Talk:бульбамялка

бульбамялка

@Insaneguy1083 Дзеля бога! Выкарыстанне "ад/from" у пачатку этымалогіі цалкам неабходна, не рабіць гэтага - не што іншае, як лянота рабіць нешта добра. Наименее Полезное (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I really don't think it actively worsens the aesthetic of the section. You can add it back if you wish, but it's just not in my personal style to do it. Again, there's no "from" in the surface analysis template, so why should I bother? Plus, almost all of the 20 most recently added Belarusian entries were from me. If someone's lazy, it's not me. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Не існуе такога паняцця, як «асабістае жаданне», гэта нешта элементарнае. У той час як такія мовы, як польская, кожны дзень прагрэсуюць з добрымі рэдактарамі, мая з гэтым дзярмом толькі рэгрэсуе. Наименее Полезное (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Чаму б вам не рэдагаваць сваю мову, а не губіць маю? Наименее Полезное (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

"апошнія дваццаць беларускіх словаў дададзены мною", які сэнс, калі яны ўсе лайно? Наименее Полезное (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Are the definitions of the new entries really incorrect though? Or does the lack of "from" really piss you off that much, to the point of claiming that Belarusian Wiktionary is regressing because of one missing word, while Polish Wiktionary is flourishing because it's there? I've gotten requests to stop editing before, from Estonian editors, but that's because it seemed that some of the definitions that I wrote weren't really accurate, as opposed to some minor aesthetic thing. The point of Wiktionary is to provide etymologies and accurate definitions for terms. No one is going to get confused if they see a word with a suffix/prefix in the etymology section without indicating "from". Likewise, no one is going to waste their time comparing and contrasting Belarusian and Polish entries and saying "wow, Belarusian Wiktionary is so shit, there's no "from" at the start of words!". They're here to look for words and their definitions (and possibly their etymologies), and leave.

I've not seen you correct the definitions of any of the entries I've made so far, unlike Ssvb who provided different definitions and citations to back them up. (Not tagging Ssvb here because I don't think they want to be involved in this "drama".) And sure, я зусім па-беларуску не магу, but understand that for the most part I'm just collecting word definitions from either Skarnik or cognate words in Russian or Ukrainian, or sometimes Polish. I'm not making up any definitions, or at least I'm not trying to. If there's a Skarnik definition that I don't understand, I'd add an rfdef template to it. The only time I really pay effort in writing an entry is if the etymology seems to be complex or just unknown, like ахосал (axósal) or сутнасць (sutnascʹ). And yet you don't raise an issue with those two entries, because they don't involve needing to write "from". And if ever you'd like to add back a "from" into the etymology line, no one's stopping you. Not even myself. It's just my personal default, but I don't object to people changing it.

Unless there is some other deep fundamental issue with my entries that you don't find with entries made by other people, in which case I'm all ears. But getting so worked up over a "from" is...quite unique, to say the least. I do wonder if there's some reverse psychology at play here. I've happily complied with requests from other languages over following a specific format (see Estonian again), but maybe there's something in my brain subconsciously encouraging me to miss out the "from" just because you're so worked up over it, and this creates a negative feedback loop which makes you get "angrier" about the missing word. Who knows. Either way, I genuinely don't understand the furore over one missing word, and this frankly insane hyperbole that this singular word is the difference between flourishing and regression.

I'm here and willing to talk though. Tell me, do you really think that the "from" is genuinely vital to the survival of Belarusian Wiktionary as a whole, and that any Slavic Wiktionary entry that doesn't use it can go fuck themselves? Do you think that if an entry misses out the word "from" in the Etymology section, it would be better to just pretend that the word has no known etymology at all? Or is there some deeper reason that you don't want a foreigner - a non-European at that - actively making entries for your language for whom you clearly don't have the time to make entries? Would you rather some very important nouns, conjunctions and prepositions be completely non-existent on Wiktionary if there wasn't a Belarusian or Ukrainian person making or fixing the entry? I'm here to talk, I'm here to listen.

And for the record, I have made entries for Cantonese. It's just that Cantonese, and Chinese in general, are already quite well-documented on Wiktionary, and anything I make mostly comes from informal slang. If you look at the main languages I'm working on - Belarusian, Lithuanian, Macanese and Yiddish - they are all languages, which for their size and speaker base, are painfully underdocumented on Wiktionary. (Well, not so much for Macanese, but I'm adding entries there for cultural promotion reasons.) Of course the lack of Belarusian entries for common things is in part because the Belarusian terms are identical to the Russian and Ukrainian terms in sense, and thus it's easy to work out what the cognate Belarusian words mean. But what if someone's learning Belarusian as a complete beginner to Slavic languages? What if some American person has Belarusian ancestors, and is trying to learn their ancestral language in isolation from the other neighbouring Slavic languages? Just the other day I got a message on my user page from a Lithuanian-speaking Latvian user commending me for my high-quality Lithuanian entries, when I've applied almost the exact same standard across all four aforementioned languages.

I'm not going to blame you for being too busy to make Belarusian entries. We all have stuff to do in real life. Hell, you're probably spending your real life time better than I am. You've probably got a real job and everything, while I'm sitting here at 5am typing out a rebuttal to an argument when I could have been going to bed. But saying that I should completely stop making Belarusian entries when all I've done is copy and paste definitions from trusted Belarusian dictionaries, albeit not adding one singular word at the start of etymologies? Getting genuinely riled up when I didn't follow a primarily Polish standard and calling for me to leave and work on my own languages instead? Or is this perhaps just an excuse to say "fuck off foreigners", even though I literally lived in Vilnius for months in close proximity to a Belarusian community? I'm here to listen to your mindset behind all this.

To be clear, I did eventually back off from making Estonian entries, because I know nothing about Finno-Ugric languages, and regardless it's not my main linguistic field of interest. But I took Russian classes at university for two whole years, and am about to go back to continue for another year. And during all this time I've been self-learning a bit of Polish and Ukrainian. Regardless, it shouldn't matter here, since all I'm doing is copying from Belarusian dictionaries. Not to mention, I am capable of following standards - see the whole thing with Lacinka. So let me know if the "from" is really bugging you that much. Politely though. If you continue to insist that the omission of a singular word is causing regression in Belarusian Wiktionary, then I might just keep going at it. Not to mention that you are literally the only person actively bringing up the "issue" as well.

So yeah, let me know in what ways you think that not writing "from" is causing Belarusian Wiktionary to regress (maybe something's lost in translation here, but "regress" is a very strong word in English), while writing the word has caused Polish Wiktionary to flourish. Because according to you, apparently one can be a "good editor", just because they wrote an extra word in their etymology line which no sane regular person using Wiktionary is going to give any thought to. Who knew. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

блаблабла, усе славянскія мовы павінны мець такую ​​этымалогію, хочаш не хочаш, я разумею, за што цябе лаялі эстонскія рэдактары Наименее Полезное (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)