User talk:Wikitiki89

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive – 2008–2010201220132014

Phoenician help[edit]

Howdy, I was intending on working on the Latin and AG terms Corduba and Κορδύβη and was looking into their etymologies, which eventually led me to make this edit on Córdoba. Could you take a look at the Phoenician and tell me if it makes sense. Feel free to tell me I was completely off base. In a related note, do you have any advice on getting the Phoenician Unicode to display correctly? Sorry to pester so much; I have been appreciating your edits from afar. Thanks! —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 11:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@JohnC5: Sorry for taking so long to reply. What is your reference for the Phoenician word? It looks like it is close to the words קִרְיָה (qirya) and قَرْيَة (qarya), but if it is the same word, it is strange that it has an extra 𐤀 (ʾ) and is missing a 𐤁 (y). As for the Unicode displaying properly, you just have to have the fonts installed. --WikiTiki89 19:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It mentions it here; though to be honest, I can't find my more authoritative source now. The rest is idle speculation based on Carthage (which is why I wanted you to check it out). I could not find a good text mentioning Juba in Phoenician; so again, that spelling is a guess. Feel free to just remove all the unverified material. Just thought I'd give it a try. JohnC5 09:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Your bot is making some mistakes[edit]

Re: User talk:DerbethBot#Your bot is making some mistakes:

  • خبز - if the audio is wrong, go to Wikimedia Commons and ask it to be removed, giving an explanation. The bot is not a human and can never judge whether the sound sounds correct and not - and this will never be corrected, because it cannot be!
  • أهلا - AFAIK there is no rule that two recordings with pronunciation of the same word should not appear in the entry. The bot is not a human and cannot judge which file is 'better'. This will never be fixed. Again, if the recording is broken or of too poor quality, ask at Commons to remove it.

Please do not write on the talk page of the bot, because it is not a human. It cannot talk. Please leave messages on the operator's talk page (i.e., mine). Regards --Derbeth talk 14:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


The redlinked category Catgeory:Hebrew פ״ז hif'il verbs has been sitting in Special:WantedCategories for a while because I have my doubts about whether there really is a פ״ז verb class. Could you either create the category or fix the entry at הוזיל? Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No there is nothing special about verb roots starting with ז. The strange thing is that this verb looks like its root is י-ז-ל rather than ז-י-ל, but I'll have to change my Even-Shoshan when I get home. --WikiTiki89 13:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Latin sēmita ⩼ Aramaic *simta ⩼ Arabic سَمْت (samt)[edit]

Hi Wikitiki. I wonder if I may pick your brains. w:Zenith#Origin states:

The root of the word "zenith" in Proto-Indo-European was reconstructed as '*mei-' ("to change"). In Latin we find 'meare' ("to pass"). With the prefix 'sē-' ("aside") it became 'sēmeare' ("to branch off"). Then the noun 'sēmita' ("side-way") was formed.REF: {{cite book|last=Wyld|first=Henry Cecil Kennedy|title=Universal Dictionary of the English Languages|date=1932|pages=715, 1089}} When the Romans occupied Syria, shortly before the time of Christ, the resident Arameans adopted the word 'sēmita' as 'simta' ("side-way").REF: {{cite book|last=Avinoam|first=Reuben|title=Compendious Hebrew – English Dictionary|date=1968|location=Tel Aviv|publisher=Dvir}} The Romans left. As the Arabians conquered the land in the seventh century they took the word 'simta' from the Arameans as 'samt' ("side-path") and also coined astronomical expressions.REF: {{cite book|last=Fraenkel|first=Siegmund|title=Die aramaeischen Fremdwoerter im Arabischen|date=1886|location=Leiden}}

Our entry for the Arabic سَمْت (samt) currently states that the word derives from the root س م ت (s-m-t). Which is right, do you think? Do you happen to know an Aramaic word that could be transcribed simta and which would work as an intermediate etymon between the Latin sēmita and the Arabic سَمْت (samt)? Thanks in advance for any elucidation you can provide. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: Many of our Arabic entries say "From the root XYZ" even when the root is really a back-formation from the word in question. The link to the root is useful, but the text is misleading. I honestly don't know how best to fix this. In some case, I have changed the text to say "Reanalyzed as belonging to root XYZ", but I'm not sure if that is the best thing to do since such "reanalysis" is a regular part of the Arabic language (and Hebrew for that matter). --WikiTiki89 18:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


Somehow I didn't notice, but we have this module set to transliterate everything automatically, which is a really bad idea if it isn't capable of recognising when it certainly shouldn't try to transliterate. Of course, we'll never be able to teach it to transliterate טעם as taam rather than tem, but it should certainly be coded to refrain from transliterating when the letters only found in words from Hebrew are present. I simply don't have the Lua abilities to do this, hence me asking you despite the fact that you've been fairly inactive. Are you willing to help? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Vahagn_Petrosyan#Automatic_transliteration. I second the request but it's quite challenging.
How many are the words of Hebrew origin, which are pronounced irregularly and cannot have diacritics? I wonder if it's the matter of just maintaining Yiddish entries and translations? Other languages also need hardcoded transliterations at times. The automatic transliteration can be turned off but I think it's the worst cases scenario. BTW, Hebrew terms can potentially be also autotransliterated with about 90% accuracy, if the word stress can be ignored. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
We've discussed this before. My opinion is still that if a transliteration is missing, it's better to have a transliteration of just the consonants (which is effectively what happens) than to have nothing at all. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be better to simply have the transliteration module add a cleanup category if the term has Hebrew-only letters, rather than removing the transliteration entirely. Feel free to disagree. Either your proposal or mine would be fairly easy for me to implement. --WikiTiki89 14:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Cleanup categories sound like a good idea. Perhaps adding words with no vowels would also work. Chinese modules have large volumes of readings for characters. Is it (theoretically) possible to have updatable lists of irregular words either for exclusion or for customised transliteration? In any case, there's ongoing work for editors but I don't see many dedicated Yiddish editors. Pls don't forget about Hebrew transliteration, I still believe it's possible to achieve good results, similar to the success with the Arabic module. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Making hardcoded lists is an impractical idea for Yiddish, and even more prone to issues IMO.
@Wikitiki89: We have an inherently different viewpoint; you think of shbs as being closer to שבת than nothing, but I think of shbs as being incorrect and that lack of information is better than misleading information. But in the meantime, I would very much appreciate that you create a cleanup category, because translations especially need to be dealt with and we'd hit a lot of offenders with the Hebrew-only letters. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Why is it impractical - too many words, no data available, all inflections should be included as well or all these together and something else? I also think that "shbs" could be used as a signal that there's something wrong and better than nothing. The partial transliteration could be used to make a correct one by an editor, especially in example sentences where only one word may be transliterated incorrectly. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Too many words and there is never going to be a finite or manageable number; some texts borrow from Hebrew extensively when talking about anything religious. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: I disagree with your use of the word "borrow". Many Hebrew words in Yiddish are direct continuations from the time when Hebrew was still the native language, so you can't say they were "borrowed". In fact it would be more correct to say that the entire Germanic part of Yiddish was what was "borrowed", while the Hebrew part was simply "kept". --WikiTiki89 19:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I have just transliterated a random first sample Yiddish text and I got this: mayn letst lid rkhl bushevski-kaplan 1 may, 1958 ayngehoykert in dreyen, bagis ikh mit trern mayn veg. troyerik iz mir tsu tseyln, mayne letste teg... gehoybn di oygn tsum himl, fun betn bin ikh shoyn mid. vayt, gants vayt shoyn farblondzhet zingendik mayn letst lid ... a lid fun benkshaft un khrth, vi khlumus iz alts fargangen, gevigt hot mikh dos lebn un gevorfn, punkt vi in felder, di zangen. krank un farshemt, kh'fal anider, dos lebn iz geven zeyer shver, aykh kinderlekh, vel ikh shtendik zayn mukhl in mayne oygn vet eybik blishtshen a trer ... azoy sheydt zikh in eynzamkeyt a mame, fun kinderlekh zeyer fil, keynmol hot ir keyner farshtanen, geshtorbn aleyn in der shtil .... I reckon the core Yiddish vocabulary is Germanic and transliteratable. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It would be very unhelpful to reject an entire transliteration like that just because it has some Hebrew words here and there. As for the frequency, it really depends on the subject matter and/or author of the text. You happened to pick a more Germanic one. --WikiTiki89 19:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course! I don't disagree on that. Manual transliteration is allowed and is necessary for those words. It would be possible to add to attention categories words transliterated without vowels, wouldn't it? I disagree on frequency (religious words are not the core vocabulary) but I'll let slide. All words are important. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I know you don't disagree, that was more intended toward Metaknowledge. But as for vocabulary, it's not only religious words that are Hebrew. In fact it was the educated secular Jews in the 19th century, who received the bulk of their higher education in Modern German, that pushed away the less familiar Hebrew-derived words from their writing in Yiddish and even introduced new borrowings from German such as שפּראַך (shprakh). At the same time, the religiously educated were incorporating more Hebrew words into their Yiddish. But outside of these two influences, the "core" vocabulary was thoroughly mixed and Germanic words may have been the majority, but not an overwhelming majority. --WikiTiki89 01:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, I have updated Module:yi-translit to add terms as needed to Category:Yiddish terms with Hebrew-only letters needing transliteration. --WikiTiki89 20:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. This category is catching issues that don't actually have any Hebrew-only letters, but still need to be dealt with. Why is the module transliterating ־ונג (-ung) and אַדורכשמועסן (adurkhshmuesn) thus? This is something that should be easily predictable. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Because when I originally wrote the module, I was under the impression that CuV would be written with dot in the vav. Only when I made this category today did I notice that I was wrong about that. Although I should fix this, it's not very common and I probably won't have time to fix it any time soon. As for ־ונג (-ung), that's only because the module does not treat makaf as a letter, which it shouldn't be, so suffixes starting with vocalic yud or vav will display incorrectly. Since it only applies to suffixes, I'm not sure whether it's even worth fixing. --WikiTiki89 21:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it's worth making it actually work rather than not, so if you ever have time I would appreciate if you could make the module more functional. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
What I meant to say is that a hyphen/makaf should not be treated as a letter in general, but only in suffixes. Is a hyphen/makaf occurring at the beginning of a string sufficient to be sure it is a suffix? --WikiTiki89 22:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
For the full string, yes. For any substring, no. That shouldn't be hard to implement. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'll do it when I have the time. --WikiTiki89 23:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Done. It was easier than I thought (and I also added some detection of Hebrew words with the letter א (a) and improved their default transliteration). --WikiTiki89 19:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Probably the biggest source of bad transliterations that we're still not finding is links in {{plural of}}, like in this old version, where the word linked to has a Hebrew spelling without any Hebrew-only letters. These can definitely be caught if you (or someone else capable) is willing to generate a list of pages that have a Yiddish section, end in ים or ות, and use {{plural of}} without the tr= parameter being specified. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    We would need a bot to catch the form-of entries, since I would not want to modify non-Yiddish-specific templates such as {{plural of}}, but we could catch lemmas from the headword template by requiring a transliteration for the singular if the plural ends in ־ים and also requiring that if either one of the singular or plural is manually transliterated, then they both should be. In my mind, the old version of קרבנות you linked to is much less of a problem than lemma entries. --WikiTiki89 21:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    I haven't reconfigured my bot since I got a new computer; can you still run yours? I agree re lemma entries, that would be great to implement. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    Well actually we don't need a bot, but just a search of the dumps and I don't have time to write the code for that, especially considering there are others who do this all the time. We should just put in a request at the WT:GP. Meanwhile, I can write something for {{yi-noun}}. --WikiTiki89 14:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Stress mark on monosyllabic terms[edit]

Привет, для чего используется знак ударения в таких словах, как כיס? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Я был против, но так было решено. --WikiTiki89 01:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


I see more use י than ה, especially in things organized by root like verb stuff. Barron's for example. — [Ric Laurent] — 19:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh Gosh I almost forgot, שבת שלום — [Ric Laurent] — 21:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dick Laurent: Even-Shoshan, for example, uses ה. It's also what we have been doing (see צ־ו־ה and כ־ס־ה). I personally wouldn't mind using י and ו, but we would have to change our existing entries. Plus, you can't expect people looking up roots to know when to look for י and when to look for ו. And אַ גוטע שבת to you too. --WikiTiki89 21:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
It could be done, I'm pretty sure. Actually now that I look again Barron's lists these roots like this קרה (קרי) If we don't use the י and ו forms in pagenames, I think we should at least mention them somewhere in the root entries themselves. — [Ric Laurent] — 21:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

א נייע קאץ[edit]

Hypothetically — if there were a category specifically for halachic terms (since obviously Judaism encompasses more than just halacha) do you think it would be better to go with the format Category:he:Halacha or Category:he:Jewish law? (pingponglekh tsu @Metaknowledge:)[Ric Laurent] — 16:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that since Wiktionary is not primarily targeted toward Jews, using a term that is readily understood by readers unfamiliar with Judaism is probably a better idea. Our choice would not matter so much if it were only for Hebrew entries, but since this applies to English entries as well, I think Category:en:Jewish law would be better. This also relieves us from having to choose a spelling for הלכה. --WikiTiki89 17:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I actually preferred using the native term since the translation isn't entirely precise, but I would agree that "Jewish law" would be better entirely on the basis of your last point :D — [Ric Laurent] — 17:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Not that there are too many languages that need that level of granularity for Jewish terminology, but have fun rooting through the cats for Hebrew and Yiddish to fill the bloody thing. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Category:he:Judaism and Category:yi:Judaism don't have terribly much in them, anyway. If I were to do it, (which I might not, because I forgot that the topic cat templates use JS which I don't know at all so I can only make categories with those ugly "this isn't a real category" things) it would probably only take a morning. — [Ric Laurent] — 05:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
They don't use JS, they use Lua. I'll do it if you don't. --WikiTiki89 14:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I created the following categories: Category:Jewish law, Category:en:Jewish law, Category:he:Jewish law, and Category:yi:Jewish law. All I had to do in Lua was this. --WikiTiki89 14:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
If only {{cx}} were smarter — [Ric Laurent] — 11:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
It is smarter. It just lacks knowledge, and I can fix that. --WikiTiki89 15:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. --WikiTiki89 15:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Righteous — [Ric Laurent] — 16:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

ʾiʿrāb question(s)[edit]

What's the deal here? I recently was editing ἀμερμουμνῆς and was doing my best to learn the vowel system of Arabic for the word أَمِير المُؤْمِنِين (ʾamīr al-muʾminīn) (and doing it poorly, I might add). I know WT:AAR says that lemma should not have ʾiʿrāb, but in the past you added them to سَلَاطِينُ (salāṭīnu) at salateen. So should a compound lemma like أَمِير المُؤْمِنِين (ʾamīr al-muʾminīn) be:

JohnC5 05:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Our policy on this kept changing, but now that we have declension tables we agreed that we no longer need ʾiʿrāb in headword lines, links, or mentions, except perhaps for certain exceptions like اللهُ أَكْبَر (allāhu ʾakbar). --WikiTiki89 18:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
So... أَمِير المُؤْمِنِين (ʾamīr al-muʾminīn) in this case? —JohnC5 19:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)