User talk:Biblbroks

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
-->If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Serbo-Croatian[edit]

Hi, we use Serbian and Croatian separately, that is why you didn't find any categories etc. The use of the "sh" code is deprecated by ISO, with hr = Croatian and sr = Serbian used, we have lots of entries for those. Robert Ullmann 14:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sr-noun[edit]

Your edits to this template broke every usage of it throughout Wiktionary, and will now block up the job queue while every page is re-rendered by the server. Please do not edit such widely-used templates without community consensus first. --EncycloPetey 19:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serbo-Croatian[edit]

Hi! I noticed that you created some entries in this language. May I ask you what is your proficiency in it? :)

BTW there is this vote going on, that you might be interested into: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-06/Unified Serbo-Croatian. You are of course free to vote!

As for the srpskohrvatski vs hrvatskosrpski that you edited in [[Serbo-Croatian]] entry - both terms were officially equally "valid" in Yugoslavia, denoting exactly the same thing, but the Croats preferred the term hrvatskosrpski whilst the Serbs preferred the term srpskohrvatski. This was deliberate as not to give overdue prominence to either of the ethnic component of the language (which was really a stupid decision; they should've called the language Yugoslav in the first place and we wouldn't have had this mess with these "different languages" today :p). --Ivan Štambuk 01:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eee, pa što na kaže odmah ^_^ Ja sam pomislio da si neki našijenac iz dijaspore koji nije 100% upoznat sa jezikom..
Što se tiče rasporeda babel-kutijica na mojoj korisničkoj strani - posve arbitraran izbor. Osobno sam gledao to kao prělaz iz više u manje konkretno. Dakle, nativno pričam "hrvatski jezik", tj. hrvatsku varijantu srpskohrvatskog (u kojoj sam školovan, načitan itd.), a onda po ekstenziji i srpskohrvatski općenito :p Drugim rěčima, preferencijom redoslěda babel-kutija ni po čemu nisam želio dati naslutiti nešto treče poput "više podržavam hrvatski nego srpskohrvatski...". Stranci (potovo iz anglosaksonskog kulturnog miljea) još nisu posve upoznati sa situacijom sa ovim "različitim jezicima", pa primjerice na Wiktionary:Translation requests možeš povremeno naletiti na zahtěve za prěvodom na "jugoslavenski" :P Čak i ovi profi lingvisti koji ne znaju nijedan slavenski jezik su ponešto podvojeni: znaju da oko cěle te zbrke ima puno dima, ali nisu sigurni koliko su jezici slični ili različiti, barem ne danas u odnosu na kako su bili prě 20 god.. Uglavnom, u svakom slučaju mislim da je informativno imati oba babela na korisničkoj.
Što se tiče samih naziva srpskohrvatski/hrvatskosrpski, ako misliš na ono sve navedeno ovdě - to jest točno, ali ne u potpunosti. Cěli taj članak treba uzeti sa zrncem soli, s obzirom da ga je većma autorirao (prepisao :) jedan pomalo ekstreman hrvatski nacinalist ("Mir Harven", ako si čuo - doprinosio je ponešto i na sr wikici. Inače jako pametan lik, fizičar, sveučilišni profa štoviše! (na mom faksu je :) - samo je zabrazdio u beznadežni nacionalistički ekstremizam..)
On tamo veli: No, u poslijeratnoj praksi došlo je do tzv. Novosadskog dogovora 1954. koji je smjerao ujednačiti hrvatski i srpski na pravopisnoj, terminološkoj i drugim razinama. Naziv jezika je određen kao srpskohrvatski ili hrvatskosrpski-prvi je termin esencijalno označavao srpski, a drugi hrvatski jezik. - što je obična laž, jerbo prva klauzula Novosadskog dogovora otvoreno tvrdi: Narodni jezik Srba, Hrvata i Crnogoraca jedan je jezik. Stoga je i književni jezik koji se razvio na njegovoj osnovi oko dva glavna središta, Beograda i Zagreba, jedinstven, sa dva izgovora, ijekavskim i ekavskim. Zanimljivo, u tekstu se jednom spominje srpskohrvatski, i jednom hrvatskosrpski. To nije slučajno!
Istinabog, uporaba naziva hrvatskosrpski za "zapadnu varijantu" i srpskohrvatski za "istočnu varijantu" datira od Novosadskog dogovora. I također je istina da ga jedan dio hrvatske spisateljske javnosti (što lingvisti što pisci ekstermisti) nije prihvatio - ali od Novosadskog dogovora takva uporaba ta dva naziva je bila službeno blagoslovljena! Uostalom, cěla zbrka sa Deklaracijom o nazivu i položaju hrv. književnog jezika jest da se naziv hrvatskosrpski zaměni sa nazivom "hrvatski književni jezik", jerbo se prvi tobože zlorabio za nametanje srpskohrvatskog (istočne varijante).
Razlog zašto WP članak koristi srpskohrvatski (i još dobar dio hrv. literature danas kad raspravlja o "zajedničkom jeziku" iz Jugoslavije) jest jednostavno iz razloga što je taj naziv bio mnogo, mnogo više u uporabi u odnosu na hrvatskosrpski, gdě su ovog potonjeg samo gledali kako da ga zaměne sa hrvatski književni jezik. Plus da usput delegitimiziraju hrvatskorspki kao takav, u stilu "to nikad nije ni postojalo, postojao je samo nametnuti srpski u vidu srpskohrvatskog". Glupe igre rěči, ništa više..
Ne bih se složio da je naziv jugoslavenski jezik loš - nazivi srpskohrvatski ili hrvatskosrpki su mnogo lošiji iz 2 fundamentalna razloga: Prvo, otvoreno diskriminiraju sve nehrvate i nesrbe koji njima pričaju (Dakle Bošnjake, Crnogorce, Klingonce...inače ovo ne bi trebao biti bogznakakav problem, sumnjam da se Amerikanci osěćaju "Englezima" ili Brazilci "Portugalcima" - no Balkan je, kao što i sam dobro znaš, potpuno druga stvar). Druga stvar je sa svima koji su se samodeklarirali kao Jugoslaveni - uglavnom svima kojima se ili gadio uskogrudni nacionalizam, ili su bili iz měšanih brakova pa je bilo besmisleno da naglašavaju jednu etničku komponentu nad drugom.. Takvi su ljudi bili prisiljeni napraviti izbor. Odabirom etničkog imena za jezik su se samo utabale staze budućim sukobima i netrpeljivostima, kojekakvim "Deklaracijama".. Glavni razlog zašto imaš danas standardni bosanski jezik (a od jeseni navodno i "standardni crnogorski", koji je "u pripremi", na radost svekolike srpske kulturne javnosti :p) jest taj što je na Balkanu nemoguće imati naciju-državu koja nema svoj vlastiti jezik. Da se u Jugi njegovala jezična multikulturalnost kako neutralnim nazivom jezikâ, tako i bez političke osude terminâ koji bi imali prviše "četnički" ili "ustaški" prizvuk (a pověsno se neporecivo dosta dugo rabe), danas bismo, uvěren sam, imali potpuno drukčiju sliku u jezičnoj areni.
Lěp pozdrav i..glasaj za tu vražju unifikaciju ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk 08:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naziv jezika[edit]

Već smo raspravljali o nazivu SC, i načelno bi bilo u redu i BCS, BCSM, ili pak nešto treće, bez da se išta izmjeni u samom prijedlogu. To je nešto što možemo učiniti i naknadno porabeći bota (može biti gotovo za pola sata, sve što treba napraviti je jednostavna zamjena jednog niza znakova drugim), ako se za to ukaže potreba. Eto tek tako da znaš, pa ako želiš napraviti kakav prijedlog u svezi toga, slobodno ga iznesi na WT:ASH :-) Pozz --Ivan Štambuk 20:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ne, koristiš naziv koji hoćeš. Dozvoljeno je spajati stare, zasebne odsječke ako su iz stvorili neki od podržavatelja prijedloga. --Ivan Štambuk 08:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • zálud je stariji oblik, dok je zȁlūd / zȁlūd nastao iz zalúdu gdje je otpalo zadnje -u (to se inače zove apokopa), a pošto novoštokavski ne trpi naglasak na zadnjem slogu isti je prebačen na prvi dočim je na drugom ostala zanaglasna duljina. S obzirom da nema puno smisla rastavljati ih po etimologiji kao dvije različite riječi, što je uobičajeni postupak u ovakvim okolnostima, trebalo bi dodati izgovor za oba naglasna oblika u ===Pronunciation=== odsječku, a u infleskijskoj liniji navesti oba oblika jedan za drugim, odvojena npr. zarezom. --Ivan Štambuk 11:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evo jesam. infleksijska linija (inflection line) - to je linija odmah ispod PoS (part of speech) zaglavlja gdje dodaješ riječ s naglascima i ostalim dodacima, slično rječnikoj natuknici. Zaboravio sam na ovu riječcu, riješio bih ja to još davno :D U vezi IPA notacije, imaš w:Wikipedia:IPA_for_Serbo-Croatian. Ako želiš da ja dodam neke riječi (što mogu mnogo brže od tebe, vjerojatno) samo ih dodaj na WT:RE:sh. --Ivan Štambuk 15:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serbo-Croatian - translations.[edit]

Hi, just in case you don't know, you don't need to add + or -, it will be done by bots. --Anatoli 22:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia[edit]

The fact that the article on the English Wikipedia uses the word "project" does not require a third separate definition in Wiktionary. We are not required to use language identical to any organization in describing them. --EncycloPetey 01:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

коначно[edit]

Da, trebala bi stajati oznaka za rod i padež, i to po svim mogućim infektiranim oblicima kako su uostalom i navedeni u tabeli na [[коначан]], njih sveukupno ni manje ni više već 5. Prijevode inflektiranih oblika na engleski bi trebalo izbjegavati, iako postoje neke nedoumice u vezi toga - davno bješe jedno glasanje kojim bi se to zabranilo ali nije prošlo jer neki neuki dušebrižnici misle da svi prirodni jezici imaju jednaku ekspresivnu moć, pa da je moguće prevesti dual mediopasiva konjunktiva na jezik koji ne podržava ni jedno od tih glagolskih kategorija. Moj ti je savjet da izbjegavaš pačanje u inflektirane oblike jer se oni generiraju pomoću botova. Ja sam počeo pisati jedan takav bot za sprskohrvatski (User:ŠtambukBot) ali ga nisam završio. Sad imam slobodnih par sedmica pa bih ga baš konačno i mogao kompletirati ako mi se bude dalo. Problem je što će generiranje nekoliko stotina tisuća takvih entryja povećati srpskohrvatski dump baze za 100-ak MB. Da je ovaj glupavi softver inteligentnije napisan postojao bi neki markup za označiti takve oblike i automatska redirekcija na leme iz editboxa za pretraživanje, ali pošto ga kodiraju tukci moramo sve to ručno raditi. Kad postoji kolizija sa nekom drugom riječju (npr. prilogom kao u tvom primjeru) samo ignoriraj. --Ivan Štambuk 14:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Man.[edit]

Biblbroks, do you realize that such moves are not allowed? Kindly read this and revert yourself. Sincerely yours. -- Bugoslav 15:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also no rule against removing them. There was a Beer Parlor discussion on this which achieved precisely nothing. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugoslav[edit]

Uz zakašnjenje - nema nikakve službene politike, pogotovo ne cross-wiki karaktera na koju bi se mogao pozvati na nekom specifičnom projektu. Moj ti je savjet da budalu ignoriraš ili trolaš nazad, najbolje uz razne kombinacije, toplo-hladno igrice uz vremenski odmak, kao što to oni stalno rade. Vrijeme je na našoj strani, i neutralizacija je često najbolja taktika na duge staze, kad već ne postoji mogućnost eksplicitne pobjede ;) --Ivan Štambuk 20:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latin/Roman[edit]

All the sh- templates seem to use Roman and not Latin. Don't ask me why. Just a warning as someone may undo your edit to make them all use Roman again. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serbo-Croatian terms needing attention[edit]

If you have enough patience, most of these mainly need the Cyrillic form. This is due to the number of Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian entries only containing one script that were automatically converted to Serbo-Croatian. I don't expect you to do all 2000 of course, but any assistance is better than none. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia[edit]

About this edit: [1]. Didn't that sense fail RFV? Then you should have three citations when you re-add it. Equinox ◑ 16:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

piroga[edit]

Masculine? HJP says it's feminine. – Krun (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What-a-mistaka-to-maka. Corrected it. Cheers! --BiblbroX дискашн 15:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenski glagoli[edit]

Po eni strani je res bolj ekonomično če se ni treba ubadati z iskanjem ´ simbola, je pa lahko zapis z akcentom boljši v tem smislu, da takoj človek ve, ali mu bo predloga postavila akcent na zadnji zlog pred -ti ali ne. Je pa res da je glagolov na -éti, -em bolj malo, in vsi v tej -eti kategoriji gredo vsak malo po svoje (védeti - vém, umréti - umrèm, razuméti - razúmem). Načeloma bi se lahko vsi ti pokrili z eno predlogo, ampak potem ta predloga ne bi mogla samodejno urejati naglasov.

No, skratka, kar se pa tiče kategorizacije glagolov, to sem jaz tudi praktično počel med tem ko sem spreminjal obstoječe predloge in po potrebi dodajal nove. Tukaj bom ustvaril seznam skupin, ki se ga lahko pozneje še tudi dopolni ali popravi.

Seznam se nahaja tukaj: User:Biblbroks/TODO/Slovene.

Problem z naglasom se da čisto enostavno odpraviti: Template:sl-conj-'iti-'im proti Template:sl-conj-iti-im. Tipka za apostrof ( ' ) je prisotna na vseh tipkovnicah. Kar se pa tiče appendix-a, se še ne čutim da poznam slovenske glagole dovolj dobro. Zgornji seznam je treba še urediti in dopolniti, saj v njem zelo verjetno niso zajeti vsi glagoli.
Poglej novi seznam glagolov. Skupine sem malo preuredil glede na nove nepravilne glagole. Nisem pa še končal, saj še nisem pregledal vseh glagolov na -ati, moram pa še v celoti pregledati glagole na -iti. Poleg tega bom verjetno na vseh predlogah dodal opcijo za dva nedoločnika - eden naglašen na osnovi, drugi pa na koncu. To pa preprosto zato, ker se zelo veliko krat zgodi da je nedoločnik drugače ali lahko celo na več načinov naglašen. Z glagolom sprejéti bova morala še počakati, saj je nepravilen, in nevem še čisto kako se lotiti teh. Kar se pa tiče tiste About Slovene strani, kaj pa bi tam sploh naj pisalo? In še zadnje vprašanje, če dovoliš - kako to da znaš slovensko? =P –bead-v, talk — 14:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, jaz sem od vedno živel v Mariboru in sem še tu. =) Dobro, tega About Slovene se bom lotil ko bodo vsaj za glagole predloge urejene, bi pa bilo super če bi bile tudi za samostalnike. Sezuti spada sem: Template:sl-conj-ti-em. Sej zdaj že pišem te dokumentacije za predloge, tako da boste tudi drugi razumeli ta čuden sistem ki sem ga vzpostavil. =P No, ta predloga pa še ni čisto zadovoljiva, saj temu glagolu ne bi dodelila druge različice preteklega deležnika, sezùl. Sem na tem da jih popravim, ampak vseeno ne gre tako hitro. Če najdeš še kak glagol, kar povej. Jaz si pomagam s Slovenskim pravopisom, če mogoče tudi tebi kaj pomaga. Pa še, zgornji seznam glagolov sem nadomestil z linkom na TODO/Slovene, saj ta zastareli ni imel nobene koristi in je samo zasedal prostor. Upam da te to ne moti. –bead-v, talk — 12:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

bwe[edit]

Ne bi bio bwe jednostavno bве na ćirilici? Našao sam bar jedan primer toga: (http://lajkujem.com/status/1379700). Ali pretpostavljam da to nije dosta? Jer samo vidim to i jedan bwe više na Vukajliji Saimdusan (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pa ne može baš, zato što ne postoji ekvivalent slovu w ni u latinici ni u ćirilici srpskohrvatskog. Ćiriličnom bве-u bi bio analogan ovaj sa običnim v: bve. Ali čini mi se da ni jedan ni drugi nisu baš tako rasprostranjeni kao pojava ni na internetu ni sms-u. Ovaj oblik sa w bih rekao da potiče od tepanja reči bre - kao kad mala deca ne znaju da kažu slovo r - i to bi onda možda bio u stvari eufemizam za bre. --BiblbroX дискашн 21:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-phagous[edit]

I don't really understand this edit. It looks like you added the Ancient Greek term, but then what is the {{attention|en|Would be nice to know the Ancient Greek term}} for? —RuakhTALK 17:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is a leftover from a previous anonymous contributor who labelled it for attention with {{attention|grc|Would be nice to know the Ancient Greek term}} and since it isn't an English term I thought maybe they would like to know whether an actual Ancient Greek suffix existed from which this one originates. But since I am not that knowledgeable of AG, I thought as a first draft my version of etymology for it could suffice and just in case left the original comment for the attention template. I probably should change it or remove it altogether. --biblbroks дискашн 19:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't get it. If the question is "whether an actual Ancient Greek suffix existed from which this one originates", then shouldn't it still be grc, not en? —RuakhTALK 19:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I haven't thought of that and you are probably right. But then the etyl could be inprecise. Anyway, I've seen it used in [[euryphagous]] and [[stenophagous]] - entries with the -phagous suffix. Maybe etyl is smth on par with "Ancient Greek φαγεῖν (phagein, “to eat”). + English -ous", or even Old French or Latin for that matter. I don't know the history of zoology that much. --biblbroks дискашн 20:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serbo-Croatian question[edit]

Hi, I have a question about SC at the Tea Room: WT:TR#kaj in Serbo-Croatian. Do you think you can help? Thank you! —CodeCat 14:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slovene[edit]

I am trying to improve Slovene entries, especially on pronunciation. I am using the SSKJ dictionary as a base, but I have come across a problem. The schwa-sound doesn't always seem so predictable. For example if I look at večer I don't really know whether the first e is a schwa or a regular e. The dictionary only tells me what the second e sounds like since it's stressed, but what about the first? Is there a way to tell or do I just ask you each time? :) —CodeCat 04:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been wondering how to denote the accents in a way similar to how it is done in Serbo-Croatian. There is a standard that the dictionaries use, but there is no real standard for the "thick l" and the schwa, which are still often written as just l and e. On the other hand, I have found at least one source that writes them as ə and ł for educational purposes. Do you think we should do that on Wiktionary too, or would that disrupt the visual image of the words too much? (It would result in our entries and links displaying "prevajáləc", and "prevajáłca" for example) —CodeCat 20:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You got me there with the "thick l". It took me awhile until I figured out what you meant by it. I never encountered this term, and if I were to name I sure wouldn't name it thick. More of a thin, or soft l because I regard it as a vowelized consonant and to me a samoglasnik is softer and therefore thiner than suglasnik. Anyway the first non-Wikipedia google hit on Slovenian phonology got me to omniglot: [2] and they used ʍ for this purpose. I am not that much into phonology, but it seems more reasonable to use this symbol or perhaps w. To me this the same sound as the sound of v in vse#Slovene, or l in jabolko and bolnišnica, because IIRC, we called this an "u" sound in school as it is similar or the same to the regular u in Slovenian. Anyway, I wouldn't IPA-lize prevajalec as "prevajáləc" because to me the last e is a regular e. Maybe this l changing to u is the only exception to your schwa reasoning. Similar thing happens to prevodilac and prevodioca. There's a WP article on this l changing to a vowel: w:L-vocalization#Slavic_languages --biblbroksдискашн 22:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not pronounced as a regular e though, which is why I thought of indicating it somehow, by writing ə when "e" is written but the sound is schwa. Usually e is just "e" and is also "e" in Serbo-Croatian, but it is also occasionally a schwa and then it corresponds to "a" in Serbo-Croatian (bósənski - bòsanskī). The spelling doesn't indicate this difference even though they are different phonemes, so I think it would be useful to make this clear, otherwise the only way to indicate it would be in the pronunciation section. The same goes for the pronunciation of l: when it stands before a consonant, it sometimes is pronounced as a normal "l", and sometimes as "v" (in Serbo-Croatian it is written "o" then like in your example). But again this is not predictable from the spelling, so I thought of using the Polish letter ł to indicate when "l" is written but "v" is pronounced. The difference would only be in the alt-text of links and such, so the article names would use the normal spelling but the display of words would change. We already do this with accents in both languages so this wouldn't be so different? —CodeCat 23:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not even fond of denoting accents in the alt-text let alone schwas and the like. I haven't used dictionaries much before I came on wikt, and when I encountered accents on SC entries here I almost immediately disliked them cause I compared them to English entries. But if indicating an accent in entries is quite a common practice in dictionaries I don't have many argumentation to leave it out here. On the other hand I am totally against using schwas or other IPA symbols on entries (alt-text and other places you've already put them), because apart from giving the visual impression of too much info where it isn't needed, this differs a lot from the display of English and other language entries. They don't emphasize the pronunciation that much (if at all) in places where pronunciation isn't expected and also since some uniformity is helpful in a dictionary of a reputable character, I would disband any pronunciation schemes in the alt-text etc. Also, as far as I know for the "slovenski knjižni jezik" Bosánəc isn't the correct pronunciation, same as for prevajáləc ain't. I think I distinctively heard a regular e at the end of such words when listening and watching the Slovenian TV and radio - the news anchor diction. --biblbroksдискашн 13:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But speech in Ljubljana for example had a schwa if memory serves me well. --biblbroksдискашн 13:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bazd(j)eti/Bazditi[edit]

Reci mi molim te šta je pravilno reći : bazditi ili bazd(j)eti?

Anti-Serb racism here[edit]

Tell me why is there Croatia catagory but no Serbia category?

Zabadu (talk)

Please, stop with your paranoid remarks. You insist there is some form of racism here, but only thing racist I've encountered here are your comments. I never knew there was a Croatia category till now otherwise I would have created the category Serbia earlier. --biblbroksдискашн 14:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never wrote anything racist. There is no need to insult me call me names like racist etc. Vrlo ružno.

Zabadu (talk)

You are maybe right. "Očigledno si šiptaro-ljubac" (directed at me) is not racist, it's chauvinistic and jingoistic. But "No sane Serb would EVER EVER EVER say a WORD in Shiptarian/Albanian not even a Serb in Kosovo!" is very close to racist. It implies that only insane Serbs use Albanian words and by this that they might be insane exactly because they are using Albanian words. This gives a elevates the meaning of jingoism to a higher level - to insult one nation through its language by saying that speaking its language can cause health problems? As if language is a disease, or even an infection, affecting one's psych. Is there another interpretation of this that I missed? --biblbroksдискашн 17:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem is that you are an anti-Serb racist and because of that you are adding non-existent words of alleged albanian origin. You are posting lies, insulting and making things up. 

Croatocentrism is also evident.

But I fill fix that whenever I can . You can try to stop me by requesting to block me. Zabadu (talk)

Final devoicing in Slovene[edit]

Wikipedia says: "All voiced obstruents are devoiced at the end of words unless immediately followed by a word beginning with a vowel or a voiced consonant. In consonant clusters, voicing distinction is neutralized and all consonants assimilate the voicing of the rightmost segment." I have found similar statements in other sources as well, including published books on Slovene grammar. What you heard was probably this voicing assimilation, but it seems that in isolation or when not followed by a voiced obstruent, final -d is pronounced voiceless. —CodeCat 13:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know I heard a "d" in "Beograd" on radio and TV in the 80s and at the start of the 90s. Perhaps a bit devoiced but a "d" nevertheless. Maybe the situation changed in the meantime. Do at your wish, I won't mind. --biblbroksдискашн 21:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you are right. Don't forget that sometimes, when putting emphasis on the word, languages that usually devoice the obstruents word-finally can re-voice them. I'm Polish and do it quite often myself. --Ahls23 (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dutch also has final devoicing but I'm not sure if I've ever heard that... —CodeCat 01:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know it does... it probably depends on the speaker, and probably also on their exposure to languages without the final devoicing. It's probable that I started doing this more often after learning how to pronounce English in a near-native way. Who knows. And don't forget the Dutch dialects of Limburg (and the Limburgian language itself), some do have word-final voiced stops (but not fricatives as far as I can remember). --Ahls23 (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Comment on my page[edit]

No problem, I'm not even sure you could see the "Derived terms" section properly... because until your edit I couldn't, even though in edit mode it appeared just fine. It was probably Opera refusing to update the page. Thanks for the link, I'll test it out tomorrow... yeah it's a bit time-consuming to add the inflected forms myself, but I'd edit them anyway - since as you can see I'm also adding the pronunciation, hyphenation and the gender. Something that you can never rely on a script about (well, apart from the last information, because it's easy to "scan" it from the infinitive page). And much of this "work" of mine consists of the ctrl+c ctrl+v abuse anyway. Cheers. --Ahls23 (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Serbo-Croatian diacritics[edit]

Zdravo,

I wonder if you could give me a full list of all letters with diacritics used, upper and lower case, Cyrillic and Roman, like а̏ = ȁ (Cyrillic = Latin). Is there a page that describes it? I have made an automatic conversion tool: Module:sh-translit, which you can invoke with {{#invoke:sh-translit|tr|реч}} and get "Lua error: bad argument #1 to 'gsub' (string expected, got table)". It doesn't always work for diacritics though, e.g. "српскохр̀ва̄тскӣ" - Lua error: bad argument #1 to 'gsub' (string expected, got table) should be produce "srpskohr̀vātskī" not "srpskohr̀vātskӣ" (copying from the current preview). User:Conrad.Irwin/editor.js doesn't fully strip Cyrillic diacritics either, when adding translations. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the "ӣ" letter conversion (ī), so that "српскохр̀ва̄тскӣ" is converted correctly as "srpskohr̀vātskī" but I need to test on a full list, please. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if there's a page that describes all letters with diacritics but here's what I was able to produce:

ȁ
а̏		 à
а̀		 ȃ
а̑		 á
а́		 ā
а̄
ȅ
е̏		 è
ѐ		 ȇ
е̑		 é
е́		 ē
е̄
ȉ
и̏		 ì
ѝ		 ȋ
и̑		 í
и́		 ī
ӣ
ȍ
о̏		 ò
о̀		 ȏ
о̑		 ó
о́		 ō
о̄
ȕ
у̏		 ù
у̀		 ȗ
у̑		 ú
у́		 ū
ӯ
ȑ
р̏		 r̀
р̀		 ȓ
р̑		 ŕ
р́		 r̄
р̄
Ȁ
А̏		 À
А̀		 Ȃ
А̑		 Á
А́		 Ā
А̄
Ȅ
Е̏		 È
Ѐ		 Ȇ
Е̑		 É
Е́		 Ē
Е̄
Ȉ
И̏		 Ì
Ѝ		 Ȋ
И̑		 Í
И́		 Ī
Ӣ
Ȍ
О̏		 Ò
О̀		 Ȏ
О̑		 Ó
О́		 Ō
О̄
Ȕ
У̏		 Ù
У̀		 Ȗ
У̑		 Ú
У́		 Ū
Ӯ
Ȑ
Р̏		 R̀
Р̀		 Ȓ
Р̑		 Ŕ
Р́		 R̄
Р̄

I think it covers all the combinations. Hope it helps. Cheers, --biblbroksдискашн 19:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I will update both modules shortly.
I wonder why there is no information on this in WT:ASH. I'm sure most users and editors alike wonder what what the meaning of these diacritics is - which tone, length or stress. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

steći[edit]

The definition says this is an alternative form, but the alternative form just links back. What does it actually mean? —CodeCat 17:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Alternative infinitive of stégnuti.". I see no linking back. Anyway, "stegnuti" means "to tighten" [3]. --biblbroksдискашн 17:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bečki književni dogovor.[edit]

Kako neima veze s Yugoslav régime, kad je upravo Károly Khuen-Héderváry prvo nasilno uvel sve značaljke tog novo tvorenog servianskog jezika u Hrvatsku javnost, ter je poslie toga pod Yugoslav régime (pod kojim niesam mislil samo na Jugoslaviu, jur na jugoslavenstvo književnih vukovca) još nasilnije sproveden. Neznam zakaj ste svi takoj ustrojeni da ljudi nevide istinu da hrvatski jezik neima veze s servianskim, nit je igda imal, nit će igda imati.

Nemo

Please, write in English so others can understand what we are conversing. I don't know what "jugoslovenstvo" of Vienna Literary Agreement (Bečki književni dogovor) attendees are you talking about. According to the article w:Károly Khuen-Héderváry on Wikipedia in English language, he was surely a baby, barely 10 months year old at that time and I'm quite certain he had no say in the matter. As far as your observation about Croatian language (that it has no links to Serbian, that it never had, that it never will) is concerned, I am intrigued by the fact that in the diff among other things you also wrote this: "[...] Serbian (better to say "Vukovian", because vukovians are Croats as well) violence is the only reason why today's "standard" Croatian language is almost the same as Serbian language altogether. [...]" Are those quotation mark encompassing the word standard some form of square quotes - meaning that standard Croatian doesn't constitute today's Croatian language? I honestly say, that I never heard of such a stance, not to mention I would never have thought of it myself (and I consider my imagination quite vivid compared to others'). Also, please translate "servianski jezik" into English so we can be sure of your good faith. This term you used in this context is borderline offensive: see the last sentence of the article w:Serbians on en.wikipedia.org (it was referenced by a Croatian language speaker). --biblbroksдискашн 20:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read articles:
Croatian Wikipedia has an article on:
Wikipedia hr
Croatian Wikipedia has an article on:
Wikipedia hr
Perhaps they would make some things clear, more vivid (shall we say) about Héderváry - Wien agreement, and how do they connect, as well as that "standard" Croatian is not Croatian at all.
The other consideration of Servian language; well, I think that is more than clear Servia.

Nemo

You are trying to say that spelling is inseparable, somehow organic element of one language - an element that defines it? By that logic, phonetic internet slang of Ljubljana's idiom would be a completely new language, not part of Slovenian. Also, words like kewl wouldn't be considered as English at all. Come to think of it, variants such as programme vs. program, colour vs. color, organise vs. organize, defence vs. defense would discern "British" from "American" to such an extent that both would be languages on their own. Moreover, the Swiss and the Liechtensteiner would speak a separate language apart from German, since they don't use the ß (scharfes S).
Anyway, what do the attendees of Viena agreement have to do with Héderváry? And what is their link to Yugoslav "regime"? And those articles at hr.wikipedia you mentioned, weren't they converted from your "root" spelling to the w:hr:Hrvatski jezik following a dispute in which the contributor of the "root" spelled articles was threatened with a time-off from Wikipedia? And weren't the very same author of those articles corrected of their Croatian language, probably since they speak half-Kajkavian which suffers Germanic influence? Their thoughts about Slovenian being Kajkavian with an English pronunciation would surely make an interesting fiasco in the study of philology and linguistics.
Finally, since you are unable to translate "servianski" into English, please consider making up your own "hrvaćanski" language. Judging from the reception of the fellow Wikipedians at hr.wp, a linguicide is looming over it. --biblbroksдискашн 22:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lukašenko[edit]

Do you know what the gender of this word is? —CodeCat 18:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if surnames have gender by default. And that would be for any language. Methinks it would depend on the person in question. For example I'd genderize Lukašenko as masculine since the most notable is Alexander. --biblbroksдискашн 21:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's true. Aren't surnames occasionally adjectives or adjectival phrases? I know that Slavic -ov/-ev is adjectival in origin, but -in is a noun suffix. What about -enko? —CodeCat 21:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, -ov, -ev and -ski are adjectival in origin and they would be masculine. And so -ova, -eva and -ska would be feminine, at least in sh as well as Slovenian. I dunno bout -in being a noun suffix except as possessive form of a usually feminine noun. Then -ina and -ino would be feminine and neuter respectively. But deciding about -enko would be just guessing since I think it isn't characteristical to any of South Slavic languages. Perhaps to East Slavic. If I'd take a guess I'd take it would be masculine or neuter, and then -enka feminine. --biblbroksдискашн 19:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slovene dialects[edit]

I was just wondering, to want extent is e.g. this intelligible to a normal Slovenian speaker such as yourself? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a new Slovene editor whose edits need to be checked/patrolled. They seem OK, but he's adding inflections for some "difficult" words that certainly need double-checking.--Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The clip is hardly intelligible to me, max some 20% of it on first listening. Anyway, I will try and check on the mentioned edits. --biblbroksдискашн 21:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We will need to keep these dialects (in fact - languages unto themselves) in mind in the long run. I was thinking of using separate sections for Čakavian and Kajkavian, because they are so different from standard SC (and internally as well) that it wouldn't make much sense to keep them all in one place. Even words that are spelled the same as standard SC words have very different pronunciation (accents), not to mention inflection. I keep running into Slavić's Kajkavianisms (some made up though, which I delete), and ages ago I've added some ancient Čakavian (from Marulić etc.). Category:Chakavian Serbo-Croatian and Category:Kajkavian Serbo-Croatian so far contain less than 500 words combined (but no Torlakian, perhaps you could add some? j/k ;), but once their entries hit four digits it would be a mess to maintain them, so devising a policy on how to treat these dialects is something that we should have in mind. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

prah[edit]

I added the request because the template that's currently in the entry isn't meant to be used directly in entries, but only through other templates. —CodeCat 21:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but is there a template for nouns with multiple forms of cases? --biblbroksдискашн 21:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not currently, no. What I can do is split the two templates so that one is the "internal" template while the other is for in entries. —CodeCat 21:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What would make more sense for the order of the parameters? nom sg, acc sg... nom du, acc du... nom pl, acc pl... or nom sg, nom du, nom pl, acc sg, acc du, acc pl...? So column-wise (the way {{sl-decl-noun-table}} works) or row-wise? —CodeCat 22:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you make the templates so that the wikified forms would be implemented to work directly from the template and not inserted manually each time someone adds inflection to an entry?
Actually "nom, gen, dat, acc, loc, inst" is how we were taught in school and also bos.zrc-sazu.si orders them this way, but I guess reordering them would mean community consent and of course additional coding to bots. Anyway, I think the column-wise ordering is more intuitive since it's how you usually decline the word - finish all the sg cases and then continue to du and pl. Also it provides more consistency to using the templates. --biblbroksдискашн 22:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me, putting accusative between nominative and genitive makes more sense, because these forms are often the same. It's also the ordering used for studies of old Germanic languages so maybe I am just used to that. —CodeCat 22:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I created {{sl-decl-noun-irreg}}, you can use that now. It only supports one word per form for now, though. I could make the template use {{l}} (which is Lua-based) instead of {{l-self}} (which is template-based), but then forms identical to the page name would become links too. —CodeCat 23:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I always add override parameters in templates. You can always invoke the template that generates inflection table normally, and add e.g. gs=prahu / praha to specifically provide genitive singular. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That approach is not always practical in the long run. I did that for Catalan verbs but it ended up becoming very messy especially when you had to take derived forms into account, which of course had the same irregularities. Treating each irregularity as its own type of inflection (even if it's the only member) seems to work better for me, because then you don't flood the entries themselves with lists of exceptions. This is the approach I used with the Dutch verb inflection module Module:nl-verb. —CodeCat 00:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Override parameters should always be present to account for potential irregularities which, if need be, can always later be covered by specialized templates. Your approach of no override parameters at all requires full inflection to be manually written every time. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

čuka[edit]

[4] - I couldn't find the meanings within the second etymoloy in any of my sources. Is that some dialectalism? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In w:Riblja Čorba's version of w:Green, Green Grass of Home it is used with the meaning of "heart". Here are the lyrics. Anyway, I'll mark it as regional. --biblbroksдискашн 13:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

čefur[edit]

Then what does it mean? It does not mean "a term for...". —CodeCat 14:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - I was defining it wikipedia style. It should be fixed now. What's up with (deprecated template usage) dež? It has an inflection-table template in the "Declension" section: it's Template:sl-decl-noun-m. --biblbroksдискашн 15:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many Slovene nouns can be declined in more than one way, and this is one of them. It really needs a second declension table, but I haven't created one that can handle stressed endings yet. The request is there to serve as a reminder to me or anyone else, that something is still missing. I will do that once I've gone through the rest. —CodeCat 15:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

kresnica[edit]

Hi, is the word kresnica used in Serbia? I'm having trouble finding it and I'm asking because it might have been wrongly added (as a supposed ekavian version of krijesnica (firefly), similar to tjedan/tedan, where tedan isn't used except as a hypercorrection of tjedan into ekavian, as far as I'm aware). 93.138.91.165 21:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't encountered it much in the vernacular, but poets and writers use it here and there. If I'm not mistaken it is mentioned in w:Na Drini ćuprija. --biblbroksдискашн 13:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI re: klopa[edit]

Hi,

For your attention: Wiktionary:Feedback#chow --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx. Trying to find the answer but still to no avail. --biblbroksдискашн 11:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Atitarev, did my best to solve this. --biblbroksдискашн 13:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

v.gogh[edit]

NOTONLYnown4earkutin.. — This unsigned comment was added by 220.136.226.79 (talk) at 14:30, 2 June 2015.

nDeeD. --biblbroksдискашн 13:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

tree[edit]

Thanks for the revision of stablo and drvo :). Would it be possible to take a remark at both pages what the difference is between stablo and drvo? Both are translated with tree ... so I assumed both mean the same :-?

Well, they are not exactly synonyms: primary meaning of stablo is tree trunk, and drvo as well as it means wood (material) and timber, it also means tree. I amended the entries. --biblbroksдискашн 16:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kanada[edit]

I fixed this entry for you. Entries shouldn't have multiple headword lines. —CodeCat 21:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now with the template adjusted allowing two headwords it will be harder for others to make such mistakes. --biblbroksдискашн 22:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.[survey 1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.[survey 2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.


Take the survey now!


You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

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

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Biblbroks&oldid=47411812"