User talk:Anylai

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


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! Ultimateria (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


Hi. Please note these formatting improvements. By the way, why are you calling Old Turkic, which is an East Turkic language, the ancestor of Turkish, which is a West Turkic language? --Vahag (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Russian-Bashkir dictionary[edit]


If you're interested in some Bashkir verbs, you could find them via Russian in this dictionary, which is not bad, if you use the right word in the right form and you know its meaning. Select option "русско-башкирский" (Russian-Bashkir). The Russian words shouldn't contain accents. E.g. to sing (петь) - йырлау (yïrlaw), to work (работать) - эшләү (ešläw), to dance (танцевать) - бейеү (beyew), etc. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Atitarev. It could surely do the job. I think I will try my chance with verbs with simple meanings and search for cognates there next time. --Anylai (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
It's OK. Please note that Russian verbs may be in either perfective or imperfective form, sometimes you need to try both. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


Merhaba, sizi buralarda yeni görüyorum. çıngı konusundan gördüm. --123snake45 (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@123snake45 Merhaba, bir süredir türkçe başlıkları geliştirmeye çalışıyorum. Çıngı konusu öyle denk geldi, tartışmaya bir şeyler katmak istedim, dilbilim uzmanlık alanım değil yoksa. --Anylai (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Ben de boş vakit buldukça katkı yapmaya çalışıyorum. "çıngı" konusu daha hiç birşey. Buna benzer gerçek olmayan çok sözcük vardı. Kimse yüzde yüz dil bilimi uzmanı değil. Ancak sahte kaynaklarla sözcükleri gerçekmiş gibi millete yutturmaya çalışan şahıslar var. --123snake45 (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Evet çok uydurma kelime ekleyen var mesela sıvıtçıl, binecek, arayacak, buzulkuşu, suvgan tanıdık geliyor mu? Google'a tırnak içinde "çıngı akımı", "çıngı motoru", "çıngı kablosu", v.s. yazıp arat, sonuçları gör. --2001:41D0:1008:88F:BCE1:3EFD:D470:8498 08:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Uydurma kelime çok da önemli değil literatür tarafından benimsendiği sürece, sonuçta dilimiz bunlarla dolduruldu zamanında. Yalnız "binecek", "arayacak" uydurma olamaz, bunlara yüklenenen anlamlar uydurma olabilir. Wiktionary'nin bu yönde bazı kuralları var, kelime literatürde yer almış mı diye bir onaylanma sürecine girer, başarısız olunursa silinir. --Anylai (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


Hi. Will you expand kalık and قالیق (qalyq) by adding the missing senses, as well as confirming that the derivation from kalmak is transparent and obvious. --Vahag (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Vahag, kalmak is a very challenging verb, it is used a lot as an auxiliary verb, evde kalmak is one of them, meaning "to pass the age to marry, be left at home". Apart from kalık, similar to your Armenian example evde kalmış also means “old maid, spinster”. For the other senses I noticed that Ottoman verb also means "to be deficient, be short", so I added it and they are justified too. --Anylai (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that was helpful. --Vahag (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

ümzük 'short pieces of thread'[edit]

Hey Anylai, do you know anything about this word? Clauson only mentions it as "hardly to be connected with SW xx Anat. ümzük 'short pieces of thread' SDD 1431" under (supposedly) unrelated Karakhanid 'ümzük'. I wonder if it might be related to Mongolian имрэх (imreh, to twirl, to spin thread) (the Kazakh word is too close to Mongolian, I suspect that it's a case of a recent borrowing, although I don't know in what direction) Crom daba (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Crom daba Hi, unfortunately I have never heard of it, but looks like such a word and sense exists regionally, in some regions also confused with emzik (pacifier). You can mention the Karakhanid word, I have looked up some sources on Kashgari's dictionary and some connect the word to Turkmen ümzük atmak (to move forward very fast), basically in an auxiliary form. Perhaps it is also related to Turkmen ümüdik (bent forward), but this should rather be derived from *üm-, *ümü- with no clear meaning and attestation within Turkic whatsoever.
The closest sounding Turkic words that come to my mind are *egir- (to spin) and *ebir- (to turn) which dont seem to match your word nor the Kazakh one. There is a reconstruction for your word here and there is no mention of a loan from Mongolic into any Turkic langauge. --Anylai (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that reconstruction seems legit, I'll add it to the entry. Crom daba (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Haladj materials by Doerfer[edit]

Hey, I just got this and I thought I'd suggest it to you. Despite the name, a lot of its content is about reconstructing Proto-Turkic, it has stuff on reconstructing vowel length, although mostly based on Turkmen, Yakut, Karakhanid and Haladj; Gagauz, Sayan and Yugur are merely mentioned. Also on reconstructing a/ạ, e/ẹ, palatal diphthongs and medial mid-height vowels. I don't agree with some of his conclusions (he reconstructs three vowel lengths, and I think that ạ spurious), but it's a good overview of the materials and theories. Crom daba (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks Crom daba, i will be on the lookout for it. Apparently there are some materials belonging to Doerfer in the library of the university but looking at the titles I assume they are in German. --Anylai (talk) 09:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
SWIM managed to steal it via Internet, although of course I wouldn't advocate for such a thing. Crom daba (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Ottoman dictionaries[edit]

Hey, could you suggest some Ottoman/Old Anatolian dictionaries? I only have Budagov, but using it is not very time-effective. Crom daba (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The best ones are in Armenian (Apikyan, Bedros Zeki). You won't be able to use them. In European languages I recommend Kelekian and Redhouse. --Vahag (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Might you have a summary of how Redhouse's transcription corresponds to phonemic IPA or Turkological transcription? Crom daba (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't, sorry. --Vahag (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I actually use a some sort of a search engine on the internet. I knew the older form of pınar,so i tried my luck, and it was there, though the dictionaries in their database are late Ottoman too. For old anatolian turkish i have no dictionary. I can only cite the transliterations i find from nishanyan or clauson. --Anylai (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Swahili etymologies[edit]

Hello. Some unreliable sources mention the Swahili words bahasha and tapo as coming from (Ottoman) Turkish. Do you know of any words in Turkish that would be likely to be the source of these? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Metaknowledge, unfortunately nothing comes to my mind regarding these words being Ottoman borrowings. Ottoman is a tricky language with lots of loanwords, but these words at least do not sound Turkic to me, they may ultimately be from some other language. perhaps tapo is from طاپو (tapu, act of homage, title-deed of a feudal fief) (see Turkish tapu (deed, land register)), ultimately from tap- (to worship, serve). But this is just speculating.
Hmm, I guess not Turkish then. Thanks though! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
The Turkish word that your sources have in mind is probably Ottoman Turkish طابور (tabur). --Vahag (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Tbot entries (Turkish)[edit]

Hey! Could you have look at some of the (currently 335) entries at Category:Tbot entries (Turkish)? They were created years ago by a bot, and need checking. If you do, could you remove the Tbot tag at the bottom of the pages? Thanks. --P5Nd2 (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Western Yugur[edit]

Hey, would you be interested in creating an orthography for Western Yugur with me? Sadly, at 5000 native speakers I don't think it will get an official one soon, and it would be good if we could make entries.

The phonology is very interesting, it has both pre- and postaspiration (reflecting original vowel length, but only before obstruents) and a vowel system that slowly seems to be shifting its frontness distinction onto consonants.

If you're interested, I suggest checking out Roos' work, especially her dissertation (in English) that you can find at the "Wester Yugur steppe" (a really cool site). Crom daba (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Crom daba, my Western Yugur knowledge is very limited, I will check the reference and look into the language. Thank you for wanting to work with me on this, I would love to put some basic vocabulary up on wiktionary with somewhat consistent orthography. --Anylai (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

*ï ?[edit]

Are we (finally) switching to *ï instead of *ɨ? Crom daba (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I started to think we should. Though I am not sure who is going to deal with massive amount of ɨ's that is already in use. What do you think about *j->*y? --Anylai (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd prefer *y. Crom daba (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Karakhaid vowel marks[edit]

Merhaba, did they really have vowel marks, inclusively sukūn, on every attested word? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Most Karakhanid material is from Kashgari's dictionary, and he put in great effort to faithfully reproduce the Turkish language. Crom daba (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Most of what I do is really copy the attested words from Besim Atalay. So I suppose there was vowel marks in Kashgari. However I must admit I started as a noob to Arabic script when trying to add Karakhanid words and had great difficulty. Any suggestion is welcome regarding this topic. --Anylai (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Turkish hani etymology[edit]

Do you happen to know where the Proto-Turkic root *kanɨ referred to in the entry comes from, which source? Starling lists only the reconstruction *ka ("1 who 2 which"). Is the assumption that there must have been a *kanɨ already in Proto-Turkic simply an instance of someone's original research? @Crom daba as well. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Old Turkic has it but Chuvash seemingly doesn't, maybe it should say "Common Turkic" instead?
Räsänen mentions an analysis of it as *kanay- (verb) + *a (converbal suffix), he has a reference for this which I'll try to track down.
Erdal says its shape is accusative and notes that it is often used in rhetorical questions. Crom daba (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
This makes a lot of sense indeed. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, pretty much like all interrogative pronouns that start with ka-, the derivation actually looks alien to me. Cf. *kač (“how many”) *kańu (“which”). And along with *kanï, we should regard them inherited from Proto Turkic stage even though some did not survive in daughter languages. Some regular derivations are *ka-n-ta (locative), *ka-n-ča (equative) and *kan-tag (how) < *kan (what) + teg (like). Kazakh interestingly has kalay besides kanday < *kantag, we might perhaps say its from *ka(n)-layu. Again Turkish has hangi which should be traced to *kan-kï or *kańu-kï (relating to what?). It seems that Starling was just lazy since there are a lot of derivations actually. --Anylai (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
So *kanï did exist in Proto-Turkic after all? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, who knows... I am just trying to point out that it doesnt look like it can just be a Common Turkic innovation, and therefore it is probably inherited to both 8th century Old Turkic and modern Turkic languages from an earlier stage. (I dont know how many languages share this word honestly). Starling only lists reflexes of *kańu, I dont know if this is the confusing part for you. --Anylai (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The way it is formulated now, 'ultimately from derivation of *ka' is fully satisfactory to me. Good job guys.
I wanted to discuss something else as well. How should we treat words like 'hara/nere', 'bura' and 'ora'? They are adverbs, but they function much like nouns both syntactically and morphologically. Actually they are nouns etymologically. Should we treat them as such? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
They are actually adverbs formed with archaic -ra adverbial suffix, mostly forming locative sense. Some examples are tašra ("outside"), ičre ("inside"), sonra ("later"), üzere etc... But late attested words (from 14th century) such as "ora, bura, nere" might have been produced by analogy. --Anylai (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Amazing. I was sure they hara was a derivation from *ka- and 'yer', nere from 'ne + yer' etc. The entry nerede even claims it to be that way. Seems like I need to leave etymologizing to someone else. But what is your opinion on assigning lexical category to the modern words? Adverbs or nouns? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Thats a folk etymology as bad as teŋri being derived from “taŋ yeri” in my opinion.
Yes these adverbs act as nouns and pronouns. I was talking about their sense in medieval times. --Anylai (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I removed dubious etymology from nerede. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 00:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Historically misleading etymologies[edit]

Hi. I'd like to hear your opinion on the following. Many Turkish words show an etymology of the form "From Ottoman Turkish ..., from Proto-Turkic ...". For one example, see böbrek, but there are countless more.

I suspect that this is historically misleading, in that the common people of Turkish ethnicity in Anatolia during the Ottoman period did not speak Ottoman Turkish. They spoke Turkish, though, but a Turkish that was the continuation of Old Anatolian Turkish, the language of Yunus Emre. Now I believe that modern Turkish is much more a continuation of the Turkish of the common people, enriched with literary and technical vocabulary from Ottoman Turkish, and that a word like böbrek goes back on the Turkish spoken by the common people, in which case presenting it as inherited from Osmanlıca is misleading.  --Lambiam 20:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I somewhat agree. I think the problems is with the definition of Ottoman Turkish. Ottoman is a tricky language and when you consider its literature and poetry you would somewhat think its descendant should have had similar lexicon but Turkish does not. However Ottoman has nearly all attested Turkish and its Turkic lexicon.

In my opinion Turkish = Ottoman Turkish < old AT. But the changes in the script and the end of an era with trends to prefer foreign words might justify Ottoman being earlier form of Turkish instead of a direct continuation. We also shouldnt ignore innovations in Ottoman era such as vowel rounding. So dismissing Ottoman as earlier form of Turkish must also reject these changes which are now somewhat subject to “rounding-unrounding harmony” and back to normal in some cases. --Anylai (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I think it would be interesting for the reader to at least have a few cognates on the entry page and not needing to go to the proto-term. Suggestingly, those in the closest subbranch. There are just 4-5 Oghuz languages, so I guess we can have them there? Maybe it's not as relevant for Turkish, but for the other it would be the case, since people often learn Turkish first. ex. düşmək Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello!!! Yes, why not... I removed most of them because they were red, you can readd the ones you like. Cheers.--Anylai (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


Hello! I was wondering, what is the source of the reconstruction *čɨk-ɨĺ? Google returns no results. If there is a concrete source, it would be nice to add a reconstruction to -iş/-ış/-uş/-üş. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello there is medieval and modern evidence that this word goes far back in time, and -ış and -uş should regularly go back to *-ïĺ and -iş and -üş to *-iĺ. --Anylai (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Cheers for the reply. I know it probably is the way you say, but I was more wondering whether there is a source that specifically mentions a reconstruction of this suffix in general or of this item particularly. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey, you can hardly find reconstructions for such words since they are so regular. But some of the words, you can find in the dictionary of Clauson. --Anylai (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
This is what Claeson writes on page xlii:
-ş/-ış/-ış, etc. function obscure; see ödüş, bağış, 2 ba:ş, kökiş; very rare; also a Dev. Suff.
The regular correspondence of /ş/ to /ĺ/ is true for Proto-Turkic. Clauson only deals with attested forms, that is Old Turkic, Middle Turkic and so on. If he says that -ş-suffixes are very rare in these periods, and only mentions a few examples, can we really posit reconstructions of present-day items for Proto-Turkic period based on general sound correspondences? I find it dubious. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, you are looking at the wrong page there. His dictionary deals with pre 13th century Turkic, though a dictionary of early attestations is useful for us, it doesnt mean late attested lemmas/suffixes can not be reconstructed for PT. This suffix was not rare and in fact very well attested, you will find the correct one in the following pages.--Anylai (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Räsänen believes this to be the same suffix as -č in some Orkhon words and as Chuvash -ś (Materialien zur Morphologie... p. 117-118). He also believes this spirantization took place in the reciprocal suffix (Materialien zur Lautgeschichte... p. 183), but considering Mongolian -лцах (-ltsah), *-ĺč- looks more promising. In any case, I wouldn't go with *-ïĺ unless we have -l in some of the relevant words in Chuvash, Hungarian or Mongolian. Crom daba (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, you may be right about reciprocal suffix, but ultimately we should be able to divide *-ĺč- into *-ĺ-č-. Either this was a really weird type of /l/ we still have no idea of, or composed of two consonants with different functions. Perhaps something like Turkish -lt, "a kind of causative suffix", composed of passive and causative voices. There is not much suffix loaning in Hungarian. But ultimately a possible Turkic *-(ï)ĺ could correspond to Mongolic *-l? (cf. Mongolian (-l)) --Anylai (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I think the question is more about whether we can reconstruct individual items ourselves based on more general principles agreed upon in the literature. Let's say someone reconstructs the etymon of the suffix in question in the Proto-Turkic. Does this mean that we can take individual items in modern languages formed with this suffix and reconstruct their proto-forms by summing the reconstructed etymons? Both morphemes might be reconstructed in the literature separately, but can we posit the reconstruction of the whole word? I think we cannot.
I think by looking at modern and early descendants, sound rules and awareness of contacts between some languages we can, or you can expect a publication in literature which might not happen at all... I have never seen reconstruction of negation of a verb. Have you seen anything similar? But we know it was there, similar rules can be applied to other suffixes. Whether the derivation is inherited, borrowed or reanalysed; this is a different topic and needs careful attention --Anylai (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Ideally, every reconstruction should have a reference. deniz for example is said to have evolved from *teŋiŕ. No reference, and if I google for that, the only returns I get are from wiktionary or other wiki-projets. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Why? deniz should indeed go back to *teŋiŕ or *deŋiŕ if not identified as an obvious loan (from contacts we know of), any linguist to do some research will see Turkic *-z is going back to *-ŕ or whatever he prefers to notate it as. Theres enough material in literature that it goes back to *-ŕ and so far thats what we have followed in Wiktionary.
Reasons why you dont see *teŋiŕ:
a) Starostin couldnt fit it into his Altaic dictionary (where most of the current Proto Turkic data comes from)
b) Another linguist rejects *-ŕ and prefers *-z.
Reasons why you cant see some other words
a) Linguist is only interested in early attested texts
b) linguist is interested in roots and ignores obvious regular derivations
c) linguist is not interested in reconstruction at all
d) linguist prefers a different notation --Anylai (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, I didn't contest the reconstruction of *teŋiŕ as etymon of deniz, it's just I think we must provide some sort of reference to someone who has actually reconstructed the proto-term itself and not only describes the principles (sound correspondences) behind such a reconstruction. And it sure mustn't be Starostin or anyone else in particular. I'm sure there is one for *teŋiŕ. Because, logically, if we take çıkış, if there is no one who has reconstructed *čɨk-ɨĺ which is given the etymon in the Proto-Turkic, it means that Anylai reconstructed it, and I can't quote (Anylai, 2018) in a paper, for instance. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
My point was that this doesn't necessarily go to *-ĺ, since *ĺč also goes regularly to Common Turkic *š and also Chuvash ś (see Hungarian gyümölcs), which makes it a better match for the data (there is no -l forming abstract verbs in Chuvash but there is -ś).
As for the attestation of the suffix in Hungarian and Mongolian, it is not necessary for the suffix itself to be loaned, merely a word containing it.
References should of course be given when possible, but I see no reason to avoid reconstructing terms ourselves in principle. Crom daba (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution into this topic. I know this topic was focused too much on *-ĺ and *-ĺč being a tricky part of Turkology and I understand your point. Original idea was to discuss “how right” was it to create PT entries no one attempted to reconstruct. There is fair amount of regularity in many descendants which requires no reconstruction to explain derivations, for example when compared to Germanic causative case yielding unrecognisable forms. I too think we shouldnt avoid reconstructing especially when theres great deal of cognates. --Anylai (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, if you really do have the skills and training required for such a complex enterprise, then you should publish a paper, so we can credit you and benefit from your work. The reason why I believe this is that you can assume, for example, that a certain term is related to another term or is a loan from that language or this, and then you can add possibly or alike to indicate that you're just guessing. But you cannot say "possibly from *čɨk-ɨĺ", that doesn't work at all. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)