Hi, please use {{nl-noun}} for Dutch nouns. It automatically requests for someone to add the gender and plural, so it lets others know something is missing. —Rua (mew) 16:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is better to use {{lb|izh|grammar}} (izh for language code, etc.) than just writing ''([[grammar]])'', since the former also adds the entry in the appropriate category. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 19:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you've been adding some entries in Zou, which is great. I wanted to bring up the question of orthography — adding them in IPA seems less than ideal, because however speakers write Zou, it is certainly not going to be like that. There seems to be a proposed Latin-script orthography that might be a better choice. Also @AryamanA. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds20:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I've been following a phonology paper on Zou, I didn't realize there is a proposed script. Could you drop me a link to it so I could add the rest following it? Thanks Thadh (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia shows it — I think it's the Cope orthography. But introducing inconsistency isn't great either — all the entries should be moved over once you understand the conversion. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds05:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since Zoulai isn't yet available in unicode, I think Cope orthography might indeed be the best alternative. Thanks again, I think the Omniglot page on Zou covers the transliteration enough, and it seems quite straightforward. Do you think there is a more efficient way of moving all those pages rather than doing it all by hand? Thadh (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thadh. I see you're jumping around languages and continents, so please be very careful. In the case of Afar, it is normally written without any diacritics, and we should follow that practice in the dictionary. The acute accents should be placed in the headword. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds18:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, as far as I know Izhorian uses <ü> for /y/. In fact normally most Finnic languages besides Finnish do, with the exception of Karelian Proper (although I usually see Livvi still using <ü>). ETY doesn't have Karelian Proper but uses <ü> for every other Finnic language. Could you provide a reasoning/source for your edit? Strombones (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the more you know. Seems so strange, but I guess it's just Estonian influence when I've seen it. Also, didn't know there was an Izeõpõttaja for Izhorian, I've only seen the Votic version before! Strombones (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only now realising that you desperately need some template infrastructure to improve your Afar entries. Here's my first contribution to that end; you can see it in action at rakub. Don't worry about converting your old entries; I'll ask someone with a bot to do it, and the template also generates categories so you can go back and fix entries that are missing gender or tones. Let me know if you have any trouble with it, or need any extra features. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds20:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem I have is with the notion that raakiiba is feminine. I would rather classify it as plural, as I did with the numerous collective nouns (like laa or agabu). Thadh (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the agreement, there is definitely no plural gender in Afar, rather most (but not all!) nouns that have a plural have one that is of the opposite gender to the singular. Collectives are a bit of a separate case, as they may be semantically plural but not real plurals — but they still have a gender! Take a look at section 7 in Hassan Kamil for more on this (starting on page 175). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds20:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now, as I have understood Hassan Kamil, the Afar language has two genders, masculine and feminine. Furthermore, the plural does not change whether it is absolutive, subjective or genitive (although collectives do). Now, as with most other languages, the plural (when formed using a suffix, like -wa or -itte) does not distinguish gender in any way, and I do not understand why the standard rule of syllable-stress confirming gender should be applied here, as it clearly doesn't matter or even known what gender these plurals have. I may have understood the source wrong, so would you please explain your point of view, because we clearly are having a misunderstanding. Thadh (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another question regarding your edits: you are placing diminutives into the derived section, while Slavic languages place them in the headword (which is why they were there in the first place). Is there any reason for moving them? Thadh (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Cushitic languages are a bit different from almost all other languages this way. That's the joy of language learning, after all! Plurals have their own gender independent of the gender of the singular. And yes, the plurals don't inflect the same way, but they do still have to agree with verbs, and that agreement is how we can diagnose the gender. I admit that Hassan Kamil didn't explain it as clearly as possible in his book, but this paper does an admirable job of clarifying it.
As for the diminutives, I wasn't sure whether to leave them in or not, but I ultimately opted for the Latin-style solution rather than the Slavic-style one because of the fact that the diminutive is more of a derivational rather than inflectional process. Its various forms frequently impart some new meaning rather than merely a "small x" that could be freely applied to any noun. However, if there's some evidence that it should be treated differently, I wouldn't mind putting it back in the headword line. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds21:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanations, and I'll make sure to check out the paper you attached. I didn't know about the Cushitic plural differing, that is amazing and weird at the same time :O. About the diminutives, to be honest, I think the only way to definitely confirm or deny the fact whether it should be in the headword or not should be presented to a speaker of Afar, because I cannot with all certainty say whether they experience the diminutive as just something smaller or a separate lemma. Let's leave it where it is now and just keep in mind that it may need changing in the future. I propose, however, that if we indeed move the diminutive to the derived terms section, we also provide the definition of the lemma (for example changing the definition of qaróyta to slightly less stable house (or something in that trend)). Thadh (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! It has really provided structure that we didn't have before. By the way, by leaving where it is I meant in the derived section, which it is now; Thadh (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Well, if you intend to keep working on Afar, I suppose I had better start figuring out how to make the verb templates, because it seems to be a rather verby language. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds18:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Metaknowledge Hey, I've been looking over Afar entries (and adding some) again, and I'm wondering what you think about the lemmatisation of singulatives/collectives. Parker (1985) lemmatises collectives as "singular", while giving singulatives as non-lemma forms, which may be a good idea, since this avoids duplication, but on the other hand, the users may want to see the "singular" (so singulative) form as main, since that's what a learner would use most of the time. What do you think? Thadh (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have our cake and eat it, too. Whatever the user looks up, we should be able to give them what they want. I think Amcartu works well in that respect, even though it's really a derived singulative, but Amcar arguably fails by not linking to the singulative forms. But they can both be defined as lemmas, and that's okay as long as the grammar is presented in an honest way! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds06:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Metaknowledge: Okay, in that case I'll go on with adding both as lemma entries. I've also already added the parameter |sg= and |gsg= (perhaps |gsg2= and |pl2= is a good idea, too) to {{aa-noun}}, which can serve for this purpose. Thadh (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for going around adding Old Frisian entries. I want to mention though that adding etymologies all the way back to PIE is generally not a good idea because, for one, entries easily become outdated and out of sync. Better to stop at the first reconstruction or borrowing bluelink, and use {{dercat}} from then on. Also, if they entry has a direct anctreal entry where cognates are listed already, better to keep them there than to arbitrarily select cognates to add to that page. You can find a recent discussion about this on my talk page. Thanks. --{{victar|talk}}20:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Thadh. Let me know if you have any questions. I hear you on cognates. When there isn't a parent entry, I do add cognates, like say, causatives of the same PIE root when there is no causative verb entry. For, say, Germanic cognates on a German entry, where does it end? Do I included all Frisian forms? What about all the various Low German forms or even all the forms descended from Old Norse? In the end, you have an etymology with a cognates list longer than the actual etymology, which is rather absurd. --{{victar|talk}}05:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Victar: I always add two-three consistently defined languages' cognates, i.e. for Old Frisian: Old English, Old Saxon and Old Dutch (the Ingvaeonic cognates plus geographical neighbour. So indeed, with only one link this list may be longer than the etymology itself, but then we can reduce it to just Old English and Old Saxon. I think this custom doesn't do any harm and instead gives insight into the origin of etymology. Thadh (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thadh, I wanted to start a spin-off conversation from the one on my talk page. You mentioned that you're not "bound to particular languages" in your efforts on en.Wikt. Just a word to the wise, if you're going to continue contributing, I highly recommend you try and figure out where you enjoy contributing the most and making it your main focus. Being a jack of all trades, master of none is actually a sure way to get in trouble on this project, especially with etymologies and reconstructions. That said, I hope you keep with Old Frisian because we could the help. --{{victar|talk}}01:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Victar: I am very grateful for your advise. The thing I am struggling with is not knowing enough to definitely settle, so I poke around until I'm sure. I believe some languages are underrepresented by the project's communities, so I mostly "experiment" there, so as not to be in the way of others. I do mess up sometimes, which you might have noticed by now, but I work hard to correct my mistakes as soon as I or anyone else notice them. I hope my curiosity won't be too much trouble to other editors. Thadh (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Could you tell me where you found a source for all the Cree words and etymologies you added in June? I've been looking for a reliable source for a while. Thanks. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Arctic.gnome: Thank you for bringing my attention to the source again. I was following Wolfhart's sketch, but now I went through it again, I realised to my disappointment that the sketch is actually following Plains Cree, rather than any "common" Cree. I'll be fixing the mess I made in the coming weeks (i.e. removing eastern syllabics and moving the etymologies from the reconstruction mainspace). Now, if I understand correctly, Howse's grammar would be the closest one can get to any common Cree, although it may be a puzzle to figure out his writing. Thadh (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it's important to discuss your project on adding Ižorian/Ingrian words to Wiktionary. The source you're using is not authoritative: as far as I know, Tšernjavskij is an amateur linguist, who didn't do any field work with informants, and part of this work is simply made up, despite citing the authoritative sources. Speaking of which, Inkeroismurteiden Sanakirja (Nirvi) is the main source. There is an undergoing work to make this book available as an online dictionary, started several years ago. Currently we're at data verification stage.
Another good source is http://m.msu.lenobl.ru/Files/file/posobie_small_1.pdf, created by Olga Konjkova (https://www.kunstkamera.ru/museums_structure/research_departments/department_of_eastern_slavs_and_peoples_of_european_russia/konkova_oi) and Nikita Djatškov (ižorian himself).
I myself is an amateur, so I mostly follow opinions of Mehmet Muslimov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_Muslimov). Notable that simply searching for these books yields in more people being the same opinion on these books, e.g. see at the bottom of this page https://virtual-ingrian.webnode.fi/.
Also on usage of letter 'ü' in Ižorian texts. Indeed it doesn't seem to be a part of any alphabet, used in publications for ižorians (multiple textbooks were published in 1930s) or in modern books for the broader audience (expect for [sic] Tšernjavskij). At the same time Uralic phonetic alphabet is widely used in scientific publications which use 'ü' for the [y] sound.
@KirillW: Hey, thanks for contacting me. After a discussion at Wikipedia I've started to be concerned as well. I'm afraid that if what you are saying is true, we may be facing a serious problem at Wiktionary, seeing that we have about 1200 Ingrian entries, of which most are derived from Chernyavskij's work. The reason I kept following Chernyavskij is that while Junus is severely outdated, Konkova didn't seem to provide any other references than the 30s' language. I'm pinging some more experienced Finnic editors to help out here @Surjection, Tropylium. Thadh (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt response! It's indeed a difficult question what to consider the modern norm, given lots of divergences and high fragmentation in dialects. But a fact is that Konjkova worked with Ižorians a lot (let alone the co-author, Djatškov, is Ižorian, who works as a guide in Ižorian museum https://vk.com/public117331294), while Tšernjavskij, apparently, didn't. KirillW (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KirillW: Quick update: What I have decided to do for the time being is to add as many 30s' quotations and references for terms as possible. As I don't know what the best path is regarding inflection, I have decided to let Chernyavskij's inflection stay, while adding Junus' declension if known (using {{izh-decl+}}). In any case this declension is obsolete, since it contains the exessive case (not described by either Konkova or Chernyavskij). Thadh (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thadh, you can get more data on inflections in Inkeroismurteiden Sanakirja (Nirvi) — do you have to it? The declension doesn't seem to big issue itself, but determining the dictionary form is. Take, for example, 3-syllable words like "orava". In Ala-Laukan dialect it is mostly "orava". In Inkeroismurteiden Sanakirja for Soikkolan dialect it is spelled as "or̆rāva", showing that though "r" is geminated, it's not of double length, while "a" is. At the same time Konjkova's book spells it as "orrava" (Mehmet Muslimov explained this as an attempt to show that not all varieties of Soikkolan dialect retain the second long vowel), but other sources might list it as "orraava". Another example would be pata/paDa/pada (and again, one might consider last vowel prolonged in the nominative case). Also from today's discussion with Mehmet, I've found out that Konjkova's book, that's available on the Internet is not the same as the actual print, i.e. not the latest revision — in the latest revision words like pata or ranta are spelled with "d". We actually have 2 hour calls on Saturday evenings for Ižorian book reading and some discussions on the topic — feel free to join and ask questions directly. We might come up with some solution faster there. — This unsigned comment was added by KirillW (talk • contribs).
@KirillW: I do not, unfortunately, have Nirvi's book. For the time being, I list Chernyavskij's forms as main, as that seems not to break the representation of the language on Wiktionary (I reckon giving the main entry for some words at Chernyavskij's form and others as Konkova's or Junus' would just create unusability). If we can someday come to the agreement that Chernyavskij's book is unusable as a source (which I still have my doubts about), we could easily RFV unsourced and uncited forms into deletion.
Chernyavskij's inflection does differ quite crucially in the -oiJ/K/-oiheCh illative plural difference (as seen at kana) - do you know anything about that?
I'm not really sure about ILL:PL suffixes in Soikkolan, because I mostly studied Ala-Laukan dialect, where it's -ssE for all declensions. But based on Laanest (https://www.booksite.ru/fulltext/jazyki/text1.pdf, p. 30), I'd say -oihe looks like "ižorized" finnish form.
We have a community (https://vk.com/izhoran) and a chat in VK. The gathering I mentioned earlier happens Saturdays at 19:30 MSK in Google Meet, the link is posted to the chat.
@KirillW I have now also created User:Thadh/Ingrian: We ought to find some way to lemmatise Ingrian, so instead of blindly following Chernyavskij forever, I propose some changes (for example kuuz/kuusi split). The most obvious ones are to restore the final -i that Chernyavskij drops (hiir, huul etc.). I'll see what other differences I can find. Feel free to help along finding these differences if you want to, they are pretty straightforward. I'd still give Chernyavskij's forms as alternatives (i.e. how hiiri now is given) Thadh (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadh: I'm really sorry I have totally missed your latest response. In my opinion it is a good idea to summarize the approaches. Still a few things to remember: there are 4 dialects of Ingrian, 2 of which are still exist right now. For this reason we might want to keep lemmas for at least two dialects separately, when applicable (see my examples above, but there are many more). There's also some inconsistency between works of the same author. For instance, later Junus' works attempt to create a "standard" language. I can't find any guidance on how this situation (multiple dialects without a written norm) is supposed to be handled in Wiktionary. Anyway, while it's probably better to focus on Soikkolan dialect, as one that is better described, I can't be of much help there, because I mostly studied Ala-Laukan dialect and Junus' "standard" language. KirillW (talk)
@KirillW: Yes, but if I understand correctly any post-1936 literature (including Chernyavskij's and Konkova's works) is a standardised language that Junus and others, like Iljin and Efimov, created by combining the two dialects in one: Junus describes this in his grammar (starting from page 12), where he gives how he, for example, combines Ala-Lauka työ and Soikkola tyy into one töö. I think that we should give these as dialectal forms of the standardised language (compare Swedish äggakaga). A good source for quotes of Soikkola seems to be Junus' early Oppikoteja (1932). Thadh (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadh: As I understand, though Konjkova's work is based on the work of Junus et al, it is featuring the Soikkola dialect (as mentioned on pp. 4/5).
On Junus' "standardized" forms. If I understand correctly, those are not "combined", but the most used: "Format ее, oo, öö kummat löytyyt suuremmaas osas Soikkolaa ja Ala-Laukaal, ollaa sentää niku keski format". The diftongized and "risen" forms are more like "variants of the norm" by dialect. This also matches my personal experience. So for this reason Ensikirja 1932 (I think you mean this book by "Oppikoteja") couldn't even be consider to be written in "mainstream" Soikkola dialect. I admit I can't prove it easily though, but that's what I remember from the time when we were reading it with Mehmet Muslimov. Other early Junus' works (1932-1934) are characterized by this, while the later works (1935-1937) are written in standardized form.
Anyway I wholeheartedly support usage of the "standard" language for practical means (including Wiktionary)—to which the closest are those late Junus' books—but with an optional dialect-specific forms as pronunciation (unless there's a completely different form of course). In User:Thadh/Ingrian some proposed WT forms are now "too Soikkolan", thought it's not evident, because there's no Ala-Laukan alternative given (apart from Junus to some extent). Also I believe there's a mistake, as Junus quite consistently uses "orava", while Konjkova is using "orrava" or "orraava". — This unsigned comment was added by KirillW (talk • contribs).
@KirillW: Hm, the more you know... Of course my proposal isn't complete, it should be tweaked and filled in on many fronts. Another possibility - which I'm more and more inclined to implement - is to just have the standard language's forms as main, and give all Chernyavskij's forms as alternative (perhaps even use a dedicated template, something in the spirit of Russian's {{ru-pre-reform}} with the text "Chernyavskij's spelling of" or "Chernyavskij form of" with a link to an appendix containing an explanation.
One important question: Do Junus' spellings also imply that s between vowels (and after n,m,l,r) is pronounced as /z/, or is that only a Soikkola thing? Obviousely, I haven't handled everything perfect (although, in my defence, it was far from perfect before my arrival), so I need your help in figuring out the best way forward. Also, if I may ask, where are the differences between the standard language and Soikkola and is all the information on pronunciation differences between dialects present in Nirvi? Thanks in advance for all your help! Thadh (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadh: I'm thankful to you for giving an impulse to this work, so no worries about not doing this perfect.
I remember that though in Ala-Laukan dialect, especially in the South, s in the end and before was mostly voiced (kazvaa, takaz), between vowels and after n/m/l/r it's still s (kesä, varsi). So the voiced sound in these positions might be a Soikkolan thing. As we practice the other dialect, we actually have a set of "rules" which we use to read Junus' texts with Ala-Laukan pronounciation (the most notable being vowel reduction). But all in all it's quite difficult to summarize the difference between the "standard" language and the dialects, because of quite significant variability inside each dialect. For this reason it's possible that Junus hadn't implied any specific pronounciation. Anyway I will do a recap on pronunciation with Mehmet on Saturday.
Nirvi gives the forms that he had, so for some entries it's possible to find non-Soikkolan forms and even some local variants — he marks them with village names, not the dialects. Actually we have all the forms from Nirvi "digitalized", but the proof-reading process is going really slowly. My initial plan was to use this to create Wiktionary entries. Btw I also found out that there's another Ižoran dictionary: Vatjan kielen Kukkosin murteen sanakirja. Despite it being labled as Votic dictionary it's contains the forms which look more Ala-Laukan Ižoran than Votic. Of course one could say that Ala-Laukan Ižoran is a mixed language between Ižoran and Votic... But I digress. I can share this book as well later.
@KirillW: Thanks for your reply. I rely on you compeletely for the dialectal pronunciations, but if I understand correctly the standard phonemic transcription of any word is quite simple (and corresponds with what is given now, so basically like Finnish but an open /a/ and voiced /v/; see WT:AIZH).
Chernyavskij's forms should be given, because it's a very widespread source of Ingrian, and since Wiktionary is descriptive, one should be able to find these forms' meanings. I'm afraid that until Chernyavskij himself recognises his source isn't viable, we can't ignore it.
We also need to make a decision concerning declension - whether to include comitative and exessive. I think I'll just start anew once we make a good plan, creating {{izh-decl/new}} and automatic declension-tables following Junus' paradigms in Grammatikka. Again, we could create something like {{izh-decl-Ch}} (and automatic subpages) for Chernyavskij's declensions. We can just move over the declension tables to izh-decl once we replaced all the pages.
One last question before I'm set for the next bunch of edits, is there any large difference in grammar between Grammatikka and the following school books (like Iljin's Bukvari)? If there is, we'll have the problem of defining what the literary standard we're now talking about exactly is, and what books are written in a dialect. Thanks in advance for everything! Thadh (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadh: Not sure one can rely on me on pronunciations: I know the most notable differences like "voiced vs voiceless" usage, but not the more subtle ones.
I understand your point on Chernyavskij. I'd rather prevent the further spread of this material, but let's focus building an alternative source instead.
On comitative case usage: Ala-Laukan dialect has it either with -ka suffix on its own or as in additional to genetive suffix -n (-nka). In late 1930s books the latter form is used as a alternative to both GEN + "kera" (with whom) or ADE (with what). On exessive I have to ask Mehmet, but I think we've seen it a few times in the school books.
Those school books that were published after "Grammatikka" are quite well aligned with it. This is a bit subjective, since I haven't carried out any specific analysis, but were simply reading those books. That said, we indeed "have the problem of defining what the literary standard we're now talking about exactly is", though I believe considering Junus' grammar a standard might be a good practical solution.
A note on the book references {{Category:Ingrian quotation templates}}. This looks a bit inconsistent now. For instance {{RQ:izh:Junus:Oppikoteja}} is for a book titled "Lukukirja", with "Oppikoteja" being "[for] schools". Also some books has had two editions, e.g. "Tetjurev, Luunnontiito, 1933" (pre-"Grammatikka") and "Tetjurev, Loonnontiito, 1937" (post-). These are by the way are good examples to see the difference in approaches.
@KirillW: No worries, with phonemic transcription of the standard forms we can come a long way.
Another question about comitative: is it obvious when to use -ka and when -nka? If it is, we could auto-generate it in the declension-tables (of course, with an appropriate note), which I think is a good idea, since the durable attestation of the comitative seems unlikeable, making us miss out on this information elsewhere.
About the quotation templates: I've named the quotation templates in a way that the books are recognisable, yet have minimally the same name. For this reason the names may be a little strange. We could just rename all of them with the year (so {{RQ:izh:Junus:Lukukirja:1933}}). Iljin's Bukvari is by far the most used, with just over a hundred uses, so moving over shouldn't be much of a problem. Thanks for the dictionary by the way! Thadh (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadh: On comitative: -ka and -nka are equivalent forms with the former being closer to Estonian/Votic comitative and the latter to spoken Finnish (contraction of "kanssa"). Anyway both are applied only to nouns, not to adjectives: pöllykkään ilma(n)ka parvees — "together with the dusty air". There's also terminative case that behaves in a similar way. There's an article "Comitative and Terminative in Votic and Lower Luga Ingrian"/"О статусе комитатива и терминатива в водском языке", which discusses this topic.
On declension: we might want to have separate declension tables for Soikkolan and Ala-Laukaan dialects, because this where differences are quite notable. In this case there won't be comitative case for Soikkola. Or just start with Soikkola alone. As you might have already noticed, Ala-Laukaan dialect is grammatically closer to Votic, specifically it's very similar to Kukkuzi Votic, which is, in turn, lexically close to Ižoran — handling this concept in Wiktionary might be a separate effort.
On exessive case: Mehmet has again confirmed, that though the case exists it is not in use nowadays. Though might be included in the declension tables, marked as "historical" or "obsolete".
On different notable between Junus' standard and Soikolan dialect. The biggest problems pose: 1) geminates and long vowels are not shown in orava-type words (orava vs orraava), this is also explained in the "Geminatat" section; 2) consonants between vowels, at the end and after sonorants are not voiced (pata vs pada); 3) Mehmet also mentioned that kana-type words might be pronounced as "kanaa". As I understand this is done to reconcile the dialects. Still it's not clear what would be a better strategy for Wiktionary. You mentioned an example of dialectal Swedish word having a separate entry. In this case "orraava" would refer to "orava" and "pada" to "pata". Another option would be to consider this a phonetic feature and have "orraava" and "pada" recorded in pronunciation sections of "orava" and "pada" respectively. I like this option more, because it is what we're looking for as a "standard" language, but it might cause problems if people are looking for the terms based on the phonetic spelling. So probably in the ideal world both exists: phonetic spelling referencing the standard one and pronunciation per dialect in the entry for a standard form.
A bit more on declension in Soikkola: 1) Junus had dropped h in oblique cases of lammas-type words (lamapaan vs lampahan), but had given it as an alternative in the grammar book; 2) usually he preserved a vowel in plural forms of long words (keltaiset vs keltaist). Unfortunately I'm not sure how systematic these features are in Soikkola, so I don't know what should be in the declension tables even if they are Soikkola-specific.
There are also differences between Junus' standard and Ala-Laukaan dialect, but I won't go in the details for simplicity sake.
On pronunciation: Mehmet had said that "a" sound is definietely the same as in Finnish. Where have you get the information that it's different? "V" could sound different. In gradation cases with "ut"/"ot" is after a diphthong is altered with "vv" (lauta/lavvan), it could be bilabial (I personally hear /w/ there).
I will check the Appendix tomorrow, have to go now. I also probably should create a couple of examples to illustrate my points, because this thread starts to be unwieldy. --KirillW (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadh, is spelling in Junus' et al works a good enough reason to rename an entry, which based on Cherniavskij? For instance, järkennää is consistently spelled järkenää in Loonnontiito. KirillW (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@KirillW: Yes, järkenää should be set as the main entry. The further process is as follows: If järkennää is a phonemic spelling of an attested pronunciation (i.e., Nirvi gives a pronunciation which would be järkennää if spelled phonemically) the entry line should be changed to {{izh-form-D}}, with the first and second parameter being järkenää and the dialect (Soikkola, Ala-Laukaa, Hevaha, Ylä-Laukaa), respectively. If not, it should be changed to {{izh-form-Ch}} with the first parameter being järkenää.
This seems to be a difficult one. I've checked all the books and everywhere it's spelled with one n, but Junus' essive is systematically -nna. Also Niriv's entry is järkennää after Porkka, but without any example. The only example is for järkenää, but it's for Ala Laukaa. I'm unsure what to do in this case. KirillW (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@KirillW: Attestability trumps logic. This isn't a regular essive anyway, because of the long vowel... I've just gone ahead and created järkenää myself, hope you don't mind. Are you clear on how the entries work, or do you have any other questions? Thadh (talk) 11:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadh, I remember we discussed this, but I can't remember what was the conclusion. What would be the way to specify that a particular word or a word form is known only in a specific dialect (or dialects). An example would be ihmiin: there are multiple form, some of which are used only in a specific area, so having a pronunciation for a dialect, in which the form isn't in use, might create confusion. KirillW (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KirillW: For now, I have decided to act as if all words can be pronounced in both Ala-Laukaa and Soikkola, and to let labels do all the work: It's basically "Say an Ala-Laukaa speaker has to read a kirjakeeli text containing this word, how would he pronounce it?"
If a word does not follow the rules of kirjakeeli, its pronunciation is given at the kirjakeeli form, and the dialectal form is labeled a dialectal spelling: Compare orraava.
Labels work the following way: Put {{lb|izh|Soikkola}} or {{lb|izh|Ala-Laukaa}} at the beginning of a definition line of a word that is specific to one dialect. Compare laukopäivä. I personally prefer things like "chiefly" because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but if you are certain that some word is only present in one dialect, you're of course free to just give the dialect.
@Thadh, thanks for the explanation. For sure it's difficult to prove absence, so when I say that a word doesn't exist in a dialect, I mean that that speakers of this dialect didn't recognize or told it's not "theirs" when a word was presented. Actually since we have limited data, there's sometimes not enough account for a word to be present in a language as this could be an occasional usage of a Russian/Finnish/Estonian word. Anyway, apart from some well-known cases, labeling particular words as belonging to specific dialects, indeed requires expert knowledge. What would be your criteria to mark a word to be "chiefly some-dialect"? Have you marked laukopäivä based on the fact that only Ala-Laukan villages were mentioned in Nirvi and because it looks to be Votic loanword? KirillW (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KirillW: Based on the combination of the two: Votic loanwords in Soikkola are rare, and Nirvi gives only an Ala-Laukaa form and few example sentences, which is usually a sign of the word being restricted to the Ala-Laukaa area. Of course these lables can always be changed if new evidence is found. Thadh (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadh also I've noticed a couple of cases where half-voiced consonants are used in place of voiced, e.g. kasvaa or latva. These should be kazvaa and ladva respectfully. Apparently consonants are voiced before v in both main (all?) dialects. Nirvi uses lower-case letters for voiced consonants and small capital letters for half-voiced. It should be easy to distinguish with d/D, but for z/Z it's a bit challenging, as they look almost the same with z being a bit "curly", while Z having only straight lines in it. KirillW (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KirillW: kasvaa and latva are definitely written this way, that's how they appear in kirjakeeli books (kasvaa even has a few quotes). If you say that in Ala-Laukaa consonants voice between -v- then we just need to change the pronunciation module to include that. Are you sure that that's the case? I'll also get on fixing the Soikkola output, that was an oversight by me. Thadh (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not convinced that this is the case in Soikkola. Kuznetsova mentions halfvoiced consonants freely alternative with both voiced and voiceless allophones: Nirvi also seems to show this in these cases (both medla and metla, both ladva and laDva (Uuskylä, Kurkola)...) I think this is a case where underlyingly you just have a semi-voiced /D/ (which is a regular outcome of */t/ before vowels) but some Soikkola subdialects then voice it because that's more easily pronounced. We obviously can't give all possible phonetic realisations, so wouldn't the current outcome be fine? Thadh (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was relying on my understanding of Ala-Laukka, confirmed by the way Nirvi put it. I've definitely seen that Junus systematically does it the other way around and was wondering why did they put it this way. If in Soikkola these are considered semi-voiced, then the current spelling is correct, only Ala-Laukan pronunciation needs to be changed (but I'll also confirm separately, what we need to adjust). KirillW (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadh, could you help me finding what you're referring to regarding half-voiced in Kuznetsova's doc? With metla an explanation could be that it's a recent loanword; for laDva—that Uuskylä and Kurkola are mixed with Finnish. I've seen other examples from Väärinoja—it's a Finnish village. Anyway, I'll probably also ask Rožanskij. KirillW (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KirillW: "Для сойкинского и хэваского диалектов П. Аристе и А. Лаанест фиксируют полузвонкие и звонкие аллофоны, причем полузвонкие являются наиболее распространенными; [...] В настоящий момент уже и для сойкинских идиолектов наиболее характерным станосится произношение слабых смычных и s как звонких. Полузвонкие последовательно отмечались только в ряде северных сойкинских идиолектов (деревни Re, Mä, Lo), хотя отдельные произнесения полузвонких зафиксированы в идиолектах большинства деревень. В целом можно сказать, что полузвонкие варианты в большей степени распространены в северной группе сойкинских говоров и в д. Вистино, а в более южных деревнях отмечаются значительно реже." (p. 176), "Фонетическая реализация полузвонких варьирует от кратких звонких до кратких глухих аллофонов: [b ~ B ~ p] и т.д." (p. 179)
@Thadh, regarding Soikkola voiced consonants. I believe that it's already in the part you have cited: "В настоящий момент уже и для сойкинских идиолектов наиболее характерным станосится произношение слабых смычных и s как звонких." Also "Как уже было сказано, в некоторых идиолектах севера сойкинского ареала слабые p, t, k и s произносятся не как звонкие, а как полузвонкие" (p. 179) sounds to me like half-voiced are more an exception, rather than a norm. KirillW (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also I remember we've discussed whether we specify complete loss of a terminal vowel where it's possible, but I can't find it (may be it would be a good idea to have all these decisions documented together with the module?), and people are asking, why there's even no schwa at the end, e.g. in maata.
Another question, which I'm not sure if we had discussed, why a penultimate consonant becomes voiced? There are a couple of known cases (no source atm, but I'm looking for it): sI > z, pI > b. KirillW (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KirillW: On the first point: These few villages are still the major ones, including Viistina. I think it's better to follow those dialects with more distinctions rather than fewer.
On the second: Only t,d,s are voiced, since they are now at the end of the word (final vowel is dropped). Should that not be the case? And the same with maata, the module was written based on your suggestions, and since I personally am much more familiar with (and have much more materials on) Soikkola, I basically rely on you and Kuznetsova's paper for an account of the phonological processes of Ala-Laukaa, so if you have any phonological rules to implement, just say the word. I would suggest you do that at Module talk:izh-pronunciation by the way, that's a more centralised place for such discussions, and also much more visible. Thadh (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noted some time ago on w:Talk:Pite Sami that Wilbur's grammar of Pite Sami is incomplete, and doesn't mention distinctions that are presented in other sources. The official document on Pite Sami orthography provides a better description. So Wilbur may not be the best source for pronunciations.
Regarding bägga and the like, it is indeed true that most dialects make no distinction between the strong and weak grade. However, both Wilbur and the orthography document note that some dialects of Pite Sami have a voicing distinction between the two grades. Since the official orthography (which Wiktionary follows) prescribes the voiced letters as standard for both grades ("Dessa skrivs alltid som bb:bb, dd:dd och gg:gg"), the length mark is used to distinguish the two, like for neighbouring Ume Sami. —Rua (mew) 11:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not sure why you renamed the templates for the personal pronouns. All the other inflection templates, not just for Pite Sami but for all the other Sami languages as well, begin with -infl-. —Rua (mew) 11:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rua: The renaming was to follow normal customs; I find it a little vague to just name any inflection -infl-, when it is clearly just declension.
As for the consonant gradation, I still don't quite understand why this matters for the headword title: I was under an impression that the headword was normally used for an indication of language-wide pronunciation (stress, tone, vowel length) rather than morphophonetical indications, so is it really worth it to indicate a difference in grade just to show a dialectal alteration instead of providing the information in the "pronunciation" section (or even leaving it to the user to deduct it from the inflection)? Thadh (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rua: Well, the fact that it is said to gradate would be a clue, but you're right, it may be a stretch. If you could explain me the following things as well, I would be very thankful:
To what degree is Pite Sami unified in writing? You seem to consider it centrally defined (bisste (Wilbur, p.33) > bissti (BB); gehtje (Wilbur, p.34) > giehtje (BB); Isn't e ~ ie ~ i per chance dialectal? Shouldn't we add them as altforms, since they are mentioned?
Do you suppose that bˈb > bb and gˈg > gg gradations may be exclusive to any non-gradation (that is, that in the dialects in which these occur, there is no *bb or *gg nominative)? If so, maybe we ought to omit this information after all, as being deductible to anyone interested?
WT:ASJE mentions that Pite Sami orthography was only recently standardised, but there is now an official orthography, though the document describing it is in Swedish. Bidumsáme Báhkogirrje, linked on the aforementioned page, seems to follow the official orthography or something very close to it. (Ironically, based on Wilbur's own Pitesamisk ordbok samt stavningsregler, which I'd still like to get hold of at some point) The two page moves you mentioned followed the orthography given by BB. Since they can occur elsewhere, I do think we should include pre-official spellings, such as those occuring in Wilbur's grammar. Other spellings from Álgu could be included too, but I'm not sure how useful all these spellings are going to be. Most of them are only present in reference works, after all, since Pite Sami wasn't written down very much otherwise. Perhaps just listing them as alternative forms (referenced to the work they appear in), without creating the corresponding entries, would be sufficient.
In principle, nouns, adjectives and verbs, if they do gradate, will have the predictable pattern you mentioned. However, other words like adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and such can represent any grade, without the other grade necessarily existing at all. The same applies for adjective predicate forms, which don't relate to the corresponding attributive inflection in a predictable way.
@Rua: About that orthography, if I'm not mistaken it only standardises the alphabet and grammar, rather than which words (pronunciations) are used: "Ortografin tillåter viss dialektal variation". bisste (/ˈpisːte/) is not pronounced the same as bissti (/pisːti/), and thus wouldn't be written the same. Also, I don't see a value in adding the obsolete spellings on the main page and not create a soft redirect for them, as users probably won't need to actively use obsolete spellings, rather than recognise them. Thadh (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It allows for some dialectal variation in the spelling, but those cases are discussed in the document. For example, it says that e and o in the second syllable can be diphthongs ie and uå, but are never to be spelled this way. In the case of second-syllable i, it is described as Kort orundad halvsluten främre vokal (Short unrounded near-close front vowel), so IPA [ɪ]. However, no mention is made of using any letter other than i to represent it; the letter e always represents a long vowel or diphthong in the second syllable. —Rua (mew) 21:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rua: I see. I'm afraid I'm not yet comfortable enough with Swedish :D Thanks for everything! Finally, do you have any advice as to how to check the official spelling for the words in Wilbur? Just by checking with BB? Thadh (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, what is the relationship between this and the term it redirects to? If it is a synonym it should still have its own full entry even if it's only using {{synonym of}} or something like that. In my experience I don't think we really use redirects a lot in the main namespace...only thing I can think of off the top of my head is various conjugations of phrasal verbs in English I think, I'm not 100% sure. User: The Ice Magetalk to meh18:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Ice Mage: It's an unwanted redirect (I moved the page); I read the source wrong and created an inflected form instead of the nominal. You could either delete the page or I could change it to an inflection entry. Thadh (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadh: I see. I deleted the entry, you can create it as an inflection in the future if you'd like. Perhaps you can look into creating declension templates for Southern Yukaghir too if they don't exist already. User: The Ice Magetalk to meh20:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rua: hm, interesting. In any case, the symbol I've used (U+02BC) is rendered as a letter, as opposed to the ones previousely used for these pages (U+0027 or U+2019), so the pages are better the way they are than the way they were. If you think U+02B9 is more correct, I'll back you up though. It isn't too many a page to move. Thadh (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think this is the mark we should be using. It's designated by Unicode as the sign to use to transliterate the Cyrillic palatalisation sign ь, and it's also official for Skolt Sami. So it only makes sense that this is intended to be used for palatalisation in other languages too. —Rua (mew) 11:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you started working on this, but you seem to be relying solely on Kawachi without using a dictionary (so you're missing gender, for example). You can download a pretty good dictionary by Yri and Pepper here, which also gives etymologies for compounds and obvious borrowings. Hudson's comparative dictionary of Highland East Cushitic is available on LibGen, and I don't think his PHEC is reliable enough to use here, but it's still a good source for native Sidamo etymologies. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds22:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your ping on the oirbh page. I have never heard the word pronounced in the stressed manner you're indicating and the recordings I use (https://learngaelic.scot/dictionary/index.jsp) don't appear to have it either, nor any reference to the IPA for this one. We should expect the /r/ to be realized as a [ɾʲ] due to the preceding <i>. So the proper transcription is [əɾʲəv]. Hope this helps! (edit: I have zero idea why this is italicized and can't fix it. Sorry about that) ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ThaesOfereode: here's an instant of stressed oirbh I've found (twice, both in the audio fragment and the video). It does make sense, since the schwa can't be stressed. I agree that the <r> should be /ɾʲ/, I was - and sometimes still am - a bit confused on how the rhotic consonant works, but I hope to get a hang of it soon. Thadh (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadh: Yep, that's definitely [ɔ]; good catch! All the sonorants in Gaidhlig work very similarly so if you can figure out /m n l/, /r/ should come with a little more study! One tip I use a lot is that, especially in places like South Uist, the /ɾʲ/ is actually realized as [ð]. Hope this helps! :) ThaesOfereode (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guillaume Jacques (2021), A grammar of Japhug[edit]
Hello, I think that this work will be necessary for you, you seem to be interested in the Sino-Tibetan languages(?). I don't know if you know about this work… Excuse for troubling. Gnosandes (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thadh, could you have a look a this article I created and delete/correct what's wrong? My knowledge of Russian is limited... Thanks. --Akletos (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thadh! Do you want a pronunciation module to generate automatically Afar pronunciation (and hyphenation)? I programmed pronunciation modules for other languages (Central Atlas Tamazight, Hausa and Akkadian) and I'd like to continue this for languages for which the pronunciation given in entries can easily be generated. It seems that Afar pronunciation is regular once the entry name is given. If you agree, can you provide me the rules for pronunciation, including stress (so that I know if a parameter with the acute-accented word is needed or if it can use the pagename, without any parameter), references, in order to put them in the module documentation, as well as testcases? Malku H₂n̥rés (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Malku H₂n̥rés: Hi, Afar doesn't have regular stress patterns. However, phonemic pronunciation may be possible to give if provided with the tone (so, for instance, "anú" rather than "anu"; this same principle is done in Russian). The basics (especially for Northern Afar) are very simple: you can see WT:AAA for that, but I'll summarise it here:
there are five vowels, long and short (/ʌ, e, i, o, u/); note that long /ʌ/ is /aː/.
The consonants are, in alphabetical order, /b, ħ, d, f, ɡ, h, d͡ʒ, k, l, m, n, p, ʕ, ɾ, s, t, w, ɖ, j, z/ with ⟨sh⟩ being /ʃ/ and ⟨rr⟩ being /rː/. Note that a syllable is (C)V(C), so stress may have to separate long consonants (/rˈr/).
In Southern Afar, an "s" preceded by "y" or succeded by "i" becomes /ʃ/.
Major references are {{R:aa:Hassan Kamil:2015}}, {{R:aa:Parker:1985}} and, if I remember correctly, {{R:aa:Hassan Kamil:2004}}, but I won't be able to check the last one until a week from now. Thanks for taking it on, hope it works out! Also, maybe someone with a bot can copy the tone from the headword template to the automatic pronunciation template? Just a thought. Ask me if you need anything more! Thadh (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I created the module, the template and the testcases as well as their documentation. Don't hesitate to add more relevant testcases. Given what's already in entries, there are two given phonemic transcriptions given when there's a Southern Afar phonetic difference, which is problematic, on the one hand because there are two phonemic transcription of a single word, and on the other hand, the difference shown in Southern Afar is phonetic. I've read just a dozen pages of the phonology chapter of Kamil (2015) and noticed several assimilation and other things making it relevant to have a phonemic transcription, and only one, as well as the Northern and Southern Afar phonetic transcriptions, clearly showing the differences between the phonology and the actual realization as well as the one between those dialects in a coherent manner. What do you think of this proposal? And do you want to show syllable breaks, phonemically and/or phonetically? Same question for hyphenation (which is based on syllable breaks). Malku H₂n̥rés (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Malku H₂n̥rés: I would like hyphenation, but not syllable breaks (I prefer long consonants given with the long mark rather than split).
I think it could be argued that the s-ʃ distinction is phonemic due to the same distinction made in loanwoards (written "s-sh"), and honestly I think it wouldn't do much harm to give this phonemically, since I don't think there is much info on phonetic pronunciation of Afar (so we won't be able to construct an automatic phonetic IPA any time soon) and the difference between these two phone(me)s seems pretty significant.
By the way, I've forgotten one major thing: before /m/, the letters /k, t, p/ become /kʰ, tʰ, pʰ/ (Hassan Kamil analyses the first one as /χ/). I think they don't when in word boundaries, but I'm not sure; I've given this phonemically so far as well.
Hassan Kamil 2015 is sometimes tough to follow where he means "assimilation" as a historical feature and where as a phonological one. I'm not sure about everything (I'd have to check with Parker), but the "xt-xx" assimilation is simply given in writing (see {{aa-conj-t2}} vs {{aa-conj-x2}}). A problem arises with the multiword terms, where assimilation may happen outside word boundaries, but I think we could solve this using respelling, what do you think?
Both /s/ and /ʃ/ exists as phonemes, but if [ʃ] is an allophone of [s] (both of the archiphoneme /s/), it's phonetic, unless you know a minimal pair in Southern Afar between /s/ and /ʃ/ after /j/ or before /i/, which doesn't exist since [s] > [ʃ] / j_, _i. You say there's no much information about the phonetic pronunciation, but Kamil (2015) tells about several sound changes which can only be phonetic ([b]>[p] / _t; [m]>[n] / _{f, t, n}; [w]>[Ø] / o:_n; assimilation of [t] to following [s, d, ɖ], etc.). I'm ok with the rest, I'll include voiceless stops aspiration before [m] and I agree with your choice to show hyphenation, so that there's no need to show syllable breaks and therefore long consonants are kept long. Three questions:
About the "assimilations" given above, are they represented in orthography, or not at all, or partly (so that I know which ones the module should manage)?
Is secondary stress as unpredictable as the primary (in this case it needs to be indicated) or can it be predicted from the word with only the primary stress indicated (as it's currently)?
There's already respellings, in order to indicate stress. What is the "xt-xx" assimilation (I'm not versed in Afar). Are your assimilations predictable? Respellings modifying other things than stress are useless if the sounds changes are regular.
@Malku H₂n̥rés: I must've not been as clear as I thought, sorry for that:
Most assimilations are represented in writing afaik (I'll check this later today in Parker's dictionary, which also has a section on pronunciation). The "xt-xx" assimilation is just ɖt-ɖɖ, an example how assimilation is represented in writing.
What I meant about not enough information on phonetic values was: Are the unstressed vowels pronounced differently? Are they really all [ʌ e i o u] in all positions or are they realised differently depending on the surrounding consonants? All these questions aren't addressed in Hassan Kamil (2015), and I don't think they are anywhere else, which makes creating a reasonable phonetic transcription hard.
Yes, secondary stress is just something that can happen in compounds or phrases (by way of merging two or more stressed words).
Yup, as I thought, all assimilations given by Hassan Kamil are written. Parker gives a little more info on the vowels from a phonetic point of view (like, /jʌ/=[ja]), and I've found a paper ("The segmental phonemes of 'Afar; Hayward 1974), which discusses a lot of common phonetic realisations (like final devoicing, frequent /f/=[p̪ʰ] and a lot more), but again I'm not sure we want this. You could look it over if you're interested, but I think that since Afar is unstardandised, phonetic transcription just isn't a good idea. Thadh (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thadh, the module now works perfectly. It's ready to be used in entries. You can add more testcases at Module:aa-IPA/testcases#L-24 (in the following format: {"head with stress", "(Northern) Afar expected phonemic transcription"},). I just figured out that I forgot to add secondary stress but I'll do this tomorrow. Malku H₂n̥rés (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Its Deutschland 1871. I added sidu because the entry mentioned that it meant ritual and rite. I had to delete the gender because I wasn't so sure if it was masculine or feminine or not. — This unsigned comment was added by Deutschland1871 (talk • contribs).
Thanks. I actually didn't noticed it was there when I added to the Translations. Maybe I was just carried away without batting an eye to find it. — This unsigned comment was added by Deutschland1871 (talk • contribs).
Thadh, I know this sounds unbelievable but I think I found a possible still pending relationship between Vasconic and Afroasiatic. Do you want to hear it? — This unsigned comment was added by Deutschland1871 (talk • contribs).
Ok, sure. I don't know if your here or you'll believe me but this is convincing me. I found some words between Basque, Afroasiatic and Sumerian that conincidently look similar. First the Basque and the Funnelbeaker culture(Germanic substrate language) are both descendants of EEF's who originate around Anatoila and northern Mesopatamia and I found a few words that look like they are cognates. First is Basque "aker" and Proto-Berber *a-ɣăyd. They both have an initial "A", they have a succeeding velar consonant. "K" is the voiceless form of "G". They both have a vowel between the consonants. The "e" in "aker" might have formed from vowel degradetion and they both have a final voiced alveolar consonant. In Wikitionary, Basque "aker" comes from Proto-Basque "aceŕ" which is claimed to be from the prefix "ace-" meaning male animal but the problem is twofold. First, the claim and similarity might be because they conincidently evloved in similar pathes and it is under the assumption that the language spawned spontaneously even though the Basques have been around a lot longer then 1AD in the Basque countryside and the same is goats. Secondly, the entry doesn't even put into consideration where the final alveolar consonant came from and dismisses the idea of a possible far distant relationship. Language families can form in under 20,000 years which could lead to the two families becoming distinct language families. — This unsigned comment was added by Deutschland1871 (talk • contribs).
Well, one word isn't proof of much, and in this particular scenario the PA term could be borrowed into Basque (see also Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/gaits), and the prefix *a- is a nominaliser, a concept that isn't present in the Basque family AFAIK (so, an etymological concept would rather be of the form ***ker). Anyway, it seems like the term for "goat" is pretty much similar in multiple european and asiatic languages, in the sence of laryngeal+vowel+d/derivative (Russianкоза(koza), Albaniankedh, Turkishteke), it doesn't seem to be related to each other in any way (except for the Slavic/Albanian relationship). Thadh (talk) 06:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know that one word isn't enough but what if the *a- in Proto- Vaso-Afroasiatic (assuming they are distantly related) changed meaning and became a part of the word some time ago, after all the Basques ancestors the EEF's lived in close proximity to Afroasiatic speakers. And your theoretical ***ker might actually be possible if assuming the *a- came from an Afroasiatic influence. EEF's and Afroasiatic speakers lived side by side from 9000 BC to 7000 BC so the EEF's descendants the Basque could have possibly been influenced by it and ***ker may be possibly related assuming your construction ***ker is right. — This unsigned comment was added by Deutschland1871 (talk • contribs).
Thadh, I also wanted to tell you that I have found a possible rekation with Basque and Kartvelian after finding some similarities. I know this has been said before not on Scientific ground. This time, I'm Basing this on Scientific ground and typological similarities. If I can find sufficient proof, then I can determine a very ancient distant linguistic relationship between Basque, Kartvelian and Afroasiatic. Deutschland1871 (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Apisite: I've edited the page (and, among other things, added the gender). Overall, with inanimate non-proper nouns, it's safe to assume that they are masculine in Amharic. Thadh (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I got it from it being changed on Proto-Germanic and Proto-West Germanic entries, which used to show 'Conjugation' and 'Declension' but have now been updated to show 'Inflection' for both. 'Conjugation' and 'Declension' are deemed Indo-European/Latin-centric and do not fit all languages. I know, I too was somewhat resistant to it as well, but... Leasnam (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leasnam: I mean, we could bring it up on the Beer Parlour, but "conjugation" and "declension" seem to describe most flexional languages pretty well... I haven't ever been reverted for using conjugation/declension instead of inflection. German also consistently uses "conjugation", so I don't see why we should be innovative with Saterlandic. Thadh (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't think there is much consensus or standardisation regarding these headers. I'm fine with Conjugation for STQ (I prefer the way it was actually). Ok, we'll see what happens. Cheers ! :) Leasnam (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you take a look at my post in the Beer Parlour and offer a suggestion as to what best label would be for the Macedonian secondary imperfective verbs described there? As a native speaker of Russian, I think that you are in a position to understand the function of the type of verb in question and as well as all the other types of verbs from which it needs to be distinguished. Unfortunately, discussions which involve technical linguistic details attract little attention in Wiktionary's forums, so I have started contacting Russian editors personally. My own proposal is to keep "iterative", use "frequentative" for verbs like "to knock" or "to hum", and change the descriptions in the categories to reflect this. I want to hear other editors' opinions too because the label can also be applied to other Slavic languages, though I do not have a sufficiently nuanced knowledge of Russian to identify unequivocal examples of secondary imperfective verbs with no added meaning (perhaps починять < < починить < чинить, with all three meaning "to repair"). Thank you in advance. Martin123xyz (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I happen to be a native Russian speaker and I'm sure that жвачка is primarily used as a word for chewing gum, short for жева́тельная рези́нка (here is a Russian wikipedia link for you: Жевательная резинка). The Wikipedia page would have an intersection for different meanings if the word had them. It is a big country with many Wikipedia users after all.
Furthermore a google search for жева́ть жвачку shows nothing more than articles on chewing gum and its health effects.
Next I used a tool called context.reverso.net (very good for searching word usage across languages - uses public translated documents, not a machine translator).
https://context.reverso.net/translation/russian-english/%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C+%D0%B6%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%BA%D1%83
It lists many examples of chew gum and not ruminate as a translation for жева́ть жвачку.
I'm sure I can find a lot more proof that the aforementioned translation is not accurate.
Thus, you should approve my edit or come up with a better translation, as that one is just false.
Regards --BratwurstBaron (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BratwurstBaron: При всём уважении, видимо ваш Русский не очень образованый, а reverso для словаря плохой источник. Жевать жвачку - очень базовый концепт в биологическом контексте. Отсюдо и пошло слово - жвательные животные. Для простоты, загуглите "жевать жвачку животные" и посмотрите на результаты. Лучше переводов я не знаю, да и не нужно. Пожалуйста, не исходите из того, что наши авторы не знают языка. Thadh (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BratwurstBaron: reverso, как и гугл транслейт и подобные программы, сделан для самых базовых переводов, особенно однословных. Конкретно reverso смотрит на маленький набор цитат, и если слово в каком-то значении встречается чаще, то именно то значение читатель и увидет. А словари смотрят на все значения, вне зависимости от редкости слова.
Слова, связанные с какой-либо специальностью - биологией, экономикой, искусством - сравнительно редко являются темой для повседневного разговора, и тем более в сети. А продукты - часто. Вот reverso и регистрирует только эти частые значения.
As always I start thanking you for your guidance, help and corrections. I was just wondering where do you retrieve all the data about amharic/ge'ez geminates, stresses and etymology? As far as I now the amharic language itself doesn't indicate it in the writing system. I just know Leslau for some grammar and translation reference. Thanks. Abreham97 (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Abreham97: the Amharic-English dictionary by Kane (1990) is a very good source for geminates, it lists all the transliterations along with the Ethiopic spelling.
For stress, I try to follow the standard pattern Leslau gives: the syllable before a geminate is stressed, in mono-, di- and trisyllabic words the first syllable is stressed and in tetrasyllabic ones the third one is. It's pretty foolproof, and I would really follow the theoretic stress (unless a native speaker comes along and contradicts you), because I found it's almost impossible to hear Amharic stress in recordings (speakers often use pitch and intonation as well, which makes it hard to pinpoint the stressed syllable)
For etymology, it varies. You can use the Semitic Etymological Dictionary for basic terms, and Leslau gives quite a lot of derivational morphemes in his Reference Grammar (1995), and also Kane usually states if the term is a Ge'ez, Oromo or Italian borrowing.
Finally, for gender, you can assume all inanimate objects are masculine (there is a handful of exceptions but you don't have to worry about those). For animate objects, it's usually pretty self-evident which one the noun has - inherently masculine concepts (male, brother) are masculine, inherently feminine concepts (female, sister) are feminine, and most animals or occupational nouns depend on the natural gender (so both masculine and feminine, and you should use {{am-mfnote}} for those.
Wow! I should start saving your replies and use it as a reference for compiling a personal amharic grammar handbook. Is there somewhere a collection/category of all the templates and lang tools implemented on Amharic entries? Thanks. Abreham97 (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am often really confused when it comes to put the ɨ IPA character on the 6th order of Abugida like ህ ብ ክ ት ች etc. In this case for መስጊድ /məsɡid/ or /məsɨɡid/? I feel sometimes it's useful for the pronunciation sake, but many times it's just useless or misleading (since many people pronounce it as ኢ(i)and not እ (ɨ). Thanks in advance for your quick support. Abreham97 (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Abreham97: It's a phoneme, so some speakers may realise it differently to [ɨ]. If there is a vowel there, then you should write /ɨ/, and if there isn't, you shouldn't. In this particular case, there is no vowel there (it's mäsgid, not mäsəgid), so you shouldn't give it in IPA either. The current pronunciation is correct, albeit not complete due to the lack of stress. Thadh (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JeffDoozan: Thanks, I must have thought about including an Udmurt term that is distantly half-related but then decided not to and forgot to remove the template... Thadh (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The description of Category:Milk (and thus every language-specific implementation of it) just says it's for "terms related to milk", not "types of milk" or anything like that. Unless there's a policy I'm not aware of, I fail to see how milk itself isn't a milk-related subject. Binarystep (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Binarystep: It is the custom to fill categories with terms related to a concept, but not the concept itself. So, a hunting dog is a dog, a dog is a canid, a canid is a carnivore and a carnivore is a mammal and so on and so forth. This really makes sense if you think about it: how can something be related to itself? This custom hasn't always been followed as well though, so you may occasionally see entries categorised in another way.
I took the image to need a label of the species it was. There is no image of a generic rhinoceros, only of specific ones that have usually correct species labels. Is there any reason to believe that nosoróg does not apply to the species in the image? DCDuring (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are problems with connecting most vernacular names of organisms with taxonomic name. Not making some kind of connection leaves it unclear what the referent might be, but taxonomic names often don't correspond to an ordinary human's concepts. Some vernacular name entries make an effort by including a gloss like "(mammal of the family Rhinocerotidae)" (Rhinocerotidae including all five extant species of rhino, as well as extinct ones that physically resemble the living ones). But an ordinary human's eyes start to glaze over when confronted with Rhinocerotidae. An ordinary human's concept of a vernacular name of an organism is heavily influenced by any local instances of the organism, instances in zoos and botanical gardens, and/or instances in books, TV, movies, formal education, etc. I think all we can do is make available basic glosses and definitions, images, and the corresponding taxonomic names. Using our entries well may be difficult unless the user has some education in biology and some model of how vernacular names emerge. To some extent, wikilinks and external links can help interested users delve as deeply into the matter as they care to, but vernacular names do not make a good hierarchical system and don't connect well with evolution. DCDuring (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DCDuring: Right, but giving a taxonomic name for a picture of a species whithin the pseudotaxon a vernacular name signifies is a little akin to giving the caption "19th century victorian painting of a woman and a dog by Leonardo Whatshisname III" when the entry is "painting". IMO an image in a dictionary entry is nothing more than a visual aid, but maybe you have another view on it? Thadh (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that captions should include the headword, but not be limited to it. I would propose a caption that included the title of the painting, possibly a date, and a link to the WP article about the painter or the painter's school and omit "Victorian" (redundant to date and article) and "of a woman and a dog" (obvious, except to sight-impaired). Images, like citations, are an opportunity to pursue something further. We have all sorts of links (to articles on authors, books, journals, publishers, publishers' addresses) in citations. Arguably these are all distractions from the lexical information. DCDuring (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But then again, we already have the function of clicking on the picture and going to commons for all this information, don't we? Thadh (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the Template:bar-noun which you have edited a couple of months ago (that is why I am contacting you) is missing an option for 2nd and 3rd plural forms (which do occur in Bavarian varieties). Would it be possible to add those? I would do it myself but my coding skills are below zero and me tampering with the template probably would result in a mess.
Здравствуйте @Thadh. Что-то никто не поддерживает нашу инициативу :( Один человек против использования терминов "Old Belarusian"/"Old Ukrainian", хотя именно создание Old Ruthenian(zle-ort) приведёт к значительному уменьшению их использований на Wiktionary. Второй указывает, что в тот период уже у некоторых слов проявлялись некоторые диалектные особенности: в южном диалекте – украинские (вроде того же "икавизма"), а в серверных соответственно – белорусские. Но неужели это такая проблема, просто указывать эти диалектные формы, если они будут иметься, как это делается в любых других языках здесь. Как я и говорил ранее, судя по старобелорусскому и староукраинским словарям, это будет очень редко, максимум в 1-2 случаях из 10 слов. Ситуация с разными вариантами слова в языке, не мешает например английскому queen иметь в Middle English почти 15 вариантов одного слова (см. здесь Proto-West Germanic*kwāni) и это касается почти всех среднеанглийских слов.
Очевидно, что после разделения древнерусского и отделения русского языка, белорусский и украинский – определённое время ещё сохраняли единство. Поэтому Old Ruthenian (он же "западнорусский"/"староукраинский"/старобелорусский") – необходим. В противовес, также нужно как-то отделить язык "старорусского" периода который был до 1700-го года (~ до петровских реформ) от современного русского. Наличие Middle Russian не означает (как вариант), что он будет всегда обязателен к использованию, лишь когда необходимо показать старорусскую форму. Чего там говорит, даже да какого-то Taimyr Pidgin Russian(crp-tpr) есть свой отдельный код, используемый для 2-х слов.. — ZomBear (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Извиняться незачем, затея-то была моя. Кстати, можешь меня не выкать. Я думаю все проблемы сводятся к старому вопросу; правильно ли считать писменный язык предком диалектов? Мне кажется, что это не страшно, ведь по сути каждый язык имеет свои диалекты, а в словаре регистрировать каждый отдельно непрактично, но нужно с этим мнением считаться. Давайте, подождём, что скажут другие; Языки эти всё равно вымершие, и никуда не убегут. Thadh (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Хотел бы поблагодарить обоих участников (прежде всего хозяина СО, но и @ZomBear тоже) за ту работу, которую я хотел сделать ещё несколько лет назад, но будучи экзопедистом, испугался вероятной необходимости долго и нудно доказывать свою точку зрения участникам, которые могут выступить против (особенно учитывая, что из хороших современных АИ на английском языке на свою точку зрения я тогда мог привести только статью Бунчича 2015 года, которая вам наверняка знакома).
Что касается старорусского языка, то это вельми щекотливый вопрос: к какому языку вы отнесёте скорописные документы трёх четвертей XVIII века, как этот указ Петра 1717 года, не говоря уже о лубках? Если к старорусскому, то мы получим в нём заимствования XVIII века, а если к современному русскому — то к [[Category:Russian pre-1918 spellings]] добавятся ещё написания с отменёнными в печати (но не на письме!) буквами старой кириллицы со всеми сопутствующими техническими проблемами (лично мне это решение кажется предпочтительным; и условную границу в таком случае я бы проводил не по 1710 году, а где-то в середине или конце 1690-х, как коллектив Словаря русского языка XVIII века).
Дополнительно осложняет дело то, что исследователи второй половины XIX века не отделяли его от своего родного (полагаю, что язык, условно, 1660-х гг. был взаимопонятен с языком 1860-х не хуже, чем для нас язык 1820-х) и успели опубликовать большое количество документов на нём в орфографии, ныне известной как "дореформенная" или "дореволюционная" (пример) — разрешите ли вы создавать лексемы и/или приводить цитаты в ней? К слову, эта же проблема стоит и для западнорусского языка (возможно, примеры, но первый документ или оба могут быть и на старорусском, надо копать современную литературу по этому поводу; впрочем, куча примеров есть вне википроектов). Ain92 (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC) PS Обратите внимание, что словарь Зизания 1596 года оцифрован в украинской ВТ в оригинальной орфографии.[reply]
@Ain92: Пока что мы из старорусского (то есть, восточного языка между XV и XVIII вв.) этимологический код русского, и тем самым эти формы действительно будут принадлежать к pre-1918 spellings. Я Анатолию предложил сделать из старорусского полноценный код, но он отказался, сказал что по его мнению разница между старорусским и дореволюционным русским слишком незначительная.
Что касается документов на гране старорусского и древнерусского, я сам не знаю как с этим справиться. Пока что мы решили сделать 1400-й год оффициальной границей между этими двумя языками, но её ещё можно передвинуть. Но как и с другими языками, в конце концов нам таки понадобится такая граница, потому что всё равно распределение языков совершенно произвольно. Thadh (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Мне кажется, в перспективе старорусский XV—XVII в. имеет право на отдельный код, а не этимологический, но только тогда, когда найдутся участники, желающие массово наполнять и оформлять такие записи. К слову, отстутствие таких участников в конце 2010-х было ещё одной причиной, почему я не стал заморачиваться с выделением западнорусского тогда. Что же до текущей границы, то тут можно ориентироваться на коллектив Словаря древнерусского языка (то есть рубеж XIV и XV вв., как вы и сделали), но можно и на коллектив Словаря русского языка XI—XVII вв. (вообще удобно брать такие же границы, как у бумажных словарей, хотя бы потому, что тогда можно сверяться с их словниками), поскольку старорусский XV века совершенно точно невзаимопонятен с современным литературным. Так или иначе, я совершенно согласен, что это условность, и мне это непринципиально) Кстати, не хотите случайно объединить древнерусский с древненовгородским диалектом, сделав последний региональным вариантом с этимологическим кодом? Я ХЗ, почему они оказались разделены, это произошло до моего появления в ен-ВС, в научной литературе никто ДНД языком никогда не называл, насколько мне известно. Ain92 (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
По просьбе коллеги залил в облако свою коллекцию орфографических нормализаций для лексикографических целей (словари, словоуказатели) древнерусского, старовеликорусского и немного старославянского (немного стыдно сидеть на ней, как собака на сене, да и ссылки протухают понемногу, надо обновлять). Не хотите поглядеть? Ain92 (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Здравствуйте @Thadh. Необходим ваш совет, как поступить и что будет лучше. Пару дней как Ain92 вот ЗДЕСЬ, сильно озадачил меня: какое правописание для Old Ruthenian использовать на Wiktionary?
Либо использовать орфографию устоявшуюся на нач. 1600-х гг (представлявшую из себя смесь древнерусской орфографии + 2-е южнословянское влияние + новые иновации правописания возникшие в самом ст.-укр/бел.);
Оба варианта вызывают свои проблемы. Если следовать 1-му — тогдашней старо-украинской/белорусской орфографии, то это приведёт к некому «разнобою» в Wiktionary, через использование различных дуплетов кириллических гласных букв (ꙗ, ѧ, оу, у, ꙋ, ї, и, о, ѡ...) для разных позиций в словах, что не совсем будет согласовываться с тем, что принято для того же Old East Slavic, предка Old Ruthenian. И например цепочка этимологии некоторых слов будет выглядеть примерно так: Proto-Slavic*oko → Old East Slavicоко(oko) → Old Ruthenianѡко(oko) → Ukrainianоко(oko). Второй вариант — этимологический (с например написанием ꙗ / ѧ этимологически, хоть в ст.-укр/бел. и обозначали звук ja) тоже вызовет свои проблемы в виде необходимости частого «выдумывания» форм слов, которые небыли зафиксированы в тот период. Например за тогдашним общепринятым ст.-укр/бел. правилом «и» перед гласными в 99,8% случаях писалась исключительно через «ї» как например в заимствованном слове генеалóгїа(henealóhia), а если следовать этимологическому написанию, то нужно выдумывать незафиксированную (и почти невозможную в тот период) форму как генеалóгиꙗ(henealóhija). --ZomBear (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ZomBear: Я бы пользовался устоявшейся орфографией, если она достаточно регулярна. Проблема в OES в том, что это был переход из наличия множества звуков (юсы, еры) в их неналичие, и писатели были неуверены, как написать слово. Если в ORT такого не было, то можно спокойно использовать орфографию того времени. Если же она нерегулярна - скажем, /i/ может писаться как и, ї, і без разбора - то лучше использовать этимологическую орфографию, но даже тогда можно прописать правила (например, что каждое /i/ перед гласной должна писаться <ї>). Thadh (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Здравствуйте, Thadh. Хотел бы предложить ещё пару изменений в восточнославянских языках.
Переименовать "Old Ukrainian" → "Middle ..." в соответствии вот с этой хронологией: Ukrainian_language#Chronology. А заодно и "Old Belarusian" → "Middle ...", как часть общего "Old Ruthenian". Это немного предотвратит возможные путаницы и стандартизует названия с тем, что уже написано в Википедии, а также, гурбо говоря подгонит названия к уже существующему "Middle Russian".
"Old Ukrainian" (zle-ouk) → "Middle Ukrainian" (zle-muk) / оставив (zle-ouk) как альтернативу.
"Old Belarusian" (zle-obe) → "Middle Belarusian" (zle-mbe) / оставив (zle-obe) как альтернативу.
сделал ещё визуализацию Хочу предложить сделать etymology-only "Middle Russian" (zle-mru) частью не современного "Russian" (ru), а частью "Old East Slavic" (orv). По аналогии как "Middle Bulgarian" (cu-bgm) является частью "Old Church Slavonic" (cu). На это наталкивает то, что в словарях, русский язык периода 14-17 вв. — относят в рамки древнерусского языка. Например Словарь русского языка XI–XVII вв.{{R:ru:SRJa1117}} или в ЭССЯ{{R:sla:ESSJa}}, это стандартное явление. Там русские слова 14-17 вв., помечаются как др.-русск. Просто один из примеров с ЭССЯ: в разделе о праславянском *xoxolъ под древнерусскими, указаны слова Хохолъ(Xoxol, “имя собств.”) — зафиксированное в 15 веку и хохолъкъ(xoxolok, “риба йорж”) — 1551 года упоминания. И это лишь один из примеров, подобное в ЭССЯ, это постоянное явление. При этом староукраинские и старобелорусские слова (при наличии таковых) в ЭССЯ указываются отдельно от древнерусских, этого периода 14-17 вв.
Получается так, что после условного распада древнерусского языка в ~ 14 веку и выхода из него староукраинского и старобелорусского (которые ещё до 18 века продолжат существовать в общности, выступающей у нас под названием "Old Ruthenian"), сам древнерусский ещё условно оставался в виде старорусского ("Middle Russian") и только к ~ 1700-му г. перешел в современный русский. --ZomBear (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Про среднеукраинский и среднебеларуский у меня нет мнения, но я думаю такие вещи надо обсудить с другими редакторами. Про старорусский я не согласен, что он более схож с древнерусским чем с русским (заметим, мы так и не договирились, разделять ли старорусский от современного или нет. Что мы можем сделать, это передвинуть границы: Старорусский будет начинаться с 15го века, а не 16го. Хотя и это, мне кажется, делать не стоит. Если вы начнёте дискуссию (скажем на той же WT:AORV) то по этогам этой дискуссии я смогу что-нибудь сделать. Thadh (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Подумав о вышесказанном, решил пусть уже остаётся как есть, как говорится «спасибо и на этом». Но есть другая более «надоедливая проблема». Thadh не знаете, есть ли возможно, что-то сделать с этим... Как объяснить:
Почему в Old East Slavicвода́(vodá) = {{cog|orv|вода́}} или Old Ruthenianвода́(vodá) = {{cog|zle-ort|вода́}} – «не игнорируется» знак ударения и другие надстрочные диакритические знаки?
Как например в тех же Russianвода́(vodá) = {{cog|ru|вода́}} или Ukrainianвода́(vodá) = {{cog|uk|вода́}}.
И поэтому каждый раз приходиться изворачиваться и делать громоздкие контракции типа {{cog|orv|вода|alt=вода́}} / {{cog|zle-ort|вода|alt=вода́}} или {{desc|orv|вода|alt=вода́}} / {{desc|zle-ort|вода|alt=вода́}}, что бы всё выглядело приемлемо, красиво и отображало знак ударения.
Как я понимаю, это что-то завязано на коде языков Old East Slavic и Old Ruthenian, что там не игнорируются знаки ударения в ссылках, как в языках Russian, Ukrainian и др. Вам неизвестно решаемо ли это? Не могли бы разузнать, может где-то просто не прописана какая-то команда в orv, cu, zle-ort, zle-non. --ZomBear (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadh: OMG! Спасибо! Это лучшее, что произошло за последние несколько дней. Это создавало столько трудностей и добавляло лишней работы с прописанием параметра |alt= везде. --ZomBear (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ZomBear: Обычно для простых проблем уже есть решения, и если есть эквивалентное решение в одном языке, то точно можно его придумать в другом. Если вам ещё что-нибудь будет мешать, оброщайтесь! Thadh (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
С недавнего времени при использовании |sc=Cyrs для старорусского (Middle Russian) перестала отображаться транслит и игнорироваться надстрочные знаки: {{cog|zle-mru|вода́|sc=Cyrs}} = Middle Russianвода́(vodá); Для сравнения без того параметра: {{cog|zle-mru|вода́}} = Middle Russianвода́(vodá). Ещё неделю назад всё было корректно. Можно ли это починить или теперь просто банально избегать Old Cyrillic script для старорусского языка (хотя он там желателен).
Здравствуйте, @Thadh. Заметил что с недавнего времени в дереве языков (Family tree), как например ТУТ, теперь этимологическое коды теперь выступают в качестве "предков". То-есть Old Ukrainian (zle-ouk) стал предком для Ukrainian (uk) и в белорусском соответственно. Но вот русинский язык также нужно поместить в потомки Old Ukrainian как и обычный украинский. --ZomBear (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Metaknowledge: I am very flattered, especially because it's you who asked me. I'm not sure myself if I need admin tools: I would like to continue the work I'm doing, so the only things I can't currently do that might come in handy for that is module editing (adding scripts, splitting languages) and deletion (although extensive moves would cover most of that). I don't often fight vandalism - I might occasionally have a look at recent entries, but there's enough editors that do this more often and more efficiently than me, and long-term problematic users are rarely whithin my area(s) of expertise. I also don't think we need another closer/deleter for RFVs and RFDs, although I'm prepared to help. So, do you think this qualifies as 'regular use'? Thadh (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admins generally don't fight vandalism much, because they don't have the tools to do so efficiently. I also differ about our needs at RFD/V (look how long the pages are!). So I guess it comes down to whether you want to expand your repertoire somewhat, in which case I think you would be a good admin. You don't have to decide immediately — the offer remains on the table. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds17:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Thadh! I was trying it myself, but I'm having a lot of difficulty. Would you be able to help me produce a conjugation template? There are three different paradigms (action verbs, stative verbs, and directional verbs), differing in vowel assimilation rules and whether they admit the imperative mood (action does, stative doesn't, directional is unknown). I really just want to write something like {{mqs-conj|verb class|vowel harmony rule}} and let the template select the paradigm/apply vowel assimilation based on what I pass. Is that possible? — This unsigned comment was added by Alexlin01 (talk • contribs).
@Alexlin01: Sure, but I'd need more context than that. Do you maybe have a source or could you make a table at your sandbox/user(sub)page explaining what the rules exactly are? Thadh (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About one blogosphere term referring to Russia:[edit]
Recently, I added one term to the article for Россия(Rossija), эта страна, as this term is used in Lurkmore and other liberal bloggers in Russia to criticise their own country.
May I know why is this term not worthy for inclusion? Is it because there are not enough verified uses, or is it too basic (like "death to" or "these two")?
@PulauKakatua19: I wanted to add an explanation for the undo before publishing, but forgot, sorry. "Эта страна" just means "this country", and could be applied to any country one is currently in; at least, unless there is a new sense that has emerged and you can find three citations that clearly show these words are used idiomatically. If you do, you can ignore my reversion, but you should create the page in that case. Thadh (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Unfortunately, the link to Lurkmore (where there's an article about how it's being used specifically for Russia) is blocked with an anti-war protest - I should have used that link or anything like that as a reference before I add it there to make it clear.
Continuing our discussion from here, how would I indicate a term is Proto-North-Iroquoian. I'm not against it at the outset, I just wanna know how it would be done, and see if it is workable. Also, can you please add the language code wdt for Huron/Wendat, and the etymology-only codes moh-old and ono-old for Old Mohawk and Old Onondaga respectively. /mof.va.nes/ (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mofvanes: Hey, seems your ping didn't go through in the discussion. You could just use Proto-North-Iroquoian in etymology sections, and they would direct you to Proto-Iroquoian reconstruction pages, which in turn would have the tag "Proto-North-Iroquoian". It's similar to how Vulgar Latin works (compare the etymology section at Portuguese esquecer and Vulgar Latin *excadesco). I'll look into the other codes in a second. Thadh (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadh: I suppose that is ok, and I can start adding reconstructions, but for categorizing, I'd prefer it be a seperate code. There are more reconstructed Proto-Northern Iroquois roots than Proto-Iroquois /mof.va.nes/ (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mofvanes: You don't need to have a code to cite a work that uses a different name for the language, especially when it's in another language. Now, if there really are any significant grammatical differences, that's a different story, but please make sure that it makes sense to split these. Thadh (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadh: Not exactly. Wyandot is associated with the Wyandot(te) Nations in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Michigan, whereas Wendat is associated with the Huron-Wendat Nation in Quebec. Both have no more native speakers, but both have seperate revitalization efforts. Wendat is also the name of the historical language (ȣendat) preserved in the Jesuit dictionary. /mof.va.nes/ (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Здравствуйте, Thadh. Спасибо вам за инициативу и то что Old Ruthenian всё же появился. Есть ещё пара просьб к вам:
Надо бы для Old Ruthenian добавить модуль транслитерации. Я что-то вот сделал на коленке {{Module:zle-ort-translit}}, если вас опыт работы с ними, помогите дооформить, обновить...
Заметил что для Middle Russian не все Old Cyrillic буквы транслитерируются, так как они не прописаны в {{Module:ru-translit}} (который я не могу редактировать). Например: ꙗнта́рь(jantárʹ), Россі́ꙗ(Rossíja).
Так же, может быть есть какая-то возможно, прописать так, что бы zle-mru использовал Old Cyrillic шрифт (Cyrs): ꙗнта́рь(jantárʹ) > ꙗнта́рь(jantárʹ), а́гистъ(ágist) > а́гистъ(ágist). Что бы это не затрагивало обычный русский язык. Или это невозможно ибо zle-mru это лишь etym-only код? Но если нет, то ок, не критично, если что можно это и вручную делать. --ZomBear (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ZomBear: Здраствуй (кстати, выкать меня не надо).
Попробуй проверить в тэсткейсах, правда ли что всё работает как следует, и я добавлю в модуль. Если ты сам не справляешся, я могу поспрашивать людей, которые знают.
Попробую починить
Я спрашивал, говорят нельзя, так что придётся или везде определять шрифт или плюнуть и сделать вид, что это всё Cyrl.
@Thadh: вроде проверил (testcases), вроде пока работает. Можете...шь добавить :) Пожалуйста. PS: Но по факту, это просто скопированный {{Module:Cyrs-Glag-translit}}, где обновлены "значения" букв и примитивно вырезана глаголица. Но сам код от глаголицы остался. Пока добавляйте, но наверное всё же стоит обратиться к тому кто работал с этим, что бы он "подчистил модуль от мусора". Так же хотелось бы узнать у тех кто имеет опыт с этим, возможно ли сделать нечто подобное как в {{Module:Cyrs-Glag-translit}}, где для orv отдельно выдаёт ["Щ"]='Šč', хотя по умолчанию для остальных языков модуля это ["Щ"]='Št'. Возможно ли нечто подобное сделать и для {{Module:zle-ort-translit}}, где бы по умолчанию было ["Ѣ"]='Ě', ["ѣ"]='ě' и ["И"]='I', ["и"]='i', а при использовании zle-ouk (староукраиснкий), выдавало бы ["Ѣ"]='I', ["ѣ"]='i' и ["И"]='Y', ["и"]='y'. Я что-то такое попытался сделать, но не понятно, пока он не добавлен к языку, будет ли это работать. --ZomBear (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ZomBear: zle-ouk не является языковым кодом (для headwords), так что это не очень осмысленно, даже если и можно. Всё равно, транскрипция не обязана быть полностю фонемической, и если это проблема, мы можем разделить "і" и "и" на "ï" и "i", или что-нибудь в этом роде. Thadh (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ижица после аза (простого и теоретически йотированного, хотя примеры в голову не приходят) и всевозможных естей транслитерируется неправильно, в таких позициях она читалась как веди. Ain92 (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TongcyDai: See my reasoning in the discussion above. There are multiple practices present at Wiktionary, and I personally strongly adhere to this one, so unless another active Ingrian editor emerges that decides that this should not be the way of categorising, it is better to keep categorisation within one language consistent. Thadh (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Please, tell me, why I cannot add redlink to section see also. Redlinks are not prohibited, are they? Maybe You don't know them. But if I do not know some think (word), it does not mean, that it does not exist at all. Please, be so kind, revert Your edition to my revision. Thank You in advance. Yours sincerely --Kusurija (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Have a jolly good time. Thank You for Yours other contributions. --Kusurija (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusurija: It's not prohibited to add redlinks to see also templates, but it's a little pointless unless there's any possibility that these will be created in the near future. Anyway, with so many variants, an variation appendix (like Appendix:Variations of "bar") would be in order, rather than an unwieldy list of forms. Feel free to add the forms that have entries though, I think I may have overlooked some. Thadh (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. First: I'm not so fluent in english (not N, not 4)
2. Second: I'm not so familiar with en.wikt structure (editing manners)
Which of these sources are good enough to be actual Ukrainian, and not Old Ruthenian? I think it's unfair for Russian articles to have archaic spellings, while very few archaic spellings are around for Old Ukrainian.
@PulauKakatua19: Ukrainian can have archaic forms, but they need to have been in use after Kotliarevsky's Eneïd (1798) or else it's Old Ruthenian. Old Ukrainian is Old Ruthenian (at least, on Wiktionary). Also, when tagging the alternative spellings, you should use {{alter|uk}} instead of {{alter|orv}}. Hope this clears it up. About the Łatynka, I would like you to start a Beer Parlour discussion, because the last one about the Belarusian Łacinka was received quite controversially. Thadh (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't come around to making a specific template for Saterlandic strong verbs, mainly because they are rarely make a large group per sound change, and there are very few of them. For the time being, it's better to analyse them as irregular (which is pretty close to the truth) than to not categorise them at all. Thadh (talk) 06:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When should a term be classified as a pronunciation spelling and when shouldn't it? Personally I'd say the term should be classified as one if it (or a variant of it) is used in standard Finnish. For example piä could be called a pronunciation spelling of pää. -- Kapulakone (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a complicated issue that requires more discussion with the community at large. I've personally just tagged them as (dialectal) alternative forms without using "pronunciation spelling". — SURJECTION/ T / C / L /15:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All right, when I make an article for one, I will tag it as a pronunciation spelling if a variant is used in standard Finnish (e.g. kolmansi as a PS of kolmas). I think it makes sense, since the dialectal spellings aren't used in writing, unless the intention is specifically to show the dialect being used. -- Kapulakone (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you also going to block Knight or am I the sole offender? Unlike Knight, I did some serious work with sources. This would not have happened if he did not obstruct the corrections I was trying to make. I collected and provided sources, he unsubstantiated opinions. I admit of being guilty of engaging in too many responses to what was unproductive input from him, but he no less. The latest exchange with the other editor was quite productive. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually blocked Knight before you, you can check that if you actually take the time and look at his userpage. Anyway, I've blocked you both specifically from the Wiktionary namespace, I strongly suggest you focus on your mainspace contributions for the following three days (and hopefully after that as well). Thadh (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consider his last post: "Asserting something lots of times doesn't make it true." No argument, just a provocation to escalate the conflict. He was insulting me, repeatedly violating all sorts of rules of decent conduct. When that happens, it is much harder to stop. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadh just wanted to apprise you as I received a notification; it appears the aforementioned user is attempting to get reinstated on English Wiktionary - see [1]. I am also aware some editors want to begin a workgroup to clean-up said user's entries. -Hintha (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Notifying RichardW57m): The contributions of User:우습게 are not very concerning, though they need some clean-up, which I should finish by Thursday. I've made a log of my clean-up of the original Intobesa's work at User:RichardW57/WIP#Intobesa Repair. Feel free to share it, though the right-hand column needs some minor changes if we are to share it. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As to User:ဘာကျာ်ဝိ's edits, they've been dealt with. I've left the unsupported extensions of the 'opium' word to include 'opium poppy' and 'heroin', because my bet is that they are correct. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RichardW57: The only potentially useful piece of information in this quite short page was "The error list is as follows👎👎👎👇 ကၟဲာ ❌ ကၟာဲ ✔ ခမှဲာ❌ ခမှာဲ ✔". The rest was just a lot of text on how disappointed he is that Wiktionary is so wrong in mistaking Mon for Burmese or something similar, honestly, it's the usual ramblings. Thadh (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
I was wondering if it was you who created the current inflection templates for Kven - if so, would you be willing to keep creating templates, especially one for verbs (there are currently no Kven verb entries nor templates on Wiktionary unfortunately).
I would like to start creating more Kven entries, but the lack of templates is stopping me a bit. I was also thinking one for pronunciation could be great, as there is already one for Finnish ({fi-pronunciation}) which would be almost identical I imagine. Thank you! Supevan (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Supevan: Normally, I would be all over this and be embracing you with open arms, but the problem with Kven is that there is currently an RFM discussion on Kven and Finnish, and if we do decide to merge the languages, it might make more sense to start creating infrastructure after the merge with the Finnish editors. Another issue is of course the fact that Kven isn't standardised (yet, as far as I know). Anyway, I invite you to comment on the discussion and if we do decide to keep the two separated I'll be more than happy to help you out! Thadh (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thadh, I saw you reverted some of my bot's edits on en and ostaa. Since the bot will re-do those edits the next time it's run I want to avoid any sort of an edit war and ask why you think it's better to have References after Anagrams. I don't personally have strong feelings on the placement of those categories, but the bot does because WT:ELE specifies that Anagrams should be below References, possibly because References will contain information directly related to the entry while Anagrams does not. JeffDoozan (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JeffDoozan: Yeah, I didn't immediately realise those were done by bot nor that it's specified in WT:ELE. I don't have any strong feelings either, it was more a visual matter (lot of text vs few text). Thadh (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello can you please unblock this Mon person 咽頭べさ[edit]
Ethnic minority of Myanmar and Thailand
He helps contributes to Mon Language (One and Only Mon Language expert on Wikipedia) He also fluently in English, Thai, Burmese, Japanese
I'm Mon of Thailand sad to see him got block. I don't know Mon Language, but I try to learn.
Hope one day this person will make Mon Language appear on Google Translate and Bing Translate SO PLEASE unblock him 2001:FB1:8B:37AC:31E9:EA77:94EE:497D06:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would let Intobesa add to the Mon edition of Wiktionary what he has to add, whether or not he adds an English translation or two, and import such additions to the English edition of Wiktionary. --Apisite (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on, you're not even hiding the fact it's you. The fact you're still lying and not addressing the actual issue that I blocked you for tells me you haven't learned anything from it, and I don't see why I should unblock you in that case. Thadh (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not him, you can check my Ip. I've never edited Wiktionary pages (only Talk User pages)
Sometimes I ask Octahedron80 (He is Thai language expert) something I want to know. User_talk:咽頭べさ#ผมช่วยเรียงร้องให้ปลดแบน
He said He want to help Mon language; He is The ONE and ONLY Mon person try to help Mon language stay alive because other Mon language expert doesn't care they only care about money he said. (Because if Mon language exist on Google who going to give them Money he said)
about Burmese edit: He have evidence that some Mon word did not borrow from Burmese, but the sources is on Facebook so it's not reliable as Shorto, H.L. I just ask him to create a Book and gather evidence and cite it (if this allow). about his ban: Can we just reduced his ban from forever to one month? I mean he kind of accepts that what he does was wrong. I will tell him later (if he still here) so he can understand to never do that AGAIN. Tmaoa492s (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadh Then we get a biased and incorrect picture of the infringement of Middle Russian (Старорусский).
Although we have sources on this language, for example, the Dictionary of the everyday Russian language of Moscow Rus of the XVI-XVII centuries, the dictionaries of Boyer, James and Ludolf. And in general, the language of the same "A Journey Beyond the Three Seas" can no longer be called Old East Slavic, but it is not Russian either.
If we don't use Middle Russian, then it's unfair to specify Old Ruthenian.
Actually, the continuation of the development of the Old Russian language in the period of the 14th and 17th centuries should either be defined together or should be ignored together.
@Vmelnikov2022 It's not that easy to introduce and then manage a new extinct language in Wiktionary. Someone should develop a normalized orthography and, ideally, write an "about" guide. You could make a try in your personal space if you wish. If you don't, you could still use zle-mru code for linking, but create entries under the Russian L2 in pre-1918 orthography and link to them, planning to fix the links to the more correct orthography as soon as there's enough community to introduce the language with full rights. Ain92 (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shumkichi: Don't know if you've noticed, but Kashubian and Polish are different languages, so their hyphenation rules are slightly different. Also, doesn't work that way. Thadh (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, do you know what is "нам" in a context like "нам в тринадцатый вагон" or like "нам надо"? Does it real sounds like a dative? Is it a short form of something? Like, e.g. "concerning us, we need to get (to)...." = нам нужно попасть в... (still doesn't sounds like a dative) Maybe a very stupid question, but i ain't finding no answer to it nowhere :( Tollef Salemann (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tollef Salemann: It's just the dative, but the constructions aren't readily translatable into English. "It's necessary for us (to)" comes quite close to "нам надо", but "we need to" would be a more natural translation. It's basically a benefactive use of the dative. Thadh (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Thadh. I saw you edited Old Komi (e.g. 𐍚𐍠𐍔𐍚𐍐(kreka)). What font did you install? Because my Old Permic script is displayed as squares: □□□□□. Searched on Google, installed several fonts, did not help. ZomBear (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sławobóg Yes, I have the whole pack of the "Noto Fonts" series installed on my PC. And this "Noto Sans Old Permic" I reinstalled separately. But it still shows squares. So something is wrong with my PC. -- ZomBear (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused by the request to be patient? I stated in the post that I didn't want to press the matter of A) TKW naming me in the thread post-IB or B) the post-IB edits to the nomination page. However, TKW made more than one post accusing me of "pushing boundaries" out of a "personal vendetta" in response to what was intended as a concise statement on policy.[2][3] That put me in the position of having to defend myself and point out TKW's arguably selective adherance to the IB up to that point. This isn't even the first time they've leveraged bad-faith accusations against me like this. Prior to the formal IB, they altered a good-faith swap of pronouns in the desysop nomination text with the accusation these were "snide edits",[4] then accused me of harassing them when I asked for clarification.[5] This looks like obstructionism and gaming the system to me. TKW crying harassment any time I comment in any way, so that I'm functionally frozen out of the conversation, while they freely continue making comments about me. And I really don't what to have to analyse the situation at this level of magnification. But I feel backed into a corner here. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would place TKW in a position of unfair advantage where they can freely accuse me of harassment – an accusation an uninvolved party might see, take at face value, and act upon – while I can't comment in defense of myself due to my hands being tied by the IB. Look, I'm willing to sit out the BP thread going forward if that was your intent with the IB, but I expect this to mean TKW must also sit out thread going forward in the interest of fairness. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WordyAndNerdy: Which is why I do respond to them in the BP thread. Any response you give however only makes people more annoyed with you (which is also true for TKW, by the way). Reasonable people will not read a lengthy accusation by either of you and make any conclusions without reading the whole discussion (including my strong suggestion to stop interacting) first. Thadh (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More than one user has taken issue with the length of the thread. I don't feel safe in the assumption that no uninvolved party is going to skim-read the thread and leap to action based on an incomplete understanding of a wider context. So, for absolute clarity here, does the interaction ban mean that both TKW and myself cannot participate in the Beer Parlour thread going forward? If so, TKW needs to be informed of this. If not, TKW needs to be reminded we are both welcome to comment in the thread. I'm sorry to put you in the position of having to arbritrate on this. But the lines being drawn need to be clear to hopefully preclude future back-and-forth of this nature. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WordyAndNerdy: The "interaction ban" means that if either of you continue fighting, first of all I'm going to be very upset and look at you in a stern way, and second of all, the credibility of anything either of you say will quickly deminish into nothing. Don't worry about an admin blocking you for no reason, the majority of active administrators are aware of this dispute and wouldn't be touching this mess with a barge pole, especially on the basis of TKW's words.
I can't really enforce an interaction ban on you because first of all, I can't block TKW, and only blocking you makes no sense, and second of all, I don't want to keep checking both of your contributions to see if you get involved anywhere. However, continuing the argument is useless and probably damaging to the both of you in the eyes of the other editors. Thadh (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I use this field material for the Bats, which was collected by an American linguist, but I noticed that she also worked with the Ingrian. She speaks Russian, I think you will understand. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Thadh! I saw you created a couple of templates for Scottish Gaelic nominal declension, so I decided to take over and improve them a little (added obsolete dative plural, created categories, fixed some typos etc). However, I can see that templates for the 4th and 5th classes are lacking, so I'm wondering: what classification did you have in mind when you were creating these templates? There is a plethora of them, and sometimes they differ rather drastically, so I need to know that very specific one you used in order to finish the job. Fayanzar (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ɶLerman: Beserman should probably be treated as a dialect with a label, so I'll just create it. Cf. how we handle the Izhma dialect of Komi (кыы).
As for Proto-Udmurt, I don't think that's a good idea. It isn't reconstructed by mainstream linguists, and would be extremely close to modern Udmurt. We have Proto-Permic, and I believe it's enough for now. Also, Proto-Udmurt would be a proto-language with one descendant, which is not very useful. Thadh (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I like that.
Well, the truth is I use wave model more, and I don't think Proto-Permic has only one descendant. I understand you, but Mikhail Zhivlov has some reconstructions, they are really very few. Thank you. ɶLerman (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Victar: We should really make some kind of Proto-Albanian regulations - when to reconstruct, what to reconstruct, time depth etc., because right now it's just a free-for-all, representing any stage from late PIE to modern Albanian. Once we have that, I'm fine with participating in the clean up, but right now it's like trying to get a bit of soot away from a burning stove. @Catonif as our current modern Albanian cleanup guy. Thadh (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Victar I'm a busy man but I've been cleaning things up here and there. I don't know if this guy was involved, but I do recall seeing his name. There are a number of Albanian entries with Proto-Indo-European etymologies that are source-falsified, for example the case of ditë which I just cleaned up. Actually sometimes the falsification makes proposals that are worth considering but falsifying sources to say your novel ideas is not a good idea, obviously. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there are a bunch of errors in CAT:E now that 'sel' is no longer a valid language code. The empty categories can be deleted but I'm not sure what to do with the descendant tables. Benwing2 (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Здравствуйте. Интересует ситуация с несвободными изображениями на английском Викисловаре.
С одной стороны, сообщество приняло NFCC. С другой, здесь их ровно одна штука. В то время, как есть большое количество статей (например, Pokémon), качественно проиллюстрировать которые можно только несвободными файлами. И где-то рядом запрет на локальную загрузки до администратора (вот об этом я вообще никаких упоминаний не нашёл). Но даже так, хоть сколько-нибудь изображений админ-состав загрузил бы за 10 лет.
Вам что-нибудь известно по этому поводу? — Ирука1308:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iruka13: Нет, я не в курсе. Мы пытаемся не загружать локальные файлы, а вместо этого всё проводить через Викисклад, у которого есть свои правила насчёт несвободного контента - время от времени, сотрудники викисклада удаляют свои файлы и одновременно у нас тоже. Thadh (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've got problems with @Kwamikagami's war on translinguality and negligible entries. One issue with his tagging negligible entries for the deletion is the apparent hostility to recreating deleted entries, which makes completing previously inadequate entries additionally complex. (Reasons for deletion don't get recorded where mere editors can find them and make a judgement on revival.)
Having flooded the obscurer ranges of Unicode codespace with {{delete}}, when I change them to {{rfd}} and provide content, he's been unilaterally jumping the gun and deleting the {{rfd}} from the page, but leaving the entry in WT:RFDN without a vote or a sign that a decision has been made. This means that it is inviting a decision to delete in WT:RFDN without a warning on the page itself. This is not only a breach of process, but not good. --RichardW57m (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is also unilaterally changing language headers from 'Translingual' to specific languages - 'Burmese' in what I've seen. To me, that is tantamount to deletion, and where I firmly disagree with this decision, I've been treating this as an out of process deletion and reverting it. He's now reverting my reversions. I'm minded to delete them back when I get advice on pronunciation under translingual items. At what point will this become an edit war? We don't seem to be legalistic enough to have a declared policy on this. I don't want almost every language of Burma to have its own entry for the common letters; I'd be happy to see different languages' pronunciations recorded under the translingual letter. I've asked about recording pronunciations in translingual items at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2023/July#Pronunciation_Labelling_in_Translingual_Items. --RichardW57m (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think your revision of my edit was an error because Proto-Samoyedic *uə and *uj both become ú in Nenets, and *iə, *ij, *eə, and *ej become í, because *e merged with *i in all Samoyedic languages except Nganasan, where it becomes ɨ. Wizardito-OL (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wizardito-OL: Do you have any source of the modern language recording it as a long vowel? Because Tereschenko doesn't give one.
I do think that two sources written by a native speaker and published in print count a bit more than a powerpoint presentation without an author, don't you think? Thadh (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I might think of is me mistaking э and э̇ when writing the IPA template, but that's something that needs to be verified, because I compared the data with Nikolaeva's work. Thadh (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Проблема транслитерации титла « ҃» в Old East Slavic и Old Novgorodian[edit]
@Thadh вітаю. Я около года назад сделал для zle-ort-translit и Cyrs-translit, что бы кириллические числительные транслировались в нормальные арабские цифры. Это хоть и было сделано через костыли, но это работало:
Это намерено сделано, что бы титло « ҃» транслитерировалось в двоеточие «:»? Через это перестали работать эти кириллические числительные. Это можно исправить? -- ZomBear (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ZomBear: Надо добавить правило, что точка-буква-титло-точка становились цыфрой. Важно, чтобы точки были, потому что титло тоже используется и для обычных сокращений, типа члвк и бг. Если справишся, не вижу никаких проблем с тем, чтобы это добавить. Если нет, то попроси кого-нибудь добавить это в модуль - я ещё более недели буду занят, и не смогу помочь. Thadh (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadh да уж, я понял что это всё через сокращения ч҃лв(č:lv), сн҃(sn:), бг҃(bg:) ... Но похоже через модуль Cyrs-translit никак не сделать/исправить, что бы «точка-буква-титло-точка» выдавала цифру. Как бы не извратиться в параметре "digraphs" в Cyrs-translit, титло всё равно будет выдавать двоеточие «:». Это нужно делать на более "глубоком уровне", куда обычный пользователь, як я - не имеет доступа. Это не "горит", так что можна подождать и месяц, когда у вас будет свободное время, что бы вы сами посмотрели и попробовали это исправить. Думаю, объяснить какому-то другому админу в чём именно проблема, это будет не просто. Могу вам через неделю-две написать... ZomBear (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Никакого глубокого уровня не нужно, просто digraphs идут через rsub(..) - то есть берутся два знака, и сравниваются. А тебе нужно четыре, тобиш rsub(....). Thadh (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are still 3 pages in CAT:E because they have uses of "den" as a language code: Translingual den, Navajo tin and English Slavey. When you eliminate a language code, you should always check CAT:E for at least a day or two after making the change. Granted, there's been a bit of clutter there lately, but Slavey has been there from right after your module edits, and you can't get much more obvious than that. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no difference, except the code is a few characters shorter and it shows a glossary redirect for "Borrowed". What's the point in reverting? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Insaneguy1083: We don't use {{bor+}} for Finnic languages. It isn't all sunshine and rainbows, and I won't go into detailed explanations on why exactly this template is not preferable, but in short: There are people who like {{inh+}} and {{bor+}} and people who don't, and whether these are used are decided per community. Slavic languages use them, Finnic languages don't. Many others are either undecided or something else is going on. Thadh (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m just new on Wiktionary and not sure whether you’re the right person to ask this question, but I’m curious to know why the Proto-Permic infinitive is reconstructed as *-ni. S. Csúcs has reconstructed it as *-ni̬ and A. Kövesi as *-ni̬s, but from which linguist is the reconstruction on Wiktionary based? Thanks in advance for your answer! Илья А. Латушкин (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick reply! Only now I noted the section with the vowel correspondences... I also have another question: I have noted that many Komi-Permyak lemmas have a request for verification. Because most of them aren't present in the Komi-Permyak dictionaries, it seems rather obvious that they aren't correct (or at least do not occur in the Komi-Permyak standard language). Is one allowed to correct these entries, if one gives correct source citation? Илья А. Латушкин (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Илья А. Латушкин: The requests for verifications are meant to give other users a chance to prove (by means of citations, quotations or mentions) the existence of a word(form) in a particular language.
In the case of Komi-Permyak, most of these entries were created by one user who probably mixed up Komi-Permyak and Komi-Zyrian for one reason or another, and as such we get many entries for words that simply don't exist; After a while of being in WT:RFV, the sections will be deleted, but it's bad form to delete them without any discussion at all. If you can cite these words, then please do, and we'll keep the entries, if you can't, that's not a problem, as they'll be deleted soon anyway. Thadh (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadh: Thanks again for you quick reply! I hope you don’t mind if I bother you once more… I just created my first entry (пужым), and since I don’t want to go off to a bad start, I’m wondering whether you (if you have any time) could quickly check if I did everything correctly and didn’t make any small mistakes. Илья А. Латушкин (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Илья А. Латушкин: Looks good! To beautify it you could add things like categories ({{C|udm|Conifers}} at the bottom of the page), IPA, declension... But if you don't feel confident for those, that's not a problem! The current entry is more than great as it is :) Thadh (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you added Pannonian Rusyn морйо (and польо), I found it very interesting the similarity of the final vowel with the Lower/Upper Sorbian reflexes mórjo/morjo (and pólo/polo), and the Eastern Slovak moro/morjo/mor’o (and polo/poľo), West Belarusian moro (and pol’o) and North Russian mor’o (and pol’o) reflexes of dialects.
@ɶLerman: This is a simple lenition of stop > Ø, it's only intervocalically because the reconstructed stop doesn't exist elsewhere. I'm not sure what else to recommend than Konsonantenwandel by Kümmel (2007). He gives a bunch of examples where this sound change occurs. Thadh (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. It's just that in Proto-Nakh, I found something similar: 1. *-Vb,d,gV- > -VØV-, 2. *-Vb,d,gC,#- > -Vw,jC,#-. ɶLerman (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. There's a good grammar by Kawachi, so it would be fun to work on Sidamo at some point. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
