Talk:orkisz

Etymology

@Fay Freak:, I've replaced the etymology for now with Bruckner's claim. I couldn't find yours in Bańkowski (or other places online, though I've likely left some stones unturned), and WSJP doesn't have it. If you could find a citation, please return your version and add the necessary references. Hythonia (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hythonia: Surely this snippet was involved. This Rocznik gdański is not well accessible for exact cite (perhaps you in Poland could scan it for us though!) but this snippet should suffice. The “Turkish” claimed at various places does not exist, an the Polish word is of course attested before Ottoman Turkish even existed.

Please note that I do have a lot of Orientalist experience here, by which I specifically had phytonyms in my compass, which is why a do have an overview of organism names in the Near East, and correspondingly coverage of Turkish too is Wiktionary’s concern and we aim to achieve consistency between languages. You must not reference words that don’t exist solely because they are a common lore in references, and etyma must be identifiable. Wiktionary:Wiktionary is not Wikipedia. So you can’t just claim “from Turkish” without there being a word added, hyphenating |3= in {{der}} is generally undesirable—one may leave term requests of course if one is insecure about the spellings of a supposed source language but if somebody who deals with the alleged source language finds that it does not exist then it must be removed for this reason alone, of Wiktionary being a secondary source rather than relying on references. Today’s question about camlet is a good example: Wikipedia references various claims about it but has not bothered to spell the source word, which is the actual question we are supposed to answer, adding words believed to exist in primary material, while Wikipedia stays embarrassed about contradictory information that it can’t bring into harmony (which is also often caused by it using century-old references, such as Brückner, that should be avoided for newer references, e.g. Franciszek Sławski contains a lot of historical information but I can’t access it, though its snippets helped me to solve ко́зырь (kózyrʹ); Boryś we can access but he does not have the word). Fay Freak (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: Thanks a lot. I was also concerned by not being able to find the actual (supposed) Turkish word, but I could not find the reference at all, and I wanted to have something sourced there. That seems sufficient. Apologies for your trouble. Hythonia (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)