User talk:Allahverdi Verdizade

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome message[edit]

It seems you don't need it, but it's good to have.

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 documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. 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.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
  • If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 18:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

ايکي[edit]

Is the wrong spelling for this entry? I was under the impression that Azeri uses the dotless final ya. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

That's right, South Azerbaijani follows Persian spelling conventions, and Persian doesn't use the dotted final ya, plus google doesn't return any results in Azerbaijani under ايکي. Historierummet (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'd better find out if there are any more offenders. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Azerbaijani vs Azeri[edit]

Hi. I always wanted to ask the community to rename the language name for Turkic Azeri to Azerbaijani to distinguish it better from the Iranian language Azeri. Do you have any thoughts on this? --Vahag (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't agree any more. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Then I'll try to find time and bring this to the attention of WT:BP. --Vahag (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Could probably just post at WT:RFM. It's not an issue that will require a vote or garner a lot of interest. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Ethnologue lists it as Azerbaijani, Glottolog as Azerbaijani, the endonym is Azerbaijani (Azərbaycan dili). True, there are other endonyms (türki 'Turkic' in South Azerbaijani and so on), but none of them is Azeri. So this Azeri-thing is really out of place.Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
All right, I requested the change at WT:RFM. --Vahag (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Matal words[edit]

Jallo, I wonder, what do the words ala and aŋa mean? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello. aŋa corresponds to English of and is used in all sorts of possessive constructions. Not sure about ala, could be a conflation of the local preposition la and some sort of particle. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

palax[edit]

Hi. Are the etymologies of dialectal Azerbaijani palax, yeryapalağı (short) transparent to you as a speaker of Azerbaijani? --Vahag (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello. No, it's not transparent to me. I've never heard neither word, but I'm no L1-speaker anyway, so it's probably not very helpful. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. As long as they are not obvious inner-Azerbaijani formations, my theory of connection with Old Armenian բալախ (balax) has a right to exist. --Vahag (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure. Maybe add "possibly" to clarify that it's not established.Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I used "compare" in բալախ (balax). Can't get any more cautious. --Vahag (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
In the etymology section for palax it merely says "From Armenian բալախ (balax), dialectal փալախ (pʿalax)." If no Armenian connection is given in either of the two sources that are listed in the references, I think a "possibly" should be placed there as well. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I was talking about Etymology 2, with the meaning "short". --Vahag (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Azerbaijani templates[edit]

Hello, I completely forgot I was watching the talk page of the user who nominated those Cyrillic conjugation templates for deletion; he never replied and the templates were deleted. Do you think they should be restored? I don't speak the language, but they seemed fine to me. Ultimateria (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello! No, they shouldn't be restored, they are outdated. What I think s/he did was replacing them with a more elegant, single template which encompasses all conjugations. It looks like a nice job when it comes around, it was just a bit unclear back then. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see. So now {{az-cyrillic-verb-conj}} needs to be created? Could you adapt that from the Roman script template? Ultimateria (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm no good with templates and trying to tinker with them... That's why I've been waiting for Metaknowledge to fix a template that I want for Azerbaijani verbs since last year, basically. I could perhaps take a look on it later, but it's really no rush - no one is creating entries for items in Azerbaijani Cyrillic alphabet, since it's barely in use any more, and all existing entries are doublets of the Latin ones.Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

söyüş usage example[edit]

please make a better usage example. 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:85A2:1A9E:D7F7:47BC 20:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is your major malfunction, son? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
It annoys me. 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:85A2:1A9E:D7F7:47BC 20:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean, "it annoys you"? And why does exactly this example sentence, in a language that you obviously don't know a word of, annoy you? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for adding another usage example! By the way, can I remove the first one? 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:85A2:1A9E:D7F7:47BC 21:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
No, you cannot. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Please? 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:85A2:1A9E:D7F7:47BC 21:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey, IP user, please stop annoying editors. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your Javascript[edit]

Hi, thank you! Of course I can write one for English Wiktionary. But who should I contact to in order for this to be implied into Common.js page? Because it needs to be loaded on everyone. ~ Z (m) 19:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you not make it like one of those user extensions, that are available optionally? Like this one https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Dixtosa/AjaxEdit.js Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Came bearing good news. :) I have finished the "EntryAdder" for this wiki, and it is much more improved than I wrote in Turkish Wiktionary. I am gonna transfer the same codes to there as well, because this one is better. Anyways, I suggested to use it here. But you can always test and use it by adding this to your "common.js" file:
mw.loader.load('/w/index.php?title=User:HastaLaVi2/EntryAdder.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
Have a nice day! ~ Z (m) 22:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Looks very promising. I will create new entries using it and leave feedback and suggestions on improvements to you, if that's OK. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Of course! I would be very much appreciated by a users feedback on the gadget. :) Also if you are usually active on another wiki, I could also implement this into there as well (if wanted). ~ Z (m) 19:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

qələmə[edit]

Hi. Can you translate for me this definition of qələmə from {{R:az:QADL}}: "qovaq ağacının bir növü, bəzi rayonlarda əbrişim, səhv olaraq çinar da deyilir"? As I understand, there are three tree names here. --Vahag (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

"A kind of poplar tree, also called əbrişim in certain districts, as well as erroneously çinar (=chenar, plane tree, sycamore)"
Also, on the Pedia page Populus#India the following is said: "The trees are grown from kalam or cuttings [...]" No idea whether this has anything to do with anything, though.
Can you create յարամազ when you've got time? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I guess this “cuttings” word has to do with Arabic قلم‎. Fay Freak (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. This “cuttings” lead is intriguing, but its Arabic etymon cannot explain կաղամախ (kałamax), because Armenian had no Arabic borrowings in the 5th century. Also, it contradicts my invention, so let someone else explore it :). յարամազ (yaramaz) is ready. --Vahag (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
This seems to be referring specifically to Hindi क़लम (qalam, pen; cuttings) (which is indeed from the Arabic) which has been influenced by a native word कलम (kalam, shoot, seedling). I think the "cuttings" sense is a later Hindi (or Indo-Aryan) innovation. The term does not specifically refer to poplars either. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 20:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Comapre Persian قلمه(qalama, slip). It is from Arabic قلم(pen) (because both are long and thin). Not connected with poplars. --Calak (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I am glad this was a dead end. --Vahag (talk) 12:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Proto entries with no descendants[edit]

Hi Allahverdi (nice user pager, BTW -- looks somehow familiar), could I ask that you not create proto entries without descendants, like your did with this page? Even if they are sourced, they should have descendants attached to them, if they indeed have any. Thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 19:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure they have descendants, in most of the 135 or so Chadic languages. There are long cognate lists in Jungraithmayr & Ibrizhimow. As to why I created the Proto-Chadic entries, they are useful for many contemporary languages' etymology sections. For instance, many Matal entries are linked to them. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
In the example above, nothing is linking to it. If there are contemporary descendants, please include them in such entries. --{{victar|talk}} 00:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Etymology templates[edit]

Why are you doing this? Please use {{der}}. Per utramque cavernam 12:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It's fine to link the non-standard script lemmas to their etymons, but only the standard script lemmas should use {{der|bor|inh}}. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I hadn't noticed. I think the current situation is quite confusing; зејтун looks, for all intents and purposes, like a lemma form, complete with glosses, declension table, etymology section... Wouldn't it be better to remove the etymology and convert the glosses to something like "Cyrillic script form of zeytun"? Per utramque cavernam 12:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
This solution is exactly what I've always wanted (maybe declension table is useful and should be kept, but the rest is just the same as in the Latin sctipt-lemma). But I don't know how to do it, technically. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the Cyrillic spellings should be a soft redirect to the Latin spelling. There is no constituency currently using the Cyrillic alphabet for Aerbaijani, like there is for Serbo-Croatian. --Vahag (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The process of replacing the content in Cyrillic entries with a redirect template has now begun. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

ayıq[edit]

Thanks for expanding it. I could really use some more Azerbaijani FWOTDs, if you have any more interesting words to offer up. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge And there you go: mənimsəmək. Don't hesitate to correct the wording of the quotes' translations, if too unidiomatic. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge OK, this is a really good one: öndər. Ketiga123 (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ketiga123: What makes it so good? The etymology is of some interest, but all that goes in to the FWOTD is saying that it's a fancy word for leader. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
okay then Ketiga123 (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

amaç[edit]

Hi, According to "Divan-i Luqat-i it-Türk", "amaç" is a Turkic world, not Persian. Please take care of Turkic words. source: http://www.achiq.org/pitikler/dlt---.pdf (page 8)

There you go. Ketiga123 (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

{{bdk-noun}}[edit]

Should nouns in this language have an inflection table? If so, then it's probably better not to use {{bdk-noun}} and instead keep all the inflection information in the inflection table. That way, only one template has to be maintained instead of two. —Rua (mew) 13:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but maybe just some crucial information can be included into the head template for the time being? Noun class in the first parameter, ergative singular in the second, ergative plural in the third? I've no idea how to use Lua, so the template is just an attempt. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
That's ok, you don't need to know Lua to make inflection tables. Lua just allows you to make them smarter. I can help with an inflection table if you like. Which forms are there? And does noun class refer to the inflectional class? —Rua (mew) 13:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budukh_language, "six 'gender-number' classes", Talibov 2007 "four grammatical classes".
Authier 2010:
  • human masculine,
  • human adult feminine,
  • animate (which includes animals, plants, and non-adult human females, as well as some abstract nouns),
  • inanimate,
  • nonhuman plural,
  • human plural.
Talibov 2007:
  • I class - masculine
  • II class feminine,
  • III class animate non-human, things,
  • IV class things, phenomena
Then there are 13 cases on top of that. The nominative is morphologically unmarked, the rest are formed with the ergative as the base. As I understand it, the noun classes do not really affect the case morphology; it is, however, affected by the insertion of different grammatical morphemes between the stem and the case suffix. Depending on the preceding grammatical morpheme the case suffix can take different shapes. The whole thing is quite complicated and it would take long time to create a full fledged inflection table. Therefore, I think, creating a head template with minimal grammatical information is necessary for the time being. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, the noun classes are more like genders then. For the purpose of inflection tables, they can be ignored if you say they don't affect case morphology. But they do need some special treatment in {{bdk-noun}}. Can you give a list of all the cases? I can at least make a table to hold them, even if the logic for creating the forms is not known yet. —Rua (mew) 14:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Sure. As per Talibov 2007:
  • Nominative
  • Ergative
  • Genitive I
  • Genitive II
  • Dative
  • Instrumental-comitative
  • Locative I
  • Ablative I
  • Locative II
  • Ablative II
  • Locative III
  • Ablative III
  • Ablative IV

The Roman digits have nothing to do with the nominal class numbers given above. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll see what I can do. Does Talibov go into more details about the differences between the numbered cases? For example, what is the functional difference between genitives I and II? I could put them in the table labelled as just I and II, but if there is a way to describe them better I'd rather use that instead. —Rua (mew) 16:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh and also, should the nominative not be called absolutive? Usually the ergative case is paired with absolutive in languages that have such a case system. —Rua (mew) 16:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I've finished the table: {{bdk-infl-noun-manual}}. You give one argument for each form in the table. It's implemented using Module:bdk-nouns. Note that the table still shows two of the forms even when it's collapsed. This means it's not necessary to display these forms also in {{bdk-noun}}. Please give the template a try and let me know if there's anything you need adjusting. I did some researching myself on Budukh and related languages, and found that the "instrumental-comitative" is generally just labelled "instrumental", while the nominative is indeed rather the absolutive case. I hope you don't mind these changes. —Rua (mew) 16:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Rua! Great job! Talibov does go into detail about the cases. I will try to read the chapter about the noun declensions and get back with more details. It is also safe to re-label cases as absolutive and instrumental as well. I will now play around with the templates and learn how they work. Once again, thanks for the help! Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the two forms that should be shown when the table is collapsed are ergative singular and absolutive plural. Absolutive singular is always the same as the entry name. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll leave the absolutive singular there for now, because we always seem to show the entry name in other inflection tables, even in the collapsed state. Now that this is working, I can see about automating some of the generation of the forms, so that you don't have to fill in all of them by hand. But you'll have to tell me what the rules are for doing that, because I know nothing about the language. —Rua (mew) 20:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, Rua, here we go. May God have mercy upon our souls. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Absolutive Oblique stem (OS) Ergative Genitive I Genitive II Dative Instrumental Lokative I Ablative I Lokative II Ablative II Locative III Ablative III Ablative IV
OS identical

with the absolutive

диде диде OS+ре OS minus OS-final vowel +<а> OS minus OS-final vowel +<о> OS+<з> Dative+<ын> for all OS minus OS-final vowel +<а> Lokative I + <р> for all OS minus OS-final vowel + <ох> Locative II + <ун> for all OS + <к> Locative III + <ир> for all OS+<вор>
ада ада OS+ра OS minus OS-final vowel +<а> OS minus OS-final vowel +<о> OS+<з> OS minus OS-final vowel +<а> OS minus OS-final vowel + <ох> OS + <к> OS+<вор>
гада гада OS+ра OS minus OS-final vowel +<а> OS minus OS-final vowel +<о> OS+<з> OS minus OS-final vowel +<а> OS minus OS-final vowel + <ох> OS + <к> Genitive II + <вор>
OS formed by

addition of an epenthetic vowel

xьын xьын-а OS+ра OS minus OS-final vowel +<а> OS+<о> minus OS-final vowel OS+<з> OS minus OS-final vowel +<а> OS minus OS-final vowel + <ох> OS + <к> OS+<вор>
риж риж-и OS+ре OS minus OS-final vowel +<а> OS minus OS-final vowel +<у> OS+<з> OS minus OS-final vowel +<а> OS minus OS-final vowel + <ух> OS + <к> OS+<вор>
рих рих-и OS+ре OS minus OS-final vowel +<а> OS minus OS-final vowel +<у> OS+<з> OS minus OS-final vowel +<а> OS minus OS-final vowel + <ух> OS + <к> OS+<вор>
зар зар-ы OS+ра OS minus OS-final vowel +<а> OS minus OS-final vowel +<у> OS+<з> OS minus OS-final vowel +<а> OS minus OS-final vowel + <ух> OS + <к> Genitive II + <вор>
OS formed by the determinative

-дж.

къепик къепик-дж OS+ир OS minus OS-final vowel +<а> OS + у. Applies to all below. OS+ <ыз> for OS with back vowels or <из> for OS with back vowels. Applies for all below. OS+ <а> for OS with back vowels or <е> for OS with front vowels. Applies to all below OS + <ух> for the rest OS + <ик> Genitive II +<вор>
ших ших-дж OS+ир OS+ а for OS with back vowels or e for OS with back vowels OS + <ик> Genitive II +<вор>
OS formed by determinative -Vн къанд къанд-ын OS+ыр OS+a OS + <ик> Genitive II +<вор>
тур тур-ун OS+ур OS+a OS + <ик> Genitive II +<вор>
OS formed by the determinative -Vл тӀутӀ тӀутӀ-ул OS+ур OS+a OS + <ик> Genitive II +<вор>
йыкӀ йыкӀ-ыл OS+ыр OS+a OS + <ык> Genitive II +<вор>
мез мез-ил OS+ир OS+a OS + <ик> OS +<ивор>
OS formed by the determinative -(V)й[1] кьул кьул-уй OS+ир OS+е OS + <ик> OS +<ивор>
фу фу-й OS+ир OS+е OS + <ик> OS +<ивор>
кьолкидж кьолки-й OS+ир OS+а OS + <ик> OS +<ивор>
OS formed by the determinatives -Vл-д вак вык-ыл-д OS+ыр OS+а OS + <ик> OS +<ывор>
къуш къуш-ул-д OS+ур OS+а OS + <ик> Genitive II +<вор>
шег шег-ил-д OS+ир OS+е OS + <ик> OS +<ивор>

Footnotes[edit]

  1. ^ й turns any following variable vowel to -и-
Thank you, this is very detailed and will definitely help. —Rua (mew) 11:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Looking at this more, it looks like there is some kind of vowel harmony going on. The vowel in the suffix seems to depend on the vowels that are present in the preceding word. Can you confirm this? Knowing about the vowel harmony rules will make the job a lot easier. —Rua (mew) 17:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, definitely, there is some partial vowel harmony involved. But sometimes the vowel is also assimilated for low/high, not just backedness. Also, there are a lot of constraints.
I've now added inflections for all the words above that you created entries for. I hope I got them all correct, please check them! I was not able to create inflections for words with the determinative й, because I wasn't sure what you meant by "variable vowel" and which cases have such a vowel. I also haven't done the plural forms yet, as I don't know how to form those. I am slowly starting to get a feel for how Budukh inflection works, which will help me write code to do this automatically in the future. It has also made me curious why some vowels adapt to the previous one, but others don't, and why the ergative ends in a vowel sometimes and in a consonant other times. —Rua (mew) 18:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Great! I went through them and I didn't find anything incorrect, everything is according to the description. Regarding the footnote, you can disregard it, all you need to create the inflection is in the descriptive table. The forms for фу are фу-й-ир, фу-й-е, фу-й-у, фу-й-из, фу-й-из-ын, фу-й-е, фу-й-е-р, фу-й-ух, фу-й-ух-ун, фу-й-ик, фу-й-ик-ир, фу-й-ивор. As you can see, everywhere after -й-, where и я is possible, it occurs. That was what I meant by the footnote.
Regarding the plural, I'll have to dig deeper into it, but Talibov isn't very clear. One possibility is of course that for the plural, the plurality suffix (which is one of the two forms along with the "bare" absolutive and ergative that are given in the dictionary) is inserted, while the rest is business as usual. That is, that the paradigm is identical to the singular but includes one more morpheme.
Regarding the differences in how different words produce case forms, although Talibov isn't explicit about this, I think these different ways can be called declensional groups. Which means, that the reasons for this or that variance are arbitrary, at least synchronically. To automatize the template would be really great, but it requires consideration of more data than that given in the table above, which I can provide later. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, duno if you noted, but Genitive I and Locative I are formally identical. Not quite sure yet what the deal is. But I'm sure there is one. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
But according to the rules above, for къепик (q̄epik) genitive I is къепикджа (q̄epikǯa) while locative I is къепикдже (q̄epikǯe). I'm not sure if that's correct or if the rules were mistaken. —Rua (mew) 11:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
къепикдже (q̄epikǯe) is the correct case form for Locative I. So I guess there are some formal differences, after all. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Etymology for Persian نوکر[edit]

I think you can give the etymology for Persian نوکر , which is cognate to Azerbaijani nökər, whose entry you yourself had created. So, نوکر is ultimately from Proto-Mongolic *nökör, via some Mongolic, and then (likely) some Turkic source; the latter (if so) being the immediate source of the Persian word. Thanks, —Lbdñk()·(🙊🙉🙈) 18:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Lbdñk (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a splendid work plan, I think you're the right man to accomplish the task. Forward, to Glory! Ketiga123 (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
If you have liked this etymology, then I would proceed, but it would be better if at least the Turkic language whence this Persian word came were identified. Nevertheless, the etymology section is missing, and something is better than nothing. :) —Lbdñk (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Use "From {{der|fa|trk}}, compare {{cog|az|nökər}}; ultimately from...", and then just copy the Mongolic etymons from the Azerbaijani entry. Also, consult Dörfer (Türkischie und Mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen) to see when it pops up in Persian for the first time. You have my blessing. Ketiga123 (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Good job! "The meaning of "servant" is owing of a semantic shift" sounds weird, though. Rephrase it. Ketiga123 (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Furthermore, that was only a typing error: I wanted to write "owing to"; in haste I wrote something amiss. I have now righted it. Lbdñk (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)