User talk:Bogorm/archive1

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



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 one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --TBC 08:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Old Norse and Gothic etyms[edit]

Are you sure that those Old English terms are borrowed from Old Norse which was borrowed from Gothic, and that ON and Gothic etymons are not just cognates? BTW, Gothic should be written in Gothic alphabet. --Ivan Štambuk 12:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

About Old Norse and OE you may be right, but Gothic precedes both OE and Old Norse with 7 centuries, so it is the more authentic and more ancient source. Everywhere where I have been reading Gothic in its alphabet, it appeared as illegible questionmarks, so I think that Gothic letters might be recommendable, but Latin script is indispensable so that the article could be read by everyone. Bogorm 12:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Moreover England has twice been conquered by Knut den Store, so that I really do reckon that the words must have entered into OE from Old Norse. Bogorm 12:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
In addition I would recognise the similar words from the contemporary Scandinavian languages as appropriate to be considered cognates rather than the Old Norse ones. Bogorm 14:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact that Gothic is more early attested (some would loosely use anthropomorphic and misleading term "older") is completely irrelevant. Both OE, ON and Gothic words are descended from the same Proto-Germanic source, and earlier attestation of Gothic does not make the Gothic "ancestor language" of Old English or Old Norse. Please verify your etymologies somewhere before you add them, because to me it seems you're just random guessing.
To see Gothic entries you must have Gothic fonts installed. Try e.g. Code2001 (supported by {{Goth}} for use in {{t}}, {{term}} and elsewhere). If you're interested in adding Gothic entries, in the headword line you can display Gothic letters as images by using {{t2i}} and "pumping" transliterated or native Gothic letters into it — cf. 𐍄𐌿𐌲𐌲𐍉 (tuggō). --Ivan Štambuk 15:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not guessing them and you should spare me of such supercilious accusation! For example, take a look at the explanation of the etymology for the Danish word drukne here and guess what "oldn. drukkna (eng. drown er laant fra nord.)" means in Danish. That is only one of my sources, the most part is a voluminous Merriam-Webster dictionary. I am not going to write diligently the pages from my source since the chaps with the Old English have not done it either. Bogorm 16:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I am grateful for the scripts you proposed me to install but I have a bitter experience with my essays to install Gothic scripts from somewhere from the Gothic Wikipedia in order to read it, but since thereupon nothing happened and I read something like "if in ... (my operating system, I detest advertisements, so I refrain from mentioning it, but it is quite widespread) Gothic still does not display properly, then you should go to the registers and ..." and on this place I stopped because the subsequent sounded more hard to read than Accadian or Old Norse languages. So, I am not going to make experiments with any registers nor am I willing to change my preoccupations for computer science in order to decypher yonder text or whatever, but I am grateful for your link anyway. Greetings. Bogorm 16:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Not guessing? Here you estblish borrowing line Old Norse < Gothic < Sanskrit which looks very dubious to me ^_^. If you want to list cognates, reword it as "Cognates include ....", don't claim that word was borrowed because it would be factually wrong.. I don't speek Danish so I can't decipher your quote.
About Gothic; if you're on Windows, try saving this .reg file, executing it and restarting your OS. It might help..
The point is that you must use native language script. If you can't input Gothic, leave the transliteration (but don't wikify it!) and place {{rfscript|Gothic}} and someone will come and provide Gothic spelling. --Ivan Štambuk 16:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
If you do not speak Danish, I am thence not going to make you familiar with further linguistic Danish-speaking sources. The aforementioned sentence in bold sounds in Eng. as follows: "the eng. drown is a loanword from the nord." I am grateful for your explanation but I am afraid that as understood as much as you from the Danish quotes, I am not knowledgeable with this stuff really. And, if you object to the statement that Old English words originate from Sanskrit, am I supposed to understand this reluctance as "Sanskrit is borrowing from Old English"? Bogorm 16:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 :) No, both Germanic and Sanskrit terms originate from Proto-Indo-European. Root is also clearly seen in Italic(Latin suere), and Balto-Slavic (Lith. siū́ti, my mother Croatian šiti), all with meaning "sew". There are probably no Old English words that originate from Sanskrit.. --Ivan Štambuk 16:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
"There are probably no Old English words that originate from Sanskrit" - you durst to state such a statement without sources and I, of course, am not going to accept it until any scientifical source elucidating or rejecting the Sanskrit origins of many Old English words is provided by you. As for the Old Norse, I already provided a source written in fluent Danish stringently proving the origine of the word drown from Old Norse! I would be grateful if you did not make any further unsourced statements concerning etymology. If you take a look at the section "Hat", you would behold how the man is managing to persuade me - by providing a sufficiently reliable source. I would be grateful if your approach became similar... Greetings Bogorm 16:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Bogorm, trust me, Sanskrit loanwords into OE are non-existing. Check out the etymology of sew in any English etymological dictionary and you'll always find Sanskrit and Gothic listed as cognates, not as a source. --Ivan Štambuk 17:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I shall look it up, but if so, that is still no reason for removing the words altogether, but for transforming "from ..." to "Cognates are... "Bogorm 18:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


The source is Old English, not Old Norse. This is supported by the OED, and see also here. What makes you think otherwise? It has been used in English since the early 700s so by what process would it have come from Old Norse? At any rate, at this time the ON word was still hœttr -- it didn't become hattr till later. Ƿidsiþ 14:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to dissent but in lieu of removing the Old Norse word I would rather it were moved to the "cognate" section (for this one article), if you do not mind. Bogorm 14:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a little misleading. The Old Norse is better inserted as a cognate on the OE hætt page rather than here. Ƿidsiþ 16:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Old Norse[edit]

You can consider this a warning. A cursory glance at any etymological dictionary (I have 3 and none of them agree with you) will show that your ideas about ON origins are wrong or, at best, extremely conjectural. If you don't like my behaviour, raise the issue in the Beer Parlour. But stop reverting my changes or I will simply have to block you. Ƿidsiþ 17:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Which dictionaries are you talking about? Do you at all have any knowledge in Old Norse? Of course, I am going to pose a question on the BP, I detest supercilious behaviour impeding the influx of crucial information in the Wiktionary! If you are to provide sources, I am looking forward impatiently, but I am not going to let me be intimidated by rugged threats. Bogorm 17:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you going to provide any source or you think that you can act on own dubitable suppositions? I am immediately foing to report this supercilious misbehaving. Bogorm 17:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Which word are you talking about? My main sources are the OED, Chambers,, and John Ayto's Dictionary of Word Origins. Common sense would help with a lot of these too.... Ƿidsiþ 17:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
And mines are Merriam Webster and ODS. What now? Shall we go on bragging? Why do you think that removing crucial information and concealing the Scandinavian origins of the words is to be conceald. Le Perfide Albion has been conquered twice - by Knut den Store and by Wilhelm der Eroberer, both of them Scandinavian people. Does that imply according to you something about the influences over the English language? Bogorm 17:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I have an adequate knowledge of English history. To take just a few of the words you think are from ON: iron is attested from 700, hart from 825, hat from 725. Knut was not even born until the tenth century. Ƿidsiþ 18:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
He may not have been born, but when on the Island west of the La Manche there were only Picts and Romans and Celts, in Scandinavia there was already a flourishing and thriving Viking culture, so you do not need to be dubitative about the words where you reverted my edits (especially dread !) being by 3-4 centuries older. Bogorm 18:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, guess where thrive stems from. And I have not written a single bit in the article about this verb (If you are dunitative, check this, you will not find it amongst my contributions). And I would discourage you from possible incursion in the etymological part which can be pernicious for the elucidation of its unique, sole and unambiguous origin. Bogorm 18:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, many English words are from ON. For some reason you seem intent on editing all the rest. Ƿidsiþ 18:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for rewording some of your contributions. Three points:

  1. If you enter Gothic words, they should use Gothic script. That is the policy, like it or not. If you don't know the script, use Latin by all means but do not wikilink it.
  2. There is no problem with you entering ON or Gothic cognates to English words. The only reason many of us don't do this is to avoid complicating entries unnecessarily; we normally use modern cognates with English (ie Swedish, Dutch, German etc) and ON/Gothic with the corresponding ancient languages like OE, OHG etc. But that's just a convention and if you want to add ON/Gothic to English etymologies then feel free.
  3. Can you please translate your references at sorrow and halt? I find it impossible to believe that anyone would say the OHG derives from Gothic. Ƿidsiþ 15:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
1. I will be aware of your remark and not enter further links to the Gothic links in Latin script. I do not write them properly, because I myself would not be able to read them and it is steadily appearing as questionmarks.
3. I will translate the German source immediately, if you insist.
2. As you can see, I am adding not only Old Norse cognates, but their equivalents in modern Scandinavian languages (primarily Danish) as well. Bogorm 15:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The source for sorrow has been translated. In the article about halt in the ODS there is nothing to translate - the etymology, i. e. the languages from where the modern word is derived, is in the bold brackets, the abbreviations mean as follow: d. s. - the same; jf. - compare. Bogorm 16:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Right. So in neither of those cases is any word "from" Gothic. Gothic is a cognate; the oldest known, usually, but still only a cognate. Ƿidsiþ 18:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I am extremely worried about such a kind of coclusions, but nonetheless... would you come to terms with your acquaintance from the inferior section acout how exactly to write Gothic with no script (I hope I would not be compelled to install anything or generallt speaking to do anything compulsive), who seems to gainsay you... Bogorm 18:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I have been copying and pasting characters from Wikipedia, but you can also use edit edittools (the box of scripts at the bottom of the edit screen), or install a keyboard (which I had done previously, but haven't reinstalled since a recent reformat). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Please be merciful to people relying on another kinds of electronical equipments - I have neither your browser nor your OS, but am "angewiesen", as the Germans say it, on obsolete versions. And if the reader uses such ones too, then there is no hope for him to see the Gothic letters. Besides, I shall not let myself be compelled to anything which is not stated in some Wiktionary regulations page. Bogorm 18:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Look, if you don't want/can't put in Gothic script, that's fine. Just please add an {{rfscript|Gothic}} after the transliteration, and someone else will do it for you. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
If you require it from me would you provide some assistance so that I can learn how to use it. I have already used your template for Sanskrit and it works fine, when I used it for Gothis, there appeared some tribulations - for example this thing {{rfscript|𐍆𐍉𐍄𐌿𐍃|tr=fotus}} does not seem to work. What am I supposed to do? Exempla docent... I would add optime. So, if you show me the concrete usage of your template, I am going to apply it properly, as I did with the template for Sanskrit Bogorm 19:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
As I have already stated, the code is {{rfscript|Gothic}}. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I can try it the next time I use Gothic. Bogorm 19:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Go here and download a font. Ƿidsiþ 19:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Exactly that have I already done some months ago, where the fonts did not work as I installed them with an extremely hard to find explanation of how I should go to some settings and the fonts and so forth and as I did the whole thing, the questionmarks remained and then I read "if after installing the font it still does not look properly, then you should go to some registers and ..." and the further passage is beyond my capabilities not only to accomplish, but to recount it too here, as if I had read the Linear A (which is not deciphered, as you know..., I mean one remains exactly so confused and perplexed, I am not a computer nerd!). So, please, show how to use yonder template... Bogorm 19:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Cognate languages[edit]

Please note that such templates as {{Goth.}} should not be used for cognate languages, as they categorize them as derivatives (e.g. putting Template:Goth. on a page categorizes the entry as a Gothic derivation). Please simply write out the language name. Also, we deal primarily in actual scripts here on Wiktionary, not romanizations. If you don't know the actual spelling of a word, please use {{rfscript|Gothic}}, {{rfscript|Avestan}}, etc. so that people can add the spellings later. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In the above section I was adviced to write the names from Gothic in Latin script without links. If you take a look at this, you shall see that there are no articles (from the mainspace) using your templates and as I wanted to see an example hinting where which arguments ahould be used, I could not reach any example. Would both of you (with Widsith) please clarify between yourselves how exactly are the Gothic words to be written? Bogorm 18:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, {{temp}} links to the talk page of a template, if it exists. The template is Template:rfscript, and there are a great many entries which use it. And no, the Latin transliteration should not be linked. If you only know the romanization, an appropriate format is "from Gothic havas {{rfscript|Gothic}}. Finally, please stop linking to foreign wikipedias for information. This is the English Wiktionary, and information should be provided in English. We do sometimes link to foreign 'pedias for the headword in non-English entries, but an explanatory note, such as that in ben#Old English should be to the English Wikipedia. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Which action of mine has made links to another Wikipedias?! (beside ODS, would you imply that I OUGHT to write an article in the Eng. Wikipedia in order to make a link? That would be as preposterous as presumptuous, to put it mildly, and I assure you, the amount of links in , e. g., the Japanese Wikipedia to the English (in their main space!) or in the Scandinavian ones to the English is incomparable to this few reciprocal cases. I am going to cause a balance, if you do not mind... Besides, I have not still made any links to the Japanese Wikipedia, for example, :) )Bogorm 18:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
No, this is not about balance, this is about useful information for our users. The one bit about the spelling reform doesn't seem to have an article on the English Wikipedia, so information in the wrong language is admittedly better than no information. But, for example, you linked to the Norwegian Wikipedias for Nynorsk and Bokmål, which is not appropriate. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah so... Well, I forgot this case... Well, I am glad that you are not going to delete the link about the Danish reform(which would have made me indignant, since it exists only in Danish and German) and I shall not mind, if you redirect the Nynorsk and Bokmål links... Actually, I considered leaving plain text in lieu of links, since I expect from every educated person (at least in linguistics) to know what bokmål and Nynorsk are... Do not you too? Bogorm 19:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, most people who care about that information will know what the two are. I've linked to their Wiktionary entries (which link to the English 'pedia pages) in case anyone wants more info. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, please add cognates after the full etymology (i.e. after the proto-Germanic root). It makes more an incredibly confusing line of descent when cognates are interspersed throughout. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary contributing[edit]

I saw your reply at User talk:Widsith and though I'd leave you a little message. Please do not in any way imply what kind of fields people should stick to at Wiktionary. I've seen people contribute to wiki-projects, being annoyed by amateurs writing about topics within their profession, and I've seen how they often react. It is not OK in any way to ask people to stay away from a certain topic, no matter how wrong you think they are. Wiktionary will not tolerate that kind of attitude. I will personally strongly support blocking of this kind of contributors. Please discuss in a unprejudiced matter, without involving who you're discussing with. Thanks in advance, --Eivind (t) 23:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Tak for belysningen. Jeg var forfærdet af denne brugers tilintetgørelse af mine bidrag, hvilke basere på den den upåtvivlelige ODS. Hvis denne brugers bidrag var hjælpelig og udbredende for den Wiktionary, jeg vilde aldrig have været så opbragt. De kan forøvrigt rolig skrive på norsk, jeg forstår det (men kan svare på dansk). Hilsen. Bogorm 08:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hei igjen Bogorm, og takk for svar! Ja, jeg forstår irritasjonen, og det viktigste er nå å ta det opp på en god måte, uten å skape splid mellom bidragsytere. Bruker:Widsith er en seriøs bruker som jeg tror ønsker det beste for Wiktionary, så enighet burde være mulig å oppnå. Vi kan jo se hva de svarer på ditt siste innlegg, for å se om de har motstridende referanser. Hvis så er at de kun fjerner dine bidrag fordi de selv mener det er feilaktig, men uten referanser (samtidig som du faktisk har referanser), vil nok saken fort være løst og du vil kunne fortsette som før. Se forresten {{R:ODS online}} som du kan bruke som referanse (nå og da). --Eivind (t) 10:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Nej, de har tilføjet ingen modsigende referencer hidtil og det værste var, at Widsith fjernede en kilde i behoof belysende hvorledes det gotiske B forvandles i F på engelsk og tysk, men jeg håber, at det var utilsigted, og afventer hans svar... Man skal se... Tak for denne Besked - {{R:ODS online}}. Bogorm 10:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


I had just become glad for the understanding reached at Talk:limpan, as you made this edit - would you explain whether the removal of the Gothic word was inadvertently done or the main purpose was restructuring and would you answer the question whether removal of academic linguistic sources is to be considered vandalism? In any case, you have removed the second source elucidationg the transition of the Gothic B to German and English F, was this intentional? I pray you to reinstate the second source since you already intimidated me into not reverting administrators' edits and if the removal of the source was inadvertent, I shall not consider it malignant. Greetings. Bogorm 10:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As you procrastinated your response, I am going to return the second source, because unlickily for you I have found a third source, stating that behoof is cognate to hebban, which is in full accordance with the Deutsches Wörterbuch von J und W Grimm. So, with two irrefutable sources proving the reduction B -> F I hope that there will be no more objections. Bogorm 10:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I refrained from using the template for descendance for Gothic in behoof, but showing the transition of the consonants corroborated by two independent and undeniable sources is exigent. Why are you so sure that the Gothic is not the antecessor in this particular case contrary to what these venerable researchers think?! Bogorm 10:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  • OK. My sources see things very differently. There is no transition from B to F, it is the other way round. The relevant sound change here concerns Germanic *-fj-, which in West Germanic became *-bb- (Old Saxon hebbian, Old English hebban). In other Germanic languages it remained *-fj-: the relevant Gothic cognate is 𐌷𐌰𐍆𐌾𐌰𐌽 (hafjan); compare also Old Norse hefja. This Germanic *-fj- goes back to a Proto-Indo-European *-pj- which can also be seen in for example Latin ca-pi-o. If you look for example at Feist's Etymological Dictionary of Gothic H3 you'll see under the entry for hafjan that OE behof is specifically mentioned as cognate.
  • "Gahobains" is different. It represents an o-grade of the Gothic verb 𐌷𐌰𐌱𐌰𐌽 (haban). This corresponds to English have, whereas behoof is more related to the verb heave. The two verbs were very similar in Germanic, and may even be related in some way, but only much more distantly; "gahobains" is certainly not a direct cognate of behoof. Ƿidsiþ 13:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
That is your version - this of the mentioned researches and pioneers of Germanistic is straightforwardly expounded in the source you just deleted - das goth. gahôbains continentia, aus enthaltsamkeit bildet sich die vorstellung des mangels und bedarfs (in english: the Gothic gahôbains, continentia, from abstinence has lead to the idea of lack and need). Would you please admit whether you can read fluently German and Latin so that I know which passages to translate and which not? Why do not you accept the alternative version, propounded by the most venerable figures in Germanistic ever next to yours? Besides, we are not discussing hebban and its origin, just the relation of behoof to Behuf and gahobains. Is there any reason why you do not let the other academis version to be present in the article? Bogorm 13:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The main reason is that they are very old. The Grimms were 19th century researchers, and the ODS seems to have been written mainly in the 1950s (apart from a 90s Supplement). More to the point, we ARE talking about hebban. The "hoof" of "behoof" corresponds to "hebban", whose preterite form is "hōf". Why are you so insistent about this? Gothic "hafjan" is accepted by everyone as being cognate, so why not just leave it at that? Gahobains has at the least a rather speculative connection, so why confuse the entry unnecessarily? Ƿidsiþ 13:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Because it is the classical version and the speculation of the classics is worth being mentioned as having laid the fundament for the further research and as reckoning not only with mechanical transformations, but with the semantical metamorphoses as well, as expounded between the notion of continence/Enthaltsamkeit and Bedarf, Mangel/indigence, need ... Bogorm 13:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


In light of a number of things, but mostly because of theft, where you seem to not have taken to heart the fact that your sources are completely outdated. And also because, even though you're new to the project, you have the gaul to disregard and revert experienced editors' contributions. And also because I'm tired of checking over all your contribs and want a day off. Please, take this time to look over your talk page and address the issues which have been presented. First and foremost, if you are going to continue to write etymologies, you need better (i.e. newer) sources. You have already made some progress, in that you seem to have conceded that not everything of Germanic origin comes from Old Norse from Gothic. You have also improved on your formatting, and have started placing script requests for Gothic, which is sincerely appreciated. However, one thing you have not yet improved upon, and this is the thing which troubles me most, is your attitude. You are completely antagonistic to any critiques, and do not seem to recognize that you are new to this project, and that perhaps people who have been on here for a few years might have something to teach you. Every piece of criticism concerning your edits is met with nothing but belligerence. Please try and improve this, as a few modifications to your edit patterns could make you a truly valuable editor, but as it is you are simply too problematic. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  1. "Every piece of criticism concerning your edits is met with nothing but belligerence." - that is bound to happen to every criticism which is not based on any valuable and scientifical source. As you can see from Talk:plight, I have relented as soon as User:Widsith showed three dictionaries with a different POV. I am sure it is not about tiredness that you can not check mine edits, probably in the same manner as I cannot check your edits concerning Old Greek or Semitic languages.
  2. "disruptive edits" - Would you deign to utter some explication which edits of mine are considered by you disruptive AND WHY(after the misunderstanding with hat in Wiktionary:BP, for which I apologise. If it were not it (and my awareness of my guilt ONLY IN THIS CASE at the beginning of my activity here, I would have immediately demanded sanctions against this action of yours, which I would have considered contumelious). Below I have quoted a disruptive dit of yours and the explanation why it is disruptive.
  3. "do not seem to recognize that you are new to this project, and that perhaps people who have been on here for a few years might have something to teach you." - well, if you deign to take a look at the section User_talk:Bogorm#Wiktionary_contributing and to be precise, at the content in Danish and Bokmål, you will be able to conceive that beginning with his criticism, User:EivindJ and I came quickly to terms as we both speak Northern Germanic languages and at the end he even showed me this template in order to alleviate my quotes from a source, on which you dared to express defamatory comments (see below). The same applies for Talk:low. I find your blocking with the single superfluous remark "because I'm tired of checking over all your contribs" ineffably supercilious and would describe it only as blatant abuse of administrative power and I would rather you went to the list of administrators and see how many are they and all of them occupied with checking edits (while you are "winding down"), so probably you could "перевести дух"(approximate translation - rest), as the Russians say. User:Widsith unlike you (except for plight), is not reverting my edits when their straightforwardness is obvious for every one who has studied ancient Germanic languages and by the others (guess by whom) I am repeatedly pestered to quote academic sources which is not conducive to my productivity here, to put it mildly.
  4. theft: I have already explained to User:Widsith (here, except the passage for plight) why theft is stemming from Old Norse, because he did not grasp the significance of the authors of the ODS posing exactly two of the four words in Old Norse for theft before the brackets with the English word. I would sooner you showed any knowledge of Old Norse before commenting on the etymology of theft, let alone to block users therefor. Long after the end of the dispute, as Widsith remained unconvinced despite exactly this two Old Norse words being put before the brackets with the English descendants (in Old Norse there are four words for theft !!! ), you decided to block me and are thereby disclosing nothing but sheer malignance after one administrator had been observing me throughout the day and beheld nothing suspicious.
  5. tread: Also, you seem to show discrepancy in your dubitable stance towards the cognates in tread, which have been approved by User:Widsith here. I urge you both to come to terms concerning what am I supposed to do and when Widsith says "You can put others back in if you like" about the ancient Germanic cognates, your edit turns out to be directed exactly against his (not mine ! ) assumption. So, I am not going to accept being blocked because what one admin described as permitted is opposed by another. Neither shall I allow edits like this which are inimical to the Danish and Norwegian languages and replace them (instead of expanding them) with Dutch (therefore disruptive). I have no intention of removing Dutch, since I have never committed any disruptive edit in Wiktionary such as deletion of sourced or unsourced information (guess whose deeds are implied) or disparaging one particular cognate in favour (for the bold - see below) of another. In Wikipedia the discussions are for preventing edit wars, not for sheer embellishment, I hope their purpose here is the same and furthermore I hope you will not contest this presumption of mine.
  6. "recogniZe" One more thing - I am not a native speaker of English, but I am well aware (after having been studying it for several years) of the spelling of the word recogniSe - your spelling with Z is a deviation and I do not understand wherefore it is tolerated in an official project. Please write henceforth on my talk page either in the only official form of English - the British English, or in the official form of one of the following languages I speak: French(not Créole), German (not Niederdeutsch !), Danish (not Jylland dialect), Russian(not суржик nor трасянка dialects), Chinese Mandarin (not Cantonese nor Min Nanh dialects). I am not obliged to response to messages written in any of this dialects swavering from the official norm (including non-European or whatsoever dialects of English).
  7. "that your sources are completely outdated": I would rather you refrained from any further disparaging and derogatory comments on the scientifical and irrefutable work, which is the ORDBOG OVER DET DANSKE SPROG, in the same manner as I am not commenting on your sources for your edits concerning Old Greek and Semitic languages.

Bogorm 18:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


Hi, [1] - please don't add "cognates" for borrowed lexemes, only for those inherited from Proto-Germanic. Etymons of other languages which borrowed from the same source are largly irrelevant, and should be grouped under ====Descendants==== section of the source etymon. --Ivan Štambuk 20:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you imply? That one should speak about cognates only when the source is Germanic and not the French language? Why so, when Danish and German have borrowed their words from the same source? The definition of Cognate is here and is as follows: "Cognates in linguistics are words that have a common origin." Bogorm 21:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Common origin, but where genetic relationship is present. Words that are borrowed from the same source are not cognate. Read that WP article more carefully, and notice that borrowings are excluded in all listed examples. --Ivan Štambuk 21:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, but they are worth mentioning, are not they(even if not cognates)? As you can see, I have taken in consideration your remark in mien (I had edited it before being aprised of the message). I hope you will find it veracious. Bogorm 21:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
What is "worth mentioning" is a very loose and subjective criterion. For you see, we already had a dude that interpreted cognate in a very loose sense, and was very intent on putting Korean words listed as "cognate" to English, German and French :)
You're very much aware that there are literally tens of thousands of Greco-Roman internationalisms borrowed into lots of world's languages, and by allowing every well-motivated contributor to mention their owns language co-borrowing of some omnipresent source we'd be opening can of worms that would likely end up being resolved as a policy page prohibiting mention of co-borrowings at all. For what makes Danish co-borrowing of some French word more relevant to mention than that of Pashto, Inuktut or Taos? :) All I can say to you is - be careful and moderate, there's no policy/guideline prohibiting the mention of those, but that could very easily be changed. --Ivan Štambuk 22:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
There are cases where such loanwords have entered into dozens of languages and in the case of mien they are only three - Eng, German, Danish(probably one or two other Scandinavian languages, I do not know, because I speak only Danish). A clear distinction between loanwords in 3-4 languages and dozens of them is recommendable. So I promise you not to list loanwords from one source, if there are more than 6 Indoeuropean languages having borrowed it. Bogorm 07:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


Please don't change regional spellings here on Wiktionary. While you are more than welcome to use whatever dialectical spellings you like in your own speech, and you have every right to request that I stick to a certain dialect (a request which I will probably not follow, btw), within entries, whatever regional variant is put should be left. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for adding these. When you add the Quotations section to an entry, please be sure it is at level-4, indented under the corresponding part of speech header, and not at level-3. --EncycloPetey 00:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That means, if in an article about a word which is simultaneously a noun and a verb there are quotations for both, the header should too be present twice? Well, thanks for the remark, I shall be paying attention henceforth. Bogorm 00:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, two separate sections if there are quotations for two different parts of speech, just as we would have for Synonyms, Translations, etc. --EncycloPetey 00:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


(to User:334a - mine addition Bogorm 08:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

Would you be willing to set this guy straight please? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

And would you cease musing upon how to refute as much as possible of mine edits? When the scientifical sources are in full accirdance to the written, then such efforts are doomed. Bogorm 22:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to take a second to clarify something. I have no vendetta against you. I am not picking fights with you for their own sake. However, I will admit that I do not yet trust you. I think you take positions which are not adequately informed, and I have seen users cause a great many problems in the past, not out of malice, but simply as a result of views which contradict mainstream academic views. In case you're wondering, feel free to take a look at Kassios (talkcontribs), Athang1504 (talkcontribs), and Dubaduba (talkcontribs) for some examples of the kind of folks I'm talking about. I have spent many hours cleaning up nonsense from each and every one of those editors (in fact, the first and third still have a number of stray edits luring about, which have not yet been fixed), because people saw problematic edits, but did not address the issue in a timely fashion. I have thus made a point of watching prolific editors who have odd views on things, and confronting them head on. You hold a number of opinions which are quite contrary to either established academic views (e.g. that anything in English derives from Gothic) and/or Wiktionary spirit (e.g. that British English is somehow superior to U.S.). Additionally, you seem reluctant to abandon them when others point out problems. Thus I have been watching your edits. When I disagree with something, I will make my views known, and when I see edits which I know to be incorrect, I will fix them. However, rest assured that you are not alone in this latter part. There are few people on this project with whom I have not argued at some point. It is just that the two of us seem to disagree on a great many points. Finally, I believe the scientific sources are on my side, not yours, in addition to the overall Wiktionary community (you may have noticed yourself in a number of lone battles, with users other than myself). While this explanation may not muffle your dislike of me, I thought you deserved it nonetheless. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "hold a number of opinions (that anything in English derives from Gothic)" - I consider an affront any essay of other people to make conclusions about my thoughts - freedom of the thought is NOT equivalent to freedom of expression and my thoughts are available solely for me! My expressions have not stated such inanity for all my activity here, and if you are inquisitive about my personal opinion, then I assure you that what you had written is completely inconsistent with and discrepant from it!
  • "Additionally, you seem reluctant to abandon them when others point out problems." - I abandon them, as soon as scientific sources are quoted. (reference: Talk:plight)
  • "Finally, I believe the scientific sources are on my side" - Vraiment? and in this case, where you dared to delete the Danish and Norwegian cognates and afterwards the kinship was proved by the ODS and I was compelled to encumber the article with a "Reference" section in order to fend off any further intervention by editors preferring reverting to engaging in discussions, I hope you will not persist in denying your guilt (in this case), and will not again disparage sources, with which you are not familiar. At least I have admitted mine when I was still a novice and had not got accustomed to the etymology templates.
  • "I have no vendetta against you." The same applies to me. I appreciate your disclosure.
  • "you take positions which are not adequately informed" - See second question - if you consider how many etymological entries I had provided with "Reference" section quoting sometimes two independent academical sources for the mentioned purpose, you hopefully will eventually reconsider this assertion. I can count them on myself and apprise you of the percentage in regard to all entries editted by me, if you insist.
  • "people saw problematic edits, but did not address the issue" - addressing the edits is open for all in the discussion but reversions ought to be made by knowledgeable (in the stuff) editors who have not only seen and been surprised, but read, and in case they wish to revert - if what they have read is academical and contrary to the edit. Bogorm 08:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


As I do not welcome the use of (abolished) Arabic script for entries of the Tadjik language and, e. g., the (extinct) Kharoṣṭhī next to Devanagari in entries of the Sanskrit, so here too... - indeed, but languages like Sanskrit and Pali are a very special case, because they're not burdened by the attachment to particular script or scribe tradition. In fact, favouring any of them would be giving undue prominence (e.g. using exclusively Devanagari for Sanskrit would be pro-Hindi bias). If some user starts adding Sanskrit terms in e.g. Telugu script, justifying it with centuries of tradition of writing Sanskrit in Telugu, who are we to defy him that right? :)

There should be one "main" script for adding new entries, usually the most prevalent one, and others are allowed if there is abundant attestation of their usage. I'm not aware how ample is the attestation of Sanskrit in Kharoṣṭhī, but if it's rather small in corpus, only the attested lexemes should be written in it. Similarly, it would be wrong to add modern coinages in deprecated scripts in which they have no attestation.

BTW Imperial Aramaic is coming soon in Unicode 5.2, see proposal for Imperial Aramaic in PDF here. --Ivan Štambuk 10:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"usually the most prevalent one" - exactly that is why I insist on Estrangelo script for the Aramaic language, it is without any doubt the most prevalent script! Even the Imperial is probably not so prolific, since it was in use from circa 9th century BC to 3rd BC and Estrangelo thereafter up to modern times. Hebrew script might be used from more ancient times than Estrangelo (certes not than Imperial), but only by a minor community and up to the Middle Ages and hardly any Suryoyo has whatsoever understanding of it and it resembles Kharosthi when it was used only temporarily and only by a small community in NW India. Therefore I am strongly adverse to Aramaic being written in it! Bogorm 10:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

pressing and citations subpages[edit]

Hello Bogorm -- Some of us are fonder of the citations pages than others (I'm not a fan of them), but it is generally recognized that it is appropriate to leave 1 or 2 telling quotations for each sense on the main page of an entry. In a descriptivist dictionary the meaning is the use, and I believe it is appropriate and helpful to accompany the definitions (on the main page) with quotations which illuminate the uses of the term. Especially for terms which have multiple senses, the citations subpages can be a bit of maintenance headache, since the senses have to be repeated on the subpages and this redundancy creates a need to keep the main page and the subpage in sync when editors make future changes to the senses (and many editors are not very careful about keeping the pages in sync). My own view is that the citations subpages should be used infrequently, as in cases where there is particularly a long list of good quotations. Respectfully -- WikiPedant 19:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I am grateful for your explanation and shall take your recommendations in consideration. However, I hope that you would not object against moving all the quotations where only one meaning corresponds to only one grammatical entity, since there is a negligible possibility that someone would change verb to noun (in the main entry). In this case I intend to move the quotations to the Citations subpage with a leading header (English verb/noun/adverb...) in lieu of duplicating the (sole) meaning. In the case of some meanings of one grammatical entity I shall proceed carefully, but mine impression at a glimpse of the Wiktionary:Citations regulations was that they all ought to be moved to the subpage. These notwithstanding, I am obliged to concede the soundness of your point regarding several meanings (under one grammatical entity). Respectfully Bogorm 07:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you're misinterpreting WT:CITE. Our policy is not that all citations should be moved to the citations pages unless complexity within the entry would prohibit such a thing. Rather, the citations page has two main purposes. The first, and primary, purpose is to hold citations which are simply too many to be reasonably held within the entry. In entries with many senses, a single quote per sense is the most which can reasonably fit. In simpler entries, especially rare/new/otherwise dubious words, more citations are warranted and desired. Secondly, citations pages can serve as a repository for citations for words which do not have entries (e.g. words which may have two, but not the requisite three cites to meet CFI). Please, if the entry is not bogged down with citations, leave them in the entry. If the entry is bogged down, please leave at least one cite per sense within the entry. Cites can be duplicated (i.e. you can put cites that were left on the entry into the citations page). While I'm not finding any discussions on this, I know that there have been some previously, and there is very strong community consensus for the policy I've just presented. If you insist, I'm sure I could find a discussion somewhere to this effect. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Example mauve[edit]

That is why I said "at a glimpse" - the text in Wiktionary:Citations is not too voluminous, and I prefer to adhere to the example given there - in mauve there are 4 quotations (not an encumbered/bogged down entry) and all they have been deducted from the main entry and put in the subpage under headers such as "adjective", "noun" - that was my proposal for my further activity in this space - to place them not under headers which duplicate the definition, but under headers such as "noun" and so forth. And in case of one (or two, as in mauve?) meanings per grammatical entity I propose to move them to the citations subpage and when there are numerous definitions, to leave them as they are. Would you settle for this? Bogorm 09:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of Citations:withal - it can have only two grammatical functions and the citations I added and moved are sorted accordingly. If you do not object, I shall abstain from copying definitions in the Citation subpage and from moving citations where there are more than two meanings under one grammatical function, do you find this objectionable? Bogorm 09:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm....I did not see the mauve example. You know, I think I'm going to start a BP convo on this, as it really needs to be settled. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, the thread's been posted at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#The citations pages are stealing all of my examples!. Please feel free to chime in, should you care to. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


Hey, thanks for messaging me. I'm sorry, but I have no patience to argue endlessly with Ivan. His views are definitely different from mine, and clearly from yours as well, and I choose not to engage in something that cannot be changed. What years of nationalism have created cannot be erased just like that. As for the Babel template on my user page, I will not remove it regardless of what the community decides to do. I do wish you best of luck if you do pursue to argue with him. --Dijan 23:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply on RfD#SC[edit]

I don't want to contaminate that page with politically-related discussion, so I'll reply to you here :)

  • Your style also gves the impression of veracity just because it is panegyrical to the one side and implacably and fervently scathing to the other. - my points and arguments have nothing to do with my style. Everything I said can be verified in numerous 3rd-party sources by anyone interested. Unlike you, I have no intention of hiding the relevant facts behind the intentional use of some "difficult words", quoting some "Great Communist Encyclopedia" for my cause.
  • I do not intend to enlighten anyone here about the official linguistic position in Bulgaria about the Macedonian dialect, - I'm very well aware (and have become much more so since that talk page discussion took place) of the "official" position on Macedonian language in Bulgarian academic circles. I am also aware of its close ties with the history negation of Macedonian cultural and territorial entity by their close neighbours (Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians) which sought to obliterate proud Macedonians throughout the ages. There were times when Macedonia was "Southen Serbia", when Macedonians of Greece were "Bulgarian-speeking Greeks", and when Old Church Slavonic was called "Old Bulgarian" (even tho there is not a single instance of mentioning the Bulgarian ethnicon in canonical OCS manuscripts). I have nothing but deepest sympathy to the sufferings of Macedonians, they were the most to profit from SFRJ "experiment".
  • express mine admiration for the Philosophical faculty in Belgrade - Express it yourselves, my attitude to the cultural milieu that authored works such as SANU Memorandum, Slovo o srpskom jeziku and supplied Karadžić&Mladić with dialectal maps for him to refine the plan of ethnic cleansing of B&H is nothing but the contempt. Serbian students do feel kind of "strange" reading works of Vetranović, Nalješković etc. who explicitly affiliate themselves in language/culture with Croatdom, and I have no doubts that in soon-arriving future their curricula will be revised.
  • quote the greatest Yugoslavian writer in Serbo-Croatian - Ivo Andrić was ethnically Croat, born in Catholic Croatian family, and has called his language Croatian in his youth, and his ethnicity Croat. E.g. here is the scan of the form he signed during his studies at the University of Krakow, where his nationality is entered as Croatian (Narodowosc Chorwat). Here is the form he personally signed when enrolling to the first semester of the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb, and where his language is stated as - Croatian. Later he declared himself "Serb", wrote in Serbian language (You cannot say that Na drini ćuprija is Croatian), and joined the Tito's Communist Party. This "turnover" of Andrić is discussed in numerous studies and it's pointless to argue it here, but any sane person would from these facts alone immediately guess that the affiliation with Serbs and Communism was the fastest way to accelerate one's academic and political career in Serboslavia.
  • greatest writer from the classical literature of all peoples in former SFRJ, two peoples had reached the literary apex by being conferred the Nobel prize - You're over-glorifying Andrić's writings. There are at least half a dozen prosaics of the 20th century that are plainly superior to Andrić (Krleža, Marinković, Selimović..) that I can think of (even do I personally do not hold much of prestige of aa prose, and am much more fond of poetry of drama). Nobel prize for literature and peace are mostly politically-determined and are worthless indicators of somebody's inherent "quality". 99% of world's greatest writer's have not received it (and most likely won't), and arguably lots of those that have received it would be a century from now remembered as some average writers. "Serbo-Croatian" area has produced much more notable writiers much before Andrić was born - e.g. Old Croatian Renaissance and Baroque writers are the arguably the pinnacle of literary production of every Slavic language of that period. You don't really have Czech or Russian counterpart of Marin Držić, do you.
  • dialects of Serbo-Croatian. - once again, there are no "dialects of Serbo-Croatian". South Slavic branch is genetically-dialectologically divided into two groups: Western South Slavic and Eastern South Slavic. That "Central" area you like to call SC contains 5-7 dialectal units (depending on some): Northern Čakavian, Southern Čakavian, Kajkavian, Western Štokavian, Eastern Štokavian. You can't make a cut from Kajkavian to neighbouring Slovenian dialects because those two largely form dialect continuum (just as Kajkavian forms dialect continuum with neihbouring Štokavian and Čakavian idioms that are not shared with Slovenian dialects, with isoglosses that are very old). Any of these two "units" (narječje) might as well be treated as a separate language, but it's not, owing to the convergence over the centuries, national awarness of the speakers and territorial distribution.
  • Your exhortations for "political correctness" are abhorring me again, would you please apprise me of the rule in Wiktionary which declares the political correctness as exigent for any of its editors? There is no such rule of course, but there is one which forbids any language boxen other then those indicating language proficiency. See Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-08/Babel userboxes. User:sh Babel box is a political manifesto, not a language proficiency indicator. The Serbian language of User:sh babelboxen (razume, maternji - it would be razumije, materniski in standard Croatian) clearly shows for what motivations these were created. User:Dijan userpage has it side by side, and judging from this, when he adds sh-proficiency 9 months after his Wiktionary activity start, his awareness of this new language he "native speaker" of largely corresponds with User:Dcabrilo's creation of User:Sh babelboxes. Another thing that puzzles me, is that how can one be hr-4, but sh-N, if they're the "same language" ? You cannot deny that the term "Serbo-Croatian" is anachronistic and possibly insulting, and the possibility of using individual sr/hr babelboxes removes any need for it. --Ivan Štambuk 16:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Great Communist Encyclopedia - you either do not know what Bolshaya Sovetskaya Enciklopediya means in Russian or are deriding it and I am quite sure of the latter. I exhort you to realise that it is the most voluminous and illustrious encyklopedia of the whole continental Europe.
Ivo Andrić has called his language Croatian in his youth. Of course the Austro-Hungarian government would never allow any of its citizens to admit that he speaks the same language as inimical Serbia (until it collapsed in 1918), but after that happened and Andrić was no more in Austro-Hungaria, he signed as first the declaration of the announcement of the SC language! It is written in the German, the most scrutinised and therefore reliable Wikipedia, as I already quoted. (I declare that I have never edited the article about him there, but if I had, every word of mine would have been scrutinised).
Macedonians, they were the most to profit from SFRJ "experiment". this statement of yours extolling the most obnoxious criminal act committed by SFRJ is making me cringe. Please do not engage further in discussions with me regarding the Macedonian dialect, lest I become livid (which occurs rarely, but certainly when one is claiming that the fabrication of a whole nation and language out of Ancient Greek culture and Western Bulgarian lands (Ancient Macedonian language was a dialect of Greek), which was conferred to San-Stefanian Bulgaria before Енглеска and Аустро-Угарска lacerated it on the Berliner Kongreß, was justified, even though one is overtly either reticent or unaware of the absence of whatsoever document mentioning the word Macedonia before the 20th century and the Komintern declared the Macedonian nation. Keeping on supporting this assertion is exactly endorsing the Komintern ideas just like claiming the two newest countries - Abkhasia and Osetia to be Georgian is stalinism according to him.). I really pray you to stop this discussion here, since our stances on Macedonian topics, Serbo-Croatian and БСЭ are as discrepant as heaven from earth (rough translation of a Russian idiom - как небо от земли). From my presence hitherto I found out that my views at least in the Serbo-Croation topic are in full concordance with User:Dijan's and not yours, let us finish it here. And please, do not distort my name henceforth as in BP, where you wrote a superfluous o (hopefully inadvertently). Bogorm 19:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I won't reply anymore on any of these topics, I just hope that your claims of Ancient Macedonian as a dialect of Ancient Greek won't make their way into Wiktionary etymologies (being generally held by IndoEuropeanists as wrong ^_^). I'm sorry for the distorsion of your nickname, I assure you it wasn't intentional. Now we can perhaps get back to compiling the greatest dictionary ever to be written ^_^ Cheers! --Ivan Štambuk 21:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for your interest. I will try to notice that. Best regards. --Chapultepec 18:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, the same applies to the others as well. Really harder than I previously thought. Thanks a lot. --Chapultepec 19:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)