Grund einer mündlichen Verhandlung ergehenden, von Amtswegen zuzustellen." I don't think any of those "in dem"'s is particularly deictic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes true, because "deictic" is not the right word, as I admitted. The contracted forms are obligatory when the article has a generic or generalizing sense.
Maybe a good example is the following. (I took it from that doctor thesis):
Das kann man im Supermarkt kaufen. --> "You can buy that at a supermarket."
English would use an indefinite article here. There's no particular supermarket, it's just "supermarket[s]" as a generic term. In this case it is obligatory.
Das kann man in dem Supermarkt kaufen. --> "You can buy that at the supermarket [which is down the street]."
It's not "deictic", but it's referring to a particular supermarket. In this case "im" is opitional or even less common than "in dem".
As I said, it's probably a good idea for me to "read myself into" the matter, and then make a more correct usage note, although I do think it is good enough to leave it for the time being. But otherwise feel free to delete it. I'll do that some weeks from now. Best regards.Kolmiel (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for your help with the Proto-Celtic entries. --Victar (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Lower Sorbian suchy[edit]

Hi, could you handle the Lower Sorbian adjective suchy (dry)? Since Mulder1982 (talkcontribs) added that to a Wiki translation table, I could might as well ask him/her about Slovak suchý; and Martin123xyz (talkcontribs) about Macedonian сув. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, added. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Slovak added. Did some maintenance on the Czech entry aswell. Mulder1982 (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Myanmar fonts[edit]

Do you have any ideas on how to see the Burmese script completely? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I use Myanmar1 and Padauk, free downloads from here. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't get to the download of the former. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I installed Padauk, but I'm not sure if I did it right (it only modifies the appearance of links instead of the titles of entries). --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't really know any more about it, sorry! All I know is it works for me, I don't know why... —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Old Irish!?[edit]


I was just reading your Babel box, and noticed that you ranked yourself at being advanced in Goíðelc/Göiddielg.

Being both of Irish descent myself and a linguist, I enviest thee. The "Keough" amid me is now lit mid passion!

In any case, how and where did you learn to become so fluent in Old Irish? Tharthan (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't about "fluent". I rank myself as level 3 in comparison to most people, but that doesn't mean I could sit down and chat merrily away with the locals if I time-traveled back to 9th-century Ireland. I took several classes in Old Irish at university, but what improved my Old Irish the most was writing a small grammar book and vocabulary list for learners. Getting everything prepared for that book made me extremely familiar with the grammar of the language that probably has the most complicated verbal morphology of any Indo-European language. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


(why use more characters to do the same thing?)

Because I found the page through a translation request category, the format as I found it wasn't working, and when I tried to fix it as it was, there was no documentation to tell me what magic incantation would do the right thing, so I copied what was there which did work. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 13:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Proto language cognates[edit]

Hey, would you happen to know what the standard is in listing proto language terms as cognates? In the example *angʷīnā, I could use PGmc *naglaz and PSlav *nogъtь, since both are well reconstructed, but is better practice to only mention attested forms? --Victar (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with listing blue-linked proto-forms. Maybe ask at the Etymology scriptorium for more opinions. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
There was a BP discussion about this a few months ago. —CodeCat 13:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
What was the consensus from that? --Victar (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
If it was anything like most BP discussions, 3 people discussed it vaguely without reaching any consensus and then the discussion fizzled out. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, we're 3 people, and if no one objects, I'll just add reconstructed cognates if the entries exist. --Victar (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
My 2c: I think it's fine to add reconstructed entries to other reconstructed entries as cognates or possible cognates. In this case, Proto-Celtic, Proto-Germanic and Proto-Slavic are known to be related (all coming from PIE), so the notion that these specific forms are cognates seems to be as certain as the notion that they existed at all (which is to say, reasonably certain). I think it's fine to list even just possible cognates (labelled as such) in reconstructed entries; e.g. a few of our PIE entries say things to the effect of "considered by proponents of the Indo-Uralic theory to be possibly cognate to Uralic *foo". I wouldn't list other reconstructions in main namespace entries, though; e.g. in ionga I would say "from Proto-Celtic *angʷīnā, cognate to English nail", not "from Proto-Celtic *angʷīnā, cognate to Proto-Germanic *naglaz". - -sche (discuss) 19:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Great, I think we're all on the same page. Thanks all. --Victar (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Irish pronoun table template[edit]

The Irish pronouns are all over the place, and it's quite hard to find the right one unless you already have a good idea what you are looking for. To that extent, I have hacked up User:Catsidhe/Irish_Pronouns, based on Template:English personal pronouns.

Can you think of any errors, improvements or missing details? I used the "subject"/"objective" headers from the original, which can certainly be improved.

I left out the Reflexive because it's just pronoun + féin (is it worth including mé féin, tú féin, etc. as a column, and/or as lemmas?), and there is no equivalent of "mine", "ours" as far as I know. (Or is there? My understanding is that "That's mine" would be Tá sé sin mo (rud) é.)

Is there an impersonal pronoun beyond duine/aon duine/duine ar bith? Is it worth including that?

Anyone else you can think of who might have input?

--Catsidhe (verba, facta) 05:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm changing subjective/objective to conjunctive/disjunctive (see w:Irish grammar#Conjunctive forms and w:Disjunctive pronoun) since those terms more accurately describe the difference. I don't think mé féin etc. need separate lemmas, but we could include a column for reflexive forms anyway, with the words linked individually thus: {{m|ga|[[]] [[féin]]}}. The usual way of saying "That's mine" is "Is liomsa é sin". Irish doesn't have an impersonal pronoun; the autonomous verb form is used for that instead. Embryomystic might have some comments too. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm wondering how to structure a Reflexive column to fit conjuntive/disjunctive. I tried it with an extra two columns for "conjunctive reflexive" and "disjunctive reflexive", but it didn't really add any information which couldn't be replicated with a simple note at the bottom linking to and explaining the use of féin. I've also added thú, which I had missed.
@Embryomystic:, what do you think? If we think it's worthy, I plan to create {{Template:Irish personal pronouns}} with this table, to make the "see also"s a little less haphazard.
As a true reflexive, féin of course only goes with disjunctive pronouns, but it can also go with conjunctive pronouns as an emphatic form: dúirt sé féin é "He himself said it". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it looks great. Thanks for putting in the work. embryomystic (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)