User talk:Neitrāls vārds

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

Synthetic pronunciation[edit]

Hi. Please do not add synthetic pronunciation to more entries until the discussion in WT:BP is over. --Vahag (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, no worries! :) It's not like I'm going to mass-add it, I do not operate a bot or anything. I do however think that in the worst case scenario it could be relegated to references section for IPA's because the speech synthesis is actually pretty good (aside from the fact that it ignores the so called "wide ⟨e⟩" (IPA(key): /æ/), otherwise it's actually able to differentiate between "native" and "non-native" ⟨o⟩, for example pronouncing opera as IPA(key): /oːpɛra/ but ola as IPA(key): /ʊoɑla/. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

būts?[edit]

You said once that būt "to be" does have a past participle būts, used in cases like vai tu jau (esi) būts Amerikā? "have you already been to America?" But here's my question: isn't this be a case in which one should use bijis, i.e., vai tu (esi) bijis Amerikā?? In other words, for intransitive verbs, wouldn't the past passive (-ts) participle have the same meaning as the past active (-(j)is) participle? Or is there a difference between them in this particular ("have-you-ever-been-to...") usage? --Pereru (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It's essentially passive voice (I think...) Since the words for "to be" in most all languages are the most intransitive that there can be, i.e., they don't have a "patient" only an "agent" it is a little weird. Although something similar could be constructed with other intransitive verbs, e.g., gulēt. Vai ir vispār gulēts šonakt which in English would then be translated "have I/you/he (the agent is omitted in passive voice so different persons could go there) slept at all tonight." Prob. different sentence would be needed to translate it 1:1 (using English's own passive voice) this could do: 10 stundas tiek gulētas katru nakti - "10 hours are being slept every night." And that leads to the question what is the difference between pass. voice with ir vs. tiek. Accord. to this [1] būt instead of tikt is used to make ciešamās kārtas saliktā tagadne which I speculate would be "present perfect of passive voice." So, ir gulēts denotes the action is complete but also leaves out the patient, what has been slept? - kas ir tas kas ir (ticis) gulēts? Laiks? Miegs? But then it's possible to construct it specifying what has been slept (out) specifically: dzērums ir izgulēts - "inebriation/drunkenness has been slept out." Although in this case gulēt takes on an object (dzērums) (iz)gulēt ko? - dzērumu. So, it's not 100% intransitive in this case. Or with būt - ilgs laiks ir būts (not super common but acceptable.)
My conclusion, būt can take on passive voice in a defective way. Only 3rd pers. and usually with the perfect ir instead of the indicative (or continuous or w/e it was called) tiek with elision of the patient. Confined to small number of expressions. In sent. vai tu esi būts Amerikā, tu would be the patient and that would mean that someone else (unspecified) "būted" them. So, imo, only 3rd pers. For regular (active voice) present perfect there would def. be bijis. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually ilgu laiku ir būts sounds better and the accusative is used for no other purpose than to "adverbialize" the ilgs laiks or so it appears. (Can't think of another reason why would it take on acc.?) ilgu laiku ir būts ~ īslaicīgi ir būts ~ ilglaicīgi ir būts - all sound equally adverbial. So būt passive constructions won't usually have a patient, I would speculate. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

nekustēts aliaque mirabilia[edit]

Indeed, that is a very interesting question. There always seem to be things in languages that are "sort-of OK" "in some contexts" "not very frequent" "sometimes maybe perhaps"... (In my experience, native speakers of a language can angrily disagree with each other about these things, one saying "yes you can say it like that" and the other saying "no you can't"...) Which begs the question of what to do in cases like that in a dictionary like this one, attempting to list all extant' words but not "theoretically existing but actually not used" words. Wiktionary would in principle like to be free of fringe phenomena like protologisms and suchlike. But it's not always clear which of the "iffy" words really exist (or really don't exist), so they go with attestations. Take intransitive passive particiles, like gulēts, dejots, etc. The cases you mention ("pseudo-passives", since intransitive verbs should in principle not have passives... the semantic import of the cases you mention is more like that of a subject-demoting structure, since in those cases the subject -- "who slept? what was slept?" -- is usually absent) are well attested, but not inflected forms. Yet you yourself mentioned a feminine plural form gulētas in an example; and, with a few Google searches, it is possible to find other forms (examples: pēc gulētām naktīm; patiecoties gulētajai naktij, etc.). So it seems OK to have the full declention for gulēt here at wiktionary. But, as you point out, this is not necessarily the case for kustēts or nekustēts. At some level this may be because of competition from other words (kustināt, kustēties... it seems kustēt by itself, in all its forms, is rather rare). So, what should one do in these cases? Only start pages for attested inflected forms? Ask a native speaker if s/he agrees that this or that inflected form "really exists"? (And what if the native speakers disagree?)... (To say nothing of the participles in -(j)ams, which are even more frequently absent...). I found one example with an inflected form of nekustēts, here (middle of the page): ja tev būt[s?] 2.93 tad tas auto nekustēto uz priekšu (but I'm afraid this may be a misspelled nekustētos, the conditional form of the reflexive nekustēties -- what do you think?)
In principle I the most prudent approach is to not give inflection tables for such participles unless we are more or less sure that the inflected forms exist (or could at least in principle exist...). Accordingly, I have marked them as non-existent in some cases. If you have some time, perhaps you could look at the verbs in Category:Latvian intransitive verbs and tell me which ones you think do have only the nominative ...ts participle form, which ones have more inflected forms, and which ones don't even have the ...ts' nominative participle form (including the negative forms)... I'd appreciate your input on that.
Perhaps there should be a three-way distinction: intransitive verbs with a full inflected participial paradigm (gulēt - gulēts), those with only the nominative singular (būt - būts), and those that don't have any past participle. What do you think? --Pereru (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Somehow, Twilight Zone intro started playing in my head [2] :D OK, jokes aside. First thing I noticed gulēt does not seem to be a true intransitive verb, it can take all kinds of objects (nakts, miegs, dzērums, etc.) in all cases: negulēta nakts, negulētu nakti, negulētā naktī. So it could just as well be reclassified as transitive (not sure what dict's say though, I suspect, though, that they unanimously classify it as intransitive, this would not be the first case where they're off though.) Let's hope this is an outlier and that it has somehow "mutated" due to being a very often used verb. As far as all the others - actual true intransitive verbs - all of them will be OK as long as they are not negative. A "usage notes" template could be created "rare, idiomatic, abstract, only in 3rd pers., doesn't take a patient, only perfect (with ir), only masculine, only singular, never declined for case." The non-existing ones, e.g., nekustēts, kustēta or similar could have usage notes that they "do not technically exist." But I wouldn't be too hasty with deleting or redirecting them. God knows what the nutty Latvian linguists could come up with next. There's a whole story about iegult, where they took a clearly intransitive verb (gult, although only used reflexively - gulties) to latvianize a clearly transitive English verb "to embed" (e.g., a video, etc.) And there you'd have it "video ir (ticis) iegults" - "video has been embedded." Although gult is truly intransitive (can't think of any object it could take.)
To summarize as long as they are masc. sing. nom. (ending in -ts) and not negative all of them should be OK. (P.S., you're right, nekustēto is a misspelling of reflexive nekustētos.) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Hidden begin[edit]

If this is only for your user page, it should be in your user namespace. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It was intended for a general template but it doesn't appear to be working, perhaps Wikipedia javascript files are different, I'd say you can delete both {{Hidden begin}} and {{Hidden end}}. Thanks! Neitrāls vārds (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

be[edit]

Re "is there any reason why GenAm pronunciation wouldn't have a long vowel?": Vowel length is not phonemic in GenAm, so it is not marked in broad transcriptions. - -sche (discuss) 01:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting... As far as phonemic... I got the impression that phonetic transcriptions are more "desirable." With "r-colored vowels," glottal stops/syllabic n in words like mountain, etc. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

/biː/ in General American[edit]

General American does not have a distinct /iː/; the FLEECE vowel is simply /i/. See Appendix:IPA chart for English, w:International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects. —RuakhTALK 01:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

If I say that bean and bin have different vowel quantity (aside from the vowel being slightly different) am I just projecting? :D Neitrāls vārds (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Nope, you're quite right about that. They absolutely have different vowel quantity. But we aim for a phonemic transcription: there is only a single /i/ phoneme in GenAm, so we don't need to write it as /iː/ just to emphasize that it's longer than /ɪ/. —RuakhTALK 23:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

Please don't use {{t}} to link to other words, like at tas. That's only meant to be used for translation tables. You should use {{l}} in lists and {{term}} in running text. —CodeCat 22:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was actually wondering about whether putting t in italics is right, like an hour ago I finally stumbled on that term template which is what I needed apparently. I probably still need to go through all of them at some point, my LV etyms even moreso. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
There's a difference between {{term}} and {{term/t}} too. They do the same thing, but they take the language parameter differently. {{term/t}} works like {{t}} and {{l}}, it takes the language as the first parameter. {{term}} takes it with lang= instead. I know it's confusing... we were actually going to change that so there were just {{l}} (for lists) and {{m}} (for mentions), but then people started to oppose that, and it didn't get anywhere. So we're still stuck with the half-finished state. It's how things go sometimes on Wiktionary. :/ —CodeCat 23:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
You are right it is confusing! :D I guess I'll have to try to read up on the difference between the two. And thanks, for fixing the templates in some of those entries!
I was also curious is there a reason why you removed the causative in pūt? Also the author of that book indicates it (pūt) as specifically from bat-pro, in turn listing cognates with Slavic languages in pūst (I guess there PBS would fit.) (OK, the question whether inflate and rot are related is kind of a big question for me right now, lol.) Anyways hope you don't mind if I edit it (this time with correct templates though!) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I thought it was just another related form, so it didn't seem very relevant to the etymology. Etymologies tend to become overwhelming and confusing very quickly in my experience, especially when people want to list lots of related forms, cognates and other "interesting" information. It often obscures the basic point. So I usually try to trim these things down to the minimum that is needed to get the point across. —CodeCat 23:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I kind of love detailed etyms though (unless they go on a rampage of listing countless forms in very similar languages). On *pū- I prob. need to inquire in the etym. portal I had this dream of promoting putra ("porridge", part of names of several nat. dishes) (supposedly from inflate) for WOTD if I could sneak a mention that it's cognate "with such words as foul, putrefacation, pus among others." Alas my dreams were shattered when I saw that pure is from another *pū- lol. Prob. needs more research. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

All those "forms" categories[edit]

Wow... isn't that a bit overboard? What are they all needed for? —CodeCat 22:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I usually copy the way Latvian is managed on Wikt. Livonian grammar is a mess (to put it unceremoniously) those cats could actually be very useful. (The only thing I had doubts is whether two separate cardinal and ordinal numeral cats were really needed.) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not really sure if everyone would agree with having a category for each combination of case, number and part of speech. I didn't really like the ones that were made for Latvian either. Maybe it should be brought up at the Beer Parlour... —CodeCat 00:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I you would like that, sure! One thing I would propose would be leaving case+number categories but dropping part of speech (num, adj, noun). Unlike, e.g., lv (and probably many other Ide. languages), liv doesn't have any distinction among parts of speech in terms of how they are inflected, e.g., cat, ten and beautiful happen to be +/- of the same inflectional type (each with its irregularities of course).
Otherwise those cats are pretty much the only reason why create those form of pages, they could potentially be used to see for example which words end with -õ in partitive sg., which with -t or -da, which with -iž / -īž / -iz / -īz in plural illative, etc. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
If they're meant for analysing the forms, couldn't the nouns themselves be categorised that way, instead of their forms? That's how we normally do it with other languages. Maybe you could look at how it's done for Finnish or Estonian, the situation for Livonian is probably similar. Estonian for example has Category:Estonian nominals by declension, with subcategories for each type of noun. —CodeCat 01:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I know that coverage of Estonian is in a pretty bad state... (although Dick L. has created some infrastructure.) OK, in Finnish this ajassa has just the top level category (no mention of the Finnish "diabolical k" lol.) Idk, creating form of pages this way seems a pretty futile endeavor because what do they have to offer then? Neitrāls vārds (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

About Category:Estonian nominals by declension I wish that was the case with liv – it has ~250 inflection types (thus liv version of that page would be 250 cats!) as opposed to circa 16 case+number cats like right now. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Why are there so many? —CodeCat 01:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
An agglutinative language compacting/"crunching" its inflection apparently doesn't lead to good results, lol! (Ironically the Latvian dialect spoken there has come to an almost complete collapse of inflection for example even the verb to be doesn't take person.) http://www.murre.ut.ee/liivi/noomenityybid.html there are some dupes but I doubt that it would be possible to get down that number to below 200. I've been contemplating somehow trying to "tie together" as many types as possible in "clusters" but I think I'm over it – just create a template where every case has to be entered manually (which would leave case cats as the only place where patterns could be observed.) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the main reason is that Livonian (like Estonian) has evolved in such a way that many inflection classes were created by crossing various different changes (phonological and otherwise) that occurred between Proto-Balto-Finnic and the present-day languages. So a certain change creates irregularities 1 and 2, and this definies 4 classes (words that have irregularity 1, words that have irregularity 2, words that have both, and words that have neither); and so on for each new irregularity. (Note also how Estonian often has more than one possibility for a certain form, e.g. the "short" vs. "long" illative (-sse vs. "strengthening" of the consonant in the final syllable, or genitive plurals with i or with te...). The result is a language in which it is surprisingly difficult to learn paradigms well: every new word may well belong to a new inflectional type... --
You're prob. right. The mixy-matchy, Venn diagram-like appearance seems to be a general characteristic of fen declension, in fact, many genuine simplifications have taken place in liv (i.e., simplifications that don't leave any artifacts behind.) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Hej, Neitrals Vārds, labs darbs ar lībiešu valodu!! --Pereru (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Tencinu. :) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Your templates[edit]

Aside from using {{t}} instead of {{l}}, your templates currently make up 8 of the 17 members of Category:Pages with script errors. Neither of these has any effect on the actual entries, but the module errors do clutter up a category that should be kept free for the more serious problems.

It would be a good idea to figure out how to keep you modules from using the template(s) in question with empty input. I'm no expert on templates, so I'm not much help in fixing the problem, but you might get some ideas from the hundreds of other templates that do what yours do without script/module errors.

Even the t vs. l choice opens you up for problems if, somewhere down the line, a decision is made to change how translation tables look or work. That would be especially bad if you were gone on to other things by that time, and others had to pick up after you.

As I said, these aren't drop-dead emergencies, but they are somewhat annoying. Thanks. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not such a good idea to duplicate all the code for the table in every template. It's much preferred, and easier to maintain, if you create one template that shows only the table, and has one parameter for each form that should be filled in. Other templates can then use that as their base, by supplying the forms that go in each of the table cells. Many existing inflection tables already work that way. Look at how it's done with Estonian for example: there is one template {{et-conj-table}} that has lots of parameters, and then all the other templates for the different conjugation types (like {{et-conj-nägema}}) will call that template and pass those parameters with the proper forms. It's much much neater that way, and much easier to work with.
I'm also not very happy that you are still using {{t}} to create links outside of translation tables. I asked you not to do this before. Please don't do it anymore, and fix any cases where you have already done this in the past. —CodeCat 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Chuck Entz, that is something I noticed. An easy fix would be to get rid of {{t}} (for those cases that are empty before something is passed to them) and use a plain link instead. Only some of the cases need that (although it would probably be "nicer" to replace all t's in those templates that are intended to be used in mainspace.

CodeCat, yes, I noticed Latvian decl templates also use that format, however, that requires "uniformity" of unnamed/positional parameters among templates. It is not possible for the 3 verb templates because I made them to be as short as possible and what is {{{2}}} in one template is something different in another template. I think it is a really minor thing. (Btw, before I lurked talk page of About Estonian I had no idea that it's you who's making et templates!)

Also I had some questions (should this go in BP instead?)

  • CodeCat suggested that there are too many form of cats for liv nominals, and I'm starting to think that maybe you're right (I still have some 32 cats to make). What sollution would you suggest, I'm thinking – ax them all and have just 16 cats "Livonian nominal forms ([number] [case])"
  • Also I saw you editing a template, something internal-inflection something, is that a name for compounds where both parts are inflected (like nuoripari)? Right now there is Category:Livonian pseudo-compounds but I feel guilty about having made up that name. They have to be called something though.

There's probably more but I can't remember now. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's really not such a minor thing. I have worked with many templates in the past and I can tell from experience that it's a real pain to have to edit templates that duplicate everything. It could make the difference between having to make one edit and having to make dozens. So I do think that if you have a reason for not doing that way, it should be explained. I'm not really sure if I understand your reasoning about {{{2}}}, can you elaborate and give some examples?
It's better not to pay too much attention to the Finnish templates right now. I'm currently working on converting them to a Lua module, so they're not in their final state and there are many inconsistencies.
I think that one category for all forms is enough. There is no need for categories for each case and number. We do it this way for most other languages, why would Livonian be any different? —CodeCat 13:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, this is me explaining. {{liv-verb-jellõ}} has to address a a long vowel appearing (and possible de-gemination) before personal ending in present this means that that is the 2nd param – |jellõ|jelā|. (That's from memory, could be imprecise.)

{{liv-verb-luggõ}} has to address the cons. being geminate in present but degeminating in past, for example. The second param is g as in |lug|g|.

Whole of Livonian is served by mere 4 templates (1 nominal, 3 verb) (or rather can be served, there are some "optional" templates) this means that if you want to make changes to the table you have to make 4 edits (not dozens). Ease of entering I think trumps potentially, hypothetically having to make 4 edits instead of 1 in event of wanting to change something in the appearance of the table. If you would attempt that it would mean "uniformizing" params among the three templates (am I getting that right?) which would lead to constant empty params or goodness forbid long unwieldy named params, something like jellõ-type-stem=, luggõ-type-stem= (because, e.g., infinitive stem is used to make different tenses/moods for those two types.) Correct me if I'm wrong.

The q about internal-inflection was rather a terminology one not about the template itself. I'm looking for a name for words of the type vīžkimdõ (nom.), vīdkimdõ (gen.) and I don't like having made up a word ("pseudo-compound") I was thinking "compounds with internal inflection" could be it? Maybe I could also ask User:Hekaheka whether they have seen an English term for nuoripari type compounds... Neitrāls vārds (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of an English term for "internally inflected" compound terms. This term is actually used in linguistic texts but it seems to mean a slightly different thing, actually two things: a) inflection pattern in which the inflected form is indicated by an infix rather than suffix like viisitoista (fifteen) > viidentoista (of fifteen) in Finnish or b) a compound in which the modifier is inflected in nominative case like ruohonleikkuri (of-grass-cutter) in Finnish. In one article that I found in the net the term "doubly inflected" was used of Sicilian verb structures in which two verbs are combined and both are inflected in the same way. At least it would not seem awfully wrong to call "nuoripari" -type doubly inflected. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Doubly inflected then could be another candidate. Technically pseudo-compound is a word too except used in relation to some phonetics phenomenon. Viisitoista scares me, lol. In liv of teens only ikštuoistõn is (indicated as) doubly inflected and my source only states that it's that type of compound and now I'm wondering what if only the first part is inflected, e.g., īdkõkstuoistõn and not īdkõkstuoistõnõks. If tuoistõn means "of the second" (kind of like a subordinate clause in a sentence) then that would only make sense. I guess I will have to somehow try to find that out. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
From what I can see, {{liv-verb-luggõ}} and {{liv-verb-jellõ}} have the same table. The forms that appear in the table are determined differently, yes, but the table structure itself is not different. So you can create {{liv-conj-table}}, which shows only the table, and has one named parameter for each form. The templates {{liv-verb-luggõ}} and {{liv-verb-jellõ}} would then call {{liv-conj-table}} and tell it which forms go in each of the table cells. So each separate template can have different parameters, but they all share the same template for creating the actual table. That way, if we ever want to change how the table looks, we don't need to edit every template, we can change just that one.
I don't think there is a name for such compounds. And it's really hard to handle them with templates, because you really need some way to "combine" different inflection types, and that's almost impossible to do with templates alone. In the past, this was solved for Finnish by creating a separate template for each combination, but that's obviously not workable because there are 48 types and therefore 48x48=2304 separate templates. It's one of the reasons why I'm working on converting the templates to Lua, it would be much easier to solve it nicely with that. —CodeCat 15:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
It is a matter of taste/preference and I know that I do not want named parameters when I can have just a 3 or 4 unnamed ones per every "cluster" of verb types. Case in point, I just had to spend good 15 minutes on something as inane as getting rid of the t-template where it's empty (obviously its going to be empty in nominative on the template page!) and replace it with good old plain links. IMO "cascading" transclusion is not always the best thing (as can be seen in this example.)
Also I had a question. All of my templates (for example, {{liv-noun-reg}}) have a stray </nowiki> closing tag (up where the NavFrame markup is) is it there for a reason? It was like that in the original. (If it shouldn't be there then I can edit all the 10 templates. And I doubt that it would take more than a couple minutes.) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I've created {{liv-conj-table}} and changed the existing verb templates to use it. It's much cleaner this way, less duplication and it's very easy to create new conjugation types when necessary. I also renamed the templates so that they match the names used for other languages. —CodeCat 18:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Paldies! :)[edit]

Es vēlos pateikties par tavu darbu ar latviešu izrunām. Ļoti labi! Man tik patīk redzēt visus tos jaunus failus latviešu šķirkļos! (Esmu sācis domāt, ka varbūt man jādara kaut ko lidzīgs ar portugaļu valodu...) --Pereru (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Jā, es reāli gribu pievienot jau esošos failus (vismaz tos, kuri nav defektīvi) pēc iespējas ātrāk, paprasīju, lai mani pievieno AWB lietotājiem, cerams, ka tas varētu to paātrināt (arī tā iemesla dēļ, ka man ir nepabeigti lībiešu šķirkļi).
Es vienu laiku centos (manuāli) taisīt nelielu copyeditingu tiem, kuriem es pievienoju audio (teiksim, bolds nepareizajā vietā utt.), bet tagad es pārstāju, bet man ir reālas aizdomas, ka, piemēram, nenoslēgtus treknrakstus un slīprakstus (piem., '''vārds'') varētu ļoti lielos daudzumos izlabot ar AWB, tikai būtu jāizdomā kādi settingi tam būtu vajadzīgi.
Un es viennozīmīgi piekrītu, ka vairāk valodām ir vajadzīga izrunas coverage, avó un avô būtu prime candidates (tāpat jebkuri vārdi, kur ir ar cirkumfleksu akcentēti burti, it īpaši, ja viņiem ir minimālie pāri...) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Jau esmu pievienojis izrunu vārdiem avó un avô. Jāteic ka tas ir interesants darbs. Varbūt pievienošu vairākus izrunas failus citiem portugaļu vārdiem pēc nākamās nedēļas (es nebūšu kontaktā ar internetu līdz aprīlim)... --Pereru (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Damn, es tik un tā īsti nevaru pateikt atšķirību, laikam, kaut kas ar uzsvaru... (Bet no IPAs to ne tik nevarētu pateikt!) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Mans amerikāņu draugs šeit Brazīlijā saka to pašu :-)... Bet ja paskatās skaņas failus ar Audacity (vai ar citām skaņas analīzes programmām: Praat, CECIL, Sound Explorer...), tad redzēs ka ir atšķirības. Skaņas intensitāte ar "ô" ir vājāka (jo "ô" izruna ar lūpām ciešāk kopā), un patskaņu formanti arī atšķiras. Kā arī starp poço ("aka") ar "ô" un posso ("es varu") ar "ó"...
Attiecībā uz "vārds": tu varbūt varētu izdarīt jaunu izrunas failu? Man šķiet ka esošā faila kvalitāte nav pietiekami laba. --Pereru (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Šādiem minimālajiem pāriem visvairāk noder audio faili. Man vispār uzsvara jautājums aktuāls tagad, jo es pamanīju, ka es reālu papilduzsvaru lieku garākos siev. dz. vārdos, droši vien, tāpēc, lai man nebūtu vēlme pilnībā tikt vaļā no galotnes à la Igaunijs Republik (papilduzsvars gan ir pilnībā pieņemami, bet par
es biju šokā, izklausās it kā uzsvars uz otrās vai pat pēdējās zilbes un to tā neizrunā, bet pašam likās, ka izrunāju normāli.) Un jā, Xil nebija tas labākais mikrofons, kad viņa tos dažus failus taisīja, varētu provizoriski pielikt {{rfap}} blakus esošajam failam... Neitrāls vārds (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Jā-ā-ā, man ir dažreiz gruti dzirdēt galotnes, kad klausos latviešu pārraides internetā... "Latvijas veselības ministre Baiba Rozentāle" izklausās kā "Latvijs veselībs ministre" u.t.t. Man reiz bija diskusija ar skaņas faila šķirklī "ēzelis" autoru (Xil varbūt?), vai ir tiešām patskanis "i" viņa izrunā: es dzirdēju tikai "ēzels", bet viņš garantēja ka izrunāja normālo latviešu "i".
Izrunāt "normāli" ir bieži ļoti grūti, jo situācija ir "svarīga" kā Wikivārdnīcā! :-)... --Pereru (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Tas, laikam, ir "Rīgas akcenta" iezīme salīdzinot ar centrālās Vidzemes 100% "pareizo" lv valodu – jo tālāk uz rietumiem, jo lielāka tendence mest nost galotnes. Bet tā kā es jau explicitly apzīmēju visus savus failus ar riga, domāju nākotnē varētu ļaut sev vaļu mest viņas nost pēc sirds patikas, lai nav jāsatraucas par dīvainiem sekundārajiem uzsvariem. Beigu beigās "Rīgas akcents" ir de facto standarts pat ja ne oficiālais/zinātniskais (kam vienīgais iemesls manuprāt ir centr. Vidz. trīsvirzienu diferenciācija intonācijā atšķirībā no Rīgas divvirzienu.) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Livonian ab[edit]

There are two possible Proto-Finnic forms that this can be derived from, *api or *apu. Do you know if it's possible to tell which one? Like, is there anything in the declension that gives it away? —CodeCat 15:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You probably mean the -ūd plural?
Category:Livonian nominal forms (plural nominative) is useless right now as ab is the only one with that plural ( plurals don't count as ū is part of the stem.) But in LĒL's table around 70th type you would find Estonian (and Finnish) equivalents with both "thematic" i and u, e.g., joug : jougūd – et jõgi but then vag : vagūd – et vagu, etc.
Viitso thinks that liv was the first to split off from Finnic unity with South Estonian next so if SE has i then liv would prob too (last link in Wiktionary:About Livonian#Sources, only in liv and lv but you prob. don't need that to get the tree.) He also mentions stuff like liv and Mordvinic languages being the only Finno-Permic languages having a dedicated dative, etc. not sure how that plays into that.
And I think the most important part Eesti etümoloogiasõnaraamat points out abi as an Indo-Iranian borrowing which should prob. def. be on the Appendix page. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
So there's no way to tell? —CodeCat 16:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
If you do in fact mean the "thematic vowel," I would just go with what Võro has. And there really is no way, there are paradigms like Costa Rica, lilla, kaffe (which tend to be borrowings), OK, also pǟva (which isn't) where a nominative theme vowel remains a part of inflected endings but there are none (that I know of, anyhow) where a theme vowel would resurface after liv had gotten rid of it in nominative.
Also, if abi is from Indo-Iranian *avas- shouldn't it first be /b/ and only then /p/, I don't think I've seen a (European) language (obviously not counting something crazy like Hawaiian) that can shift /v/ to /p/, /v/ to /b/ (and then /b/ to /p/) is very common though.
I've been meaning to ask you to create a reference template for where these protoforms are from (is it the big Russian etymology site?) because, for example, in või#Noun the protoform is very different than what Eesti etümoloogiasõnaraamat gives.
Or given past discussions that I've seen, I would guess that these are your own reconstructions. Usually taking Finnish as the source (well Finnish kind of is among the more archaic fiu-fin langs, not sure how Veps' 23 cases play into that.) But for example in this case devoicing of the b to p I think clearly is a Finnish/NE fiu-fin innovation. It is extremely easy to screw up with etyms (the mess at pūte#Etymology is a nice example), in fact, I constantly sneer at Karulis grasping on straws that obvious borrowings are in fact native BS words (OK, he has a very pronounced pro-Balto-Slavic bias) but the difference is that he has published it in his name, he can be later held "accountable." Neitrāls vārds (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I suppose by thematic vowel you mean the last vowel of the word. I'm not familiar with Livonian and how it developed, and how it inflects nowadays. I do know that final sounds were eroded rather severely. So I don't know if Livonian preserves the difference between nouns ending in -i and nouns ending in -u in some way. Estonian does, in the genitive, so that allows you to tell. But I don't know if there is any part of Livonian declensions that lets you "recover" the original vowel, or at least narrow it down some, so I thought you might know.
Proto-Uralic had no voiced stops at all, according to the general linguistic consensus. In Proto-Finnic, too, the consensus is that there was no phonemic contrast in voicing. Proto-Finnic b and p were allophones of the same phoneme, where b appeared at the start of a closed syllable or a non-initial odd-numbered syllable, and p elsewhere (which is why *a-pi relates to *a-bit-ta-dak). In other words, they are related through consonant gradation. Proto-Finnic b was probably actually a fricative in most cases, too, although it became a stop in Livonian and Veps. So I'm not sure where you get the idea that there was any devoicing.
I'm not sure where you get the idea of "accountability" from either, or at least not in any sense that it's somehow different from Wiktionary. No single person on Wiktionary is strictly accountable for its content. However, because its content is licenced freely and can be modified and discussed by anyone else, there is still accountability, there's still peer review. If you disagree with some etymologies or reconstructions, discuss it in WT:ES. That's what it's there for. All of those discussion rooms (Tea Room, Etymology Scriptorium, RfV, RfD etc) are part of Wiktionary's accountability/peer review process.
Different Finnic languages show different types of archaisms, and are useful for reconstructing different parts of words:
  • Finnish is archaic in some respects, but not so much in others. It preserves the original voicelessness of consonants well, and it also retains pretty much all final vowels. But it doesn't preserve weak consonant grades very well; weak-grade *g is almost completely lost for example, and *d also tends to disappear in many cases. It also loses *h a lot. Finnish also has vocalisation of consonants before sonorants, like in aura.
  • Karelian on the other hand preserves *h pretty much everywhere. It also preserves the original consonants which vocalise in Finnish.
  • Veps meanwhile also preserves *h, and it also preserves weak-grade *b, *d and *g intact, which makes it very useful. On the other hand, it doesn't preserve vowel length at all.
  • Estonian preserves the three-way consonant length distinction, which was lost in Finnish and probably in many other northern languages as well. It also preserves long vowels intact very well in the first syllable, better than Finnish. But it's not as useful for reconstructing non-initial syllables.
  • Võro is actually the most archaic Finnic language, at least if you go by historical development. It preserves final -h and -k (as -q) which makes it pretty much unique among Finnic languages. It's also the only Finnic language to preserve the distinction between -kt- and -ht-, which appear in Võro as -tt- and -ht- but merge as -ht- in all other Finnic languages. —CodeCat 19:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, if voicedness wasn't phonemic then p would do, you are, however, going to mention its ultimate Indo-Iranian source, right? That's kind of the most important bit (imo, anyhow.) If you look at vag (vagu), sug (sugu), joug (jõgi), nim (nimi) here there doesn't appear to be any difference in their inflection. So I do not think there's a way to tell.

There's a reason why I put "accountable" in scare quotes. What I mean is simply that any genuinely novel content must be attributable to a name. A name with some credentials. Sadly our society has put up a system where to get your name to be "authoritative enough" 90% is circus poodle jumping through hoops and maybe 10% is actual research. I do believe that there are alternative avenues, however, I think one could self-publish an Amazon book without formal training in that particular field (in their real name, however) and people might actually buy it, hell, it might even get quoted. Such a book could be quoted on Wiktionary! Wiktionary's community consensus, however, is not a tool to arrive at something completely novel like undocumented, reconstructed protoforms, it's for discussing template appearance. WT is a secondary not a primary source. There are avenues that could be more rewarding to both the (original) researcher and the reader. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Wiktionary content is, by policy and through its licence, not owned by anyone. Attribution of every single edit is given through a page's history, which is required by the licence terms. Wiktionary's community consensus is definitely also for research; how else would you describe what goes on at WT:RFV? And do you think that the process of defining a word does not have a strong element of research in it? What RFV does, in a sense, is test a hypothesis (the entry with its definitions) against reality (attestations). That's clearly research as I see it. With reconstructions, there are no attestations, but they can still be tested. They can be tested against established sound changes, for example, which can be found and documented. So if you need any sense of accountability, then it is in that; reconstructions should adhere to established linguistic theories on language development.
"Citations" are Wiktionary's way of showing to the reader "we have tested our content against reality, we found it to pass the test, and this is the evidence we found". They demonstrate the validity of the claim (the definitions) and show that it wasn't made up out of thin air. The equivalent of citations for reconstructions would be to cite the sound changes by which they can be derived. So far not many of our entries have such information, but that's mainly because there hasn't been much demand for it. And because sound changes are systematic, there would be a lot of duplication if we had to include them in every entry. —CodeCat 20:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
RFV is exactly what I'm "advocating" for. For core vocabulary items even in the smallest culture languages (like lv, et or, say, Maltese) it won't be needed as it can instantly be proven that, say, māksla or või are in fact words. They are not novel.
Reverse engineering words by documented sound changes might be slightly pushing it but that could actually add value to the dictionary. Then the question is why don't "we" have, for example, an appendix page with referenced fiu-fin sound changes. What are the chances of getting one? It wouldn't need to be linked to in mainspace but only in the protoform appendix pages. Dressing it up something like "likely most recent common ancestor reconstructed through documented sound changes (see Appendix:fiu-fin sound changes)" would make one practically immune to any accusations of OR.
People like me, for example, who don't know that voicedness of stops was allophonic could then see for themselves the shifts involved instead scoffing at the (referenceless) page because v > p looks suspicious/doesn't make sense to them. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
We do have some pages with sound changes, but we've mainly avoided making huge pages with lots of details because that seems more like the domain of Wikipedia. Putting all of that here would lead to duplication of information, with maintenance problems to follow. —CodeCat 23:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
How do I find these pages if I'm interested how the protoform was derived? I'm used to seeing only language specific appendices linked to from About pages. On Wikipedia I remember seeing only a (not very exhausting) paragraph on Hungarian sound changes and why the words seem so different from other Ugric languages. Duplication seems like much less an issue than unreliability of Wikipedia and pretty much the main motivation behind a wiki project is that it should condense different sources in one place and make looking up a concept quick above anything else.
In-house reconstructed protoforms need a boilerplate providing links to any pages explaining the methodology, regardless whether these pages are on Wiktionary or not. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
{{reconstructed}}. —CodeCat 21:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Sweet! I never thought about looking at that nondescript template, I never imagined those are reconstructions and wondered what the asterisk is for all the time! (And also you apparently didn't read anything I wrote here.) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Creating lower case entries on Wiktionary[edit]

Hi Neitrāls vārds, I have left a message for your here. Ganeshk (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

papēt?[edit]

Does the verb papēt mean to explore, or am I just typing it wrong? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

pētīt is "to explore," the prefix pa- may be added to mean "a little; for a short while" – papētīt "to examine a little, check out quickly." Neitrāls vārds (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply; I thought that something like *papēt came from the word papētīju. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)