User talk:Djkcel

arginine

By "Greek" do you mean Modern Greek ({{etyl|el}}), or Ancient Greek ({{etyl|grc}})? —Ruakh_TALK 03:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Greek, should I re-add it under that tag? Djkcel (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I realized afterward, when I set about transliterating it, that it had a bunch of English letters in the middle of it; so, I removed it. But if you can add the correct Ancient Greek, then yes, please do so. :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 13:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry! My source says "arginoeis" and I wasn't sure how to write that in the original Greek. Is there a resource to convert that to the correct letters? Djkcel (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope. If your source is an anglophone source, then we at least know there should be a smooth breathing mark on the initial alpha (since if it had a rough breathing mark, an anglophone source would write "ha-"), but even then, it's not obvious whether the first "i" should be an iota or an eta, whether/where there should be a tonos, etc. (I mean, it's not obvious to me. Someone who actually knows something about Ancient Greek might be able to figure it out.) —Ruakh_TALK 16:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The actual spelling is ἀργινόεις (arginóeis). The only ambiguities in "arginoeis" are the o and the e, which could be short (omicron and epsilon) or long (omega and eta). There are 3 accents (though 2 are in complementary distribution with each other), and the position of the accent is phonemic. In other words, your examples only make sense in Modern, but not Ancient Greek. Your warning about the dangers of guessing was exactly right, though: the reverted edit had 3 Greek letters, and 2 were wrong. I created an entry for ἀργινόεις (arginóeis) (a very tricky nt-stem- I hope I got it right), and added back that part of the etymology. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

A belated welcome

With all these discussions of minor points, I'm surprised no one gave you our standard welcome template, which has the resources so you can learn how to not make the kinds of mistakes you've been making:

Welcome

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! Chuck Entz (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

etymology

Hello Djkcel! May I draw your attention to some templates that may be useful when adding etymologies?

• term for attested words (ancestors and cognates)
• recons for reconstructed words
• etyl for the name of the language where a word comes from
• rfscript for signalling a word in the wrong script

Example (in a Spanish lemma): From {{etyl|la|es}} {{term|foobar|lang=la}}, from {{etyl|ine-pro|es}} {{recons|foobar|lang=ine-pro}}

This should give: From Latin foobar, from Proto-Indo-European *foobar

If you encounter words in a wrong script, you could add {{rfscript}} to the lemma. In saxum, there was a word in Old Church Slavonic, but written in Latin characters. Here most words are in their native script: thus Old Church Slavonic in (Old) Cyrillic script. In such a case, you can add {{rfscript|Cyrs}} to the lemma, so others may find and fix the problem.

Have a look at the documentation of these templates or ask me or other users.

Greetings, --MaEr (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

berro

Is the Gaulish form actually attested? if not, it should have an * in front of it. The best way to do that is using the {{recons}} template, which is just like {{term}}, except for reconstructed forms (even for unattested forms in otherwise attested languages). Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

δρακεῖν

I have reverted your edit to this entry. Wiktionary policy is that we try not to duplicate information for form-of entries; it simply becomes too much work to keep all the information coordinated, up-to-date, and so on. The etymology you entered on δρακεῖν already existed on δέρκομαι, and belongs there (and only there). That being said, aside from the misplacement, it was a good etymology, I do appreciate your effort in entering it, and I sincerely hope you'll continue to work on Ancient Greek on Wiktionary. If you have any questions, please feel quite free to ask. Cheers. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, since it took me a minute to remember the talk page formatting. Appreciate the response, and a big d'oh for not realizing I was just editing one form of δέρκομαι and hence duplicating the origin. I'll keep a better eye out in the future and avoid clones. Djkcel (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Κρήτη

Could I ask what your source is for this? I'm not finding any evidence of the name κρυσ anywhere. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's from A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (Smith, Williams) via OED, but unfortunately I probably mis-transliterated it, since they don't use Greek letters. "Krus" is said to be the mythological hero/ancestor (possibly Syrian/Philistine?) who Crete is named after, but I'm not sure if κρυσ is how that would be spelled. Would it be better to add in the romanized letters?

Sorry it has taken me so long to answer this question. In the future, if you have a transliteration, it's probably best to simply put down that transliteration, and add {{rfscript|sc=Grek}}. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

λίθος

Can I ask what your source is for this one, and if you know how it works? I'm trying to remember the various phoneme evolution rules, but am having a hard time getting "lithos" from "per". -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Please accept my apology. That origin was meant for πέτρα, not λίθος. I see that you already fixed it - appreciate it.

panocha and galla

Hi. I’d like to know the source for two etymologies you added:

• panocha. How can Vulgar Latin have a word for a plant native to America?
• galla.

— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 18:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Also: Portuguese arrumar. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey there. Let's see...

• In Spanish, the original sense of 'panocha' was a loan translation of English panicle, which refers to a cluster of flowers. This itself came from Vulgar Latin panicula, itself a diminutive of panus "ear of millet," which from Greek "penos." Therefore when 'panocha' evolved in Spanish and took on several more meanings, such as 'corncob,' it always had that origin in the original botanical term from vulgar Latin. Source: OED. </nowiki>
• "Galla" is a bit trickier. We use "gall" in English to refer to the sore spots on horses' skin by chafing, which came from Latin "galla" whose original sense of "oak apple" evolved into "lump on plant" or "sore." This is where Germanic shows up as a strong suggestion because the other meaning of "gall" in English is for bile and the contents of the gallbladder, which of course came through Germanic from PIE *ghel. The Germanic term for bile, bitter objects could have influenced Latin if the meaning was for a sore, especially when considering lumps/sores on plants. Source: OED.
• Portuguese and Spanish arrumar are the same word and share the same original meaning, which was nautical. Many nautical terms were borrowed from Dutch; the original sense for arrumar was to distribute and place loads in a ship, borrowed from the Dutch nautical term for "space, central location" on a ship, from "ruim.' Source: A marine pocket dictionary of the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and German languages. Djkcel (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm skeptical about the loan-translation part: panocha shows the type of sound changes one would expect much earlier in the history of the language, so it must be inherited from Vulgar Latin. I suppose the panicle sense might be borrowed- but by means of substituting a similar word already present in Spanish. I changed "ear of corn" to "ear of grain" in the definition, because in US usage corn refers strictly to maize, and one can say things like "panocha de trigo". Chuck Entz (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

As for gall: the explanation in the entry is missing most of the information that links "poison sore" to the etymology of gall to the Latin term- leaving cryptic non sequiturs. You need to look at it from the viewpoint of someone who hasn't read the entries in other dictionaries, and add what's necessary. Linking to gall doesn't help, because one etymology doesn't mention anything about poison sores, and the other just links back to the Latin entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, millet. The entry used to say maize. Regarding arrumar, my dictionary says the etymology is uncertain, possibly from French arrumer or from a- + rumo + -ar.

Oh, and I just finished marking your edits as patrolled, and I must ask you: please start paying more attention to formatting! — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 03:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Joan Coromines (Breve diccionario etimológico ...) states:

• panoja, del lat. vg. panucula (clásico panicula), diminutivo de panus. La variante regional panocha no está explicada con seguridad. — this contradicts your etymology.
• arrumar: after French arrumer from Gmc rûm ("space", English room, German Raum) — this confirms your etymology more or less.

--MaEr (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Chinchilla vs. chinchilla

I don't know for a fact that the surname Chinchilla isn't from Aymara, but the fact that you added the etymology at the same time you added the etymology to the genus name gave me enough doubt to revert you on it. Do you really have a source that gives the surname and the animal name the same origin? I would think that w:Chinchilla de Monte-Aragón would be a more likely source. I don't remember the details, but this isn't the first time this has happened. Please be careful about placing etymologies in the correct entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Phi

It’s φ not ϕ. ϕ is a mathematical/IPA symbol. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 19:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Borrowings

[1] - Latin word was borrowed from Greek, which was in turn inherited from PIE blah blah, and has cognates blah blah. It the Latin word was not inherited from PIE, it makes no sense to mention Gothic, Old English, Albanian etc. cognates of the Greek word. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, so if the borrowing is from Greek + PIE, I can just leave it at that and leave the cognates out. I do think it's helpful to keep the PIE derivation in there as it keeps the tags (Latin words from PIE) updated. Thanks - Djkcel (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but that way you could get Japanese word being derived from PIE simply because of some English borrowing in Japanese. And also cannot make distinction between inherited and borrowed words by inspecting categories such as "Xxx terms derived from PIE". Now that I think about it, perhaps we should split these categories in two, one for inheritance ("Xxx terms inherited from Proto-X) and one for borrowings ("Xxx terms derived from Proto-Y"). That would also be useful for Romance languages who borrowed lots of post-Vulgar Latin vocabulary. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Arnica#Etymology

Why do you think the Arabic origin is possible? Do you have information on what plant is referred to by 'arnabiyah'? Do you have information on plants in genus Arnica being native to Arab-speaking countries? DCDuring TALK 01:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Etymonline attributes it to Klein's "A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language". I've only been able to find references going back as far as 1697, though I haven't looked that deeply, yet. Etymonline says 1753, but that's just the date Linnaeus published it in Species Plantarum. It's an alpine plant in southern Europe, so I would expect it to be known by a variety of poorly-attested local names before that. It does grow in Spain, where Arabic loanwords are fairly common, but I doubt that any Arabic name would be originally for the same plant, unless it was a name that originated in Spain (it's not uncommon for names to get transferred to new species outside of a language's homeland). The conventional wisdom seems to be that it might have come from ptarmica, which comes from the Greek word for sneezing. The main plant with that name is sneezewort, but it's possible that they both shared the name by virtue of their common ability to cause sneezing. At any rate, there doesn't seem to be any real evidence- just guesses. I think you were righ to change "probably" to "possibly". Chuck Entz (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

*λαγαδον

Hello Djkcel. You gave *λαγαδον (lagadon, “a kick, leap”) as a cognate of the Latin locusta (thank you, by the way, for answering the request for etymology). I noticed that it lacked a pitch marker, so I looked it up in LSJ; however, I could find no such term listed. Are you sure that it's right? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey there, ISMETA. Sorry for the confusion. The source was spot-on with its origin but it only uses romanized letters instead of Greek characters. That was my best guess at reconstructing 'lagadon.' Should I instead replace it with rfscript? — This unsigned comment was added by Djkcel (talk • contribs) at 20:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC).

"The source"? It's hard to figure out how credible your etymology without knowing what the source is. I can't find anything that could be interpreted as "*lagadon" in Perseus. There's a verb λακτίζω (laktízō, “kick with the heel or foot”), which might have a *lag- with the *g assimilated to the following *t, but nothing that starts with λαγαδ-. That doesn't mean the form can't exist, but it needs the attention of someone who can check other references. As for rfscript: if you don't have a reference that shows that the word exists in the correct language in the correct script with a reasonably close definition, you shouldn't be guessing at what it will be in the target script. In Ancient Greek, any transliteration that contains e or o is ambiguous (and there are other surprises such as unexpected spellings for some consonants followed by s or a velar consonant), and any Ancient Greek word (with very few exceptions) that doesn't show accents is incomplete.

In general, making stuff up based on guesswork is bad enough, and making stuff up in languages you don't know is worse. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Case in point: Old Persian was only written in Old Persian Cuneiform- never in the Arabic script, which was invented many centuries later, and wasn't used for Persian until a thousand years later. If you don't know this, you have no business working with Old Persian in anything but transliteration. If you don't know the script used by a language, don't guess- use the transliteration and add rfscript (or attention if you don't have enough information for rfscript). Chuck Entz (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wiktionary:About Ancient Greek#Diacritics and accentuation, which states "Tone/stress accents (i.e. the acute, circumflex, and grave accents) should be incorporated into the spelling of Ancient Greek words in all places, though they are not represented in transliterations." [underlining my emphasis] and peruse Wiktionary:Ancient Greek romanization and pronunciation. The transliteration schemes for Ancient Greek employed here and almost everywhere else are surjective, which means that the original Ancient Greek word cannot be adequately reconstructed from a transliteration. So yes, in future, please use {{rfscript}} if all you have to work from is a transliteration. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the heads-up and sorry for the honest mistake. Just so you don't think I'm making stuff up, the source is An Etymological Dictionary of Persian , English and other Indo-European Languages Vol 2, page 278. I see that it's on google books so here's a link to the entry if you want to look: Lacosta I'm noticing it also connected the word to English leg, lobster, lizard, and alligator. From now on RFscript it is for the romanizations. Djkcel (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. And FWIW, I had no doubt that you were editing in good faith. BTW, could you also cite that source in an entry's References section when you use it to add content in the future, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

No, please don't cite that self-published and unreliable source. --Vahag (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Now that I see your source, I can see that you mislabeled Persian as Old Persian. Persian is also known as Farsi, and is a modern language that uses to Arabic script. Old Persian might be part of what they call "Old Iranian", though I'm not at all sure what they mean by that. I notice that they give Pokorny p. 673 as a source for the Greek, but that reference doesn't mention the form in question- I suspect λαγαδων might be a Modern Greek word. You need to be more careful. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks be to flyax: λαγάδων (lagádon) is the genitive plural form of λαγάς (lagás, “hare hunter”) — in Modern Greek, I should add. :-)  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for sharing. I wonder if λαγός is still related to the ancient word for kick. It seems to derive from the root that gave us languid (Latin langueo, languidis, etc) because of drooping. But it's still interesting to wonder if/how locusta ties into this. Djkcel (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but I know scant little about reconstructed roots, so I couldn't say.
Two notes, if I may:

1. There is no need to use {{rfscript}} when using {{term}} to mention Ancient Greek terms by their transliterations only. See this change of mine to the etymology you added for the Modern Greek λαγός (lagós); if you include the transliteration using tr= and leave the first two unnamed parameters blank, {{term}} automatically generates a request for the native Ancient Greek script. Handy!
2. Vahagn Petrosyan (Vahag) raised doubts (in his post above timestamped: 17:17, 18 January 2014) about the reliability of your source. I would recommend that you speak to him about getting hold of some better sources for adding etymologies and reconstructed roots; he's told me that “[he] ha[s] good sources.”

Thanks for your co-operation. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The etymology of Modern Greek λαγός (lagós) beyond Ancient Greek should be discussed at the Ancient Greek page, λαγώς (lagṓs). The best source for Ancient Greek etymology is Beekes 2010. Other good but somewhat outdated sources are Frisk and Chantraine. The last two are available on archive.org. The first one is available on pirate websites. --Vahag (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:recons

Hi, {{recons}} is deprecated and shouldn't be used anymore. Instead, please use {{term/t}} as follows: instead of {{recons|h₁éḱwos|lang=ine-pro}} type {{term/t|ine-pro|*h₁éḱwos}}. The same template can be used for attested languages too: {{term/t|es|caballo}} is exactly the same as {{term|caballo|lang=es}}. Just remember to put the asterisk at the beginning when referring to a reconstructed term (unlike {{recons}}, where you didn't have to type the asterisk). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, this is very helpful! Djkcel (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

retalhar

Hey. what is your source for the etymology? None of mine mention Provençal. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, got it from Word-formation in Provençal, Volume 2. Though the source is not actually sure if it was a direct borrowing from Provencal or if it just influenced the spelling. I'll change the edit to reflect that info. Djkcel (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The digraph lh was adopted from Provençal, but this doesn’t mean every word containing it was loaned from Provençal. It replaced the earlier digraph ll which was already present in many native words. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

scarabaeus

The code "mk" refers to modern (Slavic) Macedonian. —CodeCat 17:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. Old Macedonian and OCS are basically interchangeable, so I'll make that switch and note it for future edits

I actually thought you meant Ancient Macedonian, the Greek-related language. —CodeCat 00:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's found in Aristotle's Historia Animalium, and Aristotle died in 322 BCE- more than a thousand years before OCS was first commited to writing. The w:Ancient Macedonian language is either related to or part of Ancient Greek, depending on which source you follow. The modern w:Macedonian language is a South Slavic language that has nothing to do with the older Hellenic one. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, this is making more sense now. That entry is citing Klein on the non-Greek suffix and Macedonian possibility and he must have meant ancient Macedonian rather than old Macedonian/OCS. Djkcel (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Χαλδαῖος

You provided an etymology for this word a few years ago: "Via Aramaic 𐡊𐡀𐡋𐡃𐡅 from Akkadian (māt) Kaldu." Do you have a source for this etymology? —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 21:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Djkcel, thanks for adding the Akkadian cuneiform―I was having trouble finding a reference that provided it. Also, could you avoid adding the deprecated template {{term}}? The official standard is {{m}} now. —JohnC5 22:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

NP, thanks! Djkcel (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Bulgar

Hi, Djkcel. You made this edit, including the word Блугарину (Blugarinu), indicating that it is from the OED. Can you re-check that in your OED. I’m American, so I do not have the OED. Блугарину does not look possible to me. —Stephen ^(Talk) 20:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Certainly. According to OED, Bulgar originates...

from medieval Latin Bulgarus, from Old Church Slavic Blŭgarinŭ. Compare with bugger.

I think Old Bulgarian and OCS are interchangeable, but I'm not the best at spelling Cyrillic, especially since OED only provides transliterations. I almost certainly spelled those inflections wrong, but the transliteration is per OED. Djkcel (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, Vorziblix fixed it. Thank you sir. Djkcel (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

slupan

Hi. Wouldn't PIE *(s)ley- give a Gmc *slīpaną ? Instead, shouldn't we be looking for a PIE *(s)leub- or (s)leubh-n- ? Leasnam (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you're right, there would have been an intermediary word between Gmc. *slīpaną and PIE (s)ley- . I fixed it. Good catch, thanks. Djkcel (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Old Persian Parsa

Hi, I reverted this edit of yours, which I think to be a mistake. Please explain or provide a source if I'm wrong. --Z 09:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey, my source is the entry 'persiana' on page 346:. Seem good? I added cognates for Persia in other languages just to provide some expansion.18:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

ἐρείκη, RC:Proto-Celtic/wroikos, etymolgies

I don't see any explanation that would lead from *wert- to any of these descendants. Watkins is also not terribly reliable. —JohnC5 18:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I was struggling a little with the connections they made as well. They put English briar, Greek ἐρείκη, RC:Proto-Celtic/wroikos, and Russian verst all in the same boat, e.g. as seen here Djkcel (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, so they're going for *wer- and not *wert- as the origin. I'm not sure any of this is particularly convincing. What do you think? —JohnC5 03:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The Celtic (the source of Etymology 2 of briar, but not of Etymology 1)/Ancient Greek ἐρείκη (ereíkē) is thoroughly plausible, and Latin vermis/English worm, and I'm sure there are others, but trying to tie all those together to the same PIE root seems a bit ambitious, and their listing of reflexes of different stem consonants all jumbled together verges on misleading. By the way, I'm not so sure about their glosses: Latin ruscum isn't heather, it's butcher's broom or knee holly, which is a short plant with fairly simple, straight stems and prickly "leaves" (technically cladophylls). Their inclusion of English brusque with the Celtic seems odd, especially since our etymology of Italian brusco says it comes from ruscum. I also don't see the connection with Sanskrit कृमि (kṛmi)- where does the "k" come from? The whole thing seems like a hastily-compiled afterthought that doesn't care too much about the details. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Possibilities, but just that. Djkcel (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)