User talk:Florian Blaschke

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



Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

  • How to edit a page 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.
  • Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


Hello! Please add a BabelBox to your userpage so we know what languages we can help in. Thanks! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


Just because you "Can't see a reason" does not make the work of professional etymologists wrong. The next time you can't see the reason, try asking first. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Which Spanish and Portuguese etymological dictionaries have you already tried? Have you looked at the 1856 Diccionario etimológico de la lengua castellana, precidido de unos Rudimentos de etimología treatise on Spanish etymology by Pedro Felipe Monlau y Roca? Which Galegan and French etymological dictionaries did you check? Or are you only asking now because you got caught out? You're quick to eliminate information that you "can't see" justification for, without a reference to support you, but won't change your mind without chapter and verse? Did it never occur to you that the inheritted "native" forms are dios, dieu, etc. and that Deus was secondarily borrowed from Ecclesiastical Latin? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Please stop this line of argument. If you think that it's "not my job", then you shouldn't be editing a wiki. EncycloPetey has already gone through more trouble in providing you refs than I would have. In fact, he already listed some of the "native" forms and you apparently failed to understand him. The only thing I appreciate here is that you apparently have ceased to edit war at Deus. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


Do you have any sources on the origin of the word elephant? Beekes claim that Greek ἐλέφας (eléphas) is Berber-Egyptian compound which sounds stupid. The oldest related attestation is Akkadian 𒄠𒋛 (pīru) (see talkpage). Blažek (see reference) is a well-known long ranger, even though his explanation seems plausible, and the Russian web site, apparently sourcing Militarev & Kogan (not checked in paper edition though), optimistically reconstructs plethora of Proto-Semitic forms, and Orel's work cited at 𓍋𓃀𓅱𓌟 has been criticized for many errors. Something more up-to-date and without agenda is needed. If necessary, we can create an appendix page which would discuss all theories and which individual etymologies could link to. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


I've read it will be online. Do you perhaps know when? :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Not right now, but I could ask – or write to Kümmel. With the LIV2, most handy as PDF, and the addenda, however, I don't have a pressing need for it personally, although I'm looking forward to it, too :)
Probably even more important for us, it seems Kroonen's book is finally available! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Which LIV for Proto-Baltic *rad-?[edit]

You added information from the LIV to the etymology section of Latvian rast, plus an argumentation that looks like OR (original research). Nothing against it, but I'd like it to be properly sourced. Could you give me the reference to the version of the LIV that you pulled that particular interpretation from? Is there a reference to your claim that "some remnant of the initial w, even if regularly lost word-initially, should have remained in other (e.g., zero-grade) forms", or should you yourself be credited? (If you don't want to write the necessary footnote, I can do it myself, if you provide the necessary information and references.) --Pereru (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's OR; do with it what you want, I don't care. I think Stang (1966), Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen, is the standard reference on Baltic out there, if you need a source for the claim that initial *w definitely does not disappear and stays put before * in Baltic (compare Old Prussian wīrds "word"), if not before consonantal *r also. There are only two editions of the LIV so far (the third edition is apparently going to be published online, see above) and I always use the most recent one.
I just tried to correct the existing account, which could easily contain OR as well (one should need to check the source, but it's difficult to do so for those Wiktionarians – i. e., most of us – who don't read Latvian; reason not to provide refs in exotic languages without relevant literal quote and translation), and "*werdʰ-, *wr-edʰ-, *h₂erHdʰ- ("to grow; high")" is patent nonsense: you can't have a root that capriciously starts either in w or a laryngeal (and may contain a further laryngeal), depending on your mood, or whatever you happen to find convenient. These are clearly two (or more) different roots. ---Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Balto-Slavic notation[edit]

Ivan Štambuk and I have had some disagreements in the past over the rules about what notation to use for Proto-Balto-Slavic terms. His point of view seems to be that we can only use words in the exact same notation that is found in sources. His stance is also that we can only copy from sources verbatim, and are not allowed to do any etymological researching of our own, even though there is no policy against original research on Wiktionary (and it's one of the reasons WT:ES is full of such researching). My own stance is that such a practice is unworkable because you get a mishmash of different reconstructions and notations that confuse the user without really adding any benefit. It also goes against our long-standing practice of normalising the notation of other reconstructed languages like Proto-Germanic and Proto-Indo-European. I've invited Ivan to discuss this at Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Balto-Slavic and I would appreciate it if you joined in as well. —CodeCat 12:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not "notation" it's your original research with which you contaminated a bunch of articles with. There are several mutually conflicting reconstructions of Balto-Slavic, and what you are pushing under the disguise of being a merely a notional convention is in fact a theory synthesized by you and not supported by any other scholar. You even object your original research being tagged as such. Yes it should be a "mishmash" of different theories because there is not a single theory supported by every linguist. People coming to etymologies of Balto-Slavic words want to be presented with credible scholarship not theories fabricated by Wiktionary editors. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
See, this is the kind of disagreement I mean. I look forward to having a proper discussion to sort this out. —CodeCat 12:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you first undo all of your disputed edits ? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I actually undid your disputed edits. —CodeCat 12:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
My edits are not disputed. They were backed up by sources. That you personally disagree with respect scholars is yours and only yours problem. You're making original research and selectively ignoring large chunk of scholarship. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand your disagreement. Unifying notations is not original research. What Derksen transcribes as *o is the exact same phoneme as what most others notate as *a. Proto-Balto-Slavic had merged earlier *a and *o (apparently after final i was lost after long vowel plus m, ō was shortened before final consonants, for example in the genitive plural – of the thematic stems and probably others – or the thematic first person singular, and stressed syllable-final o became u – see Hill's paper for this). There is absolutely no need to tolerate inconsistencies in notation. WT:AINE-BSL is a good guide.
For example, some sources transcribe the Proto-Germanic phonemes usually notated as /h/, /þ/, /b/, /d/, /g/ respectively as /χ/, /θ/, /ƀ/ or /β/, /đ/ or /ð/, /ǥ/ or /ɣ/ (to say nothing of the notoriously controversial Auslaut). We use Ringe's rather traditional notation, but for example Kroonen's is different. We all know that PIE notations differ from source to source; I'm not sure on what authority our notation is based. If we disallow unification, we could not take reconstructions from sources that transcribe Proto-Germanic differently, or that notate PIE differently, whether with regard to major points such as the presence of laryngeals or trivial differences such as how to notate labialisation, palatalisation or aspiration, or alternatively we would be required to put up with chaos and ugly crowded titles listing every attested notation. That would be patently absurd.
It is a fact of life in historical linguistics, and in fact everywhere in linguistics, that there are almost no universally agreed norms and almost every author follows a slightly different notation, sometimes even more than one during the course of one's work, just like terms and names may differ slightly from author to author, but most differences are transparent and trivial and do not impede communication because linguists are smart, flexible people, not rigidly programmed computers. It is more like different dialects or national written standards.
Wikifundamentalism is uncalled for. The requirement to source our reconstructions does not extend to the precise notation used. Nobody is disputing that we should avoid creating our own reconstructions, but NOR policy (which does not really exist on Wiktionary anyway) does not limit us to slavish copying of our sources. Internal consistency (which is expected and required of any work) trumps faithfulness, because using dozens of slightly (or sometimes even majorly) different notations side by side would be confusing and overwhelming for everyone, as CodeCat has rightly pointed out. A major part of the work of compilation (the primary activity on Wiktionary) is ensuring exactly such consistency. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Derksen follows Kortlandt's theory according to which PBSl. had both *o and *a, and the merger occurred only in post-PBSl. period in individual branches. It's all described in the introduction (which you obviously haven't read :P)
Yes there are no universally agreed norms. Most unfortunately simply follow their own interpretation of a particular theory and simply ignore or everyone else (or disregard as "false"). The point is - PBSl. as a language is too far in the history from attestations, and there is too little evidence (basically only three branches, of which Western Baltic is so poorly attested that it barely constitutes evidence). There will never be universally agreed reconstruction of it. These "trivial" notational differences reflect fundamentally different protolanguage stages and reconstructions. I see favoring *a and glottal stop notation as POV-pushing. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
So what, two branches are enough for the comparative method and actually make things easier than having to compare a dozen branches. It's no different than Germanic where we only have West Germanic and North Germanic (which probably even are a single branch, Northwest Germanic) and then East Germanic, which is not attested much better than West Baltic, so if we accept that there are only Northwest Germanic and East Germanic, essentially represented only by Gothic, in fact the situation is, according to your standard, worse! I haven't read Derksen's introduction, no, but I've never claimed or implied I have read his book. :P
We need to decide on some particular interpretation, however. Kortlandt's theory is minority, perhaps not exactly fringe, but not mainstream either. Most researchers agree that the merger was already complete in Proto-Balto-Slavic – even if very recent, as in Hill's implied chronology, which I think is compatible what most researchers believe about Proto-Balto-Slavic anyway. Siding with the predominant opinion in a field is not POV-pushing, pushing a distinct minority opinion like Kortlandt's is. Think of article titles in Wikipedia: There can be only one, so we use what most reliable sources use, if only by a slim majority. We should do the same, go with the majority. We can still list alternative reconstructions in the article itself. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
No it's not a minority. There are what, 20 people in the world that deal with the reconstruction and history of PBSl. and ~ half of them are Kortlant's followers. The rest is composed of single-researcher theories that can only be gleaned by surveying papers dispersed into various journals over the years. There is no "mainstream". What you (two) are advocating is pure POV-pushing. PS: I am not a follower of Kortlandt, I just uphold the NPOV principle. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
If choosing a single internally consistent representation/reconstruction for Proto-Balto-Slavic is POV pushing then yes, I will gladly admit I am a POV pusher. My POV is that being consistent helps Wiktionary more than the mess you're suggesting. —CodeCat 20:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
All of these reconstructions reflect theories that are equally "internally consistent". It's not my problem that those theories are a mess and dumbing them down notionally and paradigmatically (the infinitive ending that I disputed in a discussion as well as the various inflections that you invented by taking advantage of the fact that they are not forbidden) is not going to fix that. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

مرسي and ميرسى[edit]


Just letting you know that both spellings are acceptable. مرسي is more standard and strict. Writing out dotless yāʾ instead of is quite common, although confusing, so ميرسى is an alternative form. Egyptian and Sudanese (not only) authors rarely use ي in the final positions, making it harder for non-native speakers. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not about the final yāʿ, but about the medial one – the alternative form would read mīrsī instead of the intended mersī/mirsī, as in Arabic only long vowels are indicated. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)