Template talk:borrowed

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from Template talk:borrowing)
Jump to: navigation, search


So is it Category:hu:Loanwords or Category:Hungarian loanwords. Actually the first one looks better to my eyes. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The latter in mine. It's a lexical cat, not a topical.​—msh210 (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Move debate[edit]


The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.


Since my request move of Category:English borrowed words (now Category:English borrowed terms) failed, I'd like to move to this to {{borrowing}} and display borrowing instead of loanword. Anyone object? --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't object. (Provided, of course, that the old template is kept as a redirect.) ----Daniel 16:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Why do you want to?​—msh210 (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no problems with that at all. I thought it was strange as well when I first saw it. —CodeCat 17:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
In reply to msh210, because it seems confusing to have a template where the template name and its category are totally different. Obviously keep the redirect. Plus, loanword isn't always accurate. There are phrases like idée reçue and crème brûlée which are loans but not really loanwords. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Passed. Nobody objected. Mglovesfun implemented the proposal today. --Daniel 02:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

t1 parameter[edit]

Can we add a t1= or similar parameter here, with the functionality of {{compound}} or {{suffix}}. This would make things a lot easier. --The Evil IP address 15:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. I've called it t and have also added support for the other parameters {{term}} takes: see the documentation.​—msh210 (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Trailing period[edit]

I am thinking of editing this template so that the display ends with a period (the fragments look a little messy in etymology sections; see for example métier#Etymology). Any objections? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I've no objection provided you check all transclusions to make sure adding the period doesn't ruin anything (e.g., {{borrowing|sq|foo}} or {{unk.|title=possibly}} {{term|lang=sq|bar}}. or even {{borrowing|sq|foo}}.). Otherwise, yes, I object strongly.​—msh210 (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
So, basically, you do object. I don't have the ability to check (I've no idea if you do), so it appears this is dead for now. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
There are only 622 transclusions (I think). A bot can list the ones that don't appear at the end of a paragraph, and if that's few then they can be edited manually.​—msh210 (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't quite have a bot nor AWB access... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I misspoke. You don't need a bot: just someone to scan the dump. Perhaps ask in the GP or at TODO?​—msh210 (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I do object. It's much easier to type a period in the etymology, than it is to add extra code to the template to remove it. —CodeCat 19:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
That's also a good point. (No pun intended.)​—msh210 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

{{{t}}} and {{{4}}}[edit]

{{{t}}} and {{{4}}} do different things:



Borrowing from Basque foo (baz, bar, verb, literally xyzzy)




Borrowing from Basque foo (baz, verb, literally xyzzy) ("bar")

Compare {{term}}, where the positional (unnamed) parameter does the same as {{borrowing}}'s {{{t}}}: shows the word in the parentheses with the other info. I suggest we get rid of {{{4}}} and reinstate it as an alias for {{{t}}}. Thoughts?​—msh210 (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

New idea[edit]

(From borrow#Etymology):

From {{etyl|enm|en}} {{term|borwen|lang=enm}}, {{term|borȝien|sc=Latinx|lang=enm}},
from {{etyl|ang|en}} {{term|borgian||to borrow, lend, pledge surety for|lang=ang}},
from {{etyl|gem-pro|en}} {{recons|burgōną||to pledge, take care of|lang=gem-pro}},
from {{etyl|ine-pro|en}} {{recons|bhergh-||to take care|lang=ine-pro}}.

Lets create two new similar templates, {{From}} and {{from}}. It will be much more flexible:

{{From|enm|[[borwen]], [[borȝien]]|sc=Latinx}},
{{from|ang|borgian||to borrow, lend, pledge surety for}},
{{from|gem-pro|*burgōną||to pledge, take care of}},
{{from|ine-pro|*bhergh-||to take care}}.

The two links at the first line and the reconstructed terms can be handled with Lua (compare Template:l/beta, Lua-ized version of {{l}}).

We can create {{Cognate}}/{{cognate}} similarly. --Z 17:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think our current set of templates is ready for that just yet. But I do think it would be good to have different templates for different types of foreign derivation. It's possible to borrow from Latin but the Romance languages also inherited from it, and sometimes there are two words with the same origin, one borrowed and the other inherited. —CodeCat 17:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
"sometimes there are two words with the same origin, one borrowed and the other inherited" would you give me an example? By the way, what would be the difference here, in categorization I suppose? --Z 18:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Example: By sound change alone, the word for ´iron´ in Spanish should be hierro (and it is) but as a prefix in scientific terms it has become ferro- instead, due to borrowing. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh. So when it is borrowed, the output should be "Borrowing from", otherwise (inherited, derived) "From". It's not cool though when it is repeatedly borrowed: "Borrowing from ..., borrowing from ..., borrowing from ..", we usually use other phrases in the middle, say "itself borrowed from". Since they all have "from" ("borrowing from", "derived from", "from" [inherited from]), so maybe the output of all of these templates (i.e. {{borrowed from}}, {{derived from}}, {{from}}) should be "from" and the user may add whatever s/he wants before it. I'll start working on the templates and the Lua module if more people comment on this. --Z 07:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
But wait, I don't think it's a good idea to mention "borrowing" etc. everywhere, unless when we want to emphasize on it (e.g. in the ferro-#Spanish case). --Z 16:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this template?[edit]

This template has been recently used in automated edits replacing the sequence of characters:

From {{etyl|xx|yy}} {{term|...|lang=yy}}...

into this:


Additional usages of {{etyl}} in the borrowing chain have been left unaffected. Furthermore, if the etymology section diverges in syntax from the supposed usage, e.g.

Borrowed from either {{etyl|xx|yy}} {{term|...|lang=yy}} or {{etyl|xx|zz}} {{term|...|lang=zz}} (i.e. the case with an indeterminate etymology)

..the template becomes inapplicable. Under the hood it seems to invoke {{term}} by cloning/redirecting its parameters.

If the purpose of this template were to introduce a distinction between loanwords and inherited words, this could've been easily achieved by rewriting {{etyl}} to compare the language donor and the language receiver, and categorize accordingly. Overall, it seems to be a very bad idea to generate by means of templates any kind of multi-word strings to be used in running text. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Automated edits by who? I answered this (incidentally) on User talk:Vahagn Petrosyan where I said that it was originally called {{loanword}} which is a slightly different concept, but my proposal to move Category:English borrowed terms to Category:English loanwords failed, so I moved the template instead. So it's now slightly different to what I originally had in mind when I created it, but that's wikis for you. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
What exactly is the difference between a loanword and a borrowing? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Switch to term/t[edit]

That's it, really. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Why exactly? It's just an alias for {{term}} that has the parameters in a different order. —CodeCat 12:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Imprecise categorization[edit]

Why this template isn't specifying the source language in its categories, like into {{etyl}}? For example, we only got Category:English borrowed terms instead of Category:English borrowed terms from French, like on fr:Catégorie:Gallicismes en anglais. JackPotte (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

We could replace Category:English terms derived from French with Category:English terms borrowed from French, but this could only be done in the long term. And people on Wiktionary tend to not like changes. —CodeCat 19:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
PS: I can do this category improvement 100% myself and it wouldn't change the template utilization, I would just need a consensus. JackPotte (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that if it's agreed to do this, then to maintain consistency we'd have to make much larger changes to the category structure. I think this is ok but not everyone might, we have some people here who oppose just about any change. —CodeCat 22:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Thank you for this: Category:English terms borrowed from French. JackPotte (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

t parameter not working?[edit]

It seems that the t parameter isn't evaluated anymore, see diff. But the documentation still mentions it. So, should the parameter be there? Maybe it has been deleted accidentally? --MaEr (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the documentation. Isn't t= the same as 4=? —CodeCat 17:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
In April of 2013, they discussed this question, see above (section {{{t}}} and {{{4}}}). But I don't know the result of the discussion.
If someone indeed removed the t parameter, the documentation should be updated. Currently 4= works and t= doesn't. --MaEr (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


I think this template should be moved to {{borrowed}} and the default text should be changed to Borrowed from, with the parameter |ger=1 to elect to use the old gerund form. Borrowing from breaks with the grammatical structure of the rest of the etymology, i.e. Possible borrowing from... possibly from.... This change would also conform it to templates {{derived}} and {{inherited}}. --Victar (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

As discussed in User talk:Daniel Carrero/2016#bor with nocap, I think {{bor}} should not display any extra text, to be in line with {{der}} and {{inh}}. That way, you can type "borrowed" any way you like: "Borrowed" with capital "B" if it starts the sentence, otherwise "borrowed", and consider also multi-language phrases like "Borrowed from Spanish X, French Y, English Z" that often appear in Ido and Esperanto entries. The template does have extra parameters like "nocap=1" and "notext=1", but they are a huge hassle in comparison with just typing the text. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Daniel. - -sche (discuss) 06:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
We should have created two separate templates, {{borrowed}} and {{Borrowed}} to eliminate "nocap=1". --Z 07:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't be for that. --Victar (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
This still has the same problem of being a hassle to remember and type as opposed to just typing "borrowed" whatever you want outside the template. Also, the {{borrowed}}/{{Borrowed}} idea wouldn't work in the case of "Borrowed from Spanish X, French Y, English Z". Note that you must templatize Spanish, French and English somehow, to put them in "borrowed" categories.
I would like to be able to do just this:
  • Borrowed from {{bor|eo|es|insert here}}, {{bor|eo|fr|insert here}}, {{bor|eo|en|insert here}}.
Currently, we have to do this, with "|notext=1":
  • {{bor|eo|es|insert here}}, {{bor|eo|fr|insert here|notext=1}}, {{bor|eo|en|insert here|notext=1}}. (and it returns "Borrowing from" at the start", which should be "Borrowed from")
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I support the idea of dedicating {{bor}} to something like {{der}} and {{inh}}. --Z 07:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
@Daniel Carrero: what we could also do is add the |alts=1 parameter we use in {{desc}} so all you would need to do is add {{bor|eo|es|lemma1|alts=1}} to get Borrowed from lemma1, lemma2, lemma3, assuming you add {{alter|lemma2|lemma3}} to the lemma1 page, which is a good idea, regardless. --Victar (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I actually don't mind the lead text. In some ways, it's nice because otherwise most people are just going to write from and nothing else. Mark my words. It also promotes its use, instead of just defaulting to {{der}}. That said, I'd have no hard feeling if people all agreed to do away with it. --Victar (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
As a first step though, would people agree to my proposal of changing Borrowing from to Borrowed from and adding |ger=1 to all current entries? --Victar (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I like consistency, so I'd favour it (but as I said here, I'd prefer no text altogether). And let's discuss the cases of {{doublet}} and {{unknown}} as well. --Barytonesis (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Now that I think of it, there's also the template {{learned borrowing}} (which I don't find useful, as the distinction between a "borrowing" and a "learned borrowing" appears somewhat blurry to me). --Barytonesis (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@DTLHS: Do you think you could run a bot to add |ger=1 to all existing entries of {{bor}}? I suppose you could exclude entries that have |notext=1, but it doesn't really matter. Thanks for any help. --Victar (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I can't speak for other people, but I oppose adding "ger" in all existing instances of {{bor}}. Do other people support doing that? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Daniel Carrero: Why is that and how was I supposed to know, as you never replied to my comments? --Victar (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
If people accept doing that, it's OK. I oppose the idea simply because personally I prefer removing the "borrowing from" altogether from the template, instead of replacing it by "borrowed from". More importantly, in Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/February#Changing the text of Template:bor from "borrowing" to "borrowed", the winning result is "Option 3: Remove text altogether" so far. WT:BOT, our think tank non-policy about bots, requires consensus to do changes like this.
I created Wiktionary:Votes/2017-06/borrowing, borrowed. Feel free to edit it or suggest any changes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Bot cleanup[edit]

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Grease pit/2017/July#Bot request: "bor" template.

The proposal 1 of Wiktionary:Votes/2017-06/borrowing, borrowed passed.

It is about the template {{bor}} ({{borrowed}}, {{borrowing}}, {{loan}}, {{loanword}})

What is the best way to implement that project? I suppose a bot can't do everything, but perhaps it can do at least this:

  1. If the etymology section contains only "{{bor|xx|yy|word}}." (with or without a dot in the end), change it into "Borrowed from {{bor|xx|yy|word|notext=1}}."
  2. Change all other instances of "{{bor|xx|yy|word}}" into "Borrowing from {{bor|xx|yy|pizza|notext=1}}"
  3. Change all instances of "{{bor|xx|yy|word|nocap=1}}" into "borrowing from {{bor|xx|yy|pizza|notext=1}}"
  4. All entries with "borrowing" that can't be edited by bot may have to be edited manually to change it to "borrowed" or whatever makes sense in the entry.
  5. Naturally, don't touch any entries that already have "notext".
  6. After all instances of bor use "notext", the template/module can be edited to remove the default text altogether, and the "notext" can be removed from all instances of {{bor}}.

Feel free to use these categories to navigate the entries.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I am about to leave on vacation, but if nobody has taken care of this in a week or so I can probably work on it. - [The]DaveRoss 02:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I would propose doing step 1 first, and then re-evaluating what is left. In particular, I'm not sure if step 2 is necessary. —CodeCat 18:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I would be fine with that. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@TheDaveRoss: Would you still like to do this? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure, should I do as CodeCat suggested and just do number one for now? - TheDaveRoss 11:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Daniel said he was fine with that, so I suppose so. Perhaps you could add a dot at the end if one is missing, too. —CodeCat 12:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I have started going on these, feel free to take a look at recent edits and let me know if there is anything amiss. If not I am going to switch it over to the bot soon. - TheDaveRoss 13:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I haven't noticed any problems so far. —CodeCat 13:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Same here, the entries edited look OK to me so far. I see you've been adding the dot at the end when needed, which I agree is a good thing. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I think I hit all of the instances of #1. - TheDaveRoss 12:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
You seem to have missed Abonnement. —CodeCat 12:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
That entry uses {{borrowing}} rather than {{bor}}. TheDaveRoss, please do the same with all instances of {{borrowing}}, {{borrowed}}, {{loan}}, {{loanword}}, like I did in diff.
I believe all these templates can be changed to {{bor}} as per Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/borrowing, borrowed, loan, loanword → bor. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm running a script now to rename all these instances, so TheDaveRoss can run his script again afterwards. —CodeCat 13:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I think step 1 can also be done if the immediately following text is , from or , ultimately from. Are there other following texts for which it's safe to do the replacement? —CodeCat 13:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I just found another case: abortar. When the first {{bor}} is immediately followed by a comma and another {{bor}}, the latter of which already has notext=1. Or as on Aalborg, with a following {{m}} instead. —CodeCat 13:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
accesibilitate may be another case that can be safely replaced. —CodeCat 13:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, if there are any cases where {{bor}} has nocap=1 and is preceded by the article A or a , then you can safely prepend "borrowing from", because it obviously can't be "a borrowed from". —CodeCat 13:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree, I think all the possibilities you mentioned can be safely edited like in the item #1. (diff, diff...) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@TheDaveRoss Do you have time to work on this more? —Rua (mew) 10:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@CodeCat, intermittently. I am travelling a lot at the moment, but when I am around I can do some work. I am not particularly well versed on the usage of these templates, so I am just relying on you guys to give specific cases (as you have been doing). - TheDaveRoss 13:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I moved the discussion here from Wiktionary:Grease pit/2017/July#Bot request: "bor" template. —Rua (mew) 13:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@TheDaveRoss: All is good, I just have a request: Please don't prepend "a borrowing" in the cases where {{bor}} has nocap=1 and is preceded by the article A or a . (which is one of the things that Rua suggested doing) I'm checking those entries using AWB right now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Daniel Carrero: at this point I am only modifying etymology sections which begin with a {{bor}}, so the "nocap" usage shouldn't be affected. If I move on to usage of {{bor}} which is preceded by other text I will be sure to clarify the special considerations like you mentioned. - TheDaveRoss 17:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Update: I edited all the "nocap" entries. Now, Category:bor with nocap is empty. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just repeating stuff needlessly, but I'm going to make a list of the wikitext changes as proposed by CodeCat / Rua above. (minus the "nocap" thing)
1-A. "{{bor|xx|yy|word}}, from [...]" → "Borrowed from {{bor|xx|yy|word|notext=1}}, from [...]"
1-B. "{{bor|xx|yy|word}}, ultimately from [...]" → "Borrowed from {{bor|xx|yy|word|notext=1}}, ultimately from [...]"
1-C. "{{bor|xx|yy|word}}, {{bor|xx|yy|word|notext=1}} [...]" → "Borrowed from {{bor|xx|yy|word|notext=1}}, {{bor|xx|yy|word|notext=1}} [...]"
1-D. "{{bor|xx|yy|word}}, {{m|xx|word}} [...]" → "Borrowed from {{bor|xx|yy|word|notext=1}}, {{m|xx|word}} [...]"
I suggest also fixing cases like the French etymology of cartilage. I don't know if many etymologies are like this.
1-E. Borrowed from {{etyl|la|fr}} {{m|la|cartilāgō}}. → Borrowed from {{bor|fr|la|cartilāgō}}.
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Why was Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/aja- not corrected? —Rua (mew) 17:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Maybe TheDaveRoss didn't fix the entries that have {{PIE root}} before {{bor}} yet.
Aside from that, @TheDaveRoss, please edit entries like Académie française and achilearse as usual. These two don't point to any entry, but that's OK, they display "[term?]" instead. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
It looks like that's the case, yes. aggiustore has that too. —Rua (mew) 17:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Thus far I have only worked on a very limited set of entries, those which had etymology sections which began with the template and had two languages as well as a term to link to. I can broaden that to include the example mentioned above, but I am not ready to expand to entries which don't begin with the template (since it seems there are lots of iterations of that). If there are specific types of usage which don't begin with the template but do follow a strict pattern I can try and get those going as well. - TheDaveRoss 14:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Would that include a {{PIE root}} on the first line? —Rua (mew) 14:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Support - I mean, TheDaveRoss, if you don't mind, please edit the entries that start with a {{PIE root}}, like aggiustore. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@TheDaveRoss, Daniel Carrero The tracking category is slowly filling back up again, it seems. Maybe we ought to get the rest done? —Rua (mew) 15:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)