User talk:Djkcel/2023

Proto-Celtic *welsos

At the page https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/welsos, you appear to have made an error. Specifically, you have indicated that the word *welsos has descended from a PIE *(h₁)welh₁(bʰ)-, which is mentioned in the cited entry by Matasović 2009, so all well and good so far. But your entry then says that *(h₁)welh₁(bʰ)- has descended from *weh₁y-. This doesn't explain the -l- in the former nor the -y- in the latter and is phonologically impossible according to everything I've ever read about PIE and its development into Proto-Celtic. Is this something you could correct?

Further, Matasović reconstructs the word as *wello-. Where did the -s- suffix come from in the reconstruction you are using? Demolition man (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey Demolition Man

For your second question, I'll refer you to @Mellohi!:, since he moved it from *wello- to *welsos. I think it has something to do with the forms we lemmatize in contrast to Matasovic's, but I'm not entirely sure.

For your first question, it seems that I had contaminated the etyl with another root in Pokorny, probably because I was looking at MacBain's entry for feall. I didn't include it in the sources so I can see the confusion, but it's not a good comparison he made anyway. I've updated the etyl to the root in Pokorny that Matasovic refers readers to (1140). Thanks for bringing it to my attention. DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 02:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Djkcel! Demolition man (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked you for diff; you put in a derivative of the root as the etymon of the root. Wiktionary displayed this erroneous information for 6 days until an IP changed it. You were previously banned for your edit at भू and the nature of the mistake was identical to this one, so it is obvious that you haven't learned from your mistake. Your stubborn refusal to stay away from languages you do not understand has necessitated this block - because that is the only way for us to prevent you from reducing the accuracy of the content on our pages. You were told before that you will be blocked for longer durations, the more you persist in not improving or refusing to stay away from languages you do not understand. You have been committing the same mistakes for so many years now - people have been permabanned for much less. 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 06:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Cognates on new lines

Why are you still moving cognates to new lines in etymologies carte blanche everywhere? -- {{victar|talk}} 01:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello old friend, good to see you again. IMO the cognates being put together on the same line of the etymology looks messy, and it becomes a slippery slope when editors come by and start adding more and more cognates to the end until it becomes a giant blob. If the cognates get their own line I think it looks better, especially on mobile. I know we've gone back and forth on this for quite a while, but with all due respect I'm going to keep doing it until a rule tells me to do otherwise. Or maybe a compromise is to just go back to using template:rel-top or just getting rid of the cognates entirely? water is an example I keep coming back to. DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 02:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Djkcel, I understand that you have your personal preferences on what you think "looks better". Here's the thing though -- you're imposing your personal preference on English editors, Sanskrit editors, Latin editors -- all without their say, or taking them into consideration. Not everyone agrees with you that this "looks better" and, in fact, you're undoing their formatting preferences from when they created the entry. --{{victar|talk}} 00:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I think a lot of this would be solved by just not adding unnecessary cognates at all. Seeing the edits at laachje: Why give Old English at all? Just keep it at West Frisian. Thadh (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Thadh, trimming unnecessary cognates is certainly the way to go, but Djkcel would have all cognates moved to a new line, as shown in their edits. --{{victar|talk}} 23:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Who finds garbage like this or this readable? 3 or 4 cognates, sure, but after that it starts to become a mess. That's all I'm trying to do here. DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 01:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

You say "3 or 4 cognates, sure", but then as seen in Thadh's example, you did this. The solution isn't to push all cognates to a new line, or hide them in a box, but instead, as Thadh said, tactically trim away the bloat. --{{victar|talk}} 02:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Sama

The Hebrew etymology you gave differs from the one in the reference. Which one is it? --Biolongvistul (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

DAFN updates their entries every now and then, which looks to be the case here. But actually, looks like Italian Samà didn't exist back when I made that edit, and now it does. So the updated biblical/Hebrew stuffs can go in there. I've updated. DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 20:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

гъдулка (gǎdulka)

Hi @Djkcel, any particular reason why you removed a valid portion of the etymology for this word? You didn't leave a diff message.

Thanks,

Chernorizets (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Sup Chernorizets

I just replaced the PIE part of the etyl chain with dercat, which keeps the PIE categorization without having to show the root. The reason I did this was because the Proto-Balto-Slavic intermediary was missing, so in situations like this we can either add the BSL or just keep it at Proto-Slavic and use dercat for the rest. I tend to prefer the latter because it keeps the etyl more concise and avoids inconsistencies, but we can go either way. If you prefer having the full etyl for Bulgarian entries I can do that too. DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 18:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

𐭢𐭥𐭦

Where are you copying the etymology for 𐭢𐭥𐭦 from? The Old Persian reconstruction is wrong, as is the Proto-Iranian. --{{victar|talk}} 06:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that's from Persian گوز (“walnut”), and the PIr. form is also found at Old Armenian ընկոյզ (ənkoyz) DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 18:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Cool, don't copy-pasta etymologies from areas you aren't familiar enough to judge the quality of the etymology, particularly reconstructions. @Pulimaiyi --{{victar|talk}} 23:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Iatinum

Where did you get this Proto-Celtic reconstruction in the etymology? --{{victar|talk}} 00:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry man, I wish remember what 2019 me was using at the time. My best guesses are

* Robert Bedon - 1999 - Les Villes des trois Gaules: de César à Néron dans leur contexte historique, territorial et politique or

* Evans, D. E. (1967). Gaulish Personal Names: A Study of Some Continental Celtic Formations. United Kingdom: Clarendon P.

A quick look shows that most sources agree on a Gaulish origin, but I'd need to dig further to find the ford bit. Do you find connection with *yātus (“plausible”) ? DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 00:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

A city in Gaul being Gaulish in origin isn't surprising, but the reconstruction is off. --{{victar|talk}} 22:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

And Vercellae. --{{victar|talk}} 00:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

UTET as sourced DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 00:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey neat we have a template for that, didn't know. DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 00:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Can quote the etymology from this book? --{{victar|talk}} 22:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Ping. --{{victar|talk}} 09:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Page 78

L’Olivieri 1965, 92 lo suppone gallico, ma non da maggiori indicazioni. Il Pellegrini 1981 vi riconosce radici celtiche, facendolo pero risalire al tema indeuropeo *bheug / beugh , con valore di ‘curva, piega’, ma ammette che il problema resta da approfondire e pone in alternativa la connessione con buca. Molto interessante sembra inoltre cio che mette in evidenza il Bruzza (Torrione-Crovella 1963, 107), accostando nell’analisi i due toponimi Bugella e Vercellae, dove riconosce un’identica base cella, che egli interpreta come ‘luogo’, e due prefissi appositivi bu ‘minore’ e ver ‘maggiore’

DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 19:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought maybe it would list some Celtic cognates for the etymology, but they don't. Without that, this etymology should be rejected as it's just a complete shot in the dark. --{{victar|talk}} 21:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)