User talk:AshFox

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from User talk:ZomBear)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome[edit]

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

  • Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
  • Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
  • If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
  • Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
  • You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary!

Old Ukrainian[edit]

Old Ukrainian, code zle-ouk, is an etymology-only language here at Wiktionary: it can only be used in etymology templates, which link to it as Old East Slavic (orv). We don't allow it as a language header in entries, and only in etymological categories as a language. Changing that would require consensus among East Slavic editors (at least) and cooperation from someone with admin or template editor rights. You're free to propose it at the Beer parlour, but the amount of work necessary that would require detailed attention of editors familiar with all varieties of Old East Slavic makes that unlikely to be accepted. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'll be interested in this discussion I've started with little response. It's not exactly splitting off Old Ukrainian/Belarusian/Ruthenian from Old East Slavic, but it's a start. Thadh (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox[edit]

ZomBear, can you please use a sandbox page as a staging area for your edits? You made 23 edits to Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₃yebʰ-. --{{victar|talk}} 04:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what for:[edit]

If you look at Category:ParserFunction errors (CAT:E is only for modules), you will see: Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/pǫxyrь ("page=644a"), забувати ("page=215b"), калека ("page=352ab"), мазут ("page=360b"}, троянда (page=653b), and قالیق ("page=352ab"). I don't go around checking template edits by accounts I know. If I get involved to the point of undoing or reverting, it's because something has already gone seriously wrong.

Apparently some people add letters to the page numbers to indicate the column that contains the cited text. You need to think about how to deal with (or perhaps prevent) such usage. It may not be worth the extra effort, in which case you might just remove the alphabetic characters and add a note to the documentation asking people not to do that.

It's not for me to tell you how to solve the problem, but you can't just ignore it. When a template is in use without errors and you make changes so things break, it's your responsibility to either fix the problem or to get help from someone who can. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant forms[edit]

Hello, ZomBear! Good job on your recent work on proto-Slavic. Just writing to let you know that sometimes you are overdoing the dialectal and regional forms under descendants. When you encounter words with double accent in ESSJa or elsewhere (e.g. у́да́ (údá)) it means that the stress falls either on first position (i.e. у́да (úda)) or on the second (i.e. уда́ (udá)). If you give the descendant in this way, then there is no need to list the individual-accent forms afterwards. Or you can be explicit and individually list the precise forms with single accent, but then leave aside the double-stress notation. Choose your favorite way.

Also, in Bulgarian, "irregular" forms like ко́тка̣ (kótkạ) or ко́ткъ (kótk) are not dialectal, but exaggerated spellings of the standard term. They explicitly indicate that unstressed vowels get narrowed in Bulgarian (which is a regular phonetic feature). There is no need to give them as dialectal variants. It's space-consuming. Generally, it is better to be concise and efficient, so try to omit redundant information. Безименен (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference templates[edit]

Hello. What is the purpose of this? --Vahag (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R:uk:EDUL[edit]

I saw some Ukrainian entries in CAT:PFE due to this template and I have the day off, so I gave it my best try to fix it. As far as I can tell, it should be able to handle either an empty parameter or the page number in |2= for either volume 1 or volume 2. Of course, my template-editing skills are a bit rusty (I already caught one really dumb mistake), so it might be a good idea to check Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:R:uk:EDUL just to be sure. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*pujęcь on PS *zajęcь[edit]

Is this attested? It seems like it's not a thing. Vininn126 (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Vininn126 hi. I have not found such a reconstruction anywhere. Probably the author who wrote this referred to Bulgarian пу́яци (pújaci) < пу́як (pújak, “turkey-cock < ? peecock”). I think that the Proto-Slavic antiquity of *pujęcь is doubtful. I do not know similar words, except for Bulgarian, they are definitely not in the East Slavic languages. --ZomBear (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure there is anything in West Slavic either, and there are no results on google for this word. Vininn126 (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unrelated, could you surround your various cheetsheets with <pre></pre>, like I have on my userpage? having the empty templates gives me a [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Polish_term_requests "x language term request". Vininn126 (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

У and ОУ[edit]

See WT:AORV, we favour у over оу. Please move back the page(s?), and you could start a discussion about this after. Thanks. Thadh (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thadh I fixed all my "оу"-changes. What about "Ꙋ/ꙋ"? With her, too, is it better to give priority to "У/у" too? ZomBear (talk) 10:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For Old East Slavic, yes. As for Ruthenian, you'll have to decide yourself, but if the situation is similar (so, all three are used indiscriminately and about as frequently), I'd go by the same guideline. Thadh (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

changes to Template:desc[edit]

Hi. Just FYI, {{desc}} has changed a bit; please use |t= in place of |4= (the gloss/definition), and |alt= in place of |3= (the display/alternative form). This is because the template will soon support multiple terms. Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orthographic normalization for the Old Ruthenian[edit]

I noticed that you use some Old Slavic letters as well as Й to create lexemes, but what are the orthographic rules you adhere to? As typical for Early Modern pluricentric languages, Old Ruthenian had quite a few orthographic systems in use over its timespan as well as new ones invented in the 20th century. I am no expert in the topic (more interested in Middle Russian) but presume that Smotrytsky's one was the most popular in print starting from the 1610s, and it's relatively well-studied compared to alternatives AFAIK. The main disadvantage is that it's based on Middle Church Slavonic and includes all the Modern Church Slavonic diacritics with all the typographic troubles they lead to (cf. s:uk:Лексис). The alternatives are modern orthographies without diacritics and special letters created by the modern lexicographers, but they may be incompatible with each other (I haven't actually researched the topic). Ain92 (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ain92 та никакой орфографии я не придерживаюсь, просто переношу то, что есть в словарях. Церковнославянские диакритические знаки, как например псили (є҆), не использую. Старославянские буквы (в основных статьях) использую, но не все. Ну например ѣ - там, где он положен этимологически, я не используется, вместо них ꙗ и ѧ, тоже этимологически на месте Proto-Slavic *ja и *ę соответственно. Вместо оу / ꙋ как и для Old East Slavic отдаётся предпочтение у. Также например ижица ѵ используется в заимствованных греческих словах, этимологически. А ну и ещё из южнославянских, черт использую ї вместо и перед гласными (хотя сомневаюсь, стои ли). Если у вас есть идеи как будет лучше или "правильнее", конечно же предлагайте. Было бы здорово, если бы кто-то ещё хоть немного подключился к Old Ruthenian, а то только я и ещё немного Underfell Flowey помогает. -- ZomBear (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Смотрите, когда лингвисты создают словари и словоуказатели к публикуемым рукописям, они всегда приводят слова к некой орфографической системе, чтобы их можно было предсказуемо искать, и чтобы формы одного и того же слова не были раскиданы в разных местах. В XX веке стало принято даже описывать свои принципы текстом (к моему большому сожалению, Срезневский в своё время этого не сделал). Я в 2019 году собрал много таких материалов с правилами орфографической нормализации древнерусских (orv) и старовеликорусских (zle-mru) текстов (по zle-ort не составлял, ибо не было тогда предметом моих интересов). Если вы хотите почитать хотя бы первые, я могу подбить всё в Google Spreadsheet! Был бы рад, если вы точно так же начнёте собирать аналогичные правила для "рутенского" и добавлять их в ту же табличку. К сожалению, с многочисленными публикациями по орфографической системе Смотрицкого сложнее, ибо там не одна монография написана по разным аспектам, и я сам мало что читал, но знаю, что там аз йотированный и юс малый различались не этимологически. Ain92 (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC) PS Есть ещё вопрос по укр. огірок — вы заменили моё "родственен" на "происходит от", но разве это регулярный рефлекс "огурка"? Вроде ж в украинском сдвиг только в закрытых слогах?[reply]
@Ain92 если будет не трудно, давайте почитаю (и про древнерусский и про старорусский тоже интересно глянуть). По-поводу Ukrainian огірок (ohirok), это как редкий пример икавизма, где [у] перешла в [і] (об этом на uk.wikipedia). Так что да, огірок (ohirok) происходит от более древнего огурокъ (ohurok). --ZomBear (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Держите! За 30 штук набралось, немного халтурно оформил, но как рабочий вариант пойдёт) Для нескольких источников протухли ссылки за три года, но почти всё нашёл в других местах. В очень многих книжках также освещается тема передачи рукописного текста при публикации, но это всё же больше для Викитеки, чем для нас, ИМХО (я включил несколько для справки, при должном желании можно найти гораздо больше). Ain92 (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Ain92. Просмотрел я выборочно литературу из вашего списка. Начал что-то об орфографии староукраиснкого языка (Old Ruthenian), после некоторого времени набрёл на книгу (на украиснком) 2016 года, которая сполна описывает правила ст.-укр. орфографии (которая окончательно устоялась к началу 17 века) и частоту употребления тех или иных букв в разных позициях: Палеографічно-орфографічна атрибуція української кириличної рукописної книги: уставні та півуставні кодекси кінця ХІІІ – початку ХVІІ ст. / Palaeographic-Orthographic Attribution of the Ukrainian Cyrillic Handwritten Book: Uncial and Half-Uncial Codices of the Late 13th – Early 17th cc. (скачать в pdf, 71 мб). После прочтения, возникла делема:

  • 1) Использовать ли ст.-укр. орфографию которая устоялась к началу 1600-х гг, где например за узусом у (u) писалась: в начале слова/после гласных исключительно как оу, а в средине/конце слова после согласных почти всегда ꙋ (значительно реже у) — примеры: оутка (utka), жꙋкъ (žuk); или о (o) писалась: в начале слова/после гласных исключительно как ѡ, а в любых других позициях в средине/конце слова после согласных как о — примеры: ѡлень (olenʹ), бобъ (bob); ну или исключительное ст.-укр. правило писать и (i) перед гласными исключительно через ї; и др.
  • 2) Или следовать аналогично правилам для древнерусского (Old East Slavic) на Wiktionary и писать теже ꙗ, ѧ, ѣ... этимологически, а буквы ѯ, ѱ, ѳ, ѵ в исключительных случаях (?), в заимствованных греческих словах, и тоже этимологически. При этом в "альтернативных формах" указывать разные зафиксированные варианты написания.

Не знаю, склоняюсь всё же ко второму варианту. (Что вы думаете?) Или Ибо если следовать тем правилам, что были на нач. 17 в. и что описаны в книге выше, то это просто внесёт какой-то невероятный разнобой в Wiktionary и например цепочка этимологии некоторых слов будет выглядеть примерно так: Proto-Slavic *oko → Old East Slavic око (oko) → Old Ruthenian ѡко (oko) → Ukrainian око (oko) / или Proto-Slavic *žukъ → Old East Slavic жукъ (žukŭ) → Old Ruthenian жꙋкъ (žuk) → Ukrainian жук (žuk). --ZomBear (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ain92 вот подогнал названия всех имеющихся статей > Category:Old Ruthenian lemmas под те же правила, что и в Old East Slavic на Wiktionary, то-есть этимологически. --ZomBear (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Это ещё что, у турецкого вон вообще арабица в этимологии между латиницами пратюркской реконструкцией и современного турецкого, вот это разнобой покруче) По здравом размышлении, я бы предпочёл для ДРЯ позднедревнерусскую нормализацию (с омегами и пр., без этимологических юсов), для "простой мовы" — орфографию Смотрицкого XVII века без надстрочных знаков, для старовеликорусского — временно петровскую орфографию (исключительно потому, что у нас некому поддерживать отличные от дореволюционных написания; так-то орфография Смотрицкого лучше), а этимологические написания оставить старославянскому. Во всех случаях количество дошедших до нас источников растёт ближе к концу периода языка, с ним закономерно растёт и число фиксаций новых лексем, и если мы будем ориентироваться на более раннюю орфографию, то нам придётся, как Зализняку в Акцентологическом словаре, изобретать написания, в источниках не фиксировавшиеся (слова фиксируются позже, чем выходит из оборота позднедревнерусская орфография). Ain92 (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Грамматіки славє́нскиѧ пра́вилноє Сѵ́нтаґма[edit]

@Ain92 похоже ваша взяла =) Спросил я мнения администратора Thadh на счёт орфографии правописания Old Ruthenian и администратор так же как и вы, заявил, что лучше использовать тогдашние правила правописания, при условиях, если они действительно тогда широко использовались. Как бы мне не хотелось писать эту омегу ѡ в начале слов (что бы не выбиваться от привычного современного написания), но к моему сожалению факт есть факт: что "Граматика" М. Смотрицкого закрепляла написание ѡ в начале слов и после гласных (в любых других позициях обычная о), что анализ письменных источников того периода — подтверждают это. В частности к концу 17 в. и в начале 16 в. омега ѡ в начале слов пишеться чуть ли не в 99.9% случаев, а обычная о в той позиции встречается лишь в крайне редких единичных случаях (чуть ли перечисляются на пальцах одной руки). Вот можно сравнить все имеющиеся статьи Old Ruthenian с "этимологической" орфографией и Смотрицкого — cравнение > ТУТ. --ZomBear (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • В случае несовпадения хорошо бы проверить, фиксировались ли "этимологические" написания, и если нет, то переименовать без оставления перенаправления. Извините, что прибавил вам работы! Мелкое пояснение на полях: я когда писал об орфографии Смотрицкого, то не имел в виду, что он её изобрёл (там вроде куча народу участвовала), лишь что кодифицировал и популяризировал) Ain92 (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ain92 По-поводу "прибавления работы" — вовсе нет))) Мне это дело нравиться и я с удовольствием переделаю все имеющиеся статьи. PS: Да, да, упоминая Смотрицкого, я подразумевал его в первую очередь как кодификатора, а не "изобретателя". PSS: По-поводу проверки наличия "этимологического" написания — к счастью, я изначально когда начал создавать статьи Old Ruthenian ("ст.-укр./ст.-бел./зап.-рус."), в разделе Alternative forms решил указывать все зафиксированные варианты написания тех или иных слов, поэтому это не будет трудно. Как пример посмотрите пращурѧ (praščurja), осмъ (osm), дѧковати (djakovati)... --ZomBear (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Хорошо, если так! Кстати, не вижу в перечислении зафиксированных вариантов "осмъ" ни одного звательца над гласной в анлауте, а если вы ставите ударение, то и его тоже следует ставить, ИМХО) Аналогично и ударение над последней буквой по правилам нужно ставить с наклоном в другую сторону (т. н. тяжкая) Ain92 (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Ain92 вариант "осмъ" зафиксирован, но так как он использовался для основной статьи, то он в списке Alternative forms не указывался. Я то изначально планировал из диакритических знаков только знак ударения использовать, так что и звательце (тонкое придыхание) над начальной гласной ставить? Типа ѡ҆́смъ (o҆́sm). И другие? --ZomBear (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Всё верно, совмещённые звательце и привычное нам ударение даже имеют специальное название (исо). Где ставить и где не ставить надстрочные знаки, ИМХО, нужно с более широким кругом участнков обсуждать, я просто призываю не использовать ударение отдельно от прочих. Что касается "других", я думаю, что стандартизированные написания через титло (вот современные церковнославянские, вроде всё применимо к XVI-XVII вв., кроме гдⷭ҇рь = господа́рь) были бы уместны в альтернативных написаниях, как уже сделано для ССЯ (ан҃г, аг҃гл) а что ещё? Надстрочные знаки, введённые для разграничения омонимов? Я, честно говоря, не помню деталей, надо копать справочники. Ain92 (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Ain92 пока для основных статей думаю ограничимся "тонким придыханием", "лёгким ударением", их комбинацией и "тяжёлым ударением" — напримеры: оу҆кра́ина (u҆kráina), ꙗ҆́блоко (ja҆́bloko), ѡ҆вца̀ (o҆vcà), е҆тѵмоло́ґїѧ (e҆timológija). Сокращения с титлом тоже можно показывать в списке альтернатив, пример бг҃ъ (boh). --ZomBear (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests[edit]

Please include a reason for deletion when applying {{d}} to a page, e.g. "misspelling of x". It's also better if you don't blank the page first. If you tell me your reason for deleting these Old Ruthenian entries, I can take care of them. Ultimateria (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultimateria give me 1-3 days. Don't delete them just yet. It is necessary to revise the entire spelling of Old Ruthenian. Only some of them will have to be removed due to incorrect spelling. ZomBear (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any update? Pages like гривъна have been sitting in the speedy deletion category for a month now, which is obviously not the purpose of the category. You need to fix any incoming links to the page and provide the correct spelling (in the {{d}} template) for me to delete these pages. Ultimateria (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages[edit]

При перемещении страниц, не могли бы вы использовать инструмент перемещения (Move), который появляется при наведении курсора на кнопку Больше (More) справа от истории (History). Контент, конечно, распространяется за открытой лицензией, но неприятно, когда созданная тобой оригинальная страница удаляется (https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=пращоурѧ), а вместе с ней и твои правки. Underfell Flowey (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Underfell Flowey вибачте мене, що так сталося. Так, я в 99% випадках використовую кнопку "Move". Просто зараз всі статті Old Ruthenian, будуть перероблятися відповідно до орфографії 1600-х рр. ZomBear (talk) 10:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

баволна, bawełna[edit]

I thought it was fairly well established by MOST scholars that it was from German - I'm not sure we should include the two that don't. Vininn126 (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vininn126 Okay, okay, I changed the etymology a little. ZomBear (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this puts the emphasis on it being Germanic. Vininn126 (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vininn126 yes, now it is indicated there that the word is Germanic. But at the end, one short sentence about an alternative version is added. ZomBear (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

лꙗхъ[edit]

Hey, I wanted to ask if you could make an ORT entry about it? See лѧхъ, Lach. Sławobóg (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sławobóg okey. But according to the spelling that we use on Wiktionary, it will also be like лѧхъ, without ꙗ.--ZomBear (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! These words were pain in my ass. BTW having WT:About Old Ruthenian would be nice, sometimes there are Polish words borrowed from ORT and I don't know the spelling. Sławobóg (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Slavic *ežь[edit]

PBSl word for hedgehog ought to be be reconstructed as *eźis (cf. LT and LV) or atleast as *eźias but in no case as *eźios as there was no /*o/ in PBSl. -- Ентусиастъ (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ентусиастъ Okay, I agree with you. But I just quoted these sources, where the Proto-Balto-Slavonic (BSL) form is given as *eźios.
  • Derksen, Rick (2008) “*ežь”, in Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 4), Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, →ISSN, page 149: “m. jo 'hedgehog'”
  • Derksen, Rick (2015) “ežys”, in Etymological Dictionary of the Baltic Inherited Lexicon (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 13), Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, page 159: “'hedgehog'”
ZomBear (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know, yes. Derksen argues that there was a PBSl /*o/ instead of an /*a/ and thus he reconstructs the basic masculine ending as *-os. This view isn't supported here in Wiktionary. Most scholars anyway reject the existence of an /*o/ in PBSl. You can find more info here: Wiktionary:About Proto-Balto-Slavic. PS Anyway, the ending has to be *-is and not *-ias (*-ios per Derksen) because of the LV and LT forms and of PIE *h₁eǵʰis itself. Cheers. Ентусиастъ (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ентусиастъ You indicated that Lithuanin -ys is from -ias and here you talk the opposite? ПростаРечь (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ПростаРечь That's because there are different theories about the origin of Lithuanian -ys and its corresponding Proto-Slavic *-ь (the male gender ending, not the feminine one) - the *-is ending and the *presumed *-ias one. Ентусиастъ (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ентусиастъ Do you have any source where PIE *yos > Lithuanian -ys transformation is mentioned? ПростаРечь ПростаРечь (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Мгновение in Bulgarian (Proto-Slavic *mьgnovenьje)[edit]

Scrolling trough your user page I noticed that there has been written a world мъгновение classified as Bulgarian. In Bulgarian the equivalent of Russian мгновение is мигновение. I'm Bulgarian. Ентусиастъ (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ентусиастъ =) Again, I took this from this source where the letter "ъ". And there they refer to Александър Дювернуа.
  • Trubachyov, Oleg, editor (1994), “*mьgnovenьje”, in Этимологический словарь славянских языков [Etymological dictionary of Slavic languages] (in Russian), numbers 21 (*mъrskovatъjь – *nadějьnъjь), Moscow: Nauka, →ISBN, page 97
ZomBear (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure he probably took it from some Bulgarian newspaper durring the Ottoman Bulgaria period where the author(s) used the kind of "high" Bulgarian (an artificial style orthographically based on Old Bulgarian that has no basis on the Bulgarian folk speech (i.e. the dialects at the time)) because in the BG wiki it says that he wrote a "Dictionary of the Bulgarian language on monuments of folk creativity and works of the latest printing".
For example, Nayden Gerov is famous for artificially archaising the Bulgarian orthography, namely in his "Dictionary of the Bulgarian language". (Рѣчникъ на Блъгарскꙑй язꙑкъ. Съ тлъкувание рѣчи-тꙑ на Блъгарскꙑ и на Русскꙑ). He was criticized because in his dictionary he "adjusted" a lot of dialectal words (and there most of them are such anyway) to the Old Bulgarian etymological orthography - for example changing /-ъл-/ to /-лъ-/, /-e-/ to /-ь-/ etc. and thus corrupting the words themselves. I think that's the case with мъгновение insted of the actually existing form мигновение. It isn't a dialectal form for sure because Old Bulg. /-ь-/ -> /-ъ-/ is present only in the Torlakian dialects and the suffix -ение is an artificial one (not pressent in the Bulgarian dialects and folk speech at the time). It was "revitalized" by the educated class, scholars etc as part of the emerging literary language. Btw Gerov has his own template: Template:R:bg:Gerov Ентусиастъ (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In modern Bulgarian it's spelled "мигновение". Never even heard that form with "ъ" IYI681 (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Именно, това и написах. Радвам се, че има и други българи тука:) @Bezimenen беше много активен, но от месеци го няма. Дано е жив и здрав. Ентусиастъ (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

За жалост, да, няма го Безименен, дано нещо не се е случило, иначе, и аз се радвам. Поздрав! IYI681 (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{R:uk:ESUM}}[edit]

Why did u made these changes? The template now links completely differently. I want to revert that. Sławobóg (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sławobóg Do you want to link to the scanned version of the dictionary? I returned. -- ZomBear (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I noted there 2 links in the text (one links to goroh.pp.ua, other links to archive). My bad, it was ok. Sławobóg (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

выя[edit]

I added the etymology of the Russian word выя; it ought to be refined. Apisite (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting[edit]

I appreciate your critical remark, regarding my partial quoting of Essja. However, I dont have as much time as I desire lately, being busy with work etc. That's why. Kind regards IYI681 (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IYI681 Sorry, but I asked this without any "rudeness". Just for the sake of interest =) Okay, if anything, in the future I will help you to supplement the "Descendants" section as much as possible. Happy New Year to you. -- ZomBear (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't rude, quite the opposite actually. Happy New year and thanks for your assistance! IYI681 (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balt0-Slavic *-eu- = *-jau-[edit]

Hello. Apparently, the chosen convention is to reconstruct early Balto-Slavic diphthong *-eu- as *-jau- (like it is in modern languages). @Rua has pointed it to me a while ago in case you have questions. Безименен (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bezimenen Thanks for the correction. -- ZomBear (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dno[edit]

Hi! Sorry, do you know about the word "дно" in Ukrainian (this one: дно (dno))? Is it real an uncountable word in Ukrainian? Are forms like "дена" or "багато ден" not legit? I've found them both in some dictionaries and online, but i have no clue about the spelling consensus on this word in Ukrainian. Tollef Salemann (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollef Salemann It looks like this word in the Ukrainian language can be both uncountable and with plurals. Depending on the value. This is indicated here (see points 2, 3, 4): https://goroh.pp.ua/Словозміна/дно#16193 Plural forms are present only with meaning "bottom part (of an object)". -- ZomBear (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've actually searched "дно" on this online dictionary, but forgot to scroll down. Gonna use this next time i have any confusion on Ukrainian. Великий тлумачний словник сучасної української мови seems to be a good source as well, but was very short on this word. Tollef Salemann (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the entry: you left a headword template without the required gender, so it's been in CAT:E since your last edit. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess im fixed it. Not 100% sure tho. Tollef Salemann (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing Old Komi script[edit]

I saw your question on Thadh’s talk page. The solution is to create a User:ZomBear/common.css page and have it say .Perm {font-family: "Noto Sans Old Permic";} provided you have that font installed. You might have to restart your browser and fiddle with the font name if it doesn’t work. ―Biolongvistul (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Biolongvistul Thanks a lot. This helped me partially. ZomBear (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About Old Ruthenian[edit]

Hey, can you make WT:About Old Ruthenian page? Some things are unclear, like оу - у - ꙋ (not all words are standarised yet I guess?). For example Church Slavonic book suggests using оу at the begining of the word and ꙋ in other positions, other letters have similar rules. Also some list of main sources would be nice too. I started adding ORT in pl.wikt etym sections. Sławobóg (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sławobóg the "język staroruski" that is here is Old East Slavic, not Old Ruthenian. Old Ruthenian = Język ruski. ZomBear (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know, ruski is used in etymology only for now. Sławobóg (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, once again I suggest creating About Old Ruthenian. PS the transliteration doesn't work. Sławobóg (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Sławobóg. I know transliteration doesn't work. I "disabled" the Module:zle-ort-translit. I couldn't get it to work the way it should. For example, I don’t know how to do it normally so that the letter ѣ (ě) displays iotation (jě) at the beginning of a word and after vowels, in all other positions - no. Etc... No one wants to help me with this, so I give up and think about stopping editing Wiktionary altogether.
As for "On the Old Russian Language"... again, I can't decide which spelling normalization method to use. 1) Or etymological spelling, as it is with Old East Slavic on Wiktionary; 2) Or follow the spelling that was introduced in the classical period of the Old Ruthenian language in the 1500-1600s; If you select item #2, then the spelling of words will be very different from what is available in Old East Slavic on Wiktionary and modern Ukrainian and Belarusian languages. And again, no one cares about this but me. No one to ask and discuss "what's better?". Tried to ask @Thadh, he said "do whatever you want". --ZomBear (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ZomBear Could you please possibly make changes to this module in your userspace for testing first, instead of making lots of little changes to the module? It becomes very difficult to follow what you are doing. Also, please use comments - I have no idea why you are making any of the changes, and neither does anyone else. You need to explain them, as they aren't obvious. Theknightwho (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ZomBear Please could you respond, instead of just doing it more? Theknightwho (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theknightwho sorry for not answering. What exactly should I explain? Do you want me to add comments in Module:zle-ort-translit what is responsible for what? If I do "minor edits" somewhere in my sandbox, how do I check that they work. -- ZomBear (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do care actually (even if I don't edit nowadays). Why do you consider a spelling different from both OES, UA and BY as something bad? I believe editors should absolutely follow the classical spelling and be proud of that uniqueness just like Ukrainians are proud of their unique orthography with a rich history. A specific orthography allowing to identify the language from the first glance has both advantages and disadvantages, and for an extinct language the disadvantages are negligible. Ain92 (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

добър ден[edit]

Добър ден! :-) Why did you add back the dialectal Bulgarian versions of this greeting on Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/dobrъ dьnь after I had just removed them earlier? до́барден would be pronounced the same as the standard version, except that it's an incorrect spelling, and дън до́бър is something I've never heard in my life. I don't think it's a goal to include every obscure dialectal descendant of a Proto-Slavic lemma, unless the descendant is only present in dialects. In this case, standard Bulgarian has a direct descendant of the PSl. greeting. Chernorizets (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chernorizets We do add all attested forms of a word (including different accent) unless theres too much of them to add them in PS page (ESSJa nad SP do that). Please do not remove them. Sławobóg (talk) 08:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sławobóg why? Who benefits from this? I'm asking as a native speaker - all I can see this doing is confuse people coming from other languages - it's not easy to figure out if e.g. all of these forms are common, or some are rare, or why they're relevant. In this specific instance, there's a clear descendant of the PSl greeting in the standard language, and the other versions are questionable (I don't find some of them in the Bulgarian Etymological Dictionary). Chernorizets (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

j- vowels in Cyrillic[edit]

This is only true for East Slavic. The symbols don't themselves represent iotated vowels, and in South Slavic front vowels didn't necessary need iotation. As such, there shouldn't be any iotation in the translit. Thadh (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thadh ну так я же сделал так, что йотация (в начале и после гласных) показывалась лиш в восточнославянских Old East Slavic и Old Novgorodian, как ви сказали. А в Old Church Slavonic - её нет. Но тогда зачем отменили правку? ZomBear (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Это получается не транслит уже, а транскрипция. В чём тогда различие между е и ѥ? Хоть по произношению, там есть иотация, в написании она не обязательна, и транслит это показывает. Thadh (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadh ну окей, раз не обязательна. Думал может будет лучше. ZomBear (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old Novgorodian[edit]

I made {{RQ:zle-ono:birchbark}} not long ago. Sławobóg (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Sławobóg, please excuse me. I'm very embarrassed! I honestly didn't see or know that you had previously created this template. Forgive me again. I apologize. Looks like we need to merge them... I'll move the translator parameter you created into the new template {{RQ:birchbark}}, as well as the "Parameters" section in {{RQ:birchbark/documentation}}. ZomBear (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to be so apologetic, I'm just informing you. Btw, you should join our discord WT:Discord. Sławobóg (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Errors from "page" parameter[edit]

If you add code that does arithmetic on |page= parameters without allowing for page ranges that contain non-numeric characters like "–" in the middle, you're going to have to go through CAT:PFE and clean up the entries with Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "–"., or I'm going to keep reverting you.

I just fixed Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/(j)ęčьmy by changing the first positional parameter (|page=) to |pages= and adding an extra pipe so the second positional parameter didn't become the first. There may be better fixes I didn't think of.

It probably wasn't good practice for that IP to use the |page= parameter that way, but when you edit a template or module, you retroactively change harmless sloppiness into a big nasty red error that prevents the content from displaying. The person who added the content will probably never know about the error, so that makes it your responsibility.

You have a long history of half-baked implementation of generally good ideas followed by not bothering to clean up the mess they leave. You're an excellent contributor, so I don't want to block you- but this got old a long, long time ago. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Entz A great way out of the situation is to simply not specify the page range. This is redundant. It's enough just to specify the first page. Or specifying a page range is a priority? I found only 1 entry (English owl) where |pages= was used in {{R:sla:EDSIL}}. Sorry that my edits inadvertently caused an error due to another user misusing |page= to indicate a page range instead of a specific page. Because of this, an error occurred on one of the 2000+ entry where {{R:sla:EDSIL}} is used. Want to ban me? Fine. ZomBear (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I wasn't clear: I have no plans to block you, and there are more errors than just the one I mentioned. I've cleaned up a few, but I don't want you to get into the habit of having others always clean up your messes- it's your turn, now. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you did not want to ban me. It's just that you put it this way, as if "I did it on purpose to cause a problem" on some entries. I did not at all hope that someone else would correct the errors that might arise after my edits. I would gladly fix them myself if I saw that they arose somewhere. I just didn't notice that my edit caused some problems. Sorry. ZomBear (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean specifying page ranges is "redundant"? If the content you are referring to is on multiple pages then you have to give a page range otherwise it is academically sloppy. As I explained at User talk:Useigor, the |2=page, |3=volume system is inferior. People need to be able to use |page=, |pages= and |volume=. That is non-negotiable. You should revert your changes to {{R:sla:EDSIL}}, {{R:bg:BER}} and others. Vahag (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vahagn Petrosyan That's it, I generally removed links to books in the {{R:sla:EDSIL}}, {{R:bat:EDBIL}}, {{R:gem:EDPG}}, {{R:cel:EDPC}} templates. I know you wanted this... Now there will definitely be no problems, you can specify the pages as you like. ZomBear (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Vahag (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why don’t you just copy templates where it works? You could do it like {{R:ar:Freytag}}. It looks only insufficiently complicated so there is no reason not to other than irrational behaviour such as either fear or imitating others, which I assume because strange format Useigor has been called out for is only found in our Slavia. Only gradually I did more crazy stuff like {{R:ar:Wehr-3}} or {{R:sem-eth:Littmann}} as I acquired the habit of creating reference templates … and I don’t even code anyway. Fay Freak (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for setting such a negative tone to start with- it seems to have made Vahag's complaint harder to take. I had similar concerns to Vahag's, but I decided to focus on the cleanup rather than on things where I have little experience or expertise. I see my role as keeping an eye on things that others are too busy with content to think about. I certainly don't want to chase away anyone of any competence away over this kind of thing- especially not you. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess I have shown ZomBear some knack? Links are great, this is why this dictionary is so handy. Like I did some heavy dumbbell curls and don’t want to grab that book … or I am away from my library and at my phone. One just needs to know what should be bent: It’s not that user input rigidified (rather pages ranges, or comma-separated dislocated pages are expected) nor is it that by removal of links templates altogether are improved – instead we are working together to make things hardier than last time, and sometimes it pays best to look into a bit of syntax though you didn’t want to! A lot of things occurring that one did not want, but I think that all can be avoided without undue hassle here. I admit I came to like this website because I recognized the ready amount of technical prowess!
I have looked into your edit at {{R:zle-ono:NGB}}. The website previously linked is funded by the Russian Science Fund, so obviously their content is licenced and government-supported (however that sounds in Ukraine …) under a certain number, and you can put your links; we know that piracy is a pretence, and you own that it is in either case about the impression, on which we have limited influence because we do not determine the standards in academia nor law – please continue to do things for the right reasons, and they will become better. I am not going to understand the code and fix this now, I should go to sleep, and you may too – I wish you a restful and extremely relaxative night, ZomBear. You shall find the fancy. Fay Freak (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism"[edit]

Good job haha. ɶLerman (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ɶLerman thanks, sugar. ZomBear (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ruthenian friends, why are you so hostile to proper bibliography? Instead of fighting the system, come and join us. Both of you have high potential. Vahag (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vahagn Petrosyan: Ehm... I have never called him a friend, especially since I do not recognize Ruthenian, but he does. ɶLerman (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ɶLerman Але ж ми могли б бути друзями. ZomBear (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All my friends from kindergarten or elementary school, everything else is post-friends and acquaintances :) ɶLerman (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've unblocked you. You're a valuable contributor, please keep it that way. PUC – 15:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgehogs[edit]

https://imgur.com/gallery/zaaeTQw Do you think hedgehogs have their own language for communication? ɶLerman (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ɶLerman 😄 hahaha, you surprised me. They seem to have body language. ZomBear (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why[edit]

The first thing you should do when you make changes to a template is to go through both CAT:E and CAT:PFE to find all of the errors your changes have caused. If you did that, you'd see cases like Albanian Beskidy or Albanian bjeshkë, where the quote is in the preface on page X, or Albanian dalë, where there's a parenthetical note tacked on to the page number, not to mention all the page ranges. There are literally hundreds (thousands?) of RQ templates that have ways to deal with such things, so there's no reason to just pretend they don't exist. Try looking through Special:PrefixIndex/Template:RQ for ideas.

The reason I keep getting after you is that it's simply not sustainable for me to keep cleaning up after you if it enables you to not learn from your mistakes. A handful of unfixed errors may seem trivial, but they add up eventually- and that keeps people from spotting problems before they get completely out of hand. I've spent a lot of my time over the years fixing typos and misuse of parameters in the RQ templates- not to mention coding mistakes in other templates- and I want to be able to spot those without having to remember which errors are there because you never felt like cleaning them up. As it is, there are a certain number of entries in CAT:PFE that we can't do anything about because they're the result of intractable Lua memory errors that feed error messages into templates at the bottom of certain pages (There are also some userspace pages that keep popping up there, but they can be easily sent back toCategory:Pages with ParserFunction errors/hidden with a null edit). Please don't ignore this like you have in the past. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I told you, ZomBear, to just do it like {{R:ar:Freytag}}, steal it, steal it, steal it – thereby I removed the error. Why don’t you do it? Where is the energy? Z-clones steal your whole country and you won’t even interfere when asked to take someone’s stuff. “To revolt is a natural tendency of life. Even a worm turns against the foot that crushes it.” I actually like stubborn people, not at all teachers. But defying something or someone requires a comely result, not an error message about a reference being out of service. Fay Freak (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fay Freak The problem is not that “I don’t know how to fix the error.” The problem is that I didn't notice (and didn't know how to check) whether my edit caused errors somewhere. PS: Please, Wiktionary, this is the last place where I would like to discuss the damned Z-rushists. Every day/night I have constant air alarm sirens and sometimes rockets arrive. I go to Wiktionary to relax and take my mind off this shit. ZomBear (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fay Freak: Hi. POG, Bakunin... Hi, Zom ɶLerman (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuck Entz excuse me. I didn't do it intentionally. I didn't know about the existence of CAT:E / CAT:PFE. Now I will always watch them, checking if new entries have appeared there after changing the templates. ZomBear (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's your excuse this time? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuck Entz Lol, I saw CAT:E that there are problems. I'll fix everything myself. I have already corrected 70%... there were more than 300 entries with errors... now there are 100+ ZomBear (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies! I was tired after a long day's work with not enough sleep the night before, so I was a bit grumpy. I should have looked at your edit history before complaining. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuck Entz It's OK. Happens. Now, when I edit templates, I always check whether my edits caused errors. ZomBear (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old East Slavic[edit]

Hi. I'm considering making proper names in ORV lowercase (in texts it's always lowercase), just like it's preffered in OCS. What do you think about that? I also think changing letter yo to y was very bad decision. Sławobóg (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sławobóg Regarding the writing of proper names with a lowercase letter (e.g. Волосъ → волосъ)... I don’t even know what to say... I would not say that in the times of Rus' (10th-14th cc.) they were written exclusively with lowercase letters. There were probably more cases of writing with a capital letter than with a small letter. Although this can be brought up for discussion. As for “оу” and “у”, I myself previously wrote all Old East Slavic entries with “оу”, but then I received a remark from @Thadh that on Wiktionary it was customary to write everything with “у”. Before changing this, this also needs to be brought up for discussion. I'm not against it though. ZomBear (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{alt}}[edit]

By the way, you can list multiple forms in this template before separating with ||. You shouldn't place multiple alts next to each other like that, and it's better to put qualifiers in the template itself. You can also type things like <q:dialectal> next to specific forms. Vininn126 (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also when I say I want to discuss Gorol it might mean an eventual split (undetermined) so it's best not to add it for now, as it could mean cleaning up later. Vininn126 (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgar *ǯinǯüɣä (dat. sg.)[edit]

Where does that form come from? 5.178.188.143 13:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vasmer, Max (1967) “же́мчуг”, in Oleg Trubachyov, transl., Этимологический словарь русского языка [Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language] (in Russian), volumes 2 (Е – Муж), Moscow: Progress, page 46
See the rest here жьньчюгъ#References. AshFox (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R:zle-ono:NGB[edit]

Hi! {{cite-book}} can now automatically detect lists of multiple people without needing to have separate singular/plural params (author/authors, editor/editors, etc). In fact, it's going to start throwing warning if values are provided for both singular and plural. I've converted many of the R: templates that use both editor/editors to simply use editor=, but the logic inside of Template:R:zle-ono:NGB is a little more complicated than the others and I'm not sure I understand it well enough to edit it comfortably. If the code still makes sense to you, would you be able to combine editor/editors like on Template:R:ru:SORJaMR16-17? JeffDoozan (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffDoozan thank you for writing to me. I seem to have corrected R:zle-ono:NGB by removing "editors"... everything seems to be working. AshFox (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AshFox&oldid=78896387"