User talk:Bogdan

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I have adjusted agru a little, to conform to our standards. Here is our standard welcome. SemperBlotto 11:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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!

Wiktionary:Votes/2010-04/Voting_policy[edit]

Just letting you know of this surprisingly contentious vote. Input from more Wiktionarians such as yourself would be much appreciated. Thanks. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help request[edit]

Hi Bogdan! Not sure you're up for it, but I'm wondering if you're willing to help create an IPA module back in the Romanian Wiktionary project? I'm an admin and bureaucrat, but not that comfortable coding really important stuff. We could sure use a person like you back home to help create modules and templates we sorely lack. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well, the problem is that I need some more linguistic expertise to write it, particularly on determining the stress. I tried to start from the Italian module and tweaked it and it's often correct, but not good enough. Bogdan (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean. It can be tricky – but how about automatic declension tables for Romanian verbs like we have here? We only have overly simplified declension tables back home, so we could sure use more comprehensive and automated tables. --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions[edit]

Hi Bogdan! Just want to congratulate you on adding all these Romanian lemmas! You're doing a fine job so keep up the good work! Would you mind just checking some of them though? I'm referring to the ones that have English definitions as red links – hate to think that we don't have English entries for the Romanian equivalents (for instance: tehnicism, rusism, românism, preclasicism, papagalism, idilism, etc.). I just don't want other users to start thinking that these words are protologisms or neologisms. Thanks in advance! --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if they have red links, the English words still exist and can be created. Bogdan (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big deal, it's just that the problem I'm having is finding them in durably archived sources. In the long run, if their English equivalents aren't attested, the Romanian entries might be considered for deletion. --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats![edit]

With regard to all the good edits you've added recently, I decided to change your rights to "Autopatroller". This means that your edits no longer have to be double-checked by an admin or other users. Keep up the good work and let me know if you require any help! --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry Bogdan, kind of jumped the gun here. Didn't realise that you had to be nominated and approved by another admin. I'll nominate you, but I see no reason why you wouldn't be approved anyway. I apologise for the inconvenience. --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am now trying to add all the words DEX and I started with the easiest ones, neologisms that should have a simple and clear equivalent in English. There's still around 50k words, so it's a lot of work. :-) Bogdan (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a tremendous job – I remember when we (ro.Wiktionary), in accordance with the DEX community, imported lemmas from their database a couple of years ago. It was a huge undertaking, but worth it in the long run. Wouldn't you prefer having a bot that added them? The benefits are that it's much faster, edits don't appear in "Recent changes" (hence avoiding a flood of new pages) and you can have it running in the background while you do something else or follow up bot performance. I've personally used Autowikibrowser and it made my life much easier. Let me know if it's something you're willing to consider and I'll see what I can do. --Robbie SWE (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do use some scripts for generating the pages, so what I do has some degree of automation. I don't think I can do it fully automatic because I don't have good English translations for the words (Google Translate is often wrong, particularly with obscure words and other sources might result in copyright issues), so I still have to manually check everything. Bogdan (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for your diligence. Keep it up! --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template errors[edit]

Hi Bogdan! Please take a look at this notification from Chuck. Please take a break from adding new entries and see if there is an error in the imported syntax or your automation before you start adding again. --Robbie SWE (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the notice. I think I did have some problems with the script and I didn't notice when adding them. Bogdan (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check your template. Seems to happen only when it comes to these diminutive suffixes. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I noticed. Any idea if there is a template I can use for puștiulică which doesn't have a definite form for singular? Bogdan (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Think I solved it – had to use a manual template. Please take a look at the changes I made to cabalin. Unfortunately, you can't be whitelisted if these kinds of errors persist. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another one: semimuscă. CAT:E is rather crowded because of changes to language codes, so it's easy to miss, Chuck Entz (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capitals[edit]

Kantian, Hegelian, Micronesian... capital letters required in English. Equinox ◑ 08:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New issues[edit]

Hi Bogdan! Please look through your contributions – today I noticed that beteală, which is uncountable, had a declension table with plural forms. They have to be consistent or else we'll have a lot of cleaning up to do. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I found the parameter "n=sg" and I'll use it. We'll need a cleanup bot after I finish, anyway, to fix any inconsistencies and add the pronunciation section. Bogdan (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We also have issues with some of the etymologies, see tocană. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the etymology in DEX is probably wrong. I have to do some investigation about it. Bogdan (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also found a couple more errors like tecalemit being from a brand name, not borrowed from French like it said. Bogdan (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, quite a few etymologies from DEX are incorrect. For instance many of the Russian borrowings are in fact French or German and could have entered Romanian through other intermediaries. --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pause adding new entries[edit]

Hi Bogdan! Please take a break from adding new entries and address the issues brought up by Ultimateria at decavat. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Etymologies[edit]

Please abstain from eliminating ambiguity in etymologies if it exists. I've reverted several of your changes because scholars have not concluded how religious terms have entered Romanian. I also urge you to revise your contributions - many of the terms you've added, especially the ones from Chruch Slavonic, are archaic, dated or highly regional. Adding them the way you did is not benefiting Wiktionary, because they don't belong to a quotidian or mainstream corpus of the Romanian language. That's why we use labels. --Robbie SWE (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a well-established consensus that the religious terms entered Romanian through the usage of Church Slavonic as liturgical language. Before 18th century, virtually all Orthodox religious services, almost without exception, were done in this language and knowledge of the language was mandatory for all priests. There was no direct contact early on with Greek language as liturgical language and the Proto-Slavic contact earlier on did not result in Christian loans (as the Slavs were still pagan, so we did get quite a few Slavic Pagan words).
DEX labels all these as "Old Slavic", which is correct, but ambiguous, since both Proto-Slavic and Old Church Slavonic are "Old Slavic".
Also, these are not "archaic, dated or highly regional", unless you consider the whole religion as "archaic or dated", since almost all are mainstream religious terms, still used in the religious milieu. Bogdan (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are still debates about some of the terms, which might have entered through the Catholic Church which dominated in Transylvania. Therefore scholars debate some of the terms which are present in both Latin and Old Church Slavonic. I'm not implying that all religious terms are archaic, but some of the terms have a highly restricted usage. Others are regional, for instance agudă. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic influence over the Romanians (who were Orthodox) was almost nil, at least until 1773, when Greek Catholicism was born. Also, these words are all universal, so they are not confined to Transylvania, which cannot be explained through a Transylvanian origin.
Also, this "Catholic" theory is not supported by any major linguist I've read, the consensus is that they're from Church Slavic, you can read any major book on the history of Romanian. Bogdan (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan, please check your tone here. There are many conflicting theories as to the evolution of Romanian - it's a veritable hornet's nest and it's not up to Wiktionary to pick sides. We present the theories as they are, supported by trustworthy sources. You cannot say that the influence was nil when Transylvanian historians say otherwise. I'm not saying that one side is wrong, what is wrong though, is completely discrediting opposing theories like you did. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any modern alternate theory. There were 19th century "Latinist" and "Dacist" theories which are no longer taken into consideration, since they were absurdly pseudo-scientific.
Can you please tell me which Transylvanian historians are you talking about? Every publication of the Romanian Academy (including DEX and the compendia on the History of the Romanian language) supports this as self-evident, as are all major linguists which I read (such as Alexandru Rosetti). The only contention I know of is on Crăciun, but the alternative to Slavic is being inherited from Latin, not borrowed from Ecclesiastical Latin. Bogdan (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in any way, shape or form disputing the massive influence Old Church Slavonic has had on Romanian, especially terminology of religious importance. I am however – and have always been – strongly opposed to eliminating ambiguity or presenting theories, prone to change depending on the ideology du jour, as absolute truths. Even DEX itself presents these etymologies differently:

  • chinovie – DER (1958-1966) says it's from Greek, but partially through a Slavic intermediary
  • călugăr – DER (1958-1966) says implicitly that the Slavic intermediary is not necessary
  • camilafcă – DER (1958-1966) doesn't even mention a Slavic intermediary, but a Medieval Latin cognate camelaucum
  • chivot – DER (1958-1966) says it's from Greek, but partially through a Slavic intermediary
  • irod – DER (1958-1966) actually derives it from the proper noun Irod, itself from Greek, only coinciding with the Old Church Slavonic term
  • smirnă – DER (1958-1966) says it's from Greek, but partially through a Slavic intermediary

These are just a few examples and I rely on DER here, because it focuses on etymology, semantic evolution and presenting different – and at times – opposing theories by prominent scholars. It doesn't take anything away from the etymology, but it does give a fuller picture. For instance, you didn't mention that the Old Church Slavonic term that gave agarean in Romanian was itself a borrowing from Greek (mentioned by DER). If you’ve used DEX as a source, then you are obliged to a) add it as a source and b) reflect what it actually says.

Ciorănescu did a fantastic work by gathering the consensus of his time, but his book is no longer the consensus of today. Before his time there was a relatively low production of etymological papers of Romanian, so he had to rely even on 19th century and early 20th century scholarship, which was often quite shaky. (but still more professional than even earlier etymologists like Hasdeu, who were risible)
Since the 1950s there has been a lot of research on the topic and the current consensus is that almost all of the roughly 250 (mostly religious) Greek terms that were early borrowings came through a Church Slavonic intermediary. And the reason is simple: we know there was simply no direct contact with the Greeks at the time and Greek language knowledge in the Romanian church was close to zero.
The language of all books, of the sermons, of church administration and (later on) secular administration was Church Slavonic. For centuries, almost everything that was written in Wallachia and Moldavia was in Church Slavonic. There was no literacy in Romanian, no literacy in Greek or other language.
Anyway, based on what I see referenced on this topic in more recent articles (Diacronia, which is an open-access journal), the gold standard appears to be Haralambie Mihăescu, Influenţa grecească asupra limbii române. Pînă în secolul al XV-lea. Editura Academiei. 1966 and his conclusions on the Slavic intermediary were accepted by DEX and other Romanian Academy publications and seems to be taken as granted in all the articles I have read on the topic. Bogdan (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly grateful for all the work you've done, but I'm also starting to doubt the quality of these contributions. As I said before, it is very important to label terms properly. I'm aware that you've started adding labels, but I'm afraid that you'll have to backtrack and make some significant changes to your contributions, the most important action being to add source. If you've relied on DEX for declension and etymology, you have to make a proper attribution or else you risk being accused of plagiarism. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using only DEX, since it's kinda bad at spelling Slavonic properly (and their choice of transliteration system isn't great, either). Micul Dicționar Academic has the spelling in Cyrillic, but it's even worse than DEX's, so I am using some Old Church Slavonic dictionaries as well to get the spelling right. Bogdan (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that there was no direct influence or even contact between Greek and Romanian communities in over 1400 years, and three major periods of Hellenic impact, is just not true – neither from a linguistic, nor a historic point of view. I think we've come to an impasse in this subject – we're just not going to see eye to eye on this.

Regardless if you're using DEX or other works, you need to attribute them if the information is used here. This is to avoid future conflicts and accusations of plagiarism. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

stilet[edit]

I found a yellow link for the Romanian word stilet. --Apisite (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

errors[edit]

See lila and stereo. Your entry for infrastructural also had an error, which I tried to fix. Benwing2 (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Milestone[edit]

We now have over 50,000 Romanian lemmas! Since you added 3/4 of the entries (if my math and my memory serve), you deserve a pat on the back :) Ultimateria (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bogdan (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, great job Bogdan! --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

pentatlon[edit]

How exactly is pentatlon pronounced in Romanian? The answer could help in getting entries like octatlon created. --Apisite (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

poligon[edit]

Hello. Could you please complete the Romanian entry for poligon with definitions for the senses "teren special amenajat pentru executarea tragerilor de instrucție și de luptă", "teren amenajat și dotat cu instalațiile necesare pentru a face antrenament și a executa probe de tir" and "teren amenajat pentru deprinderea conducerii autovehiculelor"? Thank you. Martin123xyz (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inflection tables[edit]

Hi Bogdan! I'm just wondering how we're supposed to do with genitive/dative forms for pronouns like fiecare or oricare? Fytcha added them under related terms, but it just didn't feel right. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created a declension table as a template. I couldn't use the other template tables since the nominative and accusative are distinct. Bogdan (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm only a heritage speaker but I think your newly added declension table in the article fiecare is wrong. Firstly, "fiecărui" (listed in your table as accusative) is (also) a D/G form when it accompanies a noun: "Sarcina fiecărui om" vs "Sarcina fiecăruia". I don't know the linguistic terms but many Romanian pronouns work this way, e.g. unui/unuia, altui/altuia etc. Furthermore, I have never heard fiecărui/fiecărei/fiecăror used in the accusative case. Can you refer me to an example demonstrating this? I failed to find even a single such example online. --Fytcha (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to add: We probably have to split the article fiecare into two parts "Determiner" and "Pronoun" as is the case in ăsta. The different parts of speech should also come with different inflection tables (Determiner: fiecărui, Pronoun: fiecăruia). --Fytcha (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogdan, Robbie SWE: I've changed oricare according to how I had imagined it. What do you think of it? If you're fine with it, I would change the article fiecare analogously. I still maintain the position that the accusative of fiecare is identical to the nominative but I'd be happy to be proven wrong! --Fytcha (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Răducanu[edit]

Hi. Can you make Răducanu please, in honour of Emma Raducanu, who, to be fair, has far too many potential nationalities. MooreDoor (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's the feminine version of Răducan, but have no knowledge of the language MooreDoor (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uncountable nouns, but with plurals in declension tables[edit]

Hi Bogdan! I'm sorry but I think you'll have to make your bot go through the list of uncountable nouns - you marked them as uncountable, but they seem to have gotten plurals in their declension tables anyway (see morbiditate, aeroelasticitate, etc.). --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that I don't know whether they are countable or uncountable.
For morbiditate, DEX doesn't specify a plural (hence being uncountable), but the MDA has a plural. link. Bogdan (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, in that case maybe we should do as in English and write "uncountable and countable" in the headword section? --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hint[edit]

You should always look at entries you create after you create them. If something is wrong, you should either stop and fix it, or get help from someone who can. Just running a script without checking the results is basically the same as running an unauthorized bot- and we block those on sight.

Lately I've taken to deleting etymology sections with module errors due to your misuse of the {{af}} template with no prefix or suffix. On occasion I've even deleted an entry or two with fatal module errors as "no usable content given", but I see no evidence that you've even noticed. I just wonder how many entries have similarly blatant and appalling errors in the Romanian that don't trigger module errors. For all you know, Romanian 8-year olds are laughing at you for leaving things in a dictionary that they can easily see are wrong.

You've created a lot of valuable entries, so I'd rather not block you. Still, it gets discouraging to see the same boneheaded errors- errors that anyone who glanced at the entries would immediately notice- it seems like every week or two. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'll try to be more careful. Bogdan (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compound / Confix[edit]

Hey Bogdan. I've made this edit but I'm actually starting to doubt the correctness thereof. I think it was correctly categorized as compound before because 'a' is the genitive article and not a prefix, right? Fytcha (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "a" is part of the genitive. "a Marei" = "[daughter] of Mara". Bogdan (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

feudă[edit]

Hello,

The entry for feudă says that it's a neuter noun with a definite form feudăul. However, it is in fact a feminine noun with a definite form feuda. The definition is also wrong: "feud" is a prolonged dispute, whereas feudă is "moșie, domeniu pe care vasalul le primea în stăpânire de la seniorul său, în schimbul anumitor obligații", hence "fief". Martin123xyz (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for translations into Romanian[edit]

I added a few terms to Category:Requests for translations into Romanian. --Apisite (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ro-fiecare[edit]

Hey Bogdan. I have nominated this template for deletion (Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Template:ro-fiecare). If you could chime into that discussion, that would be great. I don't want to delete it before I know your opinion on it. Happy New Year! Fytcha (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction pages[edit]

Just a few examples of what I was talking about:

Keep in mind that adding non-Slavic languages like Romanian, Greek and Hungarian directly in the descendants tree, might confuse readers as to which language family they belong to and how they've borrowed the terms. I'm under the impression that it was decided long ago to place them outside the table in order to avoid any confusion. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: compare acetum, which despite not being a reconstruction per se, makes a clear distinction between "descendants" and "borrowings". Maybe something we should consider in this case. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am under the impression that nothing specific has been decided but the general approach applies: Be as specific as your knowledge. Formatting reasons may also be considered as always. Fay Freak (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plurals of Romanian neuter nouns in -or[edit]

Hi, I was looking at some Romanian entries and found I was puzzled about the different kinds of plurals displayed for Romanian neuter nouns in -or, including in some cases differences between the headword line and the declension table. Could you clarify what the patterns are for pluralizing neuter words of this type?

Examples:

And it looks like coafor has the plural coaforuri. Are there other neuter words in -or like it?--Urszag (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Urszag: Thanks for pointing this out. *“-tore” is impossible and should always be -toare for neuter nouns. -tori is the correct plural for masculine nouns. I've fixed the ones with *“-tore”. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'll try to fix this. There are some cases in which there are two possible plurals, like for "colimator", both "colimatori" and "colimatoare", so this means that the noun could be both neutral and masculine genders. Bogdan (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dialectal vs. regional[edit]

I agree that we seem to use these labels inconsistently and that we should definitely take a look at it. But even the category "Moldovan Romanian" is found in the meta-category "Regional Romanian". DEX and the Romanian Wiktionary all label it as "reg." not "dial.". So please take this into consideration moving forward – even the category "Romanian dialectal terms" contains a measly 12 entries, whereas the category "Regional Romanian" has over 300+ entries. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the Romanian Academy, in its nationalist wisdom during the Ceaușescu era, decided that "Romanian doesn't have dialects", that it's a unitary language (like the unitary Romanian state), which is ridiculous argument. Dialects are not meant to be incomprehensible differences, but small ones. So the word "dialect" and "dialectal" have been some kind of taboo during the era, being replaced with "grai" and "regionalism". Bogdan (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to your opinion, however, this is Wiktionary - not the Romanian Academy. I'm just telling you that one category is more common than the other. Robbie SWE (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomic names[edit]

Hello. If you want to write a taxonomic name, like Felis domesticus, you can use: {{taxlink|Felis domesticus|species}} (or whatever taxon level it is). This creates useful links that taxon nerds can enjoy. Or something. Have fun. Equinox ◑ 09:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yiddish borrowings[edit]

Hi Bogdan! I'm just wondering if you're sure about the Yiddish etymologies? The only sources I've found for șmecher and fraier, say that they're both from German (probably Saxon). Not denying that Yiddish has had an impact on Romanian, but I'm curious about which sources you're basing those changes on. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian slang is often from Yiddish and Roma languages because these were languages spoken in the urban underworld (especially in Bucharest) before WWII. German was definitely not a language used in the poverty-stricken districts of Bucharest (and other cities like Iași). It was, together with French, a language of the elite. As for being Saxon German words, you'd expect them to be found early on in Transylvania, not in Bucharest.
Also, the meanings of such slang words are from Yiddish, not from standard German (even though the words do exist in German):
  • "fraier" doesn't have the meaning "sucker" in German, but it does in Yiddish.
  • "mahăr" doesn't have the meaning "important businessman" in German, but it does in Yiddish.
  • "șmecher" (related to now-obsolete slang șmac and smac) comes from the cheap wine merchant's slang, which, in Wallachia were Yiddish speakers, not German speakers.
Dan Alexe has an article about this topic. Bogdan (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks for the interesting article. Keep up the good work. Robbie SWE (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Audio Files[edit]

Hello,

I noticed that the audio for both informa and lumânare is a recording of zâmbet, which has been uploaded by a user with a numeric username. Could you please add the correct files? Thank you Martin123xyz (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are any recordings for those entries. I just removed the audio. Bogdan (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nemernici[edit]

I think you meant wander around here, right? Kind of an easy mistake to make TBH. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. Bogdan (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cabaz etymology[edit]

I have not been able to find the supposed Ottoman Turkish kabaz in the usual places. It is probably an alteration of حقه باز (hokkabaz), borrowed into Turkish from Persian. See Azerbaijani hoqqabaz. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's the right etymology. Bogdan (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Learned borrowing[edit]

Hi. It’s a little nitpicky, but could you please add one extra letter to your Romanian page template to specify a learned borrowing as opposed to a regular one? I think it applies to about 100% of the words you’re adding (at least as of this latest push) and makes for good semantic refinement. --Biolongvistul (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On more careful inspection, a ‘learned borrowing’ is specified to be from a classical source, which is not always the case with these terms. Now I’m not so certain about my first message. I’ll leave it to you to be the judge. --Biolongvistul (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While it's often the case to be a "learned borrowing" (i.e. from books), many French words may have been imported by Romanians who went to France to study medicine, law, etc. so it's best not to say they're all like this. Bogdan (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

Please do not delete See also links, as you did here. This makes it more difficult to find words in other languages. https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=belit&diff=70409487&oldid=66459412 Hergilei (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consultation[edit]

It would be helpful to categorise Cat:Romanian contractions by whether they are mandatory or optional. How do you think this ought to be done? With {{lb}}? With usage notes (possibly templatised)? With a new {{mandatory contraction of|ro|...}} definition‐line template? --Biolongvistul (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this information should be there, but I'm not sure how it's best to present it. Perhaps it's better to ask in Wiktionary:Beer_parlour? Bogdan (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is too specialised a topic for WT:BP, but I’ll ask the #italic channel on Discord. --Biolongvistul (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s done: Catonif has added |mandatory=1 and |optional=1 parameters to {{contr of}}. --Biolongvistul (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old Church Slavonic etymologies[edit]

I see you’re replacing old Slavic borrowings with Old Church Slavonic. How orthodox is this? As I see, WT:ARO explicitly mentions how to deal with these words. And was OCS really a source of non-literary borrowings into Romanian? --Biolongvistul (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The language of the Slavs who lived in most of Romania (Transylvania and Wallachia) and the liturgical language of the Orthodox Church were the same language, also known as Old Bulgarian. In Romanian, we call it "slavonă". In Wiktionary, it was decided to use the name "Old Church Slavonic", I guess because that's what the written language (which had a widespread use across the Slavic world) is called.
We should separate the borrowings from the liturgical language from the vernacular language by using "learned borrowing" for the words borrowed from the liturgical language. Bogdan (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, we have a doublet that is both from the spoken Slavonic and the liturgic Slavonic: sfârși (spoken) vs săvârși (learned). The first one is just adapted from the spoken language which was probably pronounced sâvrși --> svârși --> sfârși (all common phonetic changes in Slavonic borrowings), whereas the learned one is simply based on a more modern pronunciation of Bulgarian, which pronounces "ъ" as "ă". Bogdan (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for WT:ARO, that seems to have been copy-pasted from the Hungarian section, where it might have some sense, certainly more than in Romanian. In Hungarian, it's a bit harder to understand the source of a Slavic word, as they had many Slavic neighbors: Slavonic, Slovak, Serbian and lost dialects between those. Also, the phonetics seem to be a bit messier, but I probably don't know enough to say for sure.
In Romanian, it's simpler: the bulk import of Slavic words (common to all dialects or just in Transylvania) are from Slavonic / Old Bulgarian. If a word is just in Wallachia, it's usually (middle/modern) Bulgarian, if it's just in Banat, it's Serbian, if it's just in Moldavia it's Old East Slavic or Ukrainian.
From Proto-Slavic we probably have no clear direct borrowings and very few that could be even considered, like stăpân or jupân. Bogdan (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Woah. Well, I trust you! —Biolongvistul (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tarac / taraș[edit]

The definitions of Romanian tarac and taraș describe each as an alternative form of the other. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indirect transitive[edit]

Do you think we should use {{indtr}} in Romanian entries? And, if not, should non‐reflexive verbs that only take a propositional object be labeled as transitive or intransitive? ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Romanian terms suffixed with -amente[edit]

Is -amente really a Romanian suffix? Ignoring that the a probably doesn't belong in the title, I see that all(?) the pages in it are from surface analyses. But surface analyses only make sense when the elements exist in the language. I propose that we remove these surface analyses and include the corresponding adjectives in Related terms sections. Ultimateria (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a rarely-used suffix to create Romanian words inside the language, but it does feel like the suffix does exist in Romanian. For instance, some French borrowings are adapted to it: forțamente is basically a loan translation of forcément using the Romanian forță and -amente. Bogdan (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Todo/Lists/Entries linking to raw template syntax[edit]

The Romanian ones seem to be pretty much all instances of {{ro-noun-f|n=sg}} added by you. The problem is that {{ro-noun-f}} uses the |pl= parameter for the genitive/dative singular forms, and the |def= parameter for the nominative/accusative definite. Since you added 379 of those, that means a huge number of entries where the only form that correctly displays in the declension table is already shown in the headword. It looks okay, until you click "show" to look at the forms. Unless I'm mistaken, this edit and the preceding one made the plural unnecessary in such cases, so it should be pretty straightforward to fix the genitive/dative forms. I have no clue what to do about the nominative/accusative definite forms, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bogdan&oldid=77424820"